> Well I'm not going to write a chapter here when I'm not the best person to do so
> as I don't really believe it exists as they propose
> (my own belief is that dark matter, dark energy, mirror matter, gravitational
> leakage, the nature of gravity itself and QM are all better explained by
> the exitence of extra dimensions) - but as you are talking about their
> theory you should really know more about what their theory is -> [en.wikipedia.org]

Of course there are extra dimensions. String/Matrix theories clearly suggest it...

Also, I was not talking about their theory, but the general concept of dark matter...

> Not at all. I believe in many things I cannot touch or see. You are the fool.

The way I see you're the fool!

> You believe in something physicists have invented to describe something that
> doesn't agree with their own picture of the universe - and you neither
> understand their picture of the universe nor the explanation they have
> created to explain the discrepancies.

That is NOT the case at all. What is Obvious is that the visible Universe is only just about 4% or maybe even less. Look around the sky at night, it is all pretty much DARK...

So calling something DARK does meet the basic observation of what the eye can see and, therefore, it is LOGIC! Now, the fact that the traditional theories are still struggling to explain what it is, is a separate issue. IMHO, space (ALL SPACE) is just a wavelength...That is my explanation and not theirs!

> Why did you say that other radio frequencies would find it then ?

Because everything is vibrating at a particular frequency...(x, y, z, f)

> When did I say that ? You really need to discuss whats being discussed and
> not whats in your head.

You said that not everything is EM! or that not everything is tied or explained by EM, or something like that!!!

Don't you remember what you say any more?

Since Astronomers are now finding star-less galaxies, then the evidence of DARK stuff out there is becoming more firm, vs. just nothingness...

eom