Ask Lemmy

26858 readers

1828 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all? (lemmy.world)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

117 comments fedilink hide all child comments

EDIT: Let's cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We're not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don't believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I'm sure almost everybody has something to add.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We observe patterns of behavior – orbits, movement, gravitational lensing – that are exactly what we would see if, for example, there were great clouds of matter or other galaxies in those places.

Which would still not rule out anything else...

But we don’t see the hydrogen gas. We see non-uniform distributions of dark matter mass that imply there is not simply some consistent calculation error, but rather that there is dark matter that is not uniformly distributed.

That non-uniformity though, yes, this is a good point for a "dark matter exists" hypothesis. Although I would still word it differently: Not "We see non-uniform distributions of dark matter mass" but "We see a non-uniform mass-like effect". I've learned that keeping the terms as neutral as possible, or it might exert too much pressure on the thought process to go in just one direction.

We’ve also discovered things like ultradiffiuse galaxies – likely remnants from ancient collisions – that have apparently been stripped of their dark matter.

Which is basically an extreme case on "not uniformly distributed".

MOND cannot explain these observations because these galaxies essentially behave in a Newtonian manner that would be impossible in a MOND framework.

That is acceptable. I was not "selling" MOND here (or any other theory), btw, I'm just wondering what kind of possibilities are there to explain all those observations. "An invisible mass nobody has observed except for it's gravity effect" sounded a bit thin of a leg to stand on there, while incomplete models are a rather widespread phenomenon.

electromagnetism is the reason things clump. Absent electromagnetism, what would cause clumping?

Gravity? I mean, we are talking about something that has gravity. Did planets form because of electromagnetism?

Yep, and more than a handful Many that make specific predictions we can test for and so are testing for.

Indeed. Try that with the wannabe-sciences like economics...

For example, you could look at axions, which are a theoretical particle predicted by an entirely different theory that may be a good fit for the dark matter particle.

Well, at least they share the common trait of not being found yet... ;-)