3 ms·

> There is no evidence that dark matter even exists other than... Most of our theories about the universe are based on evidence from secondary, tertiary, etc e

> There is no evidence that dark matter even exists other than... Most of our theories about the universe are based on evidence from secondary, tertiary, etc effects. It's often the best we can do. I don't think you'd find anyone who would object to the idea that "our theory is incomplete" ("all models are wrong", etc), so it seems like your main objection seems to be that we've given a name to a family of theories that attempt to explain the phenomenon we've grouped under "dark matter". > I think it's far more likely that our theory is incomplete rather than some whole new class of invisible matter/energy being conjured into existence just to counter-balance our 1) wrong equations and/or 2) wrong observations It's rather human to make an estimate of likelihood based on how long ago something was conjectured to exist :) Moreover "wrong equations" and/or "wrong observations" are part of the very theories attempting to explain our current state of knowledge. > So many non-scientists think dark matter is proven. It isn't. It's nothing but pure conjecture. Actually, usually the issue with these discussions are with scientifically literate folks who read a Scientific American article on dark matter in 1998 and have engaged with that as a strawman ever since. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it is odd to me how many people are convinced they're bringing light to the darkness with these kinds of comments.

ClayFerguson 10y ago
Your first point of contention is invalid, because there ARE two distinct and DIFFERENT interpretations of what "dark stuff" is really telling us: Either 1) there are genuinely a whole class of particles that remain completely invisible to us except for their influence on the entire universe mass/energy balance, and yet still fit the current model of SR/GR --OR-- 2) the current model of space-time (GR/SR) is fundamentally broken (as if relativity, and even spacetime is 'emergent', from something more fundamental), and there is genuinely NO SUCH THING as dark energy or dark matter. All leading physicists agree those are the two scenarios that are very likely. You may be familiar with Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" which he called his greatest blunder. It's along those lines of reasoning that I go for door #2 above.

ClayFerguson 10y ago

Your first point of contention is invalid, because there ARE two distinct and DIFFERENT interpretations of what "dark stuff" is really telling us: Either 1) there are genuinely a whole class of particles that remain completely invisible to us except for their influence on the entire universe mass/energy balance, and yet still fit the current model of SR/GR --OR-- 2) the current model of space-time (GR/SR) is fundamentally broken (as if relativity, and even spacetime is 'emergent', from something more fundamental), and there is genuinely NO SUCH THING as dark energy or dark matter. All leading physicists agree those are the two scenarios that are very likely. You may be familiar with Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" which he called his greatest blunder. It's along those lines of reasoning that I go for door #2 above.