Why, exactly, do scientists believe this shit makes up the vast majority of the energy in the universe when it's completely undetectable by any means known to man? So far the only "evidence" for it I've found is scientists are completely incapable of explaining the expansion of the universe without it. Is there more?
>>16386132This image has literally never been refuted
>>16386132Dark matter is what's left over from galaxies ravaged by alien civilizations that reached a technological singularity.
>>16386132>scientistsFirst of all, it's cosmologists.Second of all, it's either assuming "dark matter/energy" or acknowleding the physics as we know them here in Earth is not what is going on out there, in which case nobody then actually have any clue what is going on out there. That's a prospect too inconvenient for people to care to admit.
>>16386145Is not that simple at all. There is far less dark matter in young galaxies and there is also far less dark matter in far away galaxies. Is not as simple as just adding some numbers to fix equations.
>>16386145>calculations>doesn't show the other calculations where the 3 came from
>>16386370sometimes I wonder if space is dark so we dont see whats lurking in it.
>>16386132it's the dumbest shitof all the things that could cause some unknown galactic effect, why "matter?" why pick the one thing we can literally always observe lmao
What would happen if you grabbed a bottle of dark matter and put it in the microwave?
>>16386132my theory is that there are multiple "layers" or "dimensions" if you will that we can detect the presence of on large scales but that we can't interact with.
>>16386132it's no different than the "aether" or other artifacts of how science understood the world before a deeper, more accurate model was discovered.
>>16389080they only disproved lumineferous aether! it's possible aether is real but just doesn't interact with the EM spectrum
