[mr_mitm]

I wouldn't have to prove you wrong. If your stance is that Mercury's perihelion shift is explained by DM, then I'll counter that GR explains that, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, black holes, the CMB, the helium abundance, and then some. By Occam's razor, GR would be the preferable theory.

The claim that DM requires conjuring up parameters is completely baseless. There are one or two parameters (besides a handful other parameters from LambdaCDM) that determine the statistics of the DM distribution, and observations match well with simulations based on those parameters. There are small deviations called the dwarf galaxy problem and no one is inventing parameters to explain those, so what are you talking about?

[falserum]

Process is (laymans understanding):

1. you observe a galaxy doing something strange

2. whatever it does, you add just enough dark matter to account for that behaviour.

Such process seems fishy, because it can explain ANY observation.

If we would go back 130 years ago where GM was not a thing yet, and GM would be competing with DM theory, occams razor would point to DM, because it is simpler one - it fits with newton nicely.

(not an expert though, just repeating stuff I heard on youtube; I’m happy that experts work on all kinds of angles)

[throwawaymaths]

There is a parameter per galaxy, and it can be wildly different. Some galaxies have no dm, some galaxies are "only dm". Hardly "small deviations"

[mr_mitm]

Those are measurements, not parameters. Just like the exact baryonic matter distribution is not a parameter of GR. You have an initial matter distribution, which is a random sample of a probability distribution (that is a part of the model) and then it starts clumping together over time.

[throwawaymaths]

You're wrong. They are parameters if you're using them to bestfit another value (rotation curves). This is basic high school science/stats.

And yes, baryonic distribution is absolutely a parameter, but it's not a free parameter (or it's a less free parameter) because it's value is constrained to a measurement that is orthogonal to the quantity inferred (light vs rotation curve). Meanwhile, dm density is a free parameter. It could be zero, or, 10x the baryonic mass, or anything in between.

[cryptonector]

They're not measurements. The measurements are rotation rates at various distances from the galactic center, then you plug that into a model and the model tells you where the DM is in that galaxy, then you say "DM explains it all for this galaxy!", but no, the amount and distribution of the DM is an output of the model and that cannot prove anything. There is never an explanation for why DM amounts and distribution vary so much. DM theory needs to make predictions we can then test, not produce model outputs.

[isthatafact]

What you are calling a model is simply a way of quantifying a measurement of a galaxy to describe (or model) its mass distribution. There is no physics involved.

> "DM theory needs to make predictions we can then test"

That is what scientists do: Start from the hypothesis of a dark matter dominated universe, from the beginning (or soon after the big bang), then turn on time and physics (gravity plus gas physics in a computer simulation), and galaxies form as gravity causes matter to clump together. The properties of those theoretical galaxies are testable predictions.

[throwawaymaths]

You're confusing the broad scale cosmological predictions of DM with explaining rotational parameters of individual galaxies.

Even so, there are predictions low-parameter DM models seemingly can't make, like: what percentage of galaxies have zero dark matter?

[isthatafact]

If you were to create any model of the universe, you would require it to have the correct (observed) percentage of galaxies without dark matter, right?

You assert that it is impossible for a model of a dark matter dominated universe to "predict" galaxies without dark matter, but that is exactly what people are looking at here in a large scale cosmological simulation: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05836

[throwawaymaths]

> then I'll counter that GR explains that, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, black holes,

That interpretation of GR assumes that Mercury isnt perturbed by some form of dark matter. Go back and redo all the equations with a dark matter that obeys the right rules before claiming that GR is a better explanation.