For example, does this mean that when we thought that r^2 was not strictly followed that in fact we had the positions of the bodies wrong?
For example, does this mean that when we thought that r^2 was not strictly followed that in fact we had the positions of the bodies wrong?
Physics is littered with mathematical formulations predicting new phenomenon (forces and particles).
> What is the relationship between dark matter and dark energy
There is no known relationship between dark matter and dark energy. They could have been called unknown matter and unknown energy! The absence of a good account for each does not infer a relationship between the two.
Sorry, I should have clarified: I mean I would spend all my days doubting the mathematics, rather than doubting the physical universe. If that makes sense? Of course all of mathematics can be argued to have a physical sort of root.
Chances are if you were a physicist/cosmologist you would be of the same opinion as the majority because you would be exposed to just about the same evidence.
Exactly, yes. In mathematics we are also discoverers rather than inventors. I am just making the point that personality does play a role. Think of Newton's calculus vs. Leibniz's calculus.
Dark matter is currently the best model that can describe the rotational curves of galaxies under the assumption that general relativity is correct. Since GR has so far stood all tests extremely well, this is a very compelling argument for the existence of dark matter. There are also some more direct observations, such as gravitational lensing caused by dark matter.
We tried, but it doesn't fit the data nearly as well (e.g. MOND). Related xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1758/