It's not just the math. Observations of galaxy rotations point to something that acts like dark matter exerting a gravitational pull. There are other theories that are being explored (Like MOND) but they don't match the actual universe as well as theories that include dark matter. Scientists would love to find a theory that works better or observations that point in a different direction, but so far, no luck. If you've got a better theory, please speak up.

You might find this interesting -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n33aurhg788

That is the math isnt i t?

Here is our set of equations for how the universe works.

Now let us observe this galaxy far away. It does not do what it should according to our equations. Our equations are accurate so how can this be?

Well they do work if we insert 95% of mystical stuff into the the universe

Good that is solved then.

That is the combination of observations and the mathematical theory to explain the observations.

Nothing we see here on earth seems to be dark matter. When we look at far away galaxies, they rotate like they were about 20 times bigger than we can see. One hypothesis to explain this is that there actually is 19x more stuff that we can't see. Another hypothesis is that our theories of how galaxies should rotate are wrong.

well the article above says that 95% of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy, as did my Google search. 95% is a lot more than 19%

You've misread, 95% is a 19:1 ratio.

I think this article presents dark matter as much more of a resolved question than it actually is. It's an unconfirmed hypothesis to explain observed reality. That's not mysticism, it's science in progress.

Perhaps one day a physical experiment will support or invalidate the hypothesis, or a competing one. Until then, we simply don't know the answer, so we think about it. If you don't like that, I guess you should stop thinking about it?

You’ve completed a cursory google search and don’t understand why our leading explanations for the observations cosmologists have made say what they say — OK. Sometimes when our opinions counter the narratives of whole scientific fields, it can be helpful to first convince yourself you actually understand what they claim: what is the evidence, and what are the required inferences to arrive at the modern cosmologist view of what the universe is made of.

If you’d like to learn about Dark Matter and Dark Energy, here’s a 12 hour pop sci lecture series I can recommend: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjBulz4rXhBohsOjohoYDC2hS...

> Clearly examining models of the universe that dont depend upon 95% mystical stuff may be an avenue worth exploring.

You're far from the first person to suggest such an idea. And far from it being a new idea. There have been a whole lot of people who have tried to come up with an alternative solution, and the problem is, they're all universally significantly worse.

I don't mean to disparage you, but this is pretty much universally the reaction people have when they first learn about the scale of dark matter, and that has resulted in significant research efforts to put forward a different solution... but dark matter is still a superior answer to the question.

One thing that isn't immediately obvious is that we have a wide variety of ways to estimate the mass of things. Just for galaxies, we can look at their radial velocities, x-ray spectrum and flux, and gravitational lensing. These approach the measurement from very different methods, yet all of them strongly align with dark matter. Modifying our theory of gravity to alternative explanations has yet to be able to account for just these three methods, and they're just a subset of the observations we have that support dark matter's existence.

> How in the world can the dominant theory for the universe be based on it being 95% filled with mystical shit that we cant prove, but makes our math happy.

We could write a library's worth of books about things that math has predicted before we could experimentally prove it or otherwise observe it. Dark matter makes a whole bunch of math in a whole bunch of places work, including in areas where MOND and its derivatives and other alternative solutions fall down. LIGO and gravitational waves have also blown big holes in alternative theories like TeVeS.

Basically, the more data we get, the more it supports dark matter. Providing a viable alternative explanation that can answer the same questions and would match our observations would instantly shortlist you for the nobel prize in physics. A whole lot of incredibly intelligent people have tried and failed. And it's not like physicists "like" dark matter - no one is more frustrated by the fact that something so hugely important to the makeup of the universe is damn near invisible to us than the physicists who work in these areas.