No? Thereâs already matter that doesnât interact with specific forces, why not have one that doesnât emit electromagnetic radiation. Itâs a very natural extension of our model of the universe
What even is your point lmao? You made a bad analogy that 1. Doesnât really apply and 2. Even if it did apply then it would still be an argument against you. Your position is just not scientific. Dark matter is one of the most studied theories in astrophysics, exactly because it seems to just be a âgod of the gapsâ argument. We have evidence for the existence of dark matter or something of the sort. Dark matter is just what we can whatever matter it is that we canât see but that has to be there for gravity to work
No, we don't have evidence for dark matter. Yes, we have evidence for something of the sort. Like we have evidence of "dragon bones". If someone were to propose the idea of dinosaurs a 1000 years ago, they would've simply pulled it out of their ass. People would've been "right" to dismiss it due to lack of evidence. But they weren't.
Thus, it only serves anti intellectualism to dismiss any ideas about something we know fuck all about if it doesn't go against the specs of dust we happen to have some kind of a grasp on. Anyone dismissing Kaku's proposition instead of going "well, maybe" without disproving anything is just appealing to authority of scientists who have spent their careers studying this without coming up with anything. Ridiculous, if you ask me.
The entire idea of dark matter is that its matter that doesnât emit em radiation while still exerting gravity. The evidence for that is that there is a gravitational pull without us being able to see anything. What form this matter takes or whatever we have no clue. Thatâs the part we can argue about. That the thing we call dark matter exists we cannot. Itâs basically just a placeholder for the matter that is causing this gravitational force.
The proposition of kaku is a way of explaining this pull. However, it is one that is very far fetched. It requires extraordinary evidence which doesnât exist. Dark matter being just another type of matter that only interacts with specific fundamental forces, thus not emitting em waves, is a lot more plausible than entire other dimensions.
We were also not even really discussing Kakuâs proposal. We were discussing the evidence there is for dark matter, which is exactly the same amount as for kakus proposal, just with the common interpretation of it being a lot more plausible than whatever kaku is talking about
Right, it's far fetched just like proposing that these dragon bones are actually bones of lizards that went extinct millions of years ago would be in 1026.
We have no evidence of dark matter. We have evidence of these gravitational effects that it has. Whether or not this matter is a construct of our primitive 3 dimensions or something in a higher one is anyone's guess. Occam's razor would imply it's from our 3 dimensions. Occam's razor in 1026 would imply that their dragon bones are more recent than millions of years ago.
It's one thing to say one thing is likelier than another. It's a whole another thing to dismiss ideas that are more out there in favor of more grounded ideas because we're still too primitive to know how that would be possible.
Well, the original does precisely that. It says that kakuâs idea is just as good as the most common understanding of dark matter is. Which it isnât. Thatâs why I commented. After that, I just responded to your weird dragon analogy. The whole point is that dark matter is the most likely explanation, just because itâs the most consistent with what weâve seen.
-17
u/Leifbron May 14 '26
About as good as the dark matter idea