[JRowe]

But it isn't a contradiction yet.

It is, that's the point. Gravity does not work without dakr matter, and dark matter does not work.

Could this change the way we understand how the universe formed? Maybe. Will it change the very shape of the Earth in modern science? Less likely considering we knew the 'what' for how the Earth looked well before the 'why' it looks the way it does. 'Why' comes later. We're not there yet with Dark Matter when we aren't even positive what form it takes, much less whether it even exists.

I don't expect this one argument to reshape anyone's view of the world, but for those interested in study it is a plain indication that there is much that needs to be re-evaluated. What's better, a model like gravity which needs to constantly be nipped and tucked to fit in with what we see, or something that works smoothly from the get-go?
'Why' is the scientific question. 'Why' is where all of science comes in, even if the best answer is a wild hypothesis there still has to be a why. The lack of even that after so long means a model should be rejected. As the prevailing theory I focus on dark matter, both as an argument against an aspect of RET and a demonstration as to the flaws with mainstream scientists.

What I hear you say, correct me if I am wrong.
We should throw out and rethink the heliocentric model, even the completely answered parts about our solar system, because we have something unexplained in dark matter.

It is like saying we should discard and rethink atomic theory because we have yet to figure out gravitational waves in string theory.

If we did science like that, we would still be living in the dark ages.

I'm not saying that rethinking is a bad thing, but it is a problem to discard the best theory we have because of an anomaly we have yet to explain.

Gravity is far more connected to RET than atomic theory is to string theory. Rather, it would be like a scientist who believed in spontaneous generation observing a beef steak in a sealed pack fail to create life. That's just one type of meat, but it still acts to contradict what the model suggests, and it should be motive to take a step back and rethink the notion for all meats. The model states one thing should happen consistently: if it fails in even one of those cases, then those are grounds to take a closer look at the model as a whole.
No one is saying to discard anything until there's a better explanation. Certainly, I believe there is one, but the fact is modern science refuses to even entertain the possibility.

[SphericalEarther]

Gravity is far more connected to RET than atomic theory is to string theory. Rather, it would be like a scientist who believed in spontaneous generation observing a beef steak in a sealed pack fail to create life. That's just one type of meat, but it still acts to contradict what the model suggests, and it should be motive to take a step back and rethink the notion for all meats. The model states one thing should happen consistently: if it fails in even one of those cases, then those are grounds to take a closer look at the model as a whole.
No one is saying to discard anything until there's a better explanation. Certainly, I believe there is one, but the fact is modern science refuses to even entertain the possibility.

From my understanding, modern scientists are doing everything they can to make a unified theory for everything.
If the galaxies behaved as predicted without dark matter, they wouldn't need to think about it.

But there is something there, and either the extremely simple calculations for gravity is wrong over large distances, or there is an unobservable force which provides the extra force. Since it is unobservable and only affects galaxy and universe scale calculations, it is very hard to theorize and make tests about.

Maybe now that we can simulate universal creation and show how galaxies are formed, scientists might get a better idea of dark matter, since they can better visualise the universe.

[JRowe]

Gravity is far more connected to RET than atomic theory is to string theory. Rather, it would be like a scientist who believed in spontaneous generation observing a beef steak in a sealed pack fail to create life. That's just one type of meat, but it still acts to contradict what the model suggests, and it should be motive to take a step back and rethink the notion for all meats. The model states one thing should happen consistently: if it fails in even one of those cases, then those are grounds to take a closer look at the model as a whole.
No one is saying to discard anything until there's a better explanation. Certainly, I believe there is one, but the fact is modern science refuses to even entertain the possibility.

From my understanding, modern scientists are doing everything they can to make a unified theory for everything.
If the galaxies behaved as predicted without dark matter, they wouldn't need to think about it.

But there is something there, and either the extremely simple calculations for gravity is wrong over large distances, or there is an unobservable force which provides the extra force. Since it is unobservable and only affects galaxy and universe scale calculations, it is very hard to theorize and make tests about.

Maybe now that we can simulate universal creation and show how galaxies are formed, scientists might get a better idea of dark matter, since they can better visualise the universe.

There is only something there if you make the assumption gravity is what is responsible for their motion. As gone into repeatedly, dark matter as a concept does not work, and given only one person has even attempted to explain how it could (with a flawed answer) I'm feelingly increasingly confident with that conclusion.
That implication goes both ways. If gravity exists, then there needs to be something there. Thus if there is nothing there, gravity needs a rethink. Good old fashioned contraposition.

[Curious Squirrel]

But it isn't a contradiction yet.

It is, that's the point. Gravity does not work without dakr matter, and dark matter does not work.

Could this change the way we understand how the universe formed? Maybe. Will it change the very shape of the Earth in modern science? Less likely considering we knew the 'what' for how the Earth looked well before the 'why' it looks the way it does. 'Why' comes later. We're not there yet with Dark Matter when we aren't even positive what form it takes, much less whether it even exists.

I don't expect this one argument to reshape anyone's view of the world, but for those interested in study it is a plain indication that there is much that needs to be re-evaluated. What's better, a model like gravity which needs to constantly be nipped and tucked to fit in with what we see, or something that works smoothly from the get-go?
'Why' is the scientific question. 'Why' is where all of science comes in, even if the best answer is a wild hypothesis there still has to be a why. The lack of even that after so long means a model should be rejected. As the prevailing theory I focus on dark matter, both as an argument against an aspect of RET and a demonstration as to the flaws with mainstream scientists.

But gravity DOES work for what every normal person can observe. This is why the articles you've linked mention that 'Any new hypothesis that comes about will need to explain planetary motion at least as well as Einstein's formula' because on the local scale gravity works at nearly 100% WITHOUT the need for dark matter. Which points to either a) Dark matter exists in some fashion (which is what's currently being majorly explored as best as possible) or b) Something is flawed with our theory of gravity at galactic scales. B does not mean gravity is wrong. It means we don't know something about the interactions at larger scales. Because again, it fits correctly with all observations at the local level. Also for the record I would be heavily suspicious of any theory/hypothesis that is spot on from stage 1. That is a clear indication of someone fudging the data or similar.

Out of idle curiosity then, how do YOU explain these celestial observations in your model? Or do you just ignore them?

[JRowe]

But gravity DOES work for what every normal person can observe. This is why the articles you've linked mention that 'Any new hypothesis that comes about will need to explain planetary motion at least as well as Einstein's formula' because on the local scale gravity works at nearly 100% WITHOUT the need for dark matter. Which points to either a) Dark matter exists in some fashion (which is what's currently being majorly explored as best as possible) or b) Something is flawed with our theory of gravity at galactic scales. B does not mean gravity is wrong. It means we don't know something about the interactions at larger scales. Because again, it fits correctly with all observations at the local level. Also for the record I would be heavily suspicious of any theory/hypothesis that is spot on from stage 1. That is a clear indication of someone fudging the data or similar.

That's not true. As you've pointed out, people can fudge the data or similar; the mathematics modelling gravity were not invented in a vacuum, they were specifically designed, tailor-made, to explain what is seen. The fact it succeeds in that task is basically meaningless. The mark of a good scientific hypothesis is how it functions over multiple areas. Explaining the predictable behavior in our day-to-day is what it was designed to do, the fact it does not function when extended beyond that indicates it is a flawed theory.
Like you say, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, we should expect some degree of refinement. It is just that dark matter, the most popular choice for refinement, doesn't work, and the fact it so fundamentally fails is a major mark against many of the physicists involved in its study, and the supposed openness of modern mainstream science.
When it gets an idea, it clings onto it and refuses to let it go. Refinement only goes so far, sometimes you need to amputate and replace.

Out of idle curiosity then, how do YOU explain these celestial observations in your model? Or do you just ignore them?

I don't have gravity, thus I have no need to nip and tuck it. The precise details are linked in my sig, I don't feel like going through it all every time I'm asked, as with any scientific model there's a lot to explain. It doesn't refine, it replaces much of mainstream science (particulalry on cosmic scales) so as such there would be a lot I would have to explain before I could even begin on celestial movement.

[SphericalEarther]

There is only something there if you make the assumption gravity is what is responsible for their motion. As gone into repeatedly, dark matter as a concept does not work, and given only one person has even attempted to explain how it could (with a flawed answer) I'm feelingly increasingly confident with that conclusion.
That implication goes both ways. If gravity exists, then there needs to be something there. Thus if there is nothing there, gravity needs a rethink. Good old fashioned contraposition.

Gravity is so well defined that it accounts for everything we observe in our own solar system. It works perfectly in our own solar system.
It is extremely elegant, requiring a simple calculation, and scientists love elegant solutions.

Dark Matter is an explanation to an unexplained phenomenon, it is not the solution until we find the truth behind it. It might well be that we need to rethink gravity, but not for use in our own universe, this also makes it way less elegant since we would need to use it differently on a small scale than a large scale.
The Dark Matter theory, is just the best theory we currently have, with predictive powers we can use. Any theory which can explain the phenomenons better would instantly trump dark matter, but no such theory has been made yet which has passed even the bare minimum of peer review. Until such a time that another and better theory comes to light, dark matter is the method we use, since it works.

I do expect many scientists are still pondering other solutions which is more elegant than an unobserved dark matter solution.

[JRowe]

Any theory which can explain the phenomenons better would instantly trump dark matter, but no such theory has been made yet which has passed even the bare minimum of peer review.

That is the idealist's perspective, but unfortunately science in the real world does not work like that. For all the lip service paid to openness and acceptance, any scientist would happily repeat the 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' cliche. If it turns out one had to go back away, alter some ancient premise to actually arrive at the truth, that avenue would never go explored. They cling on blindly to impossible hypotheses not because of elegance, but because of tradition.
Though this is getting off topic. I could go on for a while about the flaws with the modern scientific institution, and I'd be happy to, but I started this thread because I wanted to hear the RE answer to a question and I still want that.

I'll just repeat it here for future readers. the rest of this dicussion is veering towards other topics (which I'm happy to talk about, just not here, I hate it when topics get changed so that questions never get answered).

Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?

[Rama Set]

Any theory which can explain the phenomenons better would instantly trump dark matter, but no such theory has been made yet which has passed even the bare minimum of peer review.

That is the idealist's perspective, but unfortunately science in the real world does not work like that. For all the lip service paid to openness and acceptance, any scientist would happily repeat the 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' cliche. If it turns out one had to go back away, alter some ancient premise to actually arrive at the truth, that avenue would never go explored.  They cling on blindly to impossible hypotheses not because of elegance, but because of tradition.
Though this is getting off topic. I could go on for a while about the flaws with the modern scientific institution, and I'd be happy to, but I started this thread because I wanted to hear the RE answer to a question and I still want that.

I'll just repeat it here for future readers. the rest of this dicussion is veering towards other topics (which I'm happy to talk about, just not here, I hate it when topics get changed so that questions never get answered).

Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?

It’s been answered a number of times. I can see you haven’t changed a bit since you last spent time here. It doesn’t matter how often you spam the OP it won’t change that an answer has been given. Perhaps you should move on? Have you tried going to physics.stackechange.com to see if you can get a physicist to give a more technical answer?

[SphericalEarther]

That is the idealist's perspective, but unfortunately science in the real world does not work like that. For all the lip service paid to openness and acceptance, any scientist would happily repeat the 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' cliche. If it turns out one had to go back away, alter some ancient premise to actually arrive at the truth, that avenue would never go explored. They cling on blindly to impossible hypotheses not because of elegance, but because of tradition.
Though this is getting off topic. I could go on for a while about the flaws with the modern scientific institution, and I'd be happy to, but I started this thread because I wanted to hear the RE answer to a question and I still want that.

I'll just repeat it here for future readers. the rest of this dicussion is veering towards other topics (which I'm happy to talk about, just not here, I hate it when topics get changed so that questions never get answered).

Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?

Our idea of how scientists think and act are different, so lets agree to disagree on that area =)

My own thoughts on the matter, I wouldn't call them my beliefs, but if I was a scientist myself I would probably follow this line of thinking:

Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.

String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off from my own ideas. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).

[JRowe]

It’s been answered a number of times. I can see you haven’t changed a bit since you last spent time here. It doesn’t matter how often you spam the OP it won’t change that an answer has been given. Perhaps you should move on? Have you tried going to physics.stackechange.com to see if you can get a physicist to give a more technical answer?

No, it hasn't. As I am sick of repeating, all you do is endlessly repeat WHAT you want to happen, never WHY. The only person who has even tried to answer why used a neutrino-based model of dark matter, which did not work as it would not have allowed dark matter to influence anything.
Instead of endless telling me that you need dark matter to be out of the solar system, how about you take the time to actually say how in the hell it selectively ignores the pull of gravity? I asked a straight question there. If you are so sure it's been answered, please I am begging you, show me WHERE.

Seriously, I implore you, look at what you posted. You told me dark matter was scarcfer in the Solar System. Fine. I asked you why: you stopped posting. You eventually came back to say it is attracted to some centers of gravity: I asked you why only those and not ours, you did not answer. You appear to be postulating a universe which exists fully formed, and then dark matter gets scattered in at random, which is completely at odds with your model.
According to you, all matter begins at one point. Then bang, it accelerates outwards. All objects after that were formed by the pull of gravity, according to RET. I ask again, where was dark matter during that?

Stop telling me what you observe, and for the love of god do as I have constantly been asking and tell me why

Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?

Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.

String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).

Positing non-universal, changing laws of physics is not a scientifically tenable position. If that is believed the ability to know anything becomes non-existent.

[Curious Squirrel]

It’s been answered a number of times. I can see you haven’t changed a bit since you last spent time here. It doesn’t matter how often you spam the OP it won’t change that an answer has been given. Perhaps you should move on? Have you tried going to physics.stackechange.com to see if you can get a physicist to give a more technical answer?

No, it hasn't. As I am sick of repeating, all you do is endlessly repeat WHAT you want to happen, never WHY. The only person who has even tried to answer why used a neutrino-based model of dark matter, which did not work as it would not have allowed dark matter to influence anything.
Instead of endless telling me that you need dark matter to be out of the solar system, how about you take the time to actually say how in the hell it selectively ignores the pull of gravity? I asked a straight question there. If you are so sure it's been answered, please I am begging you, show me WHERE.

Seriously, I implore you, look at what you posted. You told me dark matter was scarcfer in the Solar System. Fine. I asked you why: you stopped posting. You eventually came back to say it is attracted to some centers of gravity: I asked you why only those and not ours, you did not answer. You appear to be postulating a universe which exists fully formed, and then dark matter gets scattered in at random, which is completely at odds with your model.
According to you, all matter begins at one point. Then bang, it accelerates outwards. All objects after that were formed by the pull of gravity, according to RET. I ask again, where was dark matter during that?

Stop telling me what you observe, and for the love of god do as I have constantly been asking and tell me why

Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?

Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.

String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).

Positing non-universal, changing laws of physics is not a scientifically tenable position. If that is believed the ability to know anything becomes non-existent.

It was in the same place and acting in the same manner as all the rest of the matter. Why don't we have one big giant clump of all the matter in the universe? Why do we have large empty spaces? Both of those provide clues to why Dark Matter won't necessarily congregate in the same places as regular matter.

Maybe Dark Matter repels itself for some reason. Perhaps it has a stronger pull towards other masses of Dark Matter than it has towards regular matter, resulting in concentrations that have only passing things to do with congregations of regular matter. Maybe it's not pulled by regular matter at all, and only exerts and influence in the opposite direction and against itself.

I've said it before, as have others. We just don't know right now. The Dark Matter hypothesis is fairly recent, and is essentially a band-aid. Work is ongoing to determine if the hypothesis has merit, or if we need to step back and look at our fundamental ideas of the universe. But until such time as the hypothesis is falsified or proven correct, it's unlikely Einstein's GR and other work will be simply abandoned when it continues to work so well at a local scale.

[Rama Set]

It’s been answered a number of times. I can see you haven’t changed a bit since you last spent time here. It doesn’t matter how often you spam the OP it won’t change that an answer has been given. Perhaps you should move on? Have you tried going to physics.stackechange.com to see if you can get a physicist to give a more technical answer?

No, it hasn't. As I am sick of repeating, all you do is endlessly repeat WHAT you want to happen, never WHY. The only person who has even tried to answer why used a neutrino-based model of dark matter, which did not work as it would not have allowed dark matter to influence anything.
Instead of endless telling me that you need dark matter to be out of the solar system, how about you take the time to actually say how in the hell it selectively ignores the pull of gravity? I asked a straight question there. If you are so sure it's been answered, please I am begging you, show me WHERE.

The main answer given, which you have refused to accept, is that we can't possibly answer this question until we have detected dark matter and studied it further.  But dark matter can be absent from our solar system and also not be "selectively ignoring gravity".  You are assuming that our sun is gravitationally dominant anywhere past the Oort cloud.  It shouldn't be that odd that there is variance in a section of the universe 1/20,000,000,000th the diameter of the universe.  It is quite simply what you would expect in large universe that is fairly, but not completely homogenous.

Seriously, I implore you, look at what you posted. You told me dark matter was scarcfer in the Solar System. Fine. I asked you why: you stopped posting. You eventually came back to say it is attracted to some centers of gravity: I asked you why only those and not ours, you did not answer. You appear to be postulating a universe which exists fully formed, and then dark matter gets scattered in at random, which is completely at odds with your model.

  That is not what is being postulated.  I told you that at the scale larger than the solar system, dark matter appears to be spread out homogenously.  Without deeper knowledge it would be dishonest in the extreme to say anyone, including yourself, knows why there is less dark matter here than in other places.  That being said, there are a lot of sources of gravitational fields that dwarf our own, so I would expect to see clumping go up, the closer you get to the higher end of that scale and less the lower down you get.

According to you, all matter begins at one point. Then bang, it accelerates outwards. All objects after that were formed by the pull of gravity, according to RET. I ask again, where was dark matter during that?

Hypothetically, it was all in the same place.

Stop telling me what you observe, and for the love of god do as I have constantly been asking and tell me why

As mentioned, we can't tell you why for sure.  Would you prefer us to be dishonest? Assuming knowledge is not the way science is done.

Finally, I heard an interview with a theoretical physicist, where he mentioned that multiple versions of modified gravity have been proposed, but when they run the simulations, they don't give us the universe we live in.  So there is a very low degree of confidence that modified gravity is the solution to the dark matter problem.  On the other hand, when you use a theory of WIMPs you get exactly what we see in the universe.  So as of right now, that is the avenue that is being explored.  Its a tough field to study, and I don't think anyone here is really qualified to say they are on the right path or not, but the questions are interesting.

[JRowe]

It was in the same place and acting in the same manner as all the rest of the matter. Why don't we have one big giant clump of all the matter in the universe? Why do we have large empty spaces? Both of those provide clues to why Dark Matter won't necessarily congregate in the same places as regular matter.

Go back in time in the RE model and there were vast clouds of matter, not clumps. Do you think an explosion came ready made with holes in it, or would they instead have been caused? According to the RE model gravity caused these clouds to coalesce, drawing dust in. The same should have happened for dark matter. We have had billions of years, according to you, billions of years for all the matter in interstellar space to be drawn closer whenever it gets near.

Maybe Dark Matter repels itself for some reason. Perhaps it has a stronger pull towards other masses of Dark Matter than it has towards regular matter, resulting in concentrations that have only passing things to do with congregations of regular matter. Maybe it's not pulled by regular matter at all, and only exerts and influence in the opposite direction and against itself.

Repelling itself- preventing it from having any sizeable gravitational pull as it would be too sparse. Variations in pull- aren't REers the ones that claim gravity isn't magic?

I've said it before, as have others. We just don't know right now. The Dark Matter hypothesis is fairly recent, and is essentially a band-aid. Work is ongoing to determine if the hypothesis has merit, or if we need to step back and look at our fundamental ideas of the universe. But until such time as the hypothesis is falsified or proven correct, it's unlikely Einstein's GR and other work will be simply abandoned when it continues to work so well at a local scale.

A hypothesis I don't mind: a contradictory one I do. If there was a possible scientific explanation I would not have made this topic, even if it was only speculative. There isn't, and the fact dark matter fails on such a fundamental level, and the fact that is never even acknowledged, speaks volumes.

The main answer given, which you have refused to accept, is that we can't possibly answer this question until we have detected dark matter and studied it further.  But dark matter can be absent from our solar system and also not be "selectively ignoring gravity".  You are assuming that our sun is gravitationally dominant anywhere past the Oort cloud.  It shouldn't be that odd that there is variance in a section of the universe 1/20,000,000,000th the diameter of the universe.  It is quite simply what you would expect in large universe that is fairly, but not completely homogenous.

I am not asking you for a 100% proven explanation, I am asking you for a workable hypothesis. You shouldn't need further study for that. It is the bare minimum: without appealing to magic, is there any even possible way for dark matter to behave the way it does?
Yet again, you are acting as though dark matter was sprinkled into a ready-made universe. What I am saying is valid preceding the Sun's existence, it doesn't need any kind of gravitational dominance, it needs to act as REers claim it does from the point when it was a nebula through the billions of years to today. How is it there is then a distinctive lack of dark matter in our universe when it should have been attracted towards us in all that time? Where was it when the solar system was a nebula, where has it been since then?

That is not what is being postulated.  I told you that at the scale larger than the solar system, dark matter appears to be spread out homogenously.  Without deeper knowledge it would be dishonest in the extreme to say anyone, including yourself, knows why there is less dark matter here than in other places.  That being said, there are a lot of sources of gravitational fields that dwarf our own, so I would expect to see clumping go up, the closer you get to the higher end of that scale and less the lower down you get.

I don't care about what we see, I care about why, and I am sick to death of repeating that. Great, it's spread out more or less homogenously, still doesn't explain why there is a near-total absence all around us.

According to you, all matter begins at one point. Then bang, it accelerates outwards. All objects after that were formed by the pull of gravity, according to RET. I ask again, where was dark matter during that?

Hypothetically, it was all in the same place.

And you don't see my problem? What you are saying smacks of special pleading: that dark matter got scattered everywhere, but just happened to completely pass us by, just happened to be so far away that over billions of years it never came near our Solar System despite affecting majorly other parts in our galaxy and despite being five times as commonplace as regular matter. That is not a scientific standpoint.

[Curious Squirrel]

I've said it before, as have others. We just don't know right now. The Dark Matter hypothesis is fairly recent, and is essentially a band-aid. Work is ongoing to determine if the hypothesis has merit, or if we need to step back and look at our fundamental ideas of the universe. But until such time as the hypothesis is falsified or proven correct, it's unlikely Einstein's GR and other work will be simply abandoned when it continues to work so well at a local scale.

A hypothesis I don't mind: a contradictory one I do. If there was a possible scientific explanation I would not have made this topic, even if it was only speculative. There isn't, and the fact dark matter fails on such a fundamental level, and the fact that is never even acknowledged, speaks volumes.

Have you considered it's not acknowledged as 'contradictory' because it isn't and you just don't understand why? I would highly suggest you take your question somewhere that you can actually get answers from people closer to, or in the field. You're asking the cheap seats the best way to throw a fastball. Sure we can make guesses, but have you tried asking a pitcher? There's plenty of forums out there to ask this sort of question on, and usually get good answers. I'll continue to be boggled that so many of these are you guys asking this forum about something very high level, and then getting annoyed when most answers deal with lower level thoughts/ideas. Why aren't you out asking people who understand the material at least as well if not better than you do?

[JRowe]

Have you considered it's not acknowledged as 'contradictory' because it isn't and you just don't understand why? I would highly suggest you take your question somewhere that you can actually get answers from people closer to, or in the field. You're asking the cheap seats the best way to throw a fastball. Sure we can make guesses, but have you tried asking a pitcher? There's plenty of forums out there to ask this sort of question on, and usually get good answers. I'll continue to be boggled that so many of these are you guys asking this forum about something very high level, and then getting annoyed when most answers deal with lower level thoughts/ideas. Why aren't you out asking people who understand the material at least as well if not better than you do?

I have researched it, that's the point. The best answer you get no matter where you look is going from 'doesn't clump' to 'is diffuse' with no explanation of how it avoids only certain gravitational centers.
I would be perfectly happy with even a guess, so long as that guess worked. I'm not asking for pages of evidence, I'm asking for a way the system could even hypothetically work. If you want me to ask a different forum on top of it, sure, which would you recommend?

[Curious Squirrel]

Have you considered it's not acknowledged as 'contradictory' because it isn't and you just don't understand why? I would highly suggest you take your question somewhere that you can actually get answers from people closer to, or in the field. You're asking the cheap seats the best way to throw a fastball. Sure we can make guesses, but have you tried asking a pitcher? There's plenty of forums out there to ask this sort of question on, and usually get good answers. I'll continue to be boggled that so many of these are you guys asking this forum about something very high level, and then getting annoyed when most answers deal with lower level thoughts/ideas. Why aren't you out asking people who understand the material at least as well if not better than you do?

I have researched it, that's the point. The best answer you get no matter where you look is going from 'doesn't clump' to 'is diffuse' with no explanation of how it avoids only certain gravitational centers.
I would be perfectly happy with even a guess, so long as that guess worked. I'm not asking for pages of evidence, I'm asking for a way the system could even hypothetically work. If you want me to ask a different forum on top of it, sure, which would you recommend?

Quick search turns up a few options. There's always Quora. But I've also found https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/ask_astro/cosmology.html as well as http://www.astroalex.com/ASK.html (this one seems weakest in that it's just one guy) as well as I thought someone posted another site earlier but I can't locate it now during a quick skim over things again. You could also try asking via the twitter linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i3a26/hi_im_dave_goldberg_cosmologist_professor_io9s/ Or look for another person doing similar.

[JRowe]

Have you considered it's not acknowledged as 'contradictory' because it isn't and you just don't understand why? I would highly suggest you take your question somewhere that you can actually get answers from people closer to, or in the field. You're asking the cheap seats the best way to throw a fastball. Sure we can make guesses, but have you tried asking a pitcher? There's plenty of forums out there to ask this sort of question on, and usually get good answers. I'll continue to be boggled that so many of these are you guys asking this forum about something very high level, and then getting annoyed when most answers deal with lower level thoughts/ideas. Why aren't you out asking people who understand the material at least as well if not better than you do?

I have researched it, that's the point. The best answer you get no matter where you look is going from 'doesn't clump' to 'is diffuse' with no explanation of how it avoids only certain gravitational centers.
I would be perfectly happy with even a guess, so long as that guess worked. I'm not asking for pages of evidence, I'm asking for a way the system could even hypothetically work. If you want me to ask a different forum on top of it, sure, which would you recommend?

Quick search turns up a few options. There's always Quora. But I've also found https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/ask_astro/cosmology.html as well as http://www.astroalex.com/ASK.html (this one seems weakest in that it's just one guy) as well as I thought someone posted another site earlier but I can't locate it now during a quick skim over things again. You could also try asking via the twitter linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i3a26/hi_im_dave_goldberg_cosmologist_professor_io9s/ Or look for another person doing similar.

Tried sites like that before, let's go again!

"While reading about dark matter (especially the WIMP model) it alway seems to be said that dark matter is especially diffuse and barely present in our Solar System: if it has mass though wouldn't it still be attracted to the Sun or the planets to some noticable extent, especially given how much of it there is? Or if it just moves too fast to linger around anything in our Solar System how was it ever captured to influence anything in the galaxy, especially if it should have shot off long before stars formed?"

Give it a couple of weeks, I'll keep everyone updated.

[ICanScienceThat]

If you're willing to ask questions one at a time and accept the answers without getting upset, I'm happy to help you.

[SphericalEarther]

Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.

String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).

Positing non-universal, changing laws of physics is not a scientifically tenable position. If that is believed the ability to know anything becomes non-existent.

Changing laws within the confines of the most basic of rules. As though there could exist many more wave forms providing more physical rules. I find it very interesting to think like that.
Think of it as evolution of the laws of physics.

Many possibilities to be found if this was the case, but alas I don't believe it and even if it was the case, it wouldn't affect me in my lifetime. Though I do wish to include it in my fantasy roleplaying worlds.

[JRowe]

If you're willing to ask questions one at a time and accept the answers without getting upset, I'm happy to help you.

I've done that, I've been focusing on the one question for a while now. I only get upset when I am met with condescension and people blatantly ignoring what I have said. I have a specific dislike of people lying to my face.

Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?