>>13113885Well you can measure atoms in galaxies, even if they're not luminous through absorption spectroscopy. Subatomic particles means electrons, which scatter light and emit synchrotron radiation.
The real evidence that it isn't normal baryonic matter comes from the statistics of the cosmic microwave background and the abundances of light elements. These two cosmological tests tell you the total density of matter in the universe at at time when there were no stars or galaxies. Both tests give consistent results, and they show only a small fraction of the total matter in the universe is normal matter.
It could be that the laws of physics are different, but there are no existing models which have had the predictive power of cold dark matter. People have searched for deviations from general relativity on large scales, but nothing has been detected yet. We can only test models that exist, you cannot rule out additional forces in general just as you cannot rule out all types of particle dark matter.
>>13113901>dark matter doesn't existNeutrinos exist. So at least some dark matter exists.
>it was invented by ken freeman as a joke in 1979 because they couldn't understand the apparent rotation of galaxies and everyone took it seriously. Nope. The term was coined in the 1930's by Zwicky.
> anyone who presents an alternative explanation for the apparent rotation of galaxies is ostracized out of the profession via the peer review processYou're talking out your ass. Milgrom still has a job. So does Kroupa, McGaugh and other MOND loons. Modified gravity more broadly is an entire field in cosmology, with significant funding.
