|
|
|
|
|
|
by Steuard
948 days ago
|
|
|
I don't quite understand the words you're using in your "the logic is as follows" list. (What are "gaps that otherwise invalidates math and disqualifies observed measures"? Really, what are "observed measures"? What does it mean to "performed qualified measures"? etc.) To a substantial extent, it kinda feels like what you're describing is literally the scientific method. We discover observations that are inconsistent with existing models, so we develop a new model that (within their realm of validity) correctly match the data, and when we continue to find that the new model successfully describes new observations our confidence in the model goes up (and eventually rises to the level of saying "this seems to be a correct description of reality"). Maybe if I understood the exact meaning of your words here, I'd understand how what you're talking about differs from that and what your concerns are. But as I've said elsewhere, I really don't see where this is a "confidence problem", and I've never had reason to believe that alternatives are "censored to hell". There are people who've built entire careers publishing papers studying MOND, after all. It just doesn't seem to work as well as dark matter (Lambda-CDM) to explain the copious data that we now have. And I'll definitely push back (again) against calling the case for dark matter "an observational limitation". These are quantitative, positive observations that demand some model to explain them. The specific quantitative amounts and distributions of dark matter necessary to explain galaxy rotation curves also turned out to be the same specific details necessary to explain gravitational lensing observations. As new observations have come in over the years, the case for dark matter has gotten stronger. (That's why it's become a dominant belief among experts.) So I genuinely don't have any idea what you're getting at with those comments. |
|
|