>Stars, planets, and gas make up only 5 percent of the Universe. The rest is 25 percent dark matter and 70 percent dark energy, both of which are invisible and have never been directly detected.
This theory sure gets trotted out as immutable fact a lot lately. When will science admit that cosmology is just plain broken?
Would you prefer the alternative?
>Stars, planets, and gas make up only 5 percent of the Universe
Correction: observable matter only holds 5% of the total energy content of the Universe. The rest is divided into matter which we cannot see, and an energy density of free space which drives the accelerated expansion of spacetime.
It's about as substantiated.
OP quote is verbatim pasted from a popsci article. This is par.
>I don't understand modern physics.
>But I'm going to tell everyone how dumb it is anyway.
That's nice.
I remember when mainstreamers would talk shit about people poking holes in superstring theory. Cosmology is the cart leading the horse, and that thinking is polluting other physics.
>i'm going to read shitty pop-culture distillations of hot new physics facts and treat them as accurate representation of modern physics
>dark energy
>fact
>When will science admit that cosmology is just plain broken?
Pretty sure science knows that cosmology is broken which is why nobody gives a fuck about it.
I would say that the energy distribution between visible matter and "something else" is fact and we have given "something else" a label. But if that triggers you, you can just say "can't know nuffin".
abc.net.au
>there's dark radiation now
>dark matter
make the universe great again
This is fair enough, but I still think it's hilarious how out of whack our cosmology is with what we're actually seeing.
95% "dark". Mmmkay. But tell me again what happened 100ms after the big bang.
It'll be okay user, just forget the standard model for 20 years until we have one that is less shit.
>Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Even wikipedia thinks you are a retard.
That 70% dark energy and 25% dark matter are entirely different fudges. The current theory requires not one, but two fudges to solve two independent and significant shortfalls, and those two fudges require one to believe that 95% of the cosmos is unobservable.stuff.
That's a pretty busted theory in my opinion and surely fails the science sniff-test.
Science even don't know what happen deep in ocean, but it "know" everything about space.
This is beyond of retardation level of stupidty, honestly
...
That alternative is made by modern American.
>We
No kid, some douche-bags use tax money to play with fancy tools and make assumptions over already theoretical observations.
Their measurements have to fit int already established system - all random numbers are corrected trough that.
What if the CBR isn't echoes of the big bang but the ubiquitous transmissions of civilizations, as inferred by the Fermi paradox.
>clouds, wind, and air temperature are all mediated by an invisible, impossible to smell, impossible to touch substance called "air"
This theory sure gets trotted out as immutable fact a lot lately. When will science admit that meteorology is just plain broken?
I can feel air. Pathetic attempt there.
Everyone knows you can feel wind. What do you mean you can feel "air?"
Also a "dark photon" carrying a new dark force. xD
sciencealert.com
We can also see air trough the use of so many tools - also there's a taste of air, many experiments showed that unanimous text subjects observed a difference between air and pure oxygen in taste.
>can't feel air
What is wind.
There's a black science guy shilling all this black and dark shit.
Point being that we have plenty of evidence for the existence of dark matter.
Just because the complicated physics involved isn't accessible to normies doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Then I'll summon the Dark Magician!
I can physically feel it moving through my nostrils and into my lungs. I can feel it on my skin when I move. Try harder retard.
>we have
No you don't have any - show us your scientific papers.
>invisible
>unobservable.stuff.
This meme really needs to die. Dark matter is observable, it just doesn't interact through the electromagnetic interaction, so you have to obserbe it using different interactions, namely gravitation (and maybe the weak interaction) dark matter is as observable as atoms, nuclei and a whole host of other things in physics.
I understand the theory, and all evidence is implied. The standard model is broke, gravity isn't a quantum force, general relativity has become dogma.
Observable, but unknown, and without an obvious theoretical framework to explain it. And it's most of the universe.
You mean the math works if you pretend dark matter exists. That's all there is to it, to imply otherwise is disingenuous. Cart leading the horse.
>and without an obvious theoretical framework
You say that but there's a fuck load of hypotheses floating about.
No, he means that it's hypothetically observable as opposed to readily observable which is not unobservable. Reading comprehension.
If you doubt the evidence for dark matter then you must also doubt the evidence for nuclei and xrays. You can't see either directly, but you can see their effects.
That's highly disingenuous. The evidence for dark matter is a tautology.
>babby's first time realizing that science is all about affirming the consequent
>The evidence for dark matter is a tautology.
Pray tell how?
>gravitic behaviour at the galactic scale is only accurately predictable with a constant fudge
>pretend the contant fudge is something real
>observe matter acting consistantly in the context of the constant fudge
>therefore dark matter exists
All the cosmological fudge proves is that gravitic theory requires a cosmological fudge.
...
>doesn't know what gravity is
>doesn't know what dark matter is
>doesn't know what dark energy is
>doesn't know what space is
>cosmology
So you'd rather that we didn't update models when new evidence becomes available? That's a strange way to do science user. Further galactic rotation curves are experimentally measured and then compared against a theoretical curve that follows Newtonian mechanics. Moreover assuming cold dark matter gives better predictions of the evolution of the universe to the current large scale structure, by which I mean a dark matter hypothesis gives better predictions of things like density of galaxies and the like over a cosmology without that hypothesis.
>This theory sure gets trotted out as immutable fact a lot lately. When will science admit that cosmology is just plain broken?
Dark matter and dark energy are definitely detectable, they are just not observable directly because they do not interact with the electromagnetic field. If you are willing to admit you're talking out your ass, I'll be glad to explain how dark matter/energy were discovered, respectively.
It shows a bias towards creating a new particle rather than consider that our understanding of the way particles interact is flawed.
Of course, there is good reason to think that, but it's pretty far away from being an established scientific fact.
Ur mom makes up 5% of the universe
The entire concept of dark matter is unintuitive and doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not an acclaimed published physicist so what the fuck do I know
It's not too hard to have a cursory understanding of what dark matter is.
Basically, gravity means that mass attracts mass. Physicists were looking at galaxies orbiting the centers of galaxy clusters (you can think of them as kind of like solar systems but with entire galaxies instead of planets). They found that these galaxies were moving unusually fast, so fast that they weren't expected to be moving in a stable 'orbit' in those galaxy clusters. They added up the mass of all of the galaxies, and realized that for these galaxies to be moving in the way that they were, there was tons of mass in the empty space between the galaxies that we couldn't observe. That's dark matter.
sorry, I mean I have a somewhat basic understanding of what it is
I'm just stating that no matter what my opinion is of the subject, the fact that I'm not a PhD in cosmology means that whatever I think doesn't matter, because I'm not qualified to have an opinion of if its true or not and argue for it.
Just a jab at ppl in the thread
>the model doesn't work without them
>detected
While that's a reasonable hypothesis, it's also highly possible that the current understanding of gravity is so broken that it's not even wrong. There are a ton of assumptions in gravitic theory, namely that it propagates at c. It is slightly heretical to consider otherwise because gravity is also assumed to be a quantum force, which it may not be. In fact nobody knows what gravity is or how it works.
Dark matter is a massive joke.