3 ms·
It matches all the evidence because we looked at the available evidence and highly tweaked the model until it matched. There has been no direct observation of
by ccvannorman 4y ago
It matches all the evidence because we looked at the available evidence and highly tweaked the model until it matched.
There has been no direct observation of Dark Matter, so saying "it matches all the evidence" may be redundant, since by definition, we said "Let's create something that matches all the evidence and look for it."
- nabla9 4y ago>It matches all the evidence because we looked at the available evidence and highly tweaked the model until it matched. This is just wrong. This is not question of parameter tuning. There is class of theories that include weakly interacting particles, you may tune or select model among these. But the most evidence (even newly discovered) points toward dark matter being particles because they behave like particles.
- Ygg2 4y agoI don't follow. The theories made prediction that came empty handed again and again. Sure, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but you can search for star spangled swan only so much, before looking into alternatives.