>>16959669
good question, i think dark matter isn't true and things like high orbital speeds at the edge of galaxies can be explained by gravitaitonal mechanisms , just that GR isn't ready yet.

>>16959669
Why does it always gotta be particles?

>>16959669
>my theory requires magic matter you can't prove exists to work
>it's the universe that's wrong, not my theory

>>16959669
There was that one lady on curt's channel/podcast who believes something like all the evidence for dark matter might just be an issue of modeling, in that all the models make too many assumptions on how matter is distributed, when in fact there could be possible distributions that via gravity lensing make it seem like there's more matter than there actually is, something like that.

>>16959669
They're dark,that's why we can't see it.
>>16960701
Yeah that sounds stupid, but that's not actually what dark matter theory is. It's more like, "My theory allows me to make extremely precise exact calculations of gravitational force but there are certain specific scenarios where it is unusually inaccurate like the spinning of galaxies, however there is abundant evidence that the mass of galaxies is larger than we first assumed and we can even measure it by the way that galaxies collide.
The "my theory requires magic you can't prove exists to work" is the argument that religions use usually.
Lol.

>>16960324
the theories predict them
but until confirmed it's just a name tag for the thing that makes that effect in galaxies