Mike: Any ideas why the rotation curve of the galaxy does not match our expected values?

Well, string theory and super symmetry are really tough competitors.

In any case,. astrophysics is a great deal more than dark wotsits,

Incoherent dielectric inertia.
congrats you also described how every "particle" came into "existence".

Everything is non-physical motion and change, but that doesn't stop phycoti-i mean scientists from trying to prove otherwise.

That's a nice strawman.

The mechanics of motion works here on earth,our solar system, and on larger scales. It's actually harder to explain why the physics would be different than why our parameterization is wrong.

There's been a great deal of effort to explain the discrepancy in terms of wrong distance,size,etc... and they all failed.

In other words, we'd have to be completely wrong about physics on earth for dark matter to not work. Although likely, we have no other model to explain it.

Heliocentric model is satanic sun worship created by freemasonic "scientists".

*blocks your path*
youtube.com/watch?v=1itasiXNUPg

It's always such a coincidence that glowing people like you show up in these threads and throw around terms like "satanic", "freemasonic" and other nonsense. You guys are supposed to be investigating that shit, not spreading it like disinfo.

Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean a field is flawed. Dark matter isn't "chaining the numbers". From simile initial conditions and gravity, cold dark matter tells you dark matter collapses to form halos, these halos have just the right slope to show why rotation curves flatten. There are no parameters to tune to do that. CDM can also be tested in dozens of other ones. For example predicting the statistics of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, the ratio between odd and even peaks tells you about dark matter. CDM correctly predicted these observations, no dark matter free model has explain this. Dark matter also predicted that the signature of dark matter halos should be imprinted on how galaxies cluster, long before this prediction was confirmed.

MOND doesn't explain anything. MOND prescribes a modification to Newtonian gravity. It doesn't tell you why that occurs, or even what form it should take. It also doesn't match observations of galaxy clusters or cosmology, cold dark matter does. It utterly failed in it's predictions of the cosmic microwave background, so it's proponents just gave up. MOND is pretty much dead.

does anyone sane and educated seriously believe there's such thing as 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' in the real world?

Mike McCulloch is a pseudoscientist promoting EMDrive. All his model does is get the same result MOND gets, which still fails on larger scales.

But more than that he's intellectually dishonest. He wrote one of his "papers" about explaining the low power on large scales in the cosmic microwave background with his ideas. What he ignored was that the power is low with respect to the standard model. That standard model includes dark matter, remove it and the model will not fit he acoustic peaks at smaller scales. This was pointed out in the comments of his blog but he first tried to claim it would just magically revert to standard cosmology (i.e. with dark matter) and then ignored the point.

Every heard of Neutrinos, brainlet? Why the hell do you think modifying gravity is more likely to work if we can just posit the existence of a particle with nearly identical properties to one we've already proven to exist?

Bullet Cluster or GTFO

Only brainlets

the virgin WIMP vs the chad MACHO

Deserved trips

That's not true. There are new theories of MOND derived with Hamilton's principle of least action.

Kek. I want a meme about that

What isn't true? Lots of points were made.

>There are new theories of MOND derived with Hamilton's principle of least action.
The provide a source if you think it disproves something claimed. If you're going to try and counter a claim then provide evidence.