Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter'

I don't get your poll, but I am very skeptical of dark matter, and rightly so. It is a misnomer to refer to the "theory of dark matter" because in a scientific context, a theory is supposed to be demonstrated correct under all circumstances. While the effects of dark matter might be well verified, the cause of those effects is not clear. I consider it "bad science" to think of an arbitrary cause, such as dark matter, or a modification to newton or einstein's laws and call that a new "theory" when it is REALLY just a hypothesis. If people were more consistent when it came to terminology there would be a lot less confusion on these things and a lot less distrust in science in general, because many people (and rightly so) have trouble distinguishing between TRUE theories and "popular theories."

22% of the universe is composed of dark matter.

4% of the universe is composed of matter.

Yes, I would agree terminology has caused quite a bit of confusion @stuh505
@oralloy not that it matters greatly the accuracy of the figures related to these hypothetical, since there are more speculative, but those figures are constantly changing, and being updated. https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy


URL: https://able2know.org/topic/81386-1

URL: https://able2know.org/topic/81386-1.

Philosophy of existence:
Male rabbit vs female rabbit; male pig vs female pig; male cat vs female cat; male dog vs female dog; male duck vs female duck...
matter vs anti matter vs similar matter.
Have a lovely weekend, boys. haha

You are "Yong yanginging" all over the place... and from your profound insight we can conclude the nights are black and the mornings are blue! Cheers!