EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.
So have you actually looked into the data at all?
Sounds like the retired engineer that has a theory cliché.
Yeah, basically.
I wonder why lay people find adding a new form of particle to the stable to be so much more intuitively objectionable than hacking into our theory of gravity to make it align with observations.
Modifying the theory of gravity to fit the data might be useful even if it’s just for modelling purposes. But it doesn’t make a theory for sure.
I am also an (non retired) engineer, but alas I have no theory of my own :)))
Oh it’s definitely useful, that’s what MOND theories are. If we didn’t do it, we wouldn’t now why it’s less likely than dark matter.
No, I’m just wondering about the reasoning for something that has not been observed except for it’s gravity effects. I mean, physics has loads of incomplete models, so for me, just another incomplete model looks more likely than some phantom particles that nobody can explain.
That reasoning is public information; all of the data that led these conclusions has been published. I would recommend you have enough respect for scientists to actually read some of it before writing it all off out of hand.
Also, we can explain dark matter, in fact we have multiple explanations. What we don’t have is a way to determine which is right yet.
The problem is that most writing on that topic is incomprehensible even for me. And I’m not even part of the non-science crowd - my specialization is just elsewhere.