This study accounts for missing ordinary matter, not dark matter. The linked article makes this clear in the first paragraph. Sometimes I wonder if the first commenters (and often top commenters) on HN read the article at all or just respond based on the headline, because these comments often seem barely related to the actual article content.

This has nothing to do with dark matter, it's about the missing baryonic matter. And this result just confirms what most people thought anyway, but it's still rather important because it's a very solid result so we don't need to call it "missing matter" anymore.

No.

1. It is a phenomenon not a hypothesis. Dark matter is a collection of observational facts that indicate an unknown source of gravity. 2. Yes, in any medium lights slows down. This is what refractive index measures.

Light is always light and has always the same speed but its path in a gas is less straightforward than in a vacuum because of the interactions with atoms. It takes longer to get through. Its speed as we can measure it is c divided by the refractive index of the gas, if I'm not wrong.

Same thing for light in a liquid or in a solid. Example: speeds of radio waves in networking cables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor#Typical_veloci...

gods I've always hated that saying.