This is easy to explain. For Einstein's theory of gravitation you have the experimental evidence of every experiment every done, and against you have one guy with a half-baked argument.
"They are suppressing my work!"
"They do not want you to read this!"
Etc.
IANAP (physicist) but using this index it's hard not to imagine another place in the multiverse where this dark energy/matter cosmological model receives a high score on this rubric.
I agree it's probably very difficult to tell really novel and paradigm-shifting theories from the ramblings of cranks.
I suppose the Dark Matter model scores highly in some items of the Crackpot Index but very low in "the government is trying to suppress this", "everything they told you is a lie", and also the scientists who proposed it understood the established science and didn't randomly disregard it. I think the "conspiracy" aspect is what sets a crackpot apart.
Again, it's possible that a person is a crackpot AND he/she is also right about a particular theory!
We call that the Crackpot Jackpot.
But that is manifestly untrue. If every experiment confirmed Einstein we would not even be talking about dark matter.
> one guy with a half-baked argument
But that "one guy" happens to be an expert in the field. And his argument sounds fully baked to me.
However, it's true that some other theories that claim to explain the dark matter observations are in conflict with GR, which is why those theories are received very skeptically.
That is true for the "hypothesis" part, it is not true for the "observations" part. The observations do contradict GR. To be precise, they are at odds with the predictions of GR on the assumption that the universe is made entirely of ordinary matter. So there are two possibilities: 1) GR is wrong, 2) the universe is not made entirely of ordinary matter, i.e. there is "something else", which we call "dark matter". The problem is, there is no evidence for the existence of dark matter other than the observations that are at odds with the predictions of GR, and so the possibility that GR could be wrong still needs to be taken seriously at this point.
You could also say that deviations in Uranus’s orbit contradict GR under the assumption that Neptune doesn’t exist. But Neptune does exist, so this isn’t really a statement about GR at all.
Of course, that claim turns entirely on the meaning of "plausible", so I'll amend my claim to simply say that all attempts to detect dark matter to date have failed.
That's right. But the only reason we know about the neutrino is that it was predicted by theory.
> However the neutrino isn’t a candidate for the specific particle causing the observed effect because the distribution of observed effects on normal matter would look different, hence the search for more massive particles:
Correct again.
> a search that is very much at its early stages.
That depends on what you consider "early". There are only so many places in the standard model that wimps can be hiding, and the vast majority of them (if not all of them -- I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments) have been ruled out.
This paper also adapts GR in such a way that it is consistent with galactic rotation rates, the anisotropies of the CMB, and cosmological expansion -- while showing that the simple operation of gravity is the cause of each of these phenomena.
Cyclic Gravity and Cosmology (CGC) predicts that there are discrete specific sizes allowable for macro-objects. The instability of Bennu and the fact that it behaves more like loosely held scree rather than a compact mass -- is an example of a mass that is not exactly at one of the discrete allowable sizes. Please also refer to the link I included wherein I uploaded a video simulation of the formation of a solar system using this type of force law. (This is in section 18 of the paper)
I would greatly appreciate any comments on this idea. Copies may be downloaded here:
Dark Matter is a fudge factor used to account for quite good, but still incomplete physical modeling.
To use an analogy from the world of finance, that sounds like building a Balance Sheet model that "plugs" Retained Earnings so that Assets and Liabilities always balance. Of course it fits the data, its very existence is to explain away the part of the model that doesn't fit the data
It's such a simple explanation which explains so many otherwise unexplained things that I feel we should have pretty strong priors that it's true.
It does make the prediction that there's a lot of detectable massive particles out there. That's not a prediction which is easy to test, but to say there are no predictions isn't right.
And it doesn't explain anything! We have this entirely new substance and we don't know what it is, what it's made of, where it came from, or why we only have circumstantial evidence for its presence.
We don't understand why our numbers don't add up so we made up a number to explain it is "compelling" to you?
Dark matter has always reeked of "ether" to me. I looked into some of the alt science on this a long time ago. There is a compelling case that our model of gravity is wrong. Fortunately gravity is such a weak force that at small ie solar system scales it doesn't matter. Which is why we can launch satellites around the system. However the failure shows at large scale like galaxies.
It is an observable fact that dark matter is a distinct substance from baryonic matter. Modified gravity is thoroughly disproven by the many galaxies that have been discovered that have been separated from their dark matter[1], or seem to have never had any in the first place [2]. A galaxy can't be separated from, or be lacking in, something that doesn't exist.
Any attempt to dismiss dark matter entirely without addressing this highly conclusive evidence is not valid.