Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tinny66666 t1_iwx2y2x wrote

We have some observations that show galaxies with and a few without companion dark matter. It has momentum and interacts with gravity. The Bullet Cluster is considered to provide direct evidence of dark matter, and none of the MOND theories to date can explain these types of observations.

Edit: I think a lot of people mix up dark energy and dark matter in this regard. Dark energy amounts to a fudge factor to make the maths work, but we know a lot more about dark matter. It really does appear to exist, but because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field we can't see it directly.


couldentcareless t1_iwxb8ur wrote

Something is happening you can't explain but you have an idea nothing provable. All you need now is to ask me for money and you could run for public office


DeadNeko t1_iwxhg1t wrote

They can explain it, they can explain it mathematically and theoretically they've designed experiments based on models and have some observational evidence your just to stupid to understand the science


L7Death t1_iwxnk19 wrote

That's not pure science. That's a lot of math.

The funny thing about math is that various forms can be remarkably similar. The same math can explain completely different things. The equations for gravitational lensing are equivalent to basic refraction, for instance. Perhaps there's no gravitational lensing. Perhaps it's just particles acting as a lense, for instance. Though, that's really besides the point. The point is the same math can describe very different physical phenomenon.

RelMOND is basically as good as LCDM in many ways. Very different approaches with similar results in many cases.

We know we have a dark gravity problem. Gravity is just not very well understood across vast (cosmic to subatomic) scales.

The interesting bit is that by 'fixing gravity' both dark matter and dark energy may become entirely unneeded, or at least significantly reduced in magnitude. That's appealing as it's simpler, ya know, ol occums razor.

Yet our best models (regardless) still fail too frequently. So we still haven't got it right.


DeadNeko t1_iwy32jp wrote

There is no such thing as "pure science". All scientific theories require so framework by which to understand them. Saying the framework is math isnt lesser.

Sure but you can rule certain explanations through experiments designed to spot the differences this is well known in science. And scientists design experiments all the time to do this.

Occums razor isnt a rule you must follow. In science the best theory is the one that makes the most testable hypothesises.

No one in science thinks the models are right they simply think they are most correct ones we have. Which is true if there's a flaw science will inevitably course correct, and that's already been happening with multiple physics theories losing popularity and some other ideas coming back. The issue is people assuming one idea is right and more worthy of research without any understanding of them.

The simpler answer may seem correct but the universe is under no obligation to be simple, or even be intuitive to us at all.