Want more "dark" proof?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/23/scidarkmatter123.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/23/scidark123.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/13/scidark113.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/05/15/nhubble115.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/04/27/ecquest27.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/05/scidark105.xml

and perhaps most convincing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitallife/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2003/08/12/ecfdark13.xml

a lot of links, rather some quick explanations, no?

I'd prefer something peer reviewed. I haven't set much store in newspaper stories since the Hitler diary nonsense in the Times.

I'd like to see someone find some of this stuff, it would make the universe a more interesting place. Apparently the LHC (if the particle physics people can get it running) may find it. However, if the LHC does produce dark matter there might be a problem detecting it!

  If it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, ...

   Did either of you actually read any of that.  It really is the only viable explanation for the directly observed phenomena.  It is the only explanation for the differences in observed gravitational response and the flat space model.  To say you won't believe it until you can touch it is just silly. By it's nature that can never happen. And as for proof coming from the collider, that will have to wait awhile. They're having some serious problems and have suspended further testing for at least a month.  But if it ever does produce dark matter it won't be a matter of detecting it, but rather that they produced something undetectable. In other words that a portion of the mass entering simply vanished in the collision. It is the very undetectibility itself that will prove it's existance.

   And mister Fisher, these may be brief explanations but it is the combination of all the explanations and the many way each one cures holes in the overall theory that are convincing. Granted we are years from the big picture, but we have to at least honestly consider all the possibilities if we ever hope to find the true answers.

Yes, I did read it. Dark matter is not the only explanation it is just the explanation that is favoured by the majority. When there is some hard evidence for the stuff then I will believe. I am afraid I don't find quantity of articles convincing evidence.

...maybe a goose having a rough morning.

No disrespect to you taodell, you are in a league, or five leagues, above me when it comes to this stuff, but the people that are questioning dark matter are right to question it. The smartest minds said it was a flat world and they had proof cuz ships would constantly disapper never to be seen again (probably stromy weather) but someone one not quite as smart proved them wrong (which in a way doesn't that make him smarter?) Same for orbits. And now something that no one can see or touch is being given a name,...This a summary of a nursery rythme in the US. If it looks like a sheep, makes a noise like a sheep,.. it is a wolf in disguise.

  Hmm, I suppose.  I myself am only 90% convinced.  I can see why others would disagree.  There are a few points that lead to justified skepticism. But the overall body of evidence, albeit secondary and to a degree un-peer-reviewed, strongly suggests this reality.  I welcome different opinions and love a good debate. I never take a difference of opinion personally. And I would fight to the death for anyones right to believe whatever they want to believe.  However, I do feel it to be my responsibility to present any pertinent facts or articles to help those undecided to form an opinion.  I have yet to see the other side provide any support for the non-existence.   I really would like to see it.  Another explanation for the velocity changes of our space vehicles.  Another explanation for the failure of the current gravitational model to account for the true shape of space.  Another explanation for the directly observed reactions of large mass collisions in deep space. Anyone?

I agree with you Taodell. There is a lot of evidence that leads me to believe in Dark Matter. I have always thought that it might be the stuff our universe is running over while it expands. For that reason I also do not think cern will find it but I hope they do.(and dont create any black holes in the process)

How about a tweak to gravity rather than inventing stuff that is undectable? The original MOND theory accounts for galactic rotation curves more accurately than dark matter and also predicted low surface brightness galaxies, a prediction which has since been shown to agree with observations. MOND also accounts for other velocity changes, including those of space vehicles. If relativistic effects need to be taken into account TeVeS, which reduces to MOND at large distance scales, is a likely candidate for a dark matter free theory.

None of this disproves the existence of dark matter. However, the debate is not about the existence or non-existence of the stuff. We already know there is dark matter out there. Neutrinos fit the dark matter description very well but are not sufficient to provide all the mass required to explain the observations. The real debate is about the root cause of certain phenomena. We know the only dark matter we have found is not an adequate explanation. We also know that modifications to our ideas of how gravity works are just as good, if not better, at explaining some, if not all, of the observations. Applying Occam's Razor to the whole gravity/extra mass debate suggests to me that the simplest route is to alter our theory of gravity rather than invent a new class of matter. After all, we have modified our view of gravity in the past and there is no reason to assume that Einstein's version is perfect any more than Newton's was.

It would also be a potential strike against the idea that dark matter accounts for the difference. Personally, I would prefer that neither was responsible since it is much simpler to account for the variations using properties intrinsic to the space probes and their environment.

Hmmm, let's see, we assume a theory and ensure it becomes very popular and then have one little thingy needed to ensure the validity of the theory. Therefore, of course, the thingy must exist and the theory must be valid. Interesting logic.

   Perhaps that was all clear in your mind but something was lost as you attempted to express it in writing.  Could you clarify what "little thingy" you are referring to and how such a complicated issue has somehow, in your mind, boiled down to one point?