4 ms·

> But how is "dark matter" not magic? Because the theory made predictions that were then checked. > instead of looking for a better theory, we decided the obs

• stefantalpalaru 10y ago
  > the theory made predictions that were then checked Wrong models can make valid predictions too - see negative phlogiston. Validating predictions is an indication that we might be on to something, but it's not a proof in the formal sense. > they considered multiple different theories. And the dark matter theory was the one that fit the observations best. Also not a proof that the best we've got is a good enough representation of the physical reality.
• edblarney 10y ago
  "Because the theory made predictions that were then checked." ? What predictions and made and then tested by 'Dark Matter'? Dark Matter was conceived of the other way around - it helps confirm predictions that don't actually work properly. If Dark Matter theory made testable predictions, it would be accepted no? Where are these experiments?
  • Synaesthesia 10y ago
    It's widely accepted. And I'm also a sceptic. More recently scientists have started actually mapping out regions where dark matter is concentrated than - from gravitic perturbations - and have discovered galaxies which contain more dark matter than others, up to 99% as well as the mentioned globular clusters which contain very little dark matter.
    • edblarney 10y ago
      "More recently scientists have started actually mapping out regions where dark matter is concentrated than - from gravitic perturbations " This is not evidence of Dark Matter - it's really just quantifying and classifying the perturbations and anomalies derivations in gravity that we see. Basically, more detail to the observation that 'galaxies are not rotating the way we think they should'. That doesn't validate Dark Matter, it just more deeply quantifies the unknown.
• yxhuvud 10y ago
  The flogiston theory also made predictions that checked.