1687

submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

278 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, yes, but my point was that we don't have evidence specifically for the existence of dark matter.

We have evidence that is not explained by visible, detectable mass.

Dark matter is the current favored theory which happens to explain discrepancies between what is observed and what is expected.

But I don't think we can logically conclude dark matter is the only explanation, which is what your original statement seems to imply. It is the best explanation that we have so far.

If we place objects on the dining table the night before and observed them lying on the floor the next morning, we can't claim "we have evidence for sleepwalking residents." There may be another theory that explains it, such as: the cat is knocking the things off the table. We need additional evidence to determine which theory fits or else come up with a new theory.

Hopefully I am making sense here lol

[-] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But it is visible, it's visible in terms of gravitational effects. We can "see" the effects of dark matter. That is evidence specifically for dark matter, i.e. matter that is very hard or impossible to detect via the electromagnetic spectrum but is observable through gravity.

Dark matter is the explanation, the question is more what form does it take.

It just takes a bit of acknowledgement that actually the EM spectrum is not the only way to view the universe. In fact it's just one of four (maybe five) fundamental forces. We're just used to that being the default for seeing because it's how we physically see. It's an anthropocentric bias to say something doesn't exist because we can't view it via EM radiation despite the fact gravity is clearly showing it to us.

You could use your logic to argue against the existence of black holes. We don't see them by definition but they are most certainly there.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I meant "visible" as in EM spectrum.

We can "see" the effects of dark matter.

I am well aware and I have already said as much.

I'm not sure why you're missing my point.

Wikipedia:

"In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears to not interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen,..."

Unless you're aware of some case where dark matter has interacted with light or EM fields?

So we see these gravitational effects that either means general relativity falls apart under conditions we have yet to identify or there is more mass than we can detect with the EM spectrum.

I'm not arguing against the existence of dark matter. You're misunderstanding my intent.

I'm not even arguing. I'm just pointing out that your original statement isn't quite correct.

But Dark Matter is a great scientific theory. It probably will hold up. I can't wait to see what we learn next!

Anyway I probably shouldn't have even responded because it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things and my thumbs are tired from arguing against bigoted assholes in other places (I'm on a phone) so... peace

[-] FastAndBulbous@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would argue that Wikipedia is wrong or misguided. There is no serious debate about whether or not dark matter exists. I also think you've completely missed the point of my argument regarding the EM field just being only one way to detect the existence of things.