So it's just bandaid to fix an obviously flawed theory right?
>>16976397relativity has to be right... because
>>16976397No. Dark matter is a term for observations that seem to indicate extra matter that we can't see, but we can detect the effects of its gravity. Dark matter is not a theory, or a fix for a theory. It's a set of astronomical observations. It indicates that the accepted theories are incomplete. There are many new or extended theories that attempt to explain it but none are widely accepted. You could call them dark matter theories, although they have their own names and many of them are completely different from each other.
>>16976397yes, the standard model is obviously flawed, everything we know about gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong force is wrongall the predictions about planets, stars, galaxies, spacecrafts and GPS were working just by accidentnuclear powerplants, electron microscopes and all kinds of other devices based on what we thought we knew are going to fail any minute nowor what we know just applies to 5% of gravitationally interacting matter and we can admit we don't know where the rest comes from
>>16976401Even the modified Newtonian theories these days end up incorporating some amount of dark matter. It's hard to escape it.
>>16976401Because it explains everything we can see. It doesn't suddenly become wrong just because there is something else we don't understand.
>>16976397it perfectly fits the observations and it's reproduciblenothing wrong with that
>>16976451>perfectly fits the observationsExcept that dark matter itself has never been observed, it's a stop gap to plug a flawed model.
>>16976477your brain was never observed either, but your ability to form simple sentences implies there probably is some structure in your skull, doesn't itwe observe that something interacts with gravity, so there probably is somethingand since it doesn't interact with light we call it darkit's literally admitting our reality model is incomplete
Dark matter is simply a limitation of instruments that are only capable of detecting photons. Clearly there's another form of matter out there inducing gravitational effects that doesn't produce photons.
>>16976477Dark matter is literally all proposed BECAUSE it is observed. Notwithstanding it was predicted to exist before observation using the virtual theorem from fritz zwicky. Shut the fuck up and never comment on this topic again, retard.
>>16976547Virial theorem*Fuck my fat fingers and fucking autocorrect
>>16976545> doesn't produce photonsStrictly speaking it's not about photons. A better description is that it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it physically can't interact with normal matter.
>>16976547Nah that's ok, he can feel free to comment as much as he wants. Seethecope
>>16976552That sounds like convenient word salad for something you can't produce in a lab setting. Aka pseudoscience
>>16976552It literally does interact with normal matter. That's how it's observed, by exerting extra gravitational force. Yes it is more precise to say it doesn't interact with the EM field, that is fair. The point is that no photons are detected so it is reasonable to conclude photons aren't emitted. It could in principle interact with the EM field in an exotic way such that they're never produced, for example like gluons.
>>16976477It has been observed all the time, which is why we know it's there.
>>16976555I was trying to get across the fact it *only* interacts via gravity (and possibly with itself). Which also means all those dark matter detectors being built are doomed to failure from the very start.
>>16976565>I was trying to get across the fact it *only* interacts via gravity (and possibly with itself). Which also means all those dark matter detectors being built are doomed to failure from the very start.This is not actually known for certain even if likely which is why they are building those detectors in the first place.
>>16976580Fair but the simplest explanation is usually the right one. If it could interact EM at all there should have been some kind of astronomical observation by now. Best chance is some kind of weak or strong force interaction, but that's it.
>>16976583>the simplest explanation is usually the right oneWhy do midwits say stuff like this? The simplest explanation is almost never the right one.
>>16976595>occam's razor is for midwitsdelete your internet. you will never be a scientist
>>16976583>Fair but the simplest explanation is usually the right one.Perhaps but again that's why they are making these experiments, to make sure.>Best chance is some kind of weak or strong force interaction, but that's it.See, you are already contradicting your earlier post about only gravitic interactions.
>>16976481Can we just auto post this response to every retard who makes a new thread about dark matter and physics being wrong
>>16976596Except that's not even Occam's Razor but the dumbed down niggercattle version. Occam's Razor (proper) has its own problems but you're not even on that level yet.
>>16976595> The simplest explanation is almost never the right one.Give examples from science where that was the case.
>>16976447It's not like there haven't been other scientific theories that appeared to be predictive but turned out to be wrong or at best, downstream from something else.
>>16976552Then how can it effect gravity and be measured?
>>16976397wait till you hear about the rest of astronomy and cosmology.
>>16976640light behaves like a wave because it travels through the liquid ether.
>>16976831Anything with mass produces gravity. That has nothing to do with electric charge.
>>16976842but light is made of photons, checkmate ethertard
Around 30% but no lower?
>>16976397It isn't a bandaid if it dominates matter gravitationally.It means that either:1) Observed matter has been dramatically undercounted (less likely)2) galaxy scale gravity is calculated incorrectly (very likely)3) void areas between stars are misunderstood (extremely likely)Add in that the hubble constant is now dead and the universe's accelerated expansion is not strongly supported by observation.
>>16976451>it perfectly fits the observationsNo, it is the error between theory amd observation >and it's reproducibleThe observed error is reproducible, so the error between theory and observation is real. But it has zero predictive power and the error varies wildly.>nothing wrong with thatDark matter theory fails in every way. All it does is gives the unpredictable error a name.
>>16977000> it is the error between theory amd observation Nope. Not true at all. If it's anything it's a mismatch between two observations, or rather one observation (gravity) and a lack of one (light).
>>16977007Are you stupid?You theory predicted a specific gravitational lensing associated with an assumed matter density that is infered by associating the detected ligjt with "standard candle" star types.The whole process is your theory. None of it is fully severable and all of it has associated error.Your theory is has an error of 2000%, p-value of 20. Statistics consider a p-value of 0.05 or lower as useful, and scientists usually want a much smaller p-value before confirming any other theory.
>>16977011Gravitational lensing, galaxy rotation curves, the structure of superclusters, the Bullet Cluster, the Lambda-CDM model, the CMB, Baryon acoustic oscillations, I could go on.All observations and evidence of gravitational mass without any matter interacting through electromagnetism. With that many observations, where's the error retard?
>>16977015>where's the error retard?You calculated 5 and observed 100, then added 95 to balance the equation. That might be acceptable if your dark matter error were consistent, instead galaxies have varrying percentages of dark matter for no apparent reason. You have a heterogeneous dark matter error.
>>16977040> if your dark matter error were consistentWhy would you expect dark matter to be homogeneous? Normal matter isn't, it's clumpy as well.
>>16977040If it was a constant offset everywhere then you could just change the gravitational constant to account for it. Dark matter alternatives like MOND actually struggle more explaining galaxies without dark matter. But from dark matter theory it's not unexpected, some galaxies form in mergers where you end up with negligible dark matter. Galaxies also vary wildly in terms of the fraction of their mass in gas vs stars, because the behave differently, as does cold dark matter. There are things you do expect to be consistent. Massive galaxy clusters are so massive that gravitationally trap normal matter and dark matter, so they all basically have the same fraction, the universal fraction. Simulations also predict that the profiles of dark matter halos are self-similar, and have a pretty universal profile from tiny galaxies up to clusters. One can also the measurements against gravitational lensing and galaxy clustering, which are consistent with the models.
>>16977040this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is. physicists observe anomalies in data, and those anomalies are categorized as dark matter. all it means is that photon are not being detected, yet gravitational effects are still observed. this is why dark matter is usually said to be cold, since all the hot objects like stars give off light. one could assume that there are celestial sized asteroids, but they would still reflect light. so this implies that all these gravitational effects observed somehow1. interact with ordinary matter2. give off no light3. cannot reflect light4. spans large distances between and within galaxies5. affects short range distances through lensing is it possible these are different dark matters? maybe. but nobody fucking knows what this is. saying it doesn't exist woefully misses the point and exposes you as a complete pseud.
