EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.

        • supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world
          2·
          11 months ago

          Modifying the theory of gravity to fit the data might be useful even if it’s just for modelling purposes. But it doesn’t make a theory for sure.

          I am also an (non retired) engineer, but alas I have no theory of my own :)))

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        No, I’m just wondering about the reasoning for something that has not been observed except for it’s gravity effects. I mean, physics has loads of incomplete models, so for me, just another incomplete model looks more likely than some phantom particles that nobody can explain.

          • Treczoks@lemmy.world
            1·
            11 months ago

            That reasoning is public information; all of the data that led these conclusions has been published. I would recommend you have enough respect for scientists to actually read some of it before writing it all off out of hand.

            The problem is that most writing on that topic is incomprehensible even for me. And I’m not even part of the non-science crowd - my specialization is just elsewhere.