This, but it also depends on how close Andromeda's black hole (or larger stars) comes to us because it could push us around in our solar system, or launch us into deep space altogether (both extremely unlikely obviously).

Thanks for linking that. That is very interesting that MOND needs dark matter to exist like that.

This article is the only one I could find that could "detect" dark matter and so far no one has been able to duplicate their results.

This article suggests that the best chance of detecting dark matter is currently in the middle of its 1000-day mission to collect data.

I honestly just need more than "trust me, it exists" before I can actually believe it because right now I laid out 5 questions that scientists can't really answer about Dark Matter.

>Proponents of MOND emphasize predictions made on galaxy scales (where MOND enjoys its most notable successes) and believe that a cosmological model consistent with galaxy dynamics has yet to be discovered.

This was my whole point, so I guess for now I side with MOND over the Dark Matter theory.

>Dark Matter is every single place that astronomers look. Everywhere.

• Except they can't see it, nor can they prove it yet.

>Every galaxy rotates faster than it should

• What if we are simply underestimating the power that super-massive black holes have on gravity and the galaxies around them?

>gravitational lensing from huge galaxies always shows a big excess in mass from what's visible

• Gravitational Lensing causes weird things to happen to the background of the galaxies we are looking at, so why wouldn't it just fall in this category?

>large galaxy clusters don't have enough visible mass to stay held together

• What if they are held together in ways similar to multi-star systems but on a much larger scale? What if they are actually orbiting around each other but they are so massive that it's hard to pick that up?

>the CMB should be more uniform unless there's way more hidden mass in the universe.

• Are there any good articles on this?

>All of these discrepancies are explained by there being some kind of matter that interacts with gravity and not light.

• We have picked up particles that are 34 picometers across (1 picometer = 1 trillionth of a meter), so how come we can't pick up this particle that makes up 95% of the universe?

>"the most reasonable explanation is that there is some kind of matter we can't directly see that is exerting all this gravitational force"

• It seems like the most reasonable explanation is that we don't understand enough about gravity when it's on the scales of black holes, super-massive black holes, or full galaxies. That's what I'm not convinced of.

Do you have any articles? Because these two that I've found (plus this third) just make it seem like they can only detect dark matter around massive black holes or clusters of stars which already have their own massive amount of gravity distortion abilites (gravitational lensing).

None of what those articles (or the articles/videos that they linked) have made me change my mind on there being Dark Matter/Dark Energy out in the universe messing with things.

Oh for sure. I'm not saying to not look because it will actually just hurt us since we accidentally find stuff all the time.

I think I need proof that dark matter exists before I actually start believing it. If something is invisible and not able to be detected, maybe it's just not there to begin with.

I could watch this 100 times.