Mfw astrophysicists unironically claim without the least bit of shame that there exists an entire class of matter that...

>mfw astrophysicists unironically claim without the least bit of shame that there exists an entire class of matter that does not interact with any of our instruments but most certainly exists
>mfw they actually believe that this theory is more scientifically credible than invisible sentient gremlins keeping galaxies together with extremely long and powerful arms
the absolute state of modern-day """""""""science"""""""""

Prove them wrong.

They don't claim, only testing hypothesis.

Burden of proof's on them

My PhD candidacy is being spent on Sentient Gremlin Theory. It seems that the gremlins have near infinite lifespans and live in communities ranging from as small as 500,000 to populations in the billions.

The gremlins draw their power from their seeds of life made huge collections of giant balls of gas. It seems that they hold this gas in a huge cinnamon swirl, and only suckle at it from the center.

These gremlins are very possessive of their seeds, and do not want to share them with each other, but if they end up close enough, they cannot resist the urge to share their seeds. It is a beautiful, yet volatile diplomatic process.

The way that these large communities of gremlins have built huge ships which carry them away from each other using a means of propulsion that we do not yet understand.

This is the limits of modern knowledge of the Galactic Gremlins.

I have also written a paper on the Subatomic Sorcerers who play Quantum Quidditch, but it's a dead field at this point, since we found out that Snape kills Voldemort.

>an entire class of matter that does not interact with any of our instruments

Well that's not quite right. Any particle making up dark matter almost certainly probably uses the weak interaction, in which case it can interact with out detectors. The real problem is particle flux, look at the neutrino it has a particle flux of about [math] 10^{10} ~ \text { particles } cm^{-2}s^{-1} [/math] yet actual interactions are still very rare events. WIMPs on the other hand are only thought to have a fluxs around [math] 10^{4} ~ \text { particles } cm^{-2} s^{-1} [/math] So, if they exist, they will be very hard detect.

Luckily for us dark matter also interacts gravitationally, which means we can use other methods to indirectly observe it, as far as I know dark matter predicts and/or explains:
>CMB Powerspectrum
>Galactic rotation curves
>BAOs
>Something something bullet cluster

So there's a fair amount of evidence for the hypothesis, and given it's simplicity (matter that just doesn't interact using electromagnetism) it's impressively successful.

Prove it.

>almost certainly probably
D R O P P E D

Nice argument you have there. The existence of dark matter isn't in question, it's composition is.

>b-but it's so simple!
>it just works!
What's simple about making up a new form of matter, claiming that it makes up most of the matter in the universe, all to account for your flawed theories and measurement errors? This is why people don't take physics seriously.

If this were the 1800's you'd be saying the same thing about electrons.

>claim there are 100 balls in a jar
>open the jar and find out there are only 3
>w-well my theories are not wrong, it's just that 97 of the balls are... uh... invisible! yeah, that's it, invisible!
Theoretical """physics""" in a nutshell

I mean, what's so simple about claiming there are magic forcefields which pull only certain materials towards them?

>Weigh the jar
>comes out at 100g
>look in the jar
>Only 3 balls, each weighing ~1g
>Re-weigh jar, still 100g
>Submerge jar in water, it behaves like there's 100g inside it, not 3g
>Conclude that there are additional balls that don't interact with electromagnitism inside the jar

Of course this tortured """"""analogy"""""" doesn't really work since dark matter makes predictions about things that can be measured.

Sure, but back then there were other explanations, once we got more data we were able to prove the existence of electrons.

>it's not in question
>the science is settled stop bullying me!

>Once we got more evidence...
>BUT NOT THAT EVIDENCE THAT DOESN'T COUNT

Lol, fucking philistines. I mean if you've got a better, simpler, hypothesis please share it with the community.

>assuming that there are additional balls
>not just assuming your measurement tools are fucked
what evidence?

The more reasonable implication is that your measuring apparatus/methodology are flawed

>not just assuming your measurement tools are fucked
That's why I said it was a tortured analogy, there are multiple ways of estimating the mass of galaxies and they all point in the same direction.

>What evidence
Things like:
>Prediction of TT powerspecturm
>Baryon acoustic oscillations
>Rotation curves
>Success of Lambda-CDM

Every single one, in the exact same way? Again it's a tortured analogy that ignores the fact the hypothesis can make testable predictions, see above.

Except for all those mass estimates fail to predict the actual mass of galaxies, and spectacularly too. Nice estimates you've got there faggot

Nice source you've got there, faggot.

The estimates fail to predict gravitation on galactic scales, which is why we have this dark matter meme in the first place

If dark matter didn't come from rotation curves it would have been found using of the several other pieces of evidence I've already told you about. Quite why you're ignoring them just to focus on this one part is beyond me. The only reason I can think of is that you're a brainlet who just can't comprehend the other avenues leading to dark matter.

If you don't like it come up with a better hypothesis, thats simpler, but more powerful than dark matter. I won't hold my breath.

>forget the jar weights 97g
>invent fat-ass theory to cover it up
>get nobel
mfw

>>Forget to hit the tare button.

I mean it's not like astrophysics matter anyway, at least electrons have applications.
You don't need to be in such a hurry to make shit up so your models werk

it's the ether of our time.

When it comes to Dark Matter it's not simply a measurement error as the gravity alterations are not uniform - they are in clumps. Something is there, there is a warp in space there, in some instances even causing gravitational lensing. A gravitational force there that isn't uniform or reacting any any other fashion.

We had theories that non-baryonic matter (matter that does not react with EM/Strong) might form well before these observations, so this simply suggests that said matter just might be a lot more common than initially thought.

It's considerably less exotic than most other solutions and thus far fits the picture better than any other presented.

If you're sitting in a room, and suddenly a chair gets moved three feet to the right by an invisible force, no amount of tinkering with your calculations regarding momentum is going to fix that, and still match up with the activity of the rest of the room.

Dark energy, on the other hand, is another matter.

> implying their mean of propulsion is not the EM drive

Good luck with that PhD you stupid idiot

If you got better hypothesis I'll gladly hear you out.

Easy, it's goblins spinning the galaxies, they just are invisible and do not iteract with other matter. They fit my model of the universe perfectly though.