1. After evidence was obtained in the 1920s that the universe is expanding, it became reasonable to ask: Will the universe continue to expand indefinitely, or is there enough mass in it for the mutual attraction of its constituents to bring this expansion to a halt? It can be calculated that the critical density of matter needed to brake the expansion and “close” the universe is equivalent to three hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. But the density of the observable universe—luminous matter in the form of galaxies—comes to only a fraction of this. If the expansion of the universe is to stop, there must be enough invisible matter in the universe to exceed the luminous matter in density by a factor of roughly 70.
Our contribution to the search for this “missing matter” has been to study the rotational velocity of galaxies at various distances from their center
of rotation. It has been known for some time that outside the bright nucleus of a typical spiral galaxy luminosity falls off rapidly with distance from the center. If luminosity were a true indicator of mass, most of the mass would be concentrated toward the center. Outside the nucleus the rotational velocity would decrease geometrically with distance from the center, in conformity with Kepler’s law. Instead we have found that the rotational velocity in spiral galaxies either remains constant with increasing distance from the center or increases slightly. This unexpected result indicates that the falloff in luminous mass with distance from the center is balanced by an increase in nonluminous mass.
Our findings suggest that as much as 90 percent of the mass of the universe is not radiating at any wavelength with enough intensity to be detected on the Earth. Such dark matter could be in the form of extremely dim stars of low mass, of large planets like Jupiter, or of black holes, either small or massive. While it has not yet been determined whether this mass is sufficient to close the universe, some physicists consider it significant that estimates are converging on the critical value.
Source OG12 Q115-119 - If anyone can help me on how to answer Q116&117.
2. Micro-wear patterns found on the teeth of long-extinct specimens of the primate species australopithecine may provide evidence about their diets. For example, on the basis of tooth micro-wear patterns, Walker dismisses Jolly’s hypothesis that australopithecines ate hard seeds. He also disputes Szalay’s suggestion that the heavy enamel of australopithecine teeth is an adaptation to bone crunching, since both seed cracking and bone crunching produce distinctive micro-wear characteristics on teeth. His conclusion that australopithecines were frugivores (fruit eaters) is based upon his observation that the tooth micro-wear characteristics of east African australopithecine specimens are indistinguishable from those of chimpanzees and orangutans, which are commonly assumed to be frugivorous primates.
However, research on the diets of contemporary primates suggests that micro-wear studies may have limited utility in determining the foods that are actually eaten. For example, insect eating, which can cause distinct micro-wear patterns, would not cause much tooth abrasion in modern baboons, who eat only soft-bodied insects rather than hard-bodied insects. In addition, the diets of current omnivorous primates vary considerably depending on the environments that different groups within a primate species inhabit; if australopithecines were omnivores too, we might expect to find considerable population variation in their tooth micro-wear patterns. Thus, Walker’s description of possible australopithecine diets may need to be expanded to include a much more diverse diet.
Source OG VE17 Q99-105...
In 2nd passage, there are more than one questions that just cannot be solved by speed reading. And it takes a lot of time understanding without a guarantee that the answer is correct. It started with 30 mins a passage.. now its 15 mins, but still, the answers are wrong more than they ever used to be. The passages are so tough. In passage 2, I got 5 wrong. In 1, I got 3 wrong. Perhaps it is the comprehension part. I could make out some by reading the OG explanation. However, some are just incomprehensible. Like Q118 of passage1.
If someone could help.
Thanks!