Call me old fashioned, but I remain dubious when science contrives unverifiable aberrations to explain why some data doesn't fit the curve.
What does that sentence even mean?
It means that reading about dark matter (and energy) always reminds of reading Perfect Symmetry in HS twenty years ago and thinking, Do these guys just posit a new particle for every otherwise inexplicable observational anomaly? Just because it worked the first couple times doesn't mean it should be the automatic response, and certainly not the only one. The same book naturally discussed searching for proton decay with neutrino detectors, which increasingly looks like a fools errand; even if the lowest half lifes still technically possible are valid it's unlikely we'll ever observe proton decay, let alone reproduce that observation under identical conditions. Looking at the history of what's been invalidated is why, although we should certainly test every theory when we can, I'm a lot more interested in the LHCs unexpected revelations.
Most of the Holy Grails in particle physics do at least allow proof of their existence, however; most definitions I've seen for dark matter and dark energy (which mainly seems an explanation for dark matter not covering all the bases either) seem to make them unverifiable by definition (if not as badly as my favorite such example: Branes).
For all the talk of radical new models, most of this strikes me as a bandaid obviating the need for new theories when something unaccounted for by the old one surfaces.
And what is dark matter, if it isn't a new theory?
A modification of an existing theory. Maybe I'm being a little semantic here, but it doesn't seem like a revision on the order of what Relativity did to Classical Mechanics. Most of my objection really boils down to giving it that kind of gravitas; there's no reason all or even most normal matter must reflect or emit energy visible from Earth, and good reason to think most of it doesn't. If by dark matter and dark energy we simply mean normal matter and energy we can't observe or haven't, sure, I'm on board with that, but if we're talking about some exotic and unprecedented form of matter or energy I'm not convinced of the need or evidence.
There are simpler bandaids to be had but, regardless, the same rule applies to cosmology that applies to particle physics: Anything you can't test isn't physics, it's metaphysics. It may be valid metaphysics, but the one thing it's not is science.
When observational data doesn't match the theory, there must be something wrong with the theory, the observations or both. In this case, an example would be that measurements indicate that same galaxies rotate too fast to be held together by gravity if there is only the mass we can see. This has been seen in numerous galaxies, so it is unlikely to be a problem with the observations. The two most obvious explanations are that either there is something wrong with the theory of gravity on a large length scales, or there is mass present which we can't see.
For various reasons dark matters seems to be the preferred theory, but if we assume a modified gravitational law was the leading theory, how would that be any more or less testable than dark matter?
It probably wouldn't be, and given a choice I'd prefer dark matter, but positing it as matter we can't see because it's too far away from us and/or any energy source makes a lot more sense to me than positing it as matter that literally cannot be seen, by us or anyone.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Exciting video about the universe
- 28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM
1486 Views
I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect.
- 28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM
1186 Views
We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter.
- 28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM
1128 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
- 29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM
1048 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
- 29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM
1166 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
- 30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM
1109 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
- 30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM
1033 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
- 02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM
1019 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
- 04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM
1110 Views
There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
- 07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM
1204 Views
- 07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM
1204 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
- 09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM
1024 Views
- 09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM
1024 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
- 14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM
997 Views
- 14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM
997 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
- 17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM
1050 Views
- 17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM
1050 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
- 19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM
993 Views
- 19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM
993 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
- 24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM
1059 Views
- 24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM
1059 Views
The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
- 24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM
1002 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
- 24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM
1261 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
- 25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM
1034 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
- 31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM
1120 Views
Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
- 10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM
1370 Views
Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
- 14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM
1363 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter:
- 29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM
1078 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
- 30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM
1174 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
- 30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM
1130 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM
1138 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM
1081 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM
1282 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM
1038 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM
1345 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM
927 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM
1286 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM
1065 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM
1363 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM
1284 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM
1432 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
- 14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM
1177 Views
Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99)
- 28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM
1516 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry.
- 29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM
1040 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter.
- 29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM
1059 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
- 30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM
1184 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
- 30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM
1075 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
- 02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM
1538 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
- 04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM
1020 Views
I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM
1319 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM
1137 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM
1368 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM
1053 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM
1335 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM
1051 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM
1005 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM
971 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM
1060 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM
1027 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM
1198 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
- 14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM
1191 Views
Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at
- 29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM
989 Views
Potentially either, or a combination of the two.
- 30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM
1053 Views
It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly
- 30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM
979 Views
My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely.
- 02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM
1222 Views
