That is slightly crazy... I already gave many reasons. Some are all listed in our discussion. Just to repeat: galaxy rotation curves, CMB, cosmic rays, gamma rays, formation of the structures in our universe, etc... This is why I think the dark matter paradigm is a good idea. It works damned well in explaining all these observations.
Scientists are well aware that dark matter is not the only option. And people are thinking hard about both non standard and novel dark matter ideas, and non standard and novel ideas without dark matter too. What you state about intimidation, close-mindedness and so on is just meaningless.
Remember that not everything scientists work on ends up in the media. Medias are selecting what they want to talk about. Dark matter is popular in media, that is true. Other options (that you seem to prefer) are less popular, that is true too. I am not the one choosing what the media like to talk about...
And not everything popular is good science and not all good science is popular. I believe dark matter theories are excellent theories. Who can say whether a theory is good or bad? Certainly neither you nor me, but only data. That is the scientific method...
On the other hand, I decided to work on dark matter and I deicided to talk about what I work on. That is my choice. If I would decide one day to work on modified gravity theories, I will write on this...
You're just copying whatever's mainstream? Sure you're not getting payed?
Oh well now you've explained the paradigm I suppose, good job man you've really enlightened the people.
Okay maybe should we stop this conversation? This leads to nowhere.
I was trying to give you (and just you by the way since you asked the question) keywords explaining why dark matter is not a crazy idea, and you seem to be unhappy regardless what I say. What can I do? I don't know what you want. A full course on dark matter? Good. There are plenty available for free on the web (I am sure you can find them as well as I could. So help yourself) with all detailed calculations that you may want to see and that I don't want to type here for various reasons.
What are you talking about? I discussed, in this post, three scientific papers I have recently read and that I have found interesting. Scientific journals are not usual media to what I know... And I didn't copy anything. IF you accuse my of plagiarism, just proof it.
Can't place blind faith in science, gotta think for yourself. Our society is not immune to deceit, and science and scientists aren't either. What/who decides what science is shared with the public? How is science funded?
Hey I'm just sharing my opinion and mostly sharing a perspective that I think is incredibly important. I trust you're only doing the same. Sorry if this wasn't the most pleasant interaction you've had on the internet. Steem on.
Actually, in our field, almost everything is public and freely available on the arxiv even before articles are submitted to journal. We are actually an open access field (you can check the SCOAP3 agreement) and everybody is welcome to work on anything he wants. That is probably not true for all branches of science, but in particle physics where all the money is public, this holds.
I agree, this looks more like a discussion to have on a chat or with a beer than written on a forum ^^
That's good to hear, people are waking up and things are heading in right directions. Thanks for the link, I've got some perusing to do.
Maybe in the future. For now, we all need money. :P
You can work on anything you want. The question of being funded is another (tricky) business, indeed :)