/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16116766]

...where the dark matter particles?

[Anonymous No.16116810]

[Anonymous No.16116894]

>>16116810
I have dark matter particles, but I keep them in Canada.

[Anonymous No.16117499]

>>16116894
im in canada, can i see them

[Anonymous No.16117501]

Antimatter? Discovered by Segre and Chamberlain in 1955.

[Anonymous No.16117584]

in the balls

[Anonymous No.16117588]

>>16117499
sorry, in Canada all you get to see is brown matter, deposited in your streets

[Anonymous No.16117610]

>>16116766
if they only gravitational interact how would you ever detect one?

[Anonymous No.16117686]

>>16117499
oh, they aren't in your part of Canada, sorry

[Anonymous No.16118074]

I have a box full of dark matter, how much is dark matter worth?

[Anonymous No.16118396]

>>16118074
Prove it

[Anonymous No.16118639]

>>16117610
if your hypothesis of unknown invisible matter causing the necessary effects to keep galaxies in line with observations, to the degree where it's actually the vast majority of the universe, falsifiable under any circumstances? if your model is flexible enough to adjust parameters and rectify a coarse simulation of cosmology, aren't you just overfitting formulas and calling it physics?

[Anonymous No.16118663]

>>16116766
>invent dark matter to avoid admitting that the universe is actually full of aether/plasma
Why is science so pigheaded about these kinds of things? They'd rather make up nonexistent bullshit to artificially fix their equations than just admit the existing model is flawed and needs to be replaced.

[Anonymous No.16118679]

>>16117610
>my hypothesis is not testable
ah, so it's "God did it" with more math

[Anonymous No.16120009]

[Anonymous No.16120513]

>>16118396
How much is my box full of dark matter worth?

[Anonymous No.16120673]

>>16118663
>They'd rather make up nonexistent bullshit to artificially fix their equations than just admit the existing model is flawed and needs to be replaced.

Precisely

[Anonymous No.16120813]

>>16116766
Stars are conscious and actively direct their own movement, there is no dark matter

[Anonymous No.16121177]

>>16118663
They would get excommunicated from Academia for antisemitism if they said that the infallible St. Einstein, the soience god of the atheists, was wrong about something.

[Anonymous No.16121263]

>>16116766
>thread full of spergs complaining about something they dont understand
always good to see that Dark Matter is still a great brainlet filter

[Anonymous No.16122014]

>>16117588

[Anonymous No.16122034]

>>16121263
it also gets filtered by every experiment attempting to detect it

[Anonymous No.16122060]

I figured out where dark matter was when I was drunk but forgot it since

its literally already around us, its part of atoms, something to do with how fusion releases more energy than the resulting mass of the new atom

[Anonymous No.16123173]

If dark matter is 95% of the universe how come there is no dark matter in our solar system? Doesn't that defy the Copernican principle?

[Anonymous No.16123703]

>>16123173
no its definitely here but its not on earth just in space around us

[Anonymous No.16123795]

>>16123703
Newton's solution for gravity wouldn't have worked if there were random invisible masses lurking all over the solar system

[Anonymous No.16123923]

>>16123173
>>16123795
People haven't shown there no dark matter in the solar system. The dynamics of the solar system are not dominated by DM, but you would never expect it to. Dark matter doesn't just follow the distribution of normal matter exactly, if that were true it would be totally redundant. Without the normal EM interactions it follows different physics to normal matter.

The distribution of dark matter is believed to be much smoother than normal matter. Without pressure and cooling matter could not collapse to form stars. Non-baryonic particles would feel the gravity of the Sun, but without EM forces they would pass through the Sun and leave the other side. The Galaxy's DM halo is believed to be pretty smooth.

Assuming the average density of dark matter is uniform in our part of the galaxy you can work out how much dark matter would be enclosed within the Solar System. Taking the estimated local dark matter density as 0.3 GeV/cm^3 (5.3 x 10^-22 kg/m^3) and summing the spherical mass within Neptune's orbit (30 AU) you get a mass of 2x10^17 kg. Which is tiny. 13 orders of magnitude lower mass than the Sun. It's about the same mass as medium sized asteroid, or one of Saturn's shitty little moons. The dynamics of the solar system are not well measured enough that you could measure this. And it would require first knowing every asteroid.

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2010/01/aa13381-09/aa13381-09.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimetheus_(moon)

Also DM is not proposed to be 95%.

[Anonymous No.16124010]

Why is dark matter still the prevailing theory? I understand it such that evidence of dark matter is really evidence of "if there was mass here that didn't interact with anything else then these measurements conform to current theory of gravity"
But isn't that a rather odd way of thinking? I thought physicists were past their edgy phase wherein they invented aether and shit.

[Anonymous No.16124234]

>>16124010
Because people have tried rewriting gravity, and every model put forward so far doesn't match the data. Also, there are basically infinite possibilities when it comes to modifying General Relativity, there are dozens of classes of models to date. Most of them much more complex than dark matter. For something to become the prevailing model it actually has to work.
On the other hand dark matter is a very simple proposal and the most simple version (cold DM) is consistent with all current data.
Also there's nothing more natural about assuming gravity is wrong vs assuming the matter distributions are wrong.
> there was mass here that didn't interact with anything else then these measurements conform to current theory of gravity
It's much more than that. DM isn't just injected into the gaps, it is a predictive model. With computational simulations one can simulate the formation of structure in the universe as the inital perturbations collapse to form galaxies. CDM has made many predictions on that basis, the most stunning being the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. These were predicted before they were measure. The fluctuations cannot be fit by assuming only normal matter. CDM has been tested in dozens of different ways.

[Anonymous No.16124305]

>>16124010
Basic iterative methodology - you start with explanations that don't require completely rewriting everything that already works first because they're easiest to rule out.

Suppose you see a series of experiments that involve non-reciprocation of action-reaction between particles (an apparent violation of Newton's 3rd Law). This is an actual thing we see in many plasma experiments involving interactions between larger particles. Would you immediately jump to "Newton's 3rd Law is wrong" and start trying to tackle all the things that Newton's 3rd Law explains... or do you start with "maybe there's another force we're not accounting for"?

[Anonymous No.16124938]

>>16121263
Please produce direct proof of dark matter. It's almost all of everything so that should be easy to do with decades of trying and tens of billions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.16124978]

>>16124938
Tens of billions of dollars spent by whom? Because NASA is a money laundering front the US government uses for shit like 9/11 and Epstein's assassination, and no one else is claiming to be doing anything in space research.

[Anonymous No.16125076]

>>16123795
theyre not random, theyre already a part of what we measure

learn to read english please

[Anonymous No.16125086]

>>16124234
>look at me!! I can spew my memorized collection of scyence buzzwords and catchphrases!!!! I'm soooo smart!!!!

[Anonymous No.16125206]

>>16124010
Because dark matter isn't a "theory", it's an observation of the astronomical data. Einstein's gravity makes sense exactly the way it is in localized parts of space. So what either has to happen is that gravity is modified in a way which preserves everything correct about it currently while ALSO conforming to observations. Or there's some invisible mass out in space, or both at the same time.

[Anonymous No.16125238]

>>16124938
10 of billions has not been spent looking for DM. That's bullshit.
Also people have spent 3 times longer looking for deviations from GR, literally a century of work. They have also found nothing.

[Anonymous No.16125372]

>>16124234
>>16124234
>DM isn't just injected into the gaps, it is a predictive model.
Interesting if true. Can you point me to any theory that predicts dark matter that in fact does not assume the existence of dark matter?

[Anonymous No.16125386]

>>16125372
That's not what I said. I said it isn't just defined as the difference between observation and expectation. There is a predictive model (LCDM), which can predict the distribution of matter on large scales. You cannot model anything without assuming it exists first.

[Anonymous No.16125391]

>>16125386
>You cannot model anything without assuming it exists first.
Then how is any of physics in the standard model predictive? You must be wrong.

[Anonymous No.16125406]

>>16125391
Because they make other predictions that can be tested. For example assuming there is dark matter has a significant effect on the fluctuations in the early universe, as seen in the cosmic microwave background. Dark matter models successfully predicted the form of these fluctuations, no model without dark matter has been able to fit the data.

[Anonymous No.16126401]

>>16125406
you have no idea what you're talking about and you can't do math

[Anonymous No.16126981]

>none of the experiments detect aether
>so it doesnt exist
>none of the experiments detect dark matter
>lets make a tv show on history channel that says its confirmed to exist

[Anonymous No.16126983]

>>16126981
>aether
what does it imply?

[Anonymous No.16126987]

>>16126983
surely not dark matter

[Anonymous No.16127087]

>>16126981
The experiments looking for DM only rule out specific particles within some energy and cross section. Similarly the aether experiments only ruled out specific models.
The aether only disappeared when it became redundant. The aether one needs to match relativity is not like any normal fluid, it behaves in a way that you can never measure your velocity with respect to it. Nobody has removed the need for DM.

[Anonymous No.16127127]

>>16123173
There is, what do you think gravity is?

[Anonymous No.16127161]

>>16127087
>Nobody has removed the need for DM.
NTA but all they need to do is send out a satellite equipped to detect plasma and they'll learn what takes up so much space in the universe. But that might actually involve upturning the status quo so they'll never do that and just keep doing bogus math to uphold the current, obviously failed models. Real progress isn't allowed in science any more.

[Anonymous No.16127177]

>>16127161
Literally hundreds of plasma instruments spread across dozens of missions have been flown, several of them dedicated to plasma (e.g. Cluster, WIND, MMS, Double Star, Geotail, THEMIS). All this data is sitting on archives while revolutionaries like yourself complain that nobody works on these things. You couldn't be more ignorant.
Knj

[Anonymous No.16127181]

>>16127177
Okay, can you link some results?

[Anonymous No.16127286]

>>16127181
https://lasp.colorado.edu/mms/sdc/public/community/papers/

https://sci.esa.int/web/cluster/-/39766-cluster-and-double-star-refereed-publications

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/public-libraries/DdelsbGYT5a8sM7CLujv_g

http://cdpp.irap.omp.eu/index.php/ressources/publications/science-application

http://sweap.cfa.harvard.edu/Publications.html

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.16127601]

>>16127087
>Nobody has removed the need for DM
You do if you just remove the need of forces and the idea of a universe with a beginning. Pure geometry desu

[Anonymous No.16128324]

>>16127127
there isn't any dark matter in the solar system, pluto would orbit the sun faster than earth does if there was. the solar system obeys conventional newtonian mechanics almost exactly

[Anonymous No.16128369]

>>16127087
>The aether one needs to match relativity is not like any normal fluid
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.16128391]

>>16128369
Not wrong
>it behaves in a way that you can never measure your velocity with respect to it

[Anonymous No.16128402]

>>16128324
Thing is bud, god is sitting right next to me and has been also sitting on my cock. This should be enough to explain that there may not be a solar system. This is likely a simulation. I'm pretty sure I'm the only real person here, which is really relieving because you niggers are in hell.

[Anonymous No.16128403]

>>16116766
>>16116810
wtf the thing whose defining capacity differentiating it from other things in the theory is that it can't be perceived by me?
and you're telling me I can't see it??!?!??!?
fake and gay!

[Anonymous No.16128413]

>>16128324
I can just tell you that and you'll miss it. I get raped by apparitions. He's omnipotent. He makes me hug and kiss different girls, but they're ghosts. The sex feels 100 times better than real sex, but he never lets me cum from it, so it's never something you want to happen really. It's actually annoying as fuck nigger. I'm trapped in some faggots torture reality. Nobody is even reading this, it just looks like I'm really cool. We're on hell.

[Anonymous No.16128504]

>>16128391
>it behaves in a way that you can never measure your velocity with respect to it
As expected of a normal universal perfect fluid.

[Anonymous No.16128599]

>>16128504
Nope. You can measure your velocity with respect to the air or the water. The aether can not be a normal fluid.
Also note that people only went to this version of the aether after the negative result from experiments like MM. They did not expect it.

[Anonymous No.16128811]

>>16128599
>air and water are perfect fluids
>MM experiment was negative not null
Popsci regurgitator.

[Anonymous No.16128996]

>>16128811
>air and water are perfect fluids
Doesn't matter. You can still measure the flow. And you didn't address the point that this result was not expected from aether proponents.

[Anonymous No.16129054]

>>16128996
If the fluid is so anormal, why do they use the Lorentz transformation used in aeroacoustics nowadays? Are they wrong or could 20th century physicists have jumped to conclusions?

[Anonymous No.16129115]

>>16129054
>If the fluid is so anormal, why do they use the Lorentz transformation used in aeroacoustics nowadays?
Show me an example. If what you say was true they would always have to use the Lorentz contraction. And yet they don't.
>Are they wrong or could 20th century physicists have jumped to conclusions?
But you said all perfect fluids behave like this. How could they get this wrong?

[Anonymous No.16129129]

>>16129115
>Show me an example. If what you say was true they would always have to use the Lorentz contraction. And yet they don't.
And yet they do. Minkowski spacetime, 4-vectors and all.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7511.pdf
If you don't like this paper in particular for some reason, you can find dozens like it, by the way.

>But you said all perfect fluids behave like this. How could they get this wrong?
What they were befuddled by was exactly the discovery that all perfect fluids actually do behave like that, but they thought that they didn't. That's how. It's fine, though, after all, it is a surprising fact, and fluid mechanics was still in its infancy.

[Anonymous No.16129134]

[Anonymous No.16129141]

>>16129129
>By writing the wave operator in terms of the Laplacian of the acoustic space-time we are able to show clearly why the wave operator takes complex and simple
forms in the different frames. The framework allows the transformation to
be understood in terms of a combined Galilean and Lorentz transform.
a) in the framework they need both Galilean and Lorentz transforms. Both. That is not a Lorentz aether.
b) this paper is just showing that you can write the normal fluid equations in terms like relativity. It does not say all fluids are lorentzian.

>What they were befuddled by was exactly the discovery that all perfect fluids actually do behave like that
Why don't you cite that. This paper does not.

[Anonymous No.16129163]

>>16129141
>moving the goalpost
Concession accepted.

[Anonymous No.16129167]

>>16124010
lazy reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16129215]

>>16129134
Maybe there's no dark matter or gravity and it's all just aether.

[Anonymous No.16129248]

>>16129134
it should say: if we invent dark matter it fits the data
and
once invented the predictions they make also fit the data (if they didnt we didnt invent enough dark matter!)

[Anonymous No.16129306]

>>16129134
>xkcd

[Anonymous No.16129706]

>>16129163
No, this was your original claim.
>As expected of a normal universal perfect fluid.
You have failed to support it.

[Anonymous No.16129743]

>>16129706
You failed to understand the support for it by opening the article and frantically looking for something to object on.
>fuckfuckfuck let's see... Galilean, that's the non relativistic stuff right? That means it's wrong!!
It comes off as pathetic and unserious, especially when you objected that they couldn't be using Lorentz transformations, and yet they are. That's the goalpost you moved.

Guess what you would get if the Minkowski spacetime of... space, were actually generated by a perfect fluid aether? That's right, you idiot, you'd get an Euclidean space + absolute time in which to do Newtonian mechanics, including Galilean transformations, that's the whole point of the aether.
That's exactly what they do in the paper by "combining" the Lorentz and Galilean transformations: first they build a Minkowski spacetime out of a fluid, which is the apparent space+time an observer in motion with respect of the fluid sees, solve the problem in the simplified frame, and then they transform back the result into the REAL stationary frame, that of the fluid at rest, i.e. the aether frame.

I told you that there are dozens of similar articles, and there are plenty where your silly routine of Ctrl-F "Galilean" will net you 0 results.

>b) this paper is just showing that you can write the normal fluid equations in terms like relativity. It does not say all fluids are lorentzian.
In other words, "you can interpret relativity in a fluid", but "that doesn't mean that you can interpret relativity in fluids!". Pathetic and unserious.

[Anonymous No.16129873]

>>16129743
>when you objected that they couldn't be using Lorentz transformations,
Bullshit. Quote me where I said this.

[Anonymous No.16129907]

>>16129873
>>16129115
>>If the fluid is so anormal, why do they use the Lorentz transformation used in aeroacoustics nowadays?
>Show me an example. If what you say was true they would always have to use the Lorentz contraction. And yet they don't.
Are you going to argue the semantics of this sentence now?

Here is a paper in which contraction of distances is explicitly mentioned (Ctrl-F Galilean = 0 results!)
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40509-024-00317-8.pdf (Page 8 of the PDF)
>This increase in apparent pressure and mass density makes sense physically, since the motion of the observer
shortens the effective distances between particles in the medium on average, as long as the inertial observer is
treated as pointlike to avoid symmetry-breaking drag from particle collisions while in motion. In the limit that
the observer moves through the medium near the speed of sound, the background medium will appear to have
no space between its particles, so the effective density and pressure of the medium will appear to diverge for the
moving observer. At the speed of sound c, the observer reaches a shock wave discontinuity where on average all
particles seem to have zero spacing between them and the spacetime description fails. Thus, from an equilibrium
perspective this spacetime formulation of acoustics describes the right behavior for speeds below the speed of
sound c.
You can clearly see the Lorentz factor being used right above this paragraph, too. Clearly, Minkowski geometry, the Lorentz transformation, and Lorentz contraction are being used in aeroacoustics nowadays, just as I said, and despite you claiming otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16129922]

>>16129907
It's not semantics. You are literally lying about what I said, a total strawman. And yet you say I am moving the goal posts, while you debate this invented argument yourself.

I never said that. So let me move the goalposts back to where they started. Where is your citation that all perfect fluids behave like this?

[Anonymous No.16129940]

>>16129922
>me: "they use Lorentz transformations in aeroacoustics"
>you: "if what you said were true, they'd do X, but they don't."
>I show you papers where they do, among other things that prove my point a fortiori, X.
>you: "that doesn't mean anything"
What's the point of being like this?

>Where is your citation that all perfect fluids behave like this?
What do you think aeroacoustics is? The study of broccoli? Sound propagation in a perfect fluid obeys the laws of Minkowski geometry and you think that somehow doesn't mean that perfect fluids behave "like this"?

[Anonymous No.16129951]

>>16129940
Why did you remove what I actually said.
>If what you say was true they would always have to use the Lorentz contraction. And yet they don't.
Did you show me that all papers use the Lorentz transform? No you didn't. Once again you have constructed a strawman.

>Sound propagation
Irrelevant. We are talking about the aether. Light propagation.

[Saint. Barkon No.16129955]

No more drugs.

[Saint. Barkon No.16129957]

>>16129955
Tutankamun

[Anonymous No.16129960]

>>16129951
They do always use the Lorentz transformation... within the acoustic spacetime. They don't mix formalism, until the last step, where they interpret the spacetime results into the fluid's rest frame. The only reason you're not allowed to do the same for Minkowski spacetime describing the propagation of light is dogma preventing you from uttering the words "aether rest frame". Minkowski geometry indisputably arises from the propagation of signals in (perfect) fluids, and the papers are sufficient to show just that.

>Irrelevant. We are talking about the aether. Light propagation.
If there is an aether that is a perfect fluid, then light is a wave propagating in it, genius. It turns out that wave propagation in a perfect fluid gives rise to Minkowski geometry, contrary to the expectations of 20th century physicists. Want me to repeat it once more?

[Anonymous No.16129965]

>>16129960
>They do always use the Lorentz transformation
Your own source disproved this. They used two other transforms.
>If there is an aether that is a perfect fluid, then light is a wave propagating in it, genius.
Not an accoustic wave.

Still waiting for your source.

[Anonymous No.16129970]

>>16129965
Unserious and pathetic. I gave you my sources. They do what I stated, and they contradict your claims.

[Anonymous No.16129979]

>>16129970
No rebuttal. Predicable.

[Anonymous No.16129991]

>>16129979
Pointless to argue with a brick wall.

[Anonymous No.16129999]

>>16116766
I'm pretty sure a wizard makes these posts which seem a bit too far along. The reason they make sense is because other pieces of dirt are also far along. But, when you ask, maybe they're all the wizard. We're in hell.

[Anonymous No.16130069]

>>16116766
https://www.savoir-sans-frontieres.com/JPP/telechargeables/English/janus-model-livre-Zejli/Janus_Cosmological_Model_Hicham_Zejli.pdf

Dark matter and dark energy are negative masses.

We can't see them because we can't see negative energy light.

[Anonymous No.16130864]

>>16129960
schizophasia

[Anonymous No.16132122]

[Cult of Passion No.16132147]

>>16129960
I like the one on the right, it looks like shit in my brain-hole. Same for Minkowski geometry.

[Cult of Passion No.16132149]

>>16130069
>We can't see them because we can't see negative energy light.
Based.

Avert ye eyes, mortal. Be not aware.

[Cult of Passion No.16132153]

>>16132147
This is all spherical though, so none of that cone 'n plane shit. I go into sub-Dimensions and split SpaceTime into two but keep half of either. Complete retooling of Space, Time, Motion, Gravity.

[Cult of Passion No.16132154]

I shall cut thee in twix.
[slain]

[Cult of Passion No.16132158]

>>16132154
Oh, and his "Greatest moment." is exactly the same as the one I had, mirror image, I can literally reverse engineer his creatikn of spacetime itself.

It literally requires Split-Perception, as he was viewing reality equally from the center of the planet as he was the man falling, same time.

That means two hemispheres each hel a vector of perspective to center the Maths needing in relations to each other. His middle hemisphere did the calculation.

"Science could not save my body...but my brain, that was worth saving, on two hundred thousand feet of databanks."

[Anonymous No.16132160]

>>16116766
>empirical evidence of dark meat entering your mother

[Anonymous No.16132415]

>>16129960
>If there is an aether that is a perfect fluid, then light is a wave propagating in it, genius.
Aether was never regarded as a fluid, but rather a solid. This is because light was modelled as transverse waves, to allow for polarisation, not longitudinal acoustic-type waves.

[Anonymous No.16132714]

>>16132415
>Aether was never regarded as a fluid,
Also wrong, but the transverse waves did make some think it had solid-like properties. Euler believed the aether to be a fluid strongly enough that he invented his fluid equations just to describe its internal motion.
The "vortex sponge" model allowed for such elastic solid-like properties to emerge in such a perfect fluid: you don't see them arise in day-to-day fluids because they are imperfect, so vortices quickly dissipate.
The vortex sponge model obeys Maxwell's equations almost by definition: that's how he mechanically derived his laws, with the vortices corresponding to Faraday's tubes of force.

People take a couple mishaps between the 19-20th century (Kelvin's vortex knots theory of atoms missing the mark, Lorentz not quite knowing what to do with Lorentz contraction), and then project them centuries backwards, pretending that a very fruitful model wasn't so.

[Anonymous No.16133093]

>>16129134
Is this image the dark matter? Simply directly observe dark matter rather than assuming something which makes wrongmath go away exists.

[Cult of Passion No.16133101]

>>16132714

[Anonymous No.16134093]

>>16129134

[Cult of Passion No.16134160]

>>16134093
>>16132154
I had to split Spacetime in two to do certain calculation/room to do stuff with, with each half having part of space and part of time, to "make the magic work" in my Theory. Otherwise its Unidimensional Space(Gravity+)-Time-Motion-Energy and I have no room to fiddle-fuck-with-it.

Absolutely will not make sense to you, enertia without motion, spin without spinning. Feels very "can know how fast its going but not where it is".

[Anonymous No.16134239]

>>16116766
>where the jew lies?

[Anonymous No.16134480]

I have a box full of dark matter, how much is it worth?

[Anonymous No.16135512]

>>16134480
exchanging dark matter for fiatbux is the most appropriate financial transaction that could be imagined

[Anonymous No.16135692]

>>16135512
kek

[Anonymous No.16135983]

>>16116766
>...where the dark matter particles?
they're in a hidden, 'large' (micron scale), higher spatial dimension

[Anonymous No.16135987]

>>16134239

[Anonymous No.16135997]

>>16118639
people kept looking for Vulcan for 60+ years so we have a couple of decades of this dark matter bullshit to go

[Anonymous No.16136652]

>>16135997
(((dark matter)) is 50 years old

[Anonymous No.16136697]

>...where the dark matter particles?

If they exist: not yet detected

[Anonymous No.16137727]

>>1611866
Electromagnetism explain magnetic/electric fields to be self contained, there is no need of a EM web deployed through the universe, so, no, at least form modern physics EM universe is a scam.

[Anonymous No.16137772]

>>16137727
Yeah, according to the modern physics which insists the universe is full of "dark matter" as an explanation to specifically avoid admitting that the answer has always been aether and electricity.

[Anonymous No.16137855]

>>16137772
>>What if it's invisible matter?
>Boo. Unscientific.
>>It's actually invisible currents and an immeasurable medium.
>Oh that's must be true. No need to test it or even elaborate.

[Anonymous No.16137858]

>>16137772
Both, the EU and the DM thingy are wrong.

[Anonymous No.16138583]

>>16137772
>Yeah, according to the modern physics which insists the universe is full of "dark matter" as an explanation to specifically avoid admitting that…
…Einstein was wrong

[Anonymous No.16139539]

>>16138583
His version of gravity does not predict observed reality, so dark matter was invented as a fudge factor to protect his reputation and his atheist big bang version of cosmology, which is also clearly wrong