RAZD writes:
the point is not that there is {no evidence at all}, but that the evidence we have is not sufficient to say that current theory covers the observed data
The observed evidence is way more than sufficient, it is on par with QED for the most rigorously tested theory in modern physics.
RAZD writes:
... and thus that we have a cohesive theory for how gravity works. we have anomalies. "dark matter" is not an actually observed piece of evidence but a hypothetical explanation for an observed large scale anomaly, where the current theory of gravity does not work.
Okay, first General Relativity works for any Stellar system we have observed, emphasise on any.
That is more than enough to accept it as an intra-stellar theory of gravity.
Now for interstellar.
We can't use the full Einsteinian Field Equation, so we use the Post-Newtonian approximation and this is only off when we get to the galactic scale.
And is it off in a structural manner?
No, the galaxy has the same structure as the PN approximation predicts, it simply slowed in a rotational manner.
Now if we add to the simulations a certain amount of Dark Material we get the correct rotation curve.
There are no anomalies, either justified enough or blatant enough to warrant another theory of gravity.
So either:
a) every cosmologist is worshipping their doctrine of General Relativity because we love epicycles so much that we collect them.
or
b)General Relativity is actually supported by evidence and that is the reason it is the dominant theory of gravity.
And gravity waves are tremendously weak.
Einstein's equations combined with numerical analysis warned us how difficult to detect they would be, so that isn't a flaw.
Only now are places like Glasgow, Cardiff, e.t.c. finally reaching the level of technology were we can tune out the quantum "noise".
™ Version 4.2