are you aware that you yourself are emitting
infrared light right at this moment [...] ?
WHAAATTT???!!!1one
The hell you say!
Come on, man. You and I both know that exoplanets are a recent discovery (1988 being the earliest verified potential candidate for the real thing), and thus hard to detect in the visible spectrum. No one is looking at them with an ordinary telescope, tuned into the visible spectrum.
Last time I checked, anything not emitting visible light is commonly referred to as "dark." But wait, let me just check with my specialized visible light emission instrument.
Gee, when I turn off this incandescant light bulb, it goes... dark! Hypothesis verified! Is it still hot? Why yes! Yes, it is still hot. But also dark. Weird!
But hey, while we're being pedantic nerds, I'll just take a moment to correct you, regarding your correction of me.
Most of the examples in the impeccably cited link are measured in multiples of Jupiter's mass, which, you know, pretty much means they're certainly gas giants, and damn near brown dwarf classification, lending to their thermal activity.
So, the heat would likely not be owing to lava or magma.
As long as we're being pedantic nerds: dark matter is not "anything not emitting visible light", although such matter is "dark" in common parlance. Dark matter is called dark because it does not interact electromagnetically at all. No direct interaction with x-rays, radio waves, visible light, UV, IR, etc. etc. etc. It may interact indirectly (eg. by gravitationally distorting spacetime).
Yeah, yeah, I get it. And I still say that's a non-explanation with a misleading name.
There's no proof of material at all, thus not matter, thus no such thing as dark matter. I'd willingly accept other names such as Dark Question Marks. Or maybe Dark Mathematical Terms Yet To Be Named.
Here's a good one: Dark Unobservable Numerically Challenged Entities.
As I said above to another commenter, if you can explain all the observational signatures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evid... in another way, you should write a paper! If you don't consider all that observational evidence reliable (which maybe you do not, based on your DUNCE name) and will only be satisfied by direct detection experiments on Earth, well, I don't know what to say to you except that lots of things whose existence was deduced from observational astronomy but not from evidence on Earth panned out, including such simple things as Helium.
The point being that Dark Matter doesn't even seem to interact with matter, so why call it any kind of matter.
Matter isn't matter unless collisions prove it's occupancy of space. That's pretty much why matter is considered anything at all. You can't gloss over a significant lack of collisions.
The hell you say!
Come on, man. You and I both know that exoplanets are a recent discovery (1988 being the earliest verified potential candidate for the real thing), and thus hard to detect in the visible spectrum. No one is looking at them with an ordinary telescope, tuned into the visible spectrum.
Last time I checked, anything not emitting visible light is commonly referred to as "dark." But wait, let me just check with my specialized visible light emission instrument.
Gee, when I turn off this incandescant light bulb, it goes... dark! Hypothesis verified! Is it still hot? Why yes! Yes, it is still hot. But also dark. Weird!
But hey, while we're being pedantic nerds, I'll just take a moment to correct you, regarding your correction of me.
Most of the examples in the impeccably cited link are measured in multiples of Jupiter's mass, which, you know, pretty much means they're certainly gas giants, and damn near brown dwarf classification, lending to their thermal activity.
So, the heat would likely not be owing to lava or magma.