"Unseen matter" is the typical starting point to explain unexpected perturbations in orbits (after the perturbations have been confirmed, that is).
A little more reasonable when its planet sized. When its the size of 96% of the universe? Nope. Thats not typical at all.
Your opinion of what is reasonable and what isn't reasonable is irrelevant.
Sometimes it works, and the previously-unrecognized matter is found (e.g. Neptune) and sometimes it doesn't work, which can lead to a new or more complete model for gravitation, as in the case of the precession of Mercury's orbit, which was due to relativistic effects and unaccounted for by Newtonian (or "classical") mechanics. Newtonian mechanics worked well enough for objects on earth and most of the objects in the solar system, but with Mercury's proximity to the very massive Sun, the difference between relativistic and classical mechanics was significant enough to be noticed. It's now recognized that classical mechanics, while accurate enough for most situations, was less complete than relativistic mechanics. It may turn out that relativistic mechanics are not complete enough to describe the motion of galaxies, and another model may be necessary. Or, now that they know to look for previously unseen mass, they may find it. The jury is still out on this one.
This is how science works. When there's a difference between predictions and observation, find out why. Occasionally it's because the model itself isn't good enough, sometimes it's because something previously undiscovered is causing the earlier prediction to be wrong.
Finally I get a roundie to admit the scientific process works based off of ad hoc hypotheses, rather than it being damned in traditional teachings of scientific method.
Please show where I said this was "ad-hoc".
The scientific method in a nutshell: Observe a phenomenon. Construct a hypothesis. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis. If the experiment shows the hypothesis is wrong, discard or modify the hypothesis.
Are you suggesting that "Construct a hypothesis" means "wing it"?
Dark matter is an explanation for an observable effect. It is no more "invented" than any other matter in this regard.
Except that by its definition it also happens to be outside our observational power.
Not really. We hypothesize it's there because of the observable effect it has on ordinary matter and light. At any rate, it's only recently that we knew that it may be there and are beginning to look for it in other ways.
Making it essentially a Russel's Teapot.
Nope. Russel's Teapot argument relies on the presumption that there are no observable effects due to its existence. We already know that something is going on due to the effects we can and do see. What that something is has not yet been determined.
Actually it relies on the presumption that it is not falsifiable.
It's not falsifiable because it is presumed to have no observable effects. If it predicted observable effects and the effects were found to be missing, it could be falsified.
I would argue dark matter is not [falsifiable]
Argue away. Why are you so sure the existence of dark matter is not falsifiable? Dark matter, as postulated, is "dark" because it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation. It does have other effects, such as gravity, however. Several avenues of research are being pursued, including some that hypothesize that our current model for gravity is incomplete. I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.
and that it is an ad hoc hypothesis.
Are you saying
any hypothesis is ad hoc? That seems to be your stance.
Roundies did invent like 96% of the mater[sic] in the universe solely for solving the issue that some galaxies rotate faster than expected.
Let that sink in. Instead of going to Modified Newton Dynamics, a competing and equal theory given falsification of their equations, they instead invent 96% of the universe.
96%. Of the Universe.
Calm down. Dark matter is simply a working hypothesis, no more than that. The possibility that a more complete model for gravitation may be necessary is quite real. No actual scientist claims that we know everything.
Except every few months NASA claims to have discovered it. Despite not having discovered it.
Citations (plural), please.
For comparison this is 4%: '•' and this is 96% '•'
Actually, no, it's not. The large (96-point) dot has 24 times the diameter of the small (4-point) dot, but 576 times the area, so those represent proportions of about 0.17% and 99.83%, respectively, not 4% and 96%.
The comparison you really mean is • and •.
If those represent spheres, then it's • and •.
And even that presumes the 4%/96% ratio is correct, which it's not. It's more like 15% and 85% for ordinary and dark matter, respectively, so the comparison is:
• and • (area), or
• and • (volume).
I'm going to presume you were simply mistaken rather than deliberately deceptive about the sizes of the dots in your comparison and the incorrect ratio you go on and on about.
Though, I wouldn't put any weight in what Neil says. He constantly and repeatedly makes mistakes, lies, and misquotations both within his field and outside of his field to push his agenda.
Oh, the irony.
Some sources say 96%. Others even go as high as 99%. I have seen the 85% number too. If you don't like me using your guys numbers, or if your guys numbers aren't consistent, I hardly see how that is my problem.
The 96% number applies to dark matter and the mass equivalent of dark energy. You explicitly said 96% of the
matter (misspelled a couple quotes up as 'mater') is "invented".
You see numbers and just throw them around, apparently without understanding what they mean. That shows that you don't know what you're talking about, and that
is a problem for you if you want credibility with any but the most gullible.
I'm not to interested in trying to correct your sides sources
That's good because you don't seem to have a good enough grasp of the subject (or, apparently, the process) to be able to do so.
when they guess two different numbers for their imaginary universe. However, Whether you invented 20% of the universe, 50% of the universe, 80% of the universe or 96% of the universe is not the point.
Then why did you go to the effort to try to illustrate the relative magnitudes, but blow it, big time, in the process?
All of these numbers are ridiculous and yet we can't see it at all, as if it were the size of a teapot.
Um... no. If we couldn't see it at all, it wouldn't be hypothesized in the first place. We "see" it by its distinct effect of ordinary matter and light even though it doesn't produce or reflect light itself. If by "see" you mean in visible light only, then you're simply ignoring other methods of detection. Since it affects entire galaxies and groups of galaxies, that's one heckuva big teapot!
Obviously the illustration was aimed more at comprehension than at accuracy.
It fails, then, because it was wildly inaccurate to the point of uselessness. I could suggest it was aimed more at deception then comprehension, but I still believe it was just another instance where you throw numbers around without understanding their meaning.
However, since you can't find fault in what I said content wise, I guess the indoctrinated mind will tend to attack any small error instead.
"
Small" error? Pointing out a basic misunderstanding of the data and a gross exaggeration "for comparison purposes" isn't finding fault? That's an interesting way to spin it.
The ad-hom just shows how weak your argument is and that you know how weak it is.
The difference between me and Neil is that I'm judging him by his own standards, and you aren't judging me by mine.
I am judging you by your standards. Here's what you said, remember:
Though, I wouldn't put any weight in what Neil says. He constantly and repeatedly makes mistakes, lies, and misquotations both within his field and outside of his field to push his agenda.
For the very reasons
you give, no one should put any weight in what
you say.
It's nice that you're on a first-name basis with Dr. Tyson, though; I presume that's who you're referring to here. Does he call you John?
He's the one that said being wrong and being able to influence people is dangerous. Not me.
Where? "Being wrong and being able to influence people is dangerous" never appears in your statement. At any rate, I don't disagree with that sentiment. In fact, it succinctly describes why many "round earth" people are here pointing out all the places where the flat-earth arguments are wrong; fortunately, the influence this site has is probably minuscule, but, to paraphrase Willie Sutton: "It's where the wrong information is" (and most is very easy to refute with relatively simple observations, some math, or a bit of basic logic) so we do what we can.