Computer Geeks: Compete to Help NASA Explain Dark Energy
wired.com
wired.com
Here's a start: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101201134158.ht...
With triple the number of stars in the universe the balance between baryonic matter and unicorn dark matter becomes more like 60/40 with the aesthetically painful dark matter on the short side.
We have two observations: 1) the rotational speed of galaxies appears to be too high for the calculated mass such that the galaxies should fly apart but don't -and- 2) the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.
From these two observations, physicists have created theories for a new kind of mass and a new kind energy that has never been detected and don't fit any of our existing models. I'm not suggesting that it's impossible that these new forms exist, but it kinda seems like religion to me - we can't detect it in any way but are supposed to have "faith" that it's there because there's no other readily available explanation for something in the world around us. It's possible, but isn't it much more plausible that we're merely missing a much more reasonable explanation? Maybe some of the things we hold as constants aren't constants (such as the mass in each galaxy).
We shouldn't dismiss dark matter outright, but we also shouldn't treat it as the only, or even the most likely explanation.
There is also gravitational lensing and some others but no direct evidence. IANAP but our not fully understanding gravity and the Flyby and Pioneer anomalies hint at some breakdown of known physics. The first and farthest craft sent by man has a distance anomaly, directed at the sun, hmm. Plus the thought of new laws on gravity is much more exciting than dark matter and there should be a slew of new findings as data analysis gets better so its anyones guess.