132
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Mango@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

It's not there in the data. There's a hole in the data and we're making up dark matter to plug it.

[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 3 points 3 days ago

You are wrong, just look at rotation curves of galaxies for a very easy to understand example. It's right there.

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago

If it was right there and easy to understand we wouldn’t still be trying to justify it or figure what it might be. But I’m sure you’re working on a counter publication to refute all of this since it’s so easy right.

[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The question is what exactly dark matter is, nobody knows at this point. We have a bunch of data and a lot of different ideas, but nothing that neatly explains everything.

The point was that the publication was questioning whether dark matter exists. It exists for sure, there is nobody who has seriously looked into it and thinks it doesn't exist. We don't know what exactly it is, but it exists. And we also know for sure the name sucks, but hey that's the name we're stuck with.

Like what the other comment said, dark matter is an observation, not a theory.

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

No ‘Dark matter’ is a theory trying to explain an observation based on our incomplete understanding of gravity. Same as ‘dark energy’. They saw something, couldn’t explain it and came up with a theory of ‘something’ rather than simply saying ‘We have no clue. That shit don’t fit’

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
132 points (90.2% liked)

Futurology

1737 readers
66 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS