Re: "Scientists named it dark matter as it did not seem to emit any light"
I'm going to throw an idea out, feel free to shoot it down if someone has data! :)
Could the missing mass in our view of the universe simply be that we are undervaluing the amount of mass found a) in star systems (i.e. planets, meteor debris fields, star system dust, etc all add up and we are just underestimating that for the star systems we see out there?); and b) that we are massively underestimating the number of brown dwarfs and other "star" systems that never actually became light emitting "star" systems? What I mean by that is that I can imagine MANY star systems existing that feature at their centre a Jupiter-like "star", i.e. an almost star, not large enough to actually ignite. This would still have a fair bit of mass, but would not emit detectable light.
Since we can track down so many star systems, and so many brown dwarfs, surely there would be an even larger number of "star" systems which never made it to light emitting status, because there just wasn't quite enough dust around. They would also be relatively small from a viewing perspective (a Jupiter sized exoplanet is only really visible when it crosses in front of its parent star, and we measure the change in light. This is only confirmed when it actually does an orbit in front of the star. A Jupiter sized star system is not in orbit and so would be super hard to detect by current methods.
Anyone see anything obvious with this idea which shoots it down entirely?