this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
1709 points (98.2% liked)
People Twitter
5390 readers
1641 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's an interesting idea, but it assumes that physical forces are getting WEAKER over time, and that's a pretty big assumption. It's not very parsimonious.
I'm not a subscriber to this particular theory, but I do think model error is a more plausible explanation than magical, undetectable mass.
The mass is definitely detectable--it's just not visible. And it's detectable in several different ways that all match, that's the key here. This is definitely an observation.
Dark matter is an infinite number of free variables we can place anywhere in our universe to make our current gravitational models work. Of course they match.
Can you call it an observation if the lens you are using may be faulty?
Why is dark matter given so much precedence over model error? (Particularly because we know our current model can't do things like quantum gravity)
If you use many lenses you can assure yourself that they are not all faulty in the same way. This is why we can safely say that dark matter is observed fact, because we observe it in so many different ways.
We see many datapoints gatheredbl by multiple technologies and approaches, but they all use the same cosmological model. The same lens.
Maybe lens was the wrong word. All the data gathered is interpretated using the same brain.