Bakkster t1_ixidjab wrote

I think it's important to look at the quote from the lead author:

> "This is basically a game-changer," he said. "This destroys all the work done on galaxies and on cosmology [that] assumes dark matter and Newtonian gravity."

While this kind of upending of existing models and theories certainly happens, being certain of doing so can be a red flag of quackery. From the final quote from a third party:

> But "as they admit the paper themselves, they are using an approximate calculation that needs to be confirmed… [and] they haven't quantified how large the disagreement with data is," she said. "So I think it remains to be seen how good this argument actually is."

Loudly claiming to upend cosmology in the press, while the actual paper is much more tentative, is bad optics.


Bakkster t1_iwx941i wrote

>"Dark" was always the word for "unknown" or "unproven" so you are not wrong entirely.

I thought it was more specifically dark as in didn't absorb reflect or emit light or other reflective radiation, unlike cosmic dust and stars. We just see the gravitational lensing as if it were a dense cloud of dust, but no dust.