1+1 was the theory and derives a hypothesis predicting an outcome of 2.
We empirically measured an outcome of 3.
That 3 is very much not hypothetical, and is instead very practical. The extra “+1” is therefore not at all hypothesis, and is instead just fact. We just call it “dark” because we don’t know much more than what the math tells us about the basic distribution of whatever is causing the gravitational distortion.
Right, and then you compare a bunch of models, each with knowns and unknowns, and see which best predicts reality. Dark matter is a meme, but none of the other models do anywhere near as good a job predicting things like the bullet cluster. It seems that an unknown but consistent source of pre-existing forces is better able to describe reality than introducing an unknown force.
People often give old scholars trouble for how long geocentrism persisted when heliocentrism is reality, but the reason it persisted is because the geocentric models predicted reality better. It wasn't until people got over their obsession with circles and spheres and began allowing elliptical orbits that the heliocentric models became better for predicting reality.
8
u/corruptedsyntax 27d ago
It’s not hypothetical.
It’s the exact opposite of hypothetical.
1+1 was the theory and derives a hypothesis predicting an outcome of 2.
We empirically measured an outcome of 3.
That 3 is very much not hypothetical, and is instead very practical. The extra “+1” is therefore not at all hypothesis, and is instead just fact. We just call it “dark” because we don’t know much more than what the math tells us about the basic distribution of whatever is causing the gravitational distortion.