4 ms·

So the obvious problem is that the unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable current hypothesis of origins is clung to, then, in flagrant disregard for the observa

So the obvious problem is that the unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable current hypothesis of origins is clung to, then, in flagrant disregard for the observable, testable, repeatable theories regarding gravity and basic mechanics. I wonder what would incentivize such irrational, anti-scientific behavior.

gus_massa 5y ago
> I wonder what would incentivize such irrational, anti-scientific behavior. A) We have a very good model of gravity, tested in a lot of systems (like the lab, planets orbits, ...) B) We have some other systems (like galaxies, ...) were the model fail. So the possibilities are: 1a) The model of gravity we have is wrong. [We know it's wrong in other cases and we need a Quantum Gravity theory, but this correction is necessary for other king of systems, like very small and with huge gravity fields, so it's probably not relevant.] 1b) The model is correct, but we are making bad approximations. [Other comments are about gravitomagnetism. I doubt that's the problem, but this is not my specialty.] 2) We have a bad understanding of galaxies and other systems where the current model of gravity appears to fail. Perhaps we are only considering the matter we can see. Perhaps there is more matter that is somewhat "invisible". We can guess where that "invisible" things are and see if we can fix the predictions of the gravity model. We only need a catchy name for this "invisible" thing because it may not be actually invisible [1]. What about "Dark Matter"? 3) As this article explain, perhaps both are correct and we need to fix gravity at a galactic scale and also find some part of the thing that are inside a galaxy. What is the correct rational scientific behavior? [1] They may be invisible from here using a telescope, but they many be visible if you are nearby. Nobody is sure. The names of the models are weird. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_par... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_associations_of_massive_baryonic_objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_associations_of_massive...

gus_massa 5y ago

> I wonder what would incentivize such irrational, anti-scientific behavior. A) We have a very good model of gravity, tested in a lot of systems (like the lab, planets orbits, ...) B) We have some other systems (like galaxies, ...) were the model fail. So the possibilities are: 1a) The model of gravity we have is wrong. [We know it's wrong in other cases and we need a Quantum Gravity theory, but this correction is necessary for other king of systems, like very small and with huge gravity fields, so it's probably not relevant.] 1b) The model is correct, but we are making bad approximations. [Other comments are about gravitomagnetism. I doubt that's the problem, but this is not my specialty.] 2) We have a bad understanding of galaxies and other systems where the current model of gravity appears to fail. Perhaps we are only considering the matter we can see. Perhaps there is more matter that is somewhat "invisible". We can guess where that "invisible" things are and see if we can fix the predictions of the gravity model. We only need a catchy name for this "invisible" thing because it may not be actually invisible [1]. What about "Dark Matter"? 3) As this article explain, perhaps both are correct and we need to fix gravity at a galactic scale and also find some part of the thing that are inside a galaxy. What is the correct rational scientific behavior? [1] They may be invisible from here using a telescope, but they many be visible if you are nearby. Nobody is sure. The names of the models are weird. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_par... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_associations_of_massive_baryonic_objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_associations_of_massive...