Dark "Matter"

>Dark matter and dark energy are mathematical solutions to the discrepancies of special relativity and gravitational theory and observations of the cosmos.
That's like calling ingredients in a cake "stuff" and acting like that's a recipe.

MOND/TeVeS/whatever are an alternative explanation, but doesn't explain all phenomena associated with dark matter. Let's see how they develop.

My biggest criticism is why call it "exotic invisible matter"?

That's where the whole discussion falls off a cliff in my opinion. Why is that more valid than say "Jesus is using his magic"? Seems like a cop out.

No it would be assuming that the cake contained yeast or had a series of self-creating air bubbles because you don't know anything about baking soda.

>Dark matter and dark energy are mathematical solutions to the discrepancies of special relativity and gravitational theory and observations of the cosmos.
False.
>Dark matter and dark energy are mathematical solutions to the discrepancies of gravitational theory and models of the composition of the universe and observations of the cosmos.

> dark matter is theorized to exist in places where we expect to see more matter than we observe.
False again. From simulations it has been shown that from simple initial conditions we get from the cosmic microwave background cold dark matter collapses to form self-similar halos with a universal density profile. Cold dark matter tells you what shape a relaxed halo is in, you cannot have any dark matter configuration you can imaging, the model isn't that flexible.

>its predictive ability is laughable at best.
CDM predicted the CMB powerspectrum, which is sensitive to both the density of normal matter and the total matter density of the universe. From there LCDM predicted the baryon acoustic oscillation peak in the clustering of galaxies in it's amplitude and scale, it was confirmed in 2005. CDM naturally predicts the bullet cluster, no non-dark matter model has explained it in full to this day. LCDM makes lots of predictions. Don't talk shit about things you clearly know nothing about.

"Dark matter" is just a theory, there are alternatives as mentioned before that do not introduce unknown matter. As of yet, it's the only theory that explains all observations.

Only it creates a bigger problem by creating a new matter that cannot be observed.

It's a really shit solution.

>My biggest criticism is why call it "exotic invisible matter"?
The term Dark Matter was coined by Zwicky because typical mass to light ratios could not explain the dynamics of the Coma cluster. There was "dark matter".

> Why is that more valid than say "Jesus is using his magic"?
Because you can simulate dark matter. You can make powerful predictions and you can look for discrepancies. It's a testable hypothesis, unlike magic Jesus.

I'm a brainlet, but from what I understand things behave like they have a lot more mass than we can observe, therefore we call that extra "mass" that we see "dark matter" because we don't know what it is really and can't detect it. We can only detect its side effects. That's my VERY loose understanding of it and I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong or have this explained in grwater detail.

dark matter is unknown matter
therefore it does not exist
this is a mere invention by scientists to get
subsidies
go fuck off OP

But it has been observed. Indirectly, granted, but it has been observed. Implausibility is not an argument really. Most of the physics developed in the last hundred years is implausible.

>simulation is a test

Well why don't you find a better one.

Scientists are desperately trying to prove dark matter exists. Is there anyone proving that it can't exist?

>take a photo of the woods
>claim that because you can't see bigfoot, he exists

No, a simulation can be used to make predictions. Fucking read.

>But it has been observed. Indirectly, granted,
lol

No it's more like you take a photo of giant footsteps in the woods and claim that there must be an unknown species living in the forest.

Many of the astrophysical observations made these days are heavily based on simulations of the involved systems.

That sounds a lot like climate "research"

Yeah, because you don't know shit.

He's being an idiot but not as much as you.

At least he's not claiming it's caused by "invisible, unknown matter".

There are equations that will accurately predict the movement of celestial objects with the assumption that the Earth is the center of the universe. Many ancient civilizations came up with math that did this.

The math was supported by observations. But the universe does not revolve around the Earth.

You might consistently predict where dark matter should occur and then observe missing matter where you predicted to high fidelity. But it does not prove that dark mater exists there.

Its not necessarily a bad assumption, but its still an unverified assumption.

If you have an explanation that better fits the data by all means share it

We are all idiots.

I think the point is, the people claiming to have the "data" don't even have the data.

"We can't explain gravity and how galaxies move" shouldn't have progressed into "Invisible nearly magic matter must exist".

There is mountains of data, the only objection is that there is no direct observation

>it's more like you take a photo of giant footsteps in the woods and claim that there must be an unknown species living in the forest.

This

Just as the theory of the luminiferous aether was adequate for describing many optical and electromagnetic phenomena at the time, the theory of dark matter is useful to us today. Hopefully we will refine our understanding of this phenomenon.

this

Dark matter religionfag detected.

that's pretty bad though. There's not even a guess to what it is.

If our observation is incorrect, then we need to read evaluate all of astrophysics. Where would you start?

Dark matter makes more sense to look for than create a whole new model of physics.

In the case of aether, theory didn't match observation. In the case of dark matter, it's the opposite.

>that's pretty bad
>not even a guess

What are you even looking for?

>science is dumb because dark matter is weird

So, are you an astrophysicist? No, you are just some undergraduate or worse an "enthusiast" who thinks he knows shit because he watches five videos on youtube.

ITT: grad students acting like they are top of the area researchers.

You are cute. KEK

>embarass

science has no emotion. researchers, analysts, and theorists just seek the models which can be generalized to the greatest extent, while retaining their relevance within domains of interest. What are you trying to prove here? Every physicist will tell you that our understanding of these phenomena is incomplete.

Im a professor actually. But dont worry, i was just trolling. Your bad attitude is funny af.

>Im a professor actually
notice me
what is your field?

>But it does not prove that dark mater exists there.
Astronomy is an observational science, proof doesn't exist. Theories which are consistent with the data is the closest we will get, none of them will ever be proven.

>"We can't explain gravity and how galaxies move" shouldn't have progressed into "Invisible nearly magic matter must exist".
But the former isn't true. Standard cosmology and some more exotic models can explain how galaxies move, you just don't like the model. It's wrong to say it cannot be explained.

Shitposting as a matter of fact

too bad..

Funny thing is, "luminiferous aether" is a real thing. It is what occurs in vacuum of space...because there is really no vacuum of space. We just don't have instruments to measure that finely yet.

>If our observation is incorrect, then we need to read evaluate all of astrophysics. Where would you start?
since the data can't be explained, maybe no one wants to listen to that possibility because it's going to be both confusing and expensive to fix.

Better to make up "exotic invisible matter".

>science has no emotion.
yes, but people do. lots of science is held back by people's pride and feelings. What's your point?

>But the former isn't true.
uh, isn't that what the explanation of dark matter is? way to move the goal post.

>since the data can't be explained
But they can, you just don't like the solution in hand.

>maybe no one wants to listen to that possibility because it's going to be both confusing and expensive to fix.
There have been dozens of alternative models proposed to account for the observations. People were looking for other options from the beginning. Dark matter has survived not because people wouldn't listen but because it was a better model and the serious alternatives died out with WMAP and BAO.

But it's easier to make it out to be some sort of conspiracy than it is to demonstrate a better model.

>uh, isn't that what the explanation of dark matter is?
No. The hypothesis is not the problem it was created to solve. I'm not moving anything.

>But they can, you just don't like the solution in hand.
You can't explain unexplained gravity and its effects with unobserved "invisible exotic matter".

It's like saying "Satan did it" and calling that "science".

>But it's easier to make it out to be some sort of conspiracy than it is to demonstrate a better model.
It's not a conspiracy, it's academic posturing, saving face and pride.

>sounds like they should have called it "dark mass".

This. Shitty, misleading name that actually opens itself to lousy dead-end interpretations, same as "black hole" and "big bang".

>It's like saying "Satan did it" and calling that "science".

It's not. Please stop repeating arguments already refuted in this thread. See:

>It's not a conspiracy, it's academic posturing, saving face and pride.
That's still a conspiracy and an idiotic one. You make a name for yourself in academia doing something novel or trashing a popular model. I'm pretty sure most academics would advance their careers over "saving face".

You've lost the scientific argument when all you have is this conspiracy theory.

but seriously, since they called it "matter" all of the research has been focused on chasing down molecules no one can explain or observe.

One word has people on a wild goose chase.

>You make a name for yourself in academia doing something novel or trashing a popular model.
but people have been routinely dismissed, ridiculed and punished throughout history and recently for doing that exact thing.

That's not true. For a long time it was plausible that dark matter was low mass stars, brown dwarfs, white dwarfs and black holes. Not undetectable. A great amount of work went into gravitational microlesning experiments in the 90's to try and constrain what fraction of dark matter these objects made up. In the end it was very, very small.

People also tried neutrinos, that doesn't fit the CMB data with current mass constraints. People tried to modify gravity, none are useful on cosmological scales.

The field is now focused on non-baryonic dark matter because that's the model which is consistent with the data we have today. The field sin't biased because of a word.

>The field is now focused on non-baryonic dark matter because that's the model which is consistent with the data we have today.
So they gave up and started to lie to cover their ass. Got it.

I don't believe that happens in cosmology, not if the work is valid. I've been to conferences with people who claim to know standard cosmology is wrong, they still have jobs. My supervisor spent his entire career trying to disprove dark matter but his model died like many others. He was fanatical enough to have a student re-reduce WMAP CMB data from first principles because he was attached to his model. He still has a job, he still gets grants, he still gets telescope time.

And now it really is a conspiracy theory.
You haven't discussed a single observation or result but you know the experts are wrong and you are right. Must be nice to have such an ego.

>You haven't discussed a single observation or result but you know the experts are wrong and you are right.
No, I know nothing- it's the experts that are pretending they even have a clue. Saying dark matter "non-baryonic" is proof they don't.

I'm going to throw this in and await the shitstorm. Consider the possibility that dark matter might be chi. What we know of dark matter has several similarities to what esoteric healing traditions tell us about chi.

>it cannot be detected by instruments
>it doesn't interact with matter (recent DM research; previously thought to be WIMP, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, but now probably not)
>it doesn't interact with itself, different 'streams' or 'flavors' can co-exist (sorry don't have the link)

At this point in time, a completely untestable and wacky suggestion. But I was struck by the similarities.

In b4 chi doesn't exist. Just don't bother.

>Saying dark matter "non-baryonic" is proof they don't.
What physics prevents non-baryonic particles with masses over 2 keV?

Is it at this point Big Bang pretty much 100% true and proven?

Nothing is ever proven in science, particularly in cosmology where we have to rely on observation and not experiment. The big bang has several elements, most importantly the expanding universe and the hot dense early universe. It's difficult to imagine a model that would replace either of these and be consistent, it's a very strong model and probably is as close to fact as cosmology will come. What may change however is the description of the very early universe and whether or not there ever was a t=0. Currently this is untestable but it may be some day.

Maybe no proof they exist? lol.

Have you not read of J.J. Thomsons great discovery? Has word not reached the New World?

so you have a sample of dark matter?

No, you moron. An electron is both non-baryonic and >2keV. Yet you claim there is "no proof they exist".

You haven't got a fucking clue. Thankful academia isn't as ignorant as you. They don't blindly reject hypothesis on the basis of their ignorant opinions.

>You can't explain unexplained gravity and its effects with unobserved "invisible exotic matter"

Well you can, because it is supported by a significant amount of observations. I have a pro tip for you, google this term 'scientific method'

Interestingly though, what is your alternate hypothesis?

Where is your direct evidence of dark matter?

within that observable frame that you claim it doesn't holds up, yet fail to reasonably refute insisting nevertheless in asking the same q over and over again as if merely, that, could actually acomplish anything but rhetorics? maybe?

>They don't blindly reject hypothesis on the basis of their ignorant opinions.
Wow. If only.

>I'm an ignorant high schooler, please spoon feed me!
Literally read the fucking wikipedia article
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

There are sources too, if you want to spend more time on it.

From what I heard MOND got btfo by some recent observations. They basically showed that yes, there is unaccounted-for matter in certain locations.

MOND is not to be understood as a complete physical theory, but rather a more or less vague hint at what phenomenology to expect from a modification of mechanics itself. The modifications proposed actually break physics overall (i.e. conservation laws), so it's not fit as an actual theory to explain anything satisfyingly. The more serious variant of a MOND-like theory is TeVeS or conform gravitation. They also are able to explain a much wider range of phenomenons.

But yeah, as I said, they don't really seem to explain all phenomenons as of yet, but maybe someone finds something within those theories. It's just getting less and less likely as dark matter accumulations get discovered that don't really make sense in the framework of MOND-like theories, but who knows.

We have proof of the existance of dark matter and dark energy.

It was not the case of this aether.

>Is Dark Matter the "luminiferous aether" of our time?

I'd say dark matter is more the Geocentric model of our time.

With epicycle orbits and everything.

"Spooky wandering mars"

Chi is just blood

Funny how that "observational evidence" excludes any actual evidence of dark matter.