>>10817730I agree with your suggestions, but its just nomenclature. The important thing is the concept in itself. I also wish the words 'flavor' and 'color' weren't used to describe fundamental properties of fundamental particles, but what can we do after it's been internationally agreed upon?
>>10817736>>10817736>wouldn't this make the body more massive and thus change orbit calculations etc.? Yes it would, it would change their angular momentum, gravitational pull and the orbits of surrounding bodies.
>if they stick to a particular planet then that planet should effectively become heavier, but I thought the claim is that solar systems or entire galaxies are heavier than expected, Exactly! Their angular momentum indicates a larger mass than what is observed visually. That's why the concept of dark matter exists.
>so you'd be looking for something that orbits around in a fairly random patternInitially, sure. But if it interacts gravitationally, it would be pulled onto (preferentially very) massive celestial objects.
>so you don't see it swaying the flight path of any particular body. am I making sense? not an astronomer.The dark matter object would also have to be very massive to have a noticeable effect on other celestial objects, and still would not be visible. If you found a star or planet being affected by the gravitational pull of an invisible object that isn't massive enough to be a black hole, it could be a dark matter body or a topological defect in spacetime. If it moved, it would likely be the former (and if it expanded isotropically, it would likely be the latter).
These conditions aren't noticeable from the Sol system unless we had an example very close to us, and dark matter is likely more concentrated near Sagittarius A* or as diffuse WIMPS around the Local Group.
Our best bet is that it interacts through the weak force and can be created in a hadron collider to confirm it.
(cont)
