4 ms·

See - now this... this I find needlessly negative. > Then again, almost no one with a formal education in cosmology or partical physics at the PhD level does.

See - now this... this I find needlessly negative. > Then again, almost no one with a formal education in cosmology or partical physics at the PhD level does. This is also just wrong. I think we're seeing a number of established voices starting to question the underpinnings of dark matter as a theory. As for >Which additional complexity has been added to dark matter? Let's start with the fucking article we're discussing, where we now need to have "self-interacting" dark matter, as a new spin on the theory to account for the forces needed to explain what we're observing...

mr_mitm 2y ago
Which established voices do you mean? All I see is the usual suspects, i.e. McGaugh, Kroupa, etc. The article is also not adding complexity. We didn't get new evidence that required modification of DM. We got a phenomenon which has many potential explanations as the "fucking" article points out, one of which could be a subset of all DM theories. The final parsec problem isn't challenging DM at all, instead one particular flavor of DM could help explain the observation. If anything, it could constrain DM. Why wouldn't you explore this possibility?
- horsawlarway 2y ago
  > Any path—periodic or not, closed or open—can be represented with an infinite number of epicycles. This is because epicycles can be represented as a complex Fourier series; therefore, with a large number of epicycles, very complex paths can be represented in the complex plane. We didn't get any new evidence that required modification of epicycles! We got a phenomenon which constrains the epicycle theory by adding more circles! <-- you. > If anything, it could constrain DM. Why wouldn't you explore this possibility? You're the only one suggesting that we throw out DM as a model right now... at no point have I even hinted at not exploring it. You are bashing someone who is simply suggesting that this model might not be correct (how fucking dare I...). But the thing about models... no model is correct, but some models are useful. Again - I'm not contesting that DM is currently a useful model for explaining some of things we're seeing. I'm suggesting that it might also be worth considering alternatives (how fucking dare I...). Go back to trying to burn Galileo alive. It's the same energy.

mr_mitm 2y ago

Which established voices do you mean? All I see is the usual suspects, i.e. McGaugh, Kroupa, etc. The article is also not adding complexity. We didn't get new evidence that required modification of DM. We got a phenomenon which has many potential explanations as the "fucking" article points out, one of which could be a subset of all DM theories. The final parsec problem isn't challenging DM at all, instead one particular flavor of DM could help explain the observation. If anything, it could constrain DM. Why wouldn't you explore this possibility?

horsawlarway 2y ago
> Any path—periodic or not, closed or open—can be represented with an infinite number of epicycles. This is because epicycles can be represented as a complex Fourier series; therefore, with a large number of epicycles, very complex paths can be represented in the complex plane. We didn't get any new evidence that required modification of epicycles! We got a phenomenon which constrains the epicycle theory by adding more circles! <-- you. > If anything, it could constrain DM. Why wouldn't you explore this possibility? You're the only one suggesting that we throw out DM as a model right now... at no point have I even hinted at not exploring it. You are bashing someone who is simply suggesting that this model might not be correct (how fucking dare I...). But the thing about models... no model is correct, but some models are useful. Again - I'm not contesting that DM is currently a useful model for explaining some of things we're seeing. I'm suggesting that it might also be worth considering alternatives (how fucking dare I...). Go back to trying to burn Galileo alive. It's the same energy.