/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8545779
>accepting something that doesn't exist
smhtbhfam

>>8545783
But it does exist. We're measuring its effects.

>>8545791
Our theory of gravity is very wrong

>>8545882
So fix it and prove it's more accurate than the current one + dark matter.

>>8545882
That's not how it works. You either come up with something, or you shut the fuck up. Just blind criticism of a theory that is plausible and works well is completely useless.

>>8545887
Our observations fail to fit our model, so our model is wrong

>>8546112
No it doesn't.

>>8546112
Dark matter makes it fit with observations.

Our theory was wrong. So we fixed it. This fixes it best.

>>8546122
lmao @ physicists
They'll look back on us in 200 years like we look back on the scientists from 200 years ago. Innovative, smart, but completely misguided

>>8545886
Its literally occam's razor. We already know gravity is flawed, it doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics. Its a lot more straight forward than assuming there-s all this extra matter in the universe that we conveniently don't have any evidence for, can't see, and can't measure.

>>8545882
You know, if a theory is wrong, you should just modify reality, that's how it works. At least in History, I guess.

>>8546112
But the model isn't just gravity, you need to know the mass distribution. The model is the compilation of gravity and the assumption that (for example) light traces mass. You can use a more complicated model if you want. You only know the combination is wrong, you therefore cannot conclude gravity is wrong. Dark matter assumes the mass modelling is wrong, and has done so with wild success. Modified gravities have never gotten very far and still cannot explain the bullet cluster without dark matter.

That's a big theory.

>>8546133
>Its literally occam's razor.
No it's not. Occam's Razor states of two models with equal explanatory power the simpler one is preferred. There is no alternative to dark matter with equal explanatory power.

Even a decade later there is still no alternative model which explains the Bullet Cluster without dark matter. You cannot seriously argue that dark matter should be replaced with models which are known to be wrong because you don't like it.

>We already know gravity is flawed, it doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics.
That doesn't mean it's wrong on large scales.

> Its a lot more straight forward than assuming there-s all this extra matter in the universe that we conveniently don't have any evidence for, can't see, and can't measure.
It has mass so it can be measured.

>>8546131
Misguided is the wrong word. Its the best possible explanation given the data we currently have. That's how science works.

Until we got data on hypervelocity impacts in the 1950's we didn't even think the craters on the moon were from meteorites. Its not misguided. Until then, it was thought that oblique impacts would produce oval craters, and it would be impossible to get lots of meteorites impacting perfectly vetically. Instead, we found that unless the impacts are nearly tangential, they always produce circular craters, because most of the crater formation comes from shock wave and vapor expansion rather than the momentum 'digging' it up or pushing it away.

Looking back, we know they're wrong, but only in light of new data.

Accepting that what we know is almost always flawed is part of science. And when we know its flawed, we make lots of modifications and see what a) fits the data best, and b) makes the fewest assumptions, and we roll with it until we have enough data to differentiate.

Also, dark matter doesn't even have to be a new form of matter. Its literally just "dark" - its not contributing to the luminosity that we've used to calcate galactic masses? Heavy, dense, cold clusters of gas, if they were sufficiently common, would fit the explanation just as well, and we know it can occur in stars that burn their fuel without going supernova.