• Thorry84@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 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’