Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Dark matter. Or what?" video.

That would be "nice", but I don't think many physicists think that neutrinos are enough.
1
What is?
1
What I always found hard to "grok" about general relativity are the gauge degrees of freedom in the equations. I kept asking my professors about it but I never got a satisfying answer at the physical level. I can see the mechanics of the equations and how one has to use constraints on both the initial data and the actual evolution, but I could never develop a mental model to translate that into physical intuition. I don't know how the relativists are doing it. OK, I don't know how to play Chopin, either... it kind of falls into the same category for me. :-)
1
A lot of telescopes disagree.
1
@immanuelkant7895 "Dark matter" is the name of the observation that there is excess gravity in galaxies and other large scale structures of the universe. That's the effect. "Dark matter particles" is the name of the hypothetical optically non-interacting matter that dark matter (the phenomenon) is caused by. That's one possible cause. You would have been correct if you had said that no telescope has ever observed dark matter particles. Yes, I know, physicists are pedantic... that's part of the success behind physics. We differentiate between cause and effect. And, yes, you are also correct, some of the naming of phenomena/hypotheses etc. is between questionable and idiotic. Like string theory is not a theory. And particles are actually quanta. And so on and so on... :-)
1
@immanuelkant7895 The proposed hypotheses are "dark matter particles" and "modified Newtonian gravity" among a few other things (like a mix of both). Galactic rotation curves are just part of the evidence that makes up the dark matter phenomenon. Like I said, the naming of "stuff" in science is not always a winner. Just look at how the astronomers have messed up the term "planet" recently. Does that look rational to you?
1