Let's back up a second here, because I'm asking a very specific question:
First off, some background: (you probably know at least an outline of this, so bear with me)
Obviously, we can detect stars and other light emitting objects by their light, and even get information about them from the spectra of light they produce. We can also detect interstellar dust and debris as it absorbs light in certain spectra.
Ok.
By measuring that, we have the visible matter of the universe. We know from a variety of methods, most famously the rotational rates of galaxies, that this visible matter only makes up a fraction of the mass of those galaxies.
Let's be careful here. Yes, we can "guestimate" the amount of light being emitted from various sources, and yes, we can 'guestimate' the mass of our own galaxy based on our limited understandings at the time, but we're still just "guestimating" in terms of how much "ordinary" mass might be present.
For instance, since dark matter was first proposed, we've found all sorts of satellite objects on the outskirts of our own galaxy, and a *massive* amount of plasma surrounding the galaxy that contains more mass than all the stars combined. We just found all that mass in 2012, *long* after galaxy rotation patterns suggested the need for more mass than we had accounted for at that moment in time.
Now of course there are *other* factors involved in million degree plasmas like we find surrounding our galaxy that can and do have a physical effect on the movement and absorption patterns of plasma. That most specifically includes electromagnetic influences. Unfortunately the mainstream is dead set against even the *thought* of including anything related to Peratt's work, or other MHD orientations toward describing that movement of plasma.
But we know there are other objects larger than dust and debris, but either not large enough to be luminous, or that were previously luminous but burned through all their fuel. These are harder to see.
True. In fact I was reading about a study this morning that talks about 'plasma blobs' that seem to be located in places and in densities never imagined by the mainstream.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-lurk-in-deep-space-and-no-one-knows-why.html
That finding of a massive million degree plasma halo around our own galaxy only occurred in 2012, and the *temperature* of that plasma was also rather "unexpected", thereby influencing the absorption and emissions spectra in ways that we never imagined.
Suffice to say, it's *likely* that our galaxy mass estimation techniques are still rather "primitive', and yet there is zero evidence that any of that 'missing mass' is *necessarily* contained in exotic forms of matter. That's also true of every long distance lensing study. Such studies require that our "baryonic mass guestimates" are correct, and yet every 'revelation' since 2006 demonstrates that they've been entirely *incorrect*.
If they are near by a star, we can sometime see them pas in from of their star and measure them that way, so we have a rough idea of how much matter is in orbit around stars from that, but what about rogue planets and such? These would be more truly "dark".
How about the fact that we "discovered" that galaxies emit twice as much light as we "guestimated' in 2006?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/universe-now-twice-as-bright/
How about the fact that we "discovered" that we grossly underestimated the number of ordinary stars that are present in various galaxy by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/
You seem to be quibbling over planets, when in fact the "models" used in 2006 underestimated the number of entire stars by *multiple factors of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star, and the type of galaxy! Come on.
Furthermore they also underestimate the number of stars *between*/shared by galaxy clusters:
http://www.realclearscience.com/jou..._of_stars_may_be_outside_galaxies_108929.html
I really see no evidence whatsoever that the mainstreams galaxy mass estimates were anything other than *horrifically flawed*. When you add up all those stars they missed both inside and outside of galaxies, it's no wonder those 2006 lensing studies missed so much mass, and it's also obvious why all that "missing mass" passed right on through the 'collision' process and followed the stellar infrastructure. Even the uncharged "dust" particles likely passed through the collision process, and the x-ray emitting mass they observe is mostly electrically active areas of high temp charged particles.
All of the lensing information in that 2006 lensing study is consistent with the fact that they *botched* the stellar mass estimates by *multiple factors*! Later studies *verified* that fact.
We wouldn't see them in absorption spectra, they aren't emitting light, and they aren't likely to so perfectly transit a star that we would see them that way. Could this type of normal baryonic matter explain the missing, or 'dark' matter? For those, we use gravitational lensing to detect them.
Ya, but even the temperature of the plasma and dust has an influence on those expected abortion properties. That mass halo of high temp plasma is found in a temperature range that was *never expected* by the mainstream, and therefore it wasn't "found" until just a few years ago.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/hot_gas_halo.html
Only with the advent of newer technologies have we even *begun* to account for the ordinary baryonic matter that is present in our own galaxy, let alone *other* galaxies at great distances.
http://earthsky.org/space/milky-way-has-3-more-satellite-galaxies
Let's be real. We're still finding things all around our own galaxy that influence it's rotation patterns that we knew *nothing* about just a few short years ago. I'm certainly convinced that we found 'missing mass' in those lensing studies, but there's no evidence that any of that mass is particularly 'exotic' in nature.
Gravitational lensing occurs when light is bent due to passing by a massive object on the scale of planets to stars. The lensing effect allows us to detect when they pass into the path of incoming light from distant objects. By looking at how the light changes during the transit, we can also determine the mass of the object. Sure enough, such events have been observed. These events are rare, so they are searched for via large scale surveys where millions of light sources are monitored for changes in brightness characteristic of lensing events. That provides us with a statistically significant sample of the number and size of such objects. The trouble is, we don't see enough matter in such surveys to explain the difference between visible matter and the mass that seems to be there.
But even such events can be explained with ordinary "blobs" of plasma. Again, there's nothing particularly exotic about ordinary plasma.
When i'm asking about micro lensing, I'm asking why that baryonic matter you are suggesting is not interacting with light and showing up on microlensing surveys at the levels required to make them a viable candidate for dark matter?
I think that recent 'plasma blob" article speaks volumes for your micro-lensing question. Based on those stellar miscounts, those million degree halos, and those 'plasma blobs' that keep defying mainstream galaxy mass estimation models, it really no mystery why the mainstream so badly missed all that ordinary matter. The real question is why they have done *nothing* about it since 2006 other than bury their collective heads in the sand.
The "answer" is directly related to that nucleosynthesis issue. You know it, and I know it too. Their *entire* argument for "exotic" matter is an appeal to a creation mythos that requires *four* supernatural constructs, and that requires them to *ignore* all findings of new ordinary matter and it's effect on their theory. The whole thing is held together by a huge dose of cognitive dissonance with respect to the *demonstrated* flaws in their galaxy mass estimation techniques!
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
