5 ms·

It’s a rather novel and very strange to say that something hasn’t been detected because you haven’t found a particle responsible for it, even though our whole e

by Ma8ee 5y ago

It’s a rather novel and very strange to say that something hasn’t been detected because you haven’t found a particle responsible for it, even though our whole existence and all our everyday experiences are grounded in it. Gravity is the effect. It’s there. Whether you explain it with force carrying particles or the geometry of space time won’t change it. Dark matter is one hypothetical explanation of an effect (or rather several). It’s possible to find another explanation for the same phenomena without changing the phenomena. In other words, gravity and dark matter have very different ontological status.

whatshisface 5y ago
>In other words, gravity and dark matter have very different ontological status. I get what you're saying, but you can make them the same again by transposing Dark Matter to Dark Matitation, by analogy to Gravitons->Gravitation.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  No, they are still not the same. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Dark Matter would correspond to Gravitons. But that would just prove my point, because Gravitons is just a hypothetical explanation of gravity, in the same way as Dark matter is a hypothetical explanation of, e.g., the rotation profiles of galaxies. (And here we have so far left out that the only reason Dark matter makes sense is because we are trying to not have to modify our current understanding of gravity.)
  - astrange 5y ago
    Well, one reason dark matter is winning over modified gravity theories is that there seem to be some galaxies that don't have dark matter. So MOND needs more special pleading there, unless the observations are wrong.
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      The only thing I was arguing was that Gravity has a much more solid basis than Dark Matter. I certainly don't think I made it sound like I think MOND is more likely than Dark Matter (even though I confess that I still think the issue is far from settled).

by Ma8ee 5y ago

whatshisface 5y ago

>In other words, gravity and dark matter have very different ontological status. I get what you're saying, but you can make them the same again by transposing Dark Matter to Dark Matitation, by analogy to Gravitons->Gravitation.

Ma8ee 5y ago
No, they are still not the same. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Dark Matter would correspond to Gravitons. But that would just prove my point, because Gravitons is just a hypothetical explanation of gravity, in the same way as Dark matter is a hypothetical explanation of, e.g., the rotation profiles of galaxies. (And here we have so far left out that the only reason Dark matter makes sense is because we are trying to not have to modify our current understanding of gravity.)
- astrange 5y ago
  Well, one reason dark matter is winning over modified gravity theories is that there seem to be some galaxies that don't have dark matter. So MOND needs more special pleading there, unless the observations are wrong.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    The only thing I was arguing was that Gravity has a much more solid basis than Dark Matter. I certainly don't think I made it sound like I think MOND is more likely than Dark Matter (even though I confess that I still think the issue is far from settled).