negativelambda

This reminds me of a paper [1] where they find that... "In the redshift range 100<(1+z)<137, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) had a temperature of 273-373K (0-100 degrees Celsius), allowing early rocky planets (if any existed) to have liquid water chemistry on their surface and be habitable, irrespective of their distance from a star."

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0613

>they tried to bypass debate

The reform was debated and passed by an ample majority in the lower house last week and was due to be approved with ease by the upper house on Thursday [1].

The opposition could have submitted their amendment proposal. they refused and went to court.

The right wing party has vetoed renovation for 3 years. Thereby extending the judges way beyond their initial term limits.

[1] https://www.spainenglish.com/2022/12/21/amendment-spain-judi...

Even the EU commission is worried… https://twitter.com/dreynders/status/1605509989010849793?s=2...

Conservative judges froze passage of measures meant to overhaul appointments to their court

> Am I right in thinking no one has been able to detect dark matter despite decades of attempts and research?

Yup [1]

> My understanding is that based on observations of what can be seen galaxies move as if there's move stuff in them??

Yup [2]

> If you hypothesis that this extra stuff is dark matter but can't detect it, how do you know it's real?

It produces certain effects in various different enviromennts or domains, which lends more support to that hypothesis. By certain different domains, I mean like Galaxy and cluster dynamics, gravitational lensing around galaxies and clusters and the precise fluctuations seen in the cosmic microwave background, these are all very different regimes but all seem to support the hypothesis of extra mass which is not interacting electromagnetically.

> How have you ruled out all the normal stuff that doesn't give off light or stuff we can't see at the distances we're looking over?

There are research efforts to look for exactly this kind of stuff; Massive compact halo object (MACHOS). However they don't see enough of it to account for the observations we see in galaxies and galaxy clusters. [3]

[1] https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2022/conf/fermilab-conf-22-180-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evid... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object#De...

At the moment there are no better alternatives that satisfy all the observations. If you try to replace General Relativity with something like Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) [1], then you can get good fits to galaxy rotation curves. However, there are many sources of astronomical/cosmological data that will not bend to alternative gravity models, e.g the precise fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background put stringent bound on the matter components of the Universe.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics#Ou...

We can calculate the force exerted on an object by a photon of light of a given frequency. I'm guessing it is not sufficient to produce the effect you envisage, although I have not done the calculation. Interestingly this photon pressure does put an upper limit on the mass of a star; the Eddington Limit [1]. If a star is too large (and therefore luminous) its photon pressure pushes away other material and stops is from growing larger!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_luminosity