>>12012107you're so dense. physical interactions are not numbers, they're processes. turning my analogy into a numerical one loses all of the information contained in it.
>>12012102then I should've been clearer in my original post. however:
dark matter is a "proven" thing in the sense that we have a phenomenon that can't be explained by our current physics understanding. however, our explanation for this observation is still just a placeholder
you're right, this could be applied to older theories as well. however, we have the benefit of a pretty comprehensive theory that's been proven to work in many use cases. there are many people trying to formulate alternative theories to the standard model, but because there are so many (untestable) possibilities, most scientists are agreeing to stick with what we know for the time being and not try to reinvent the wheel. what we're doing now is trying to eliminate dark matter candidates that work as add-ons to current theories before formulating entirely new ones.
