3 ms·

>It is also entirely possible that Dark Matter and Energy don't actually exist. Exactly. The whole basis for belief in "dark matter" and "dark energy" is basi

>It is also entirely possible that Dark Matter and Energy don't actually exist. Exactly. The whole basis for belief in "dark matter" and "dark energy" is basically: "our theories on how the universe works don't compute, so there must be some invisible things (dark matter & energy) we cannot detect since our theories can't be wrong."

XorNot 10y ago
Except for the slight problem that observations of the bullet cluster show gravitational lensing inconsistent with the observed mass of physical matter. MOND has no explanation for this.
Avshalom 10y ago
No our theories were wrong, that was obvious, dark matter and dark energy are (part of) the new theory We're going with them because all the other new theories end up requiring fractional dimensions or some similarly bizarre space time and still don't end up explaining things as well as "I dunno guys maybe there's just some stuff we can't see". We already know there's a bunch of stuff we can't see, dark matter is just some other kind of stuff we can't see. Dark matter is on the correct side of the razor.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  The shift here is that dark matter is detected only in aggregate. And massive aggregates at that. What are the properties of dark matter? Where does it come from? How does it interact with other matter, light or dark? No idea, because it's only detected as a correction term.
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster We know there's a bunch of mass we can't see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACS_J0025.4-1222 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACS_J0025.4-1222 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_44 We have had direct detection of dark matter since the 50s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino And the generally successful standard model predicts several possible additional forms of dark matter e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralino I mean no shit there are in answered questions. We aren't omniscient. this is how it works.

XorNot 10y ago

Except for the slight problem that observations of the bullet cluster show gravitational lensing inconsistent with the observed mass of physical matter. MOND has no explanation for this.

Avshalom 10y ago

No our theories were wrong, that was obvious, dark matter and dark energy are (part of) the new theory We're going with them because all the other new theories end up requiring fractional dimensions or some similarly bizarre space time and still don't end up explaining things as well as "I dunno guys maybe there's just some stuff we can't see". We already know there's a bunch of stuff we can't see, dark matter is just some other kind of stuff we can't see. Dark matter is on the correct side of the razor.

sdenton4 10y ago
The shift here is that dark matter is detected only in aggregate. And massive aggregates at that. What are the properties of dark matter? Where does it come from? How does it interact with other matter, light or dark? No idea, because it's only detected as a correction term.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster We know there's a bunch of mass we can't see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACS_J0025.4-1222 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACS_J0025.4-1222 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_44 We have had direct detection of dark matter since the 50s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino And the generally successful standard model predicts several possible additional forms of dark matter e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralino I mean no shit there are in answered questions. We aren't omniscient. this is how it works.