Because we just haven’t found the dark matter that the theory seems to require.
Further to Human languages must be irreducibly complex (Can someone help us understand what this translation from German means?)—maybe it was something about how cosmology needs to change, which Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute in Canada said plainly earlier this year. Something like: Hi, Nonsense, meet Budget:
From PBS:
Do We Need to Rewrite General Relativity?
Astronomical observations show that there isn’t enough ordinary matter to account for the behavior of galaxies and other objects. The fix is dark matter, particles invisible to light but endowed with gravity. However, none of our detectors or experiments have ever seen a dark matter particle directly, leading some to doubt that dark matter actually exists. Just as Newton’s theory of gravity is “good enough” for most familiar situations and reveals its limitations only in extreme situations or upon the most detailed examination, maybe what we call dark matter is actually a breakdown of general relativity.
It’s a tantalizing thought, but as Perimeter Institute physicist John Moffat points out, “It’s not easy to modify Einstein’s theory!” The problem is that general relativity (“GR”) is too good: its predictions match observations so closely that, in changing it, physicists seem likely to fall short. The “classic tests” of GR—the small shifts in the orbit of Mercury, the bending of the paths of light around the Sun, and the change in light properties when moving in and out of gravitational fields—are precise enough that they can be used to judge any alternative idea.
That hasn’t stopped maverick scientists like Moffat from looking at alternatives to GR. The rotation of spiral galaxies inspired a particular modification to gravity that lingers like a fungus in the basement of astronomy: “modified Newtonian dynamics,” or MOND. As the name suggests, it’s a change to Newton’s law of gravity rather than general relativity, and it does very well at describing the motion of stars and gas in spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter. However, MOND fails for some other types of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and—because it isn’t compatible with relativity—it cannot explain the “classic tests” of GR, much less the evolution of the universe as a whole.
Nevertheless, MOND is successful enough in galaxies to inspire some theorists to try to modify it, in hopes of making predictions that more closely match nature. More.
For more re quest for dark matter, see
MOND: Is Discover mag’s “blasphemy” about dark matter really about fine tuning?
and
New Scientist asks the same question as Barry Arrington re dark matter
For more re PBS, see Public Broadcasting joins the popular demand for a multiverse
Follow UD News at Twitter!
as to: “Astronomical observations show that there isn’t enough ordinary matter to account for the behavior of galaxies and other objects.”
I notice that this failure of materialistic theories to account for large scale structure of, and in, the universe, or more precisely, the failure to account for ‘form/shape’, is a persistent problem for materialists.
Most notable of these failures is the recent failure of inflation theory to account for why the universe is as flat and round as it is:
Around the 13:20 minute mark of the following video Pastor Joe Boot comments on the self-defeating nature of the atheistic/materialistic worldview in regards to ever providing a coherent overarching ‘design plan’ for the universe:
Whereas inflation fails miserably to account for why the universe is as round and flat as it is, it is interesting to note that the Holy Bible said that the universe is round and flat thousands of years before scientists discovered the universe actually is round and flat:
The ’roundness’ of the universe is visualized in the following video:
Here is a still shot of the image at the 3:36 minute mark of the preceding video
Here are a few supplemental notes as to the fine-tuning of the “flatness problem” and the “horizon problem”.
It is presented as an unquestionable fact to the public that the universe is mostly comprised of a mysterious ether called “dark matter”, of which its existence cannot be experimentally tested or verified in any way. Its amazing that they get away with this sort of thing.
If A, then B.
B is not observed.
Logic then dictates that we must rethink the existence of A.
That includes intelligent technological aliens, the multiverse, dark energy, dark matter, and neo-Darwinian macroevolution.