>can't be observed or measured>can't be disproved by any experiment>dogmatic in nature>it just works, so don't ask questionsSeems pretty anti-scientific to me. Why are people so close minded to alternatives?
>>16810197>Why are people so close minded to alternatives?Like what?
>>16810201Like quantized inertia
You are absolutely free to submit alternatives. You'll just have to deal with the fact that ideas have inertia too, and leading ones won't suddenly give up the lead overnight.
>>16810204How does that explain galaxy formation and dynamics?
>>16810207It accounts for motion of spiral galaxies based on observable matter, instead of having to invent 75% of mass of the universe as imaginary dark matter.
>>16810211Okay, and galaxy formation?
>>16810206>You'll just have to deal with the fact that ideas have inertia tooScience has become a jobs project. The orthodoxy is only interested in self preservation, not the truth.
>>16810213Okay, and evidence of dark matter?
>>16810217It kinda makes sense.
>>16810217It explains stuff that's not explained by models without dark matter
>>16810219>1+1 should equal 2>theory insists it must = 8>add +6 dark matter so 1+1 real matter = 8>75% of the universe is now imaginary >no scientific basis>only exists because the math for orthodox theories doesn't work without itSeems kind of sus.
>>16810197Very cool, but did you consider that I'm a clinically retarded frogposter?
>>16810223Trvst the science. It'll make sense eventually**
>>16810223>1+x = 8>x=1 because I dont like 7
>>16810220It's a lazy justification when models fail. Math doesn't work? Just add extra mass with no limit until the numbers balance!
>>16810228>It's a lazy justification when models fail.Then propose a better model
>>16810229Quantized inertia. No fantasy matter required.
>>16810231I don't think you know what better means
>>16810232Its an open playing field seeing as dark mater is pure dogma and has zero scientific merit.
>>16810233Good, then publish it
>>16810197what is it about space and cosmology that attracts so many pseuds?Is it the grandiose scale?Is it the comic-book nature of entities such as black holes or dark energy?You barely see threads about material science or chemical synthesis
>>16810235Tectonic plates were real, even prior to the 1960's when all the boomers finally gave up and accepted that they were wrong all along. Your appeal to authority argument foreshadows things to come.
>>16810239Because dark matter and dark energy is a lie on a cosmic scale. No one has the audacity to try and fudge the numbers like that. Maybe a few percent here or there, but to say the majority of all mass and all energy is imaginary? That's chutzpah that will attract attention.
>>16810240I don't give two shits about dark matter, I have no personal investment in whether it's correct or not.But you'd have to be incredibly stupid to think you're the first person to notice it's a bit of an adhoc asspull and your model is just so much better.There's a reason why it's still considered the most promising approach.
>can't be observed or measuredYes it can, we observe or measure the gravity it causes.> can't be disproved by any experimentYou are mixing up two fact. Dark Matter as the label for a set of unexplained observations and dark matter is formed of some particle(s) that explain those observations. pop-sci just happens to use the same name for both things to the confusion of everyone.> dogmatic in natureIf by dogmatic you mean a single, simple hypothesis that explains all the observations, then sure.
>>16810251Your attitude is why unscientific theories that ultimately failed the test of time lasted as long as they did. You don't give a shit, and you've never even thought about it, you just support the consensus, no matter what it says.
>>16810253>we observe or measure the gravity it causes.You invent 75% of the universe being dark matter because that's the only way to make theory conform to observation. That's the opposite of validating theory with observation, it's the antithesis of science.
>have theory of the universe>completely fails when measuring the actual universe>declare the universe is fake and gay for being wrong>actual universe is 4x bigger, but so fake and gay it has to be real>no one gets paid enough to throw shade>your bullshit is true by default
>>16810260Fakest, gayest shit ever.
A DARK MATTER JUST FLEW OVER MY HOUSE!
>>16810201>>16810206>>16810207>>16810219>>16810220>>16810229>>16810232>>16810235>>16810253The crux of the matter, no pun intended, is not that if you add mass back into universe then GR works, it's what the nature of that matter you add is. It is quite clear it cannot be any particle from the standard model, so if it is a particle it is by definition exotic, having exotic properties. And where do exotic particles come from? Your imagination.
>>16810257> You invent 75% of the universe being dark matter because that's the only way to make theory conform to observation.Well, yes. That's how theories that have stood the test of time work. You don't just suddenly scrap them when they still successfully explain everything else we have observed. There's nothing special about assuming a particle exists we can't "see". All that means is that it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force.
>>16810280or the strong forceor the nuclear force
>>16810281Yes, and? You also don't care about those at galactic scales.
>>16810283and that particle doesnt exist
>>16810285prove it
>>16810288*looks in detector* yep not there
>>16810330Why would you expect a particle that only interacts via gravity to be detected?
>>16810211Let's make a list of shit which QI cannot explain:>Galaxy ClustersAbove the scale of individual galaxies are clusters. They are orders of magnitude more massive, and their mass is easy to measure by lots of ways. Dark matter models describe clusters well. And they pass specific tests like the Bullet Cluster, where most of the normal matter has been stripped out in a collision. And yet the gravitational effect traced by lensing shows the lensing does not follow the normal matter.QI just copies the equations of MOND, which are from the 1980's. MOND (and QI) can fit galaxies, as MOND was designed to but the modification is not enough to explain clusters. Zero dark matter alternative models can quantitatively explain the bullet cluster. Mike of course claims he can explain it, but provided absolutely nothing of substance. This is not science, it's a handwave.https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-bullet-cluster-looks-like-qi-effect.htmlDark matter models can calculate the lensing map and compare that to simulations and real data. QI can do nothing. There is nothing to test here because it's more of a vibe than a model. MOND proponents have at least tried to explain the bullet cluster, but they end up adding dark matter.
>>16810597
>>16810354I detected it but its just me being sensitive
>>16810597Also in general QI (like MOND) cannot actually calculate relativistic effects, because it's no-relativistic. So you can add to this list:>Gravitational lensingLensing is very powerful in that it lets you make maps of all the mass (or the apparent mass). The statistics are in very agreement with Cold Dark Matter models from scales of galaxies, up to cluster and then on even larger scale. The statistics of these maps are a test of cosmology and dark matter models. There are no QI models to even try.
>>16810674>Large scale structure and galaxy clusteringThe distribution of galaxies is not random. Galaxies are correlated with each other, they cluster together with a strength that depends on the separation. The 3D structure is also not just lumpy, but it forms a network of filaments called the Cosmic Web. Right around the time the filaments and voids were being found early calculations showed that in cold dark matter simulations you get pancakes and eventually filaments. More modern computer simulations take simple initial conditions taken from the CMB and simulate the effect of gravity. The left and top panels are simulated data from Cold Dark Matter simulations, which look pretty much indistinguishable from reality. These distributions can be quantified and compared statistically. What about QI? There is no QI cosmology, so you cannot even try to do these simulations to test it. MOND people have tried and failed.
>>16810691>The bottom and right* ones are panels are simulated data
>>16810691Another cornerstone of cosmology:>The fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave BackgroundThe CMB was emitted in the early universe, it is a fossil record of the fluctuations of the universe at that early epoch. It shows the fluctuations were much smaller back then. Before these fluctuations had even been observed theorists had calculated them in detail. Hot big bang cosmology predicted that there would be acoustic modes in the fluctuations, which were the imprint of sound waves in the primordial plasma. A nice feature is that dark matter and normal baryonic matter behave differently back then, as dark matter has no pressure. The result is that Cold Dark Matter cosmologies predict a very different distribution than cosmologies with only normal matter. MOND proponents proposed this as a test of their cosmology. The result was that the observations closely matched the predictions of Cold Dark Matter, eventually ruling out baryon only cosmology. Again QI offers nothing. Mike claims QI could help the low power below l of about 10. But he ignores that his model doesn't include CDM, and would fuck the rest of the powerspectrum. But of course he waves his hands. QI is not a serious dark matter alternative.
>>16810704Pic related is what happens if you remove dark matter from these models. It fails to match reality. The only way alternative models have manged to fit this is by adding complex additional fields to their cosmology, which behave like matter. At which point you're trading invisible matter-like fields for invisible matter. And remember that Cold Dark Matter hasn't been forced to fit the data like these proposals, it predicted observations.
>>16810214But that has always been like that, right?
>>16810707>Cosmology and the expanding universeFundamental to being able to make any calculations in the universe is having a cosmological model. This describes the geometry and evolution of the universe. In standard cosmology dark matter isn't just sprinkled where it is needed, it self consistently added into the model of how the universe expands. If you change that model, you change everything. But without that you cannot really interpret anything.QI has no self consistent cosmology. It also has fundamental self-contradictions. For example a key parameter in QI is the radius of the observable universe. Mike assumes the standard value. But that isn't a measurement, it is a calculation from a model. And the model which was used to calculate it was Lambda Cold Dark Matter. It makes absolutely no sense. If you remove DM the radius will drastically change. Another piece of evidence that it's more numerology than physics.
>>16810704Dark matter doesn't have zero pressure; rather, its pressure is considered negligible for cosmic models, allowing it to be treated as an ideal fluid with a very small pressure, or even as "dust" in some contexts, because it lacks self-interaction and interaction with the electromagnetic force. This characteristic pressure determines how dark matter behaves as it clumps and forms structures under gravity, a process crucial for understanding the large-scale structure of the universe.
>>16810223This. When their theories fall flat due to new information they just make up shit to keep their original theories correct. The days of the scientific method are gone.
