This question already has an answer here:

I know most scientists, if not all scientists, believe Dark Matter cannot be accounted for by baryonic matter. And I don't mean baryonic matter that is unseen because it is not emitting light, I mean the baryonic matter we can see. Maybe regular matter only expresses 1/6th of its gravitational mass locally by the 1/R2 law but 6/6th starting a thousand light years away by the 1/R or similar law. How would scientists go about testing or eliminating such a hypothesis?


marked as duplicate by Qmechanic Mar 14 '18 at 0:01

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • $\begingroup$ This is not a duplicate. The old question asks why current estimates of the amount of ordinary matter are deemed accurate. This question asks if the currently detectable ordinary matter could nonetheless account for observations via a different theory of gravity. $\endgroup$ – Tom B. Mar 14 '18 at 0:38
  • $\begingroup$ @TomB. then that is covered here: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/319575/… along with a lot of other modified gravity questions. $\endgroup$ – Jerry Schirmer Mar 14 '18 at 2:03
  • $\begingroup$ @jerryschirmer thanks that helps. I like the Bullet Galaxy refutation. Doesn't seem like a totally settled question though. Now I have to search for answers to the question of why dark energy is a better theory than modified gravity, heh. $\endgroup$ – Tom B. Mar 14 '18 at 2:55