|
|
|
|
|
|
by Pica_soO
2813 days ago
|
|
|
For me its the similarity to another pre-relativistic concept- the invisible ether between the worlds- that rubs me the wrong way. And its tough to imagine the consequences of something you are absolutely not able to detect, you could be flying towards with 250 km/s. Its kind of scary- imagine you hit something like that and it causes earth quakes or a shake up of the solar system. Just think if that missing gas giant was actually a Blob of DM cycling the solar system. And, well - the situation seems similar to this over focused on the problem situations you sometimes have in coding. Everyone has committed to a very narrowed down problem solution, that is just not working out, but instead of stepping back, a thousand angles are tried to solve the problem in the narrow scope. Many here, just want to help.
Which, given the Enlightenment as a project of everyone capable, against a Elite fighting for dogmatic ignorance - is a good thing in my book. The article is missing in my opinion a confidence rating for every observation- how often this has been tested in experiments or observed in space. Otherwise it was good. |
|
|
If it was capable of doing this, we would observe it doing the same to light on its way toward us - gravitational lensing in other words. If your scenario was possible, we would've definitely made observations to that extent, but we haven't.
For what it's worth - neutrinos fit your description right here. There are a trillion of them passing through your hand every second, essentially without interacting at all (from https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/).
> but instead of stepping back, a thousand angles are tried to solve the problem in the narrow scope.
What makes you think nobody has stepped back? Tons of people have stepped back and proposed lots and lots of alternatives. Dark matter is the only one that can explain all the phenomena mentioned in the article. It is the result of a lot of stepping back and failing even more in the other directions.