/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9626430
Dark matter isn't real, it's a made up thing to make the math work out. No galaxy has "dark matter" and when a better theory comes around to describe what's happening it will be scrapped.

>>9626448
then why doesn't this one have it too if it's all made up?
also there's gravitational lensing evidence of dark matter, and other evidence too, but i bet you don't believe in that either

>>9626430
Modified gravity fags BTFO

>Scientists Are Baffled
the hack writer's favourite headline

>>9626448
While both modified gravity theories & dark matter theories were worth considering to explain why certain large scale phenomenon don't seem to obey the same gravitational rules that work so well at solar system scale, the evidence is now strongly leaning towards dark matter. Unless you have some modified gravity theory that can account for different rules of gravity in different galaxies. Positing that particles similar to neutrinos, but even harder to detect, exist seems like less of a stretch.

>>9626430
If a group of objects in consecutive linear fashion is tugging on the folds of space and time, is it not logical that this would create "blank" spaces that appear to have nothing in the way, however once they are approached rectify into visibility?

>>9626762
>We are already in a black hole.

Don't do this to me...

some things to think about

>Due to the vast size of the Universe, sure it might be possible that galaxies form without dark matter, sure. But what are the chances we already found one?
>Does dark matter decay?
>Could it have been absorbed naturally (black hole???)
>Alienfags, could it have been absorbed unnaturally (as an energy source?)
>Is there anything significant otherwise about this Galaxy or the surrounding space?

>>9626875
The only thing special is this galaxy is 1/200 the size of the milky way.

>>9626430
Dark matter is just a gravity without matter.

>>9626749
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEpw2-D3KaI

Wrong

>>9627614
Everybody get back, he's got a YouTube video,

>>9627619
https://science.purdue.edu/xenon1t/?tag=japan

As you like.

>>9626448
fpbp

>>9626568
nope, see >>9627138

>>9626875
>But what are the chances we already found one
About 1, according to the article.
Also, better article here
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1806/

>>9626457
>>9626457

There's unexplained gravitational lensing, which is attributed to "dark matter". But dark matter literally means "something which we don't know what it is", All of the observations attributed to dark matter could be any unknown, not even nessarily the same unknown source.

>>9629078

Anyway the whole point of Dark Matter isn't to look for "evidence" or to nitpick and to poke holes in the theory. It's to ask how you as a scientist can better understand Dark Matter.

Dark matter is an elaborate shrug; It's a rug for clueless astrophysicists to sweep their embarrassingly incomplete and incongruent theories under when guests come around.

Dark matter is a post hoc justification for unexpected observations. it's existence is fine-tuned and completely unexplained.
it's the modern epicycles of astronomy.

i can't wait for this paradigm to die

>scientists found a galaxy without dark matter

>this is somehow evidence that dark matter is real

The logic astounds me.

>>9629963

The most disingenuous aspect of dark matter and dark energy is when the accuracy of the model is challenged, the fallback is the "muh Einstein" appeal to authority. This is despite the fact that Einstein himself called the need for constant fudge numbers his biggest mistake and went to his grave trying to reconcile the cosmological constant.

>>9629971
If the models were just wrong you'd expect every galaxy to behave wrong in the same way. If this galaxy doesn't need the "fudge factor", it's evidence that without dark matter our models are correct.

>>9630026
>almost

Just because your model sometimes looks a bit like reality, does not prove it right.

>>9630030
No one's claiming it "proves it right".

>>9629971
How can you find something that doesnt have something that you dont even know if exists?

>>9630034

Yes they are, a ton of people are claiming that this is the end for all modified inertia/gravity theories.

>>9626430
The REAL reason that galaxy is measured to have 0 "extra" mass is because it's actually the only truly stationary galaxy we've found. Its frame of reference is either exactly or very close to the neutral universal frame, so it has no (or very little) energy from motion. Less energy = less mass = less gravity. Other galaxies, including our own, are actually hurtling through space at extreme speeds which is why we measure their gravitational mass as being so much larger than their apparent matter can account for.

Surveys have found that the amount of dark matter a galaxy appears to have corresponds DIRECTLY with how fast it's moving relative to NGC1052-DF2. This is exciting news for anyone who's been waiting for the coffin of relativity to finally get nailed shut. The remaining question to answer is whether NGC1052-DF2 is special or if its near-0 speed is just a coincidence. Now the search is on for any galaxies that are moving even slower in absolute space.

>>9629971
>The logic astounds me.
What part of it are you having trouble understanding? Dark matter is literally just "Galaxies have more stuff in them than we can see, which explains their higher-than-expected gravitational effects," the alternative being that gravity works differently at galactic scales than we understand it to work at smaller astronomical scales.

So now we find a galaxy that has exactly as much gravity as you would expect from its normal well-understood matter. How is this anything BUT evidence in favor of dark matter? "This galaxy has a lot less of that stuff than normal galaxies" is much more plausible than "the laws of physics work differently for this galaxy than every other galaxy in the fucking world."

>>9630145
bullshit, why don't you link these 'surveys'?
all studies done so far found that no modified gravity theory can explain all our observations, with most failing horribly to explain anything

>>9630158
Sorry, you're right. It was just an idea I had that made sense so I expected that surveys would have been done that agreed with it, but after a cursory google search I haven't found any support for this being the case. There MAY in fact be surveys like that which I just didn't find since I didn't search that hard however, so I wouldn't write off the theory just yet. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

>>9630158
>all studies done so far found that no modified gravity theory can explain all our observations
why don't you link these comprehensive studies

>>9630167

He's just going to link you the wiki article on the Bullet Cluster.

>>9630167
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

>>9626430
>And here's why it's a good thing

>>9626430
They had to invent dark matter because if they didn't they'd have to admit God exists

>>9626430
>no dark matter
so no Luz Extinguido?

>>9630184
>how does this affect me personally
typical brainlet thought pattern
knowing more about the universe we live in is a good thing in itself

>>9630188
Which God though?

Since if there is god, I am hard pressed to imagine it to be one of ours. At best we grasped a fragment of what god actually is.

>>9630196
I think he was making fun of the pop-sci format of the article

>>9630188
dude that's such an obnoxious way to think
it's fair to call dark matter a placeholder for the inconsistency of galaxies with currently accepted equations but just jumping to 'hurr atheists' makes you sound like a stereotypical idiot christian
(and I'm a christian btw)

...on second thought you're probably a false flagging shill getting sorosbux to post here, but oh well I already bothered to write this

Every black hole is actually the wreckage of massive space-fairing alien colony ships that were destroyed in some of the universe's earliest moments. Read a book

>>9630145
>the neutral universal frame
lol

>>9630145
universe spin is the cause of gravity

>>9630151
>the laws of physics work differently for this galaxy
What exactly do you mean by "work differently?" Exponential function will "work differently" in a big way depending on if the input is above or below the tipping point. That doesn't mean there are two different versions of e^x. It just means not every relationship is linear.
And in this case the galaxy in question is relatively small (1/200 the size of our own galaxy). Maybe it's under the tipping point and other larger galaxies are over it.

>>9626430
>muh space sand

>>9627138
How have you come to that conclusion, wishful thinking?

>>9626430
This actually is a very good indicator that our models are just wrong. This galaxy is very, very small. And why should it have no dark matter? Every galaxy should have dark matter. It would be like saying this sun doesn't have helium.

It is much more likely our models only work for "mid-sized" gravity, e.g. solar systems and tiny galaxies like this one, but not beyond. So we have to invent "dark matter" to make the models work. This acutally sounds very plausible.

>>9626448
>>9629929
>>9629963
>>9629971

Why is so hard to think that there may be some matter that is unaffected by the electromagnetic field?

>>9631149
the theory exists out of necessity and not evidence, it's "science" that's believed in rather than proven, like the multiverse theory

>>9631156
But the universe we see behaves exactly like a universe with dark matter, so whats the lack of evidence?

>>9631156
there is 10 times more evidence for the multiverse than for dark matter tho

>>9626430
MOND is dead, long live dark matter!

>>9630026
if the models are wrong, then the figures of each galaxy would not have the same amount of error

>>9631067
>in this case the galaxy in question is relatively small (1/200 the size of our own galaxy)
And that's completely irrelevant since there are a lot of mini galaxies with similar size, but this strange "lack of dark matter" has ONLY been observed on this specific galaxy so far.

Consider the following: if dark matter is real and is in almost every galaxy, why haven't (((physicists))) made any attempt to detect dark matter regions in our own galaxy, where it would be plausible to study? In fact, why is dark matter only "far away" from us even though it modifies the motion of almost all galaxies we have observed? If dark matter is real, the Copernican principle states it is likely there should be dark matter in close proximity to Earth.

>>9631144
The same discrepancy exists for similarly sized galaxies, like Milky Way, Andromeda and Dragonfly 44.

>>9631181
>there are a lot of mini galaxies with similar size, but this strange "lack of dark matter" has ONLY been observed on this specific galaxy so far
Gonna need some specifics here. Which galaxies are as small or smaller than this one but don't behave the same way as it? Can you name one with a citation backing your claim here?

>>9631191
I suppose normal matter gathers into tight balls because it interacts with itself, collides, friction etc.

>>9631197
Segue 2, one of the satellites of the Milky Way, literally has only 1000 or so stars and even it has dark matter (or rather, it behaves in a way that implies the existence of unseen mass, unlike the one in the OP).

http://keckobservatory.org/recent/entry/uci_scientists_size_up_universes_most_lightweight_dwarf_galaxy_with_keck_ob

>>9631214
If dark matter can interact gravitationally, even if we assume it doesn't interact electromagnetically because it's magical, it STILL should be attracted to matter.

>>9631161
>zero times ten
agreed

>>9631228
It will fly through on a hyperbolic orbit though. How many interstellar asteroids do we have around?

couldn't it just be that the complex interacting motion of many large objects (stars in a galaxy) have some non-obvious effects on the observed velocities. like a gravitational velocity lensing. and there really is no missing mass.

>>9630085
But it effectively is since with MOND, every galaxy needs to have some amount of "dark matter". You can't have a galaxy without "dark matter" in MOND, no matter how small that galaxy is.

>>9631191
>>9631228
The dark matter halo of the milky way has been detected ages ago my dude

Also you seem to assume dark matter can clump together to form compact structures similar to asteroids or stars, but as far as we know that just doesn't happen
So considering that, and how weak gravity is in smaller scales, there's probably a lot of dark matter particles (whatever they are) everywhere in the solar system right now, but they're so sparse that their gravitational effects can only be detected when you get to galactic level

Why do people act like the original MOND from the fucking 80's is the only modified gravity theory around?

>>9631254
So dark matter's nature precludes it from being falsifiable? Good to know.

>>9631263
Is it really that hard to believe they work like neutrinos?

>>9631254
>Dark matter holds our whole galaxy together with its gravity
>yet for some magical reason it can't clump to itself

>>9631160
Dark matter behaves exactly behaves exactly as we need it to behave for the math to work, not the other way around, dumb anon

>>9631263
Well technically it's still possible to detect the particles themselves if they're not too massive for modern particle colliders

>>9626749
my sides fell down towards earth's centre

>>9631269
See the post above yours.

>>9631254
>the dark matter halo of the milky way has been detected ages ago my dude

detected? it can be detected?

>>9631290
Yes, it interacts via gravity so it can be detected.

>>9631290
it's absence is measurable assuming gravity is correct at the galactic scale. i'm not sure how galaxies bend spacetime, but they measure orbital velocity and visible mass and infer from those two numbers how much is missing.

>>9631285
If dark matter was just a matter of discovering the particle we would have detected it by now.

>>9631290
Yeah, by studying the way the stars on the halo move

>>9631290
>>9631299
>>9631308
>>9631309

>Detected
Infered is a more appropriate term

Dark Matter is only infered by the gravitational effect it would have (if it was theoretically present as mass)

>>9631191
With dark matter density 0.0088*2e30kg/pc3 in the volume of entire solar system 5e38m3 there would be 3e17kg of dark matter, which is 0.000005 part of Moon. What would be a good reference value for such mass?

>>9631344
More or less the same as this asteroid, I think?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44_Nysa

>>9631344
Roughly a mass of an asteroid with 30km diameter.

>>9631365
Oops, radius.

>>9631149

Prove it.

There are several contradictions in the model for gravity, and nobody dares admit the model is broken. There's way too much focus on shoehorning gravity into the standard model as a quantum force which has proven to be a red-herring. Combine with a dogmatic approach to determinism because muh c and you have a century of wasted theory.

Just read this brainfart:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

A whole lot of assumptions and handwaving.

>>9631269
conservation of angular momentum isn't magic my brainlet friend

>hmm theory doesn't match observation it must be the observation is missing something

These people call themselves scientists.

>>9626430
Isnt Astrophysics almost entirely based on non-sense that most of the time can't actually be definitively proven?

>>9631046
Dang

>>9631365
No.

>>9632192
>look at this thing
>look away now
>take a guess at how it's going to look
>ok now look back
>did you guess right?
It's...more focused on the observational aspects of experimentation.

>>9626749
>Unless you have some modified gravity theory that can account for different rules of gravity in different galaxies.
You don't need an alternative to say the current is insufficient. That's not how knowledge works.

>>9632366
>they guess wrong
>so they add a magical fudge factor so that they are actually right
>fudge factor tautologically behaves exactly so that it fixes theoretical problems while not messing anything else up
I mean our best explanation is that it's undetectable, behaves unlike any other matter we know and exists in vast quantities everywhere but the places we can test for it. Then you build elaborate vaporware hypotheses around that.

It's circular logic all the way around, imagine if after Michelson–Morley people concluded that aether exists but somehow isn't present or detectable inside the solar system.

Yes, I know that dark matter related theories are the best we have now, but it's a piss poor theory that will get resolved in an eventual paradigm shift caused by a novel theory. Vast quantities of invisible magical matter my ass.

>>9626430

Is it possible a race of space negroes has "stolen" all of the dark matter?

>>9631267
Yes.

When are people going to finally accept that the cosmological principal is a farce?

>>9632728

>behaves unlike any other matter we know

Wrong you brainlet, it behaves like a particle which only interacts gravitationally. This is similar to neutrinos except it lacks even weak interaction. There is nothing unusual about dark matter.

>>9632728

>exists in vast quantities everywhere but the places we can test for it

It exists in vast quantities everywhere, full stop. It is just hard to detect. Also since it interacts only gravitationally, it does not clump so it is very spread out.

>>9629971

in a universe governed by modified gravity, you would expect all galaxies to be under the same physical law, the one of modified gravity

so all similar small galaxies should behave in the same way

but in an universe with dark matter, the distribution of ordinary matter and dark matter varies in a randomish way, and so there will be some exceptions, galaxies with almost all matter but little dark matter, purely by chance

now one such exceptional galaxy was discovered, providing further evidence that dark matter is more plausible than modified gravity theorier

>>9632960
I want leddit to leave.
>a particle which only interacts gravitationally.
>This is similar to neutrinos except it lacks even weak interaction.
>There is nothing unusual about dark matter.
Top tier logic, using the same line of reasoning it's basically baryonic matter except in all the manners where it isn't, like ya know, basic properties of baryonic matter.
>It exists in vast quantities everywhere, full stop. It is just hard to detect.
So does aether, right? It has to exist, therefore our failure to detect it can't possibly mean that our theories are wrong.
>Also since it interacts only gravitationally, it does not clump so it is very spread out.
How convenient that the axiomatically undetectable matter is undetectable except by the error our models produce.

>>9626448

This anon gets it.

Unless it is observable and testable science should stfu.

>>9627623
So what, dark matter doesn't exist in this tiny chunk of the parameter space, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

>>9630145
>This is exciting news for anyone who's been waiting for the coffin of relativity to finally get nailed shut
This is just stupid. You clearly know that relativity has been supported by every relevant experiment and you are just waiting for some sort of evidence to emerge to counter the theory. This is very unscientific: scientists keep an open mind about different possible theories, only getting rid of an idea when it has been contradicted by evidence.

>>9633271
>Unless it is observable and testable science should stfu.

Cold Dark Matter is testable. It has made dozens of successful predictions from the powerspectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background to the one and two halo galaxy clustering. "Observable" is arbitrary. Quarks aren't directly observable too but they are a model, you can calculate very precisely what that model predicts and compare that to observations. CDM is exactly the same. It is testable and it is being tested.

>>9633438

What good has that information done for anyone?

None. That's what.

It's all theories scientists jerk eachother off about that don't effect anything that actually matters.

They are so far up their own ads they are talking all sorts of nonsense that has no practical purpose.

If they were worth a fuck they would be working on how to create unlimited clean energy or how to make commercial jets fly at mach 7. Or creating quantum computers and telephones etc. Not blowing eachother about the lack of theoretical dark matter in a galaxy far far away.

>>9633704
>waaa how does this affect me personally
fucking brainlet get out of /sci/ already
knowing more about nature is good in itself

>>9626765

Is that possible? Could we be in a black hole right now?

>>9626448
THIS
Dark matter is the modern aether.

>>9633773
Yup I honestly believe whatever this "thing" is, is what aether was supposed to be

We already know everything there is to know about the fundamental properties of the universe.

>>9633704
Mein neger.

>>9626448
You are retarded. Dark matter literally means a substance created that allows the math to work but it still exists, we just don't know what it is yet.

>>9633704
>What good has that information done
Holy shit you are retarded.

>>9633823
>>9626448
>>9627614
>>9633271
>>9633704

>>9633268
The error is random and doesn't depend on anything, so it's unlikely to be a systematic error, but rather an unaccounted random factor.

>>9626448
t. has never looked into this field of research, literally at all

>>9633704
>don't effect anything that actually matters.
actually it effects around 4/5ths of all matters :^)

>>9626430
>65 million lightyears away
Maybe it appears dark because they're just now seeing the light from the Jurrassic extinction

>>9633833

Fuck you nigget

What has happened to /sci/?
This is actually an interesting thing to discuss about yet the thread is filled with scientifically illiterate people confidently denying the reality of it.

>>9634282
>yet the thread is filled with scientifically illiterate people confidently denying the reality of it.
Because anyone with a basic understanding of scientific philosophy realizes that Dark Matter is bullshit, and that the article itself is even worse.

The theory of dark matter is neither empirical nor falsifiable, and it can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned.

>95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy stuff we can't detect but it exists because the model doesn't work without it

Does this seem like science to you?

>>9634536
>brainlet having no clue what he's talking about presents his opinion on science
fascinating

>>9626448
This.

>>9634536
Well, you're free to create a model that explains it better.

>>9634559

Science isn't about making models using fantasy metaphysics like "dark matter".

>>9634571
>flat earther keeps talking about science
kill yourself maggot

>>9634559
>Well, you're free to create a model that explains it better.
That's not how science works, you faggot.
You're not given free reign to make up bullshit and call it fact just because there's no alternative.

This childish "Prove me wrong" bullshit doesn't fly when your claim isn't falsifiable in the first place.

>>9634583
He's clearly got a better understanding than you do.

>>9634602
There's galaxy clusters, CMB, gravitational lensing and more evidence for dark matter, but reading the thread is too hard for you I guess.

>>9634583

Oh look another globecuck with no argument.

Flat earthers aren't afraid of death because we know there's a creator, although we still reject religions.

It is the galaxies revolving around us, it is not the earth that is moving. Your pseudo-scientific model has to resort to the unscientific idea of "dark matter" to explain the rotations of the galaxies, instead of putting your hands up and admitting you're wrong.

>>9634606
>There's galaxy clusters, CMB, gravitational lensing and more evidence for dark matter
These things you listed are more evidence that current models are wrong, less evidence that dark matter exists or is the direct cause of it.

Let me know when you actually identify a particle of dark matter. I'm on the edge of my seat.

>>9634633
>Let me know when you actually identify a particle of dark matter
What's the point of that? Then you'll just say they're wrong or that there's a huge conspiracy.

>>9634639
>>What's the point of that?
>HOW DARE YOU ASK ME TO PROVIDE DIRECT OBSERVATION AND FALSIFIABILITY!
If I'm asking for too much, then your theory sucks.

>>9634559

OK then, I propose that the universe is made out of invisible cheese. Prove me wrong!

>>9634606

Observations that desperate astrophysicists are grasping at trying to shoehorn the broken model into.

>>9634633

No you can't directly detect dark matter it doesn't interact with matter or energy, just gravity. It's totes real though check the math. :^)

>>9634633
The dark matter hypothesis makes lot more sense that trying to create a modified gravity theory that fits the various observations; unless you want to propose that gravity works differently in some galaxies than others. Which itself would be an impossible to test or falsify.

I don't get why some people get so bent out of shape over dark matter; is the idea of particles similar to neutrinos existing, but even harder to detect, really that offensive?

>>9634821
>Which itself would be an impossible to test or falsify.
If that's the case, then that's just how it fucking is.
Falsifiability has no bearing on reality, but it does affect what constitutes as knowledge. Don't pretend to know things that you don't.

To be as clear as possible; Dark matter IS the conspiracy theory. It is every bit as real as the Illuminati. You might have this model that ties everything together nice and neatly, but it completely lacks substance. Anyone sane would question it.

How long until they find dark matter particles anyway? Or are they thought to be too massive even for the LHC?

You can't detect dark matter except via its gravitic influence, because it's dark and doesn't interact with matter or energy.

>>9634848
>You can't detect dark matter except via its gravitic influence
Then how do you know it's not a flaw in the model of gravity itself if there is nothing to effectively cross-compare it to?

>>9634856
Occam's razor

>dark matter doesn't exist
>then what's producing these gravitational fields?
>uhhh...exotic matter!
>why can't we see it?
>uhh......it's exotic so electromagnetic radiation goes through it!
>almost like it's dark or something
>yeah...lets called it dark matter

>>9626430
What!?! We found the Kirby universe!

>>9634856

You can't that's the beauty of it, means we get to pretend the model is perfect and doesn't require fudge constants to explain that the model is 96% innacurate. :^)

>>9634598
>You're not given free reign to make up bullshit and call it fact just because there's no alternative.

Sure you are. People do it on /sci/ all the time.

>>9626430
>https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/dark-matter-galaxy-gravity-dragonfly-physics-space-science/
article should contain the clause "galactic rotation curve of this galaxy not anomalous"

>>9634858
Parsimony correlates with likelihood and is good for making bets.

A source of knowledge it does not make, though.

>>9633704

That's what engineers are for, dum dum. You need the scientists to give them an idea of what to work on.

>>9634905

Einstein must be rolling in his grave.

>>9634821
Why can't God be the explanation? Why does it have to be a hypothetical type of matter we can't detect? This is why scientists are so arrogant. They find something that contradicts their models and then fudge the numbers and claim dark matter MUST exist without even acknowledging the idea that maybe, just maybe, they're fundamentally wrong about the true nature of existence and the Bible was right all along when it says God stretches out the heavens.

>>9635675
Why can't God's cum be the explanation? God fapped all around the Universe and jizzed everywhere.

>>9634834

>dark matter is not science because it is not easily falsifiable
>but when it comes to my pet model falsifiability suddenly has no bearing on reality

you are literally contradicting yourself

@9633704
>sci feeding the troll
Come the fuck on, guys.

>>9634858
>matter that doesn't fit into the standard model, can't be detected, but conveniently fixes all problems with current model
>model is wrong
Yep, first one is definitely Occam's razor pick.
>>9634821
>is the idea of particles similar to neutrinos existing, but even harder to detect, really that offensive?
Yes, because there's no evidence, at all, of it actually existing you fucking brainlet. All of it is inferred from the fact our models and observations don't produce the same results and no experiment to date proved the existence of various magical explanation particles such as sterile neutrinos. Complete vaporware.

>>9636152
So you say we should accept the standard model even though it has known problems, because of the known problems with the other model?

>>9635693
... are you retarded?
Falsifiability has no bearing on reality in either model. Falsifiability has no bearing on reality ever.
I literally just explained that both are just as falsifiable as the other. As in, neither is falsifiable. Neither answer is scientific.

Increasing parsimony doesn't change that.

>>9636315

The standard model is the only accurate model which has proven time and again to predict the most esoteric and unbelievable facets of nature. In fact I believe that it is responsible for physicists having so much faith in other models like GR, where they believe the model can't possibly be wrong so there must be something we can't detect accounting for the anomaly.

But GR is absolutely broken with its dark matter and dark energy fudges, even Einstein knew this. GR is approximate and probably just doesn't scale to the galactic level, just like classical doesn't scale to the solar-system level.

>>9626430
Maybe god forgot to create that part

>>9633839
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.

>>9637366

your precious standard model is known to be broken at higher energies, no physicist thinks it is the end game

almost all beyond-standard-model proposals require supersymmetry and superpartners are a candidate for dark matter particles

physics as we know it currently PREDICTS something like dark matter (but no specifics, tough)

>>9636368

>I literally just explained that both are just as falsifiable as the other. As in, neither is falsifiable. Neither answer is scientific.

Yet you are posting in a thread about evidence in favor of dark matter and against modified gravity. It turns out these scenarios can be modeled and *surprise*, when you do the math their predictions are subtly different and can be compared with observations. Sometimes it is hard, but thats how cutting edge science is. If it was easy, we would have figured it out long ago.