4 ms·

Scientific theories are usually advanced by finding and then explaining misaligments between existing theories and data...that's how physics works. Scientific t

Scientific theories are usually advanced by finding and then explaining misaligments between existing theories and data...that's how physics works. Scientific theories can often predict future, yet unmeasured data that would not fit other competing theories. This is exactly what occurred with the measure of anisotropies in the CMB. Dark matter models correctly predicted the form of anisotropies in the CMB. MOND theories did not. Additionally, while the various dark matter theories have the problem of being self consistent and consistent with current observations, but extremely difficult to experimentally confirmed, MOND theories have the issues of not being self consistent and/or not being consistent with current observations. And yes, the newer MOND theories add additional fields to account for CMD anisotropies: https://phys.org/news/2021-10-mond-theory-account-cosmic-microwave.html https://phys.org/news/2021-10-mond-theory-account-cosmic-mic... "The new model begins by using the original MOND idea of two types of fields that behave together as a type of gravitational force—one is scalar, the other vector-based. Next, the researchers added parameters that suggested gravity-modifying fields generated in the early universe—ones that mimicked dark matter. These fields, they further suggest, evolved over time until they became the type of force described by the original MOND model." And no, Einstein did not discuss dark energy. A cosmological constant is the most well accepted explanation of dark energy. And Einstein did not add the cosmological constant to his equations because of any cosmological observations, merely his own assumptions as to the structure of the universe.

uoaei 3y ago
"Dark matter" didn't predict anything. Dark matter is always and every time an exercise in begging the question. Show me a single dark matter theory from first principles, that doesn't start with assuming the conclusion, and you will show me a dark matter "theory" worth considering.
- russdill 3y ago
  Yes, that's the general idea of individual dark matter theories. We have an enormously successful cosmological model, lambda CDM, that includes cold, weakly interacting matter. Many theories have been put forth to explain what the additional matter actually is. A few of them are actually not created originally to account for the matter in lambda CDM, such as axioms. But yes, there correct, it's the lambda CDM model making successful predictions, the individually dark matter theories are just along for the ride. Anyway, you are free to spend as much or as little time as you like considering different speculative theories by whatever metric you see fit. I find it odd that you are a proponent of MOND theories but seem to dislike theories that modify existing frameworks and are continually refined to match observational data.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Au contraire, I am seeking precisely theories that actually modify existing frameworks without merely begging the question. The approach of "oh, must just be more matter but it's weird that we can't see it" is going to be seen as ether or geocentrism is now. It's just grossly unimaginative and ironically doesn't actually modify existing modes of thinking, i.e., assumes that gravity is still a fundamental force if only we could describe it as a quantum field. MOND is a change to the existing framework that makes predictions from the basis of a theory that actually explains the data "discrepancies" we're seeing vs typical assumptions. The discrepancies are testable with MOND. It's not merely a post-hoc justification of some detailed maps of where matter "isn't". While with dark matter all one can try to do is detect particles that we are already blindly assuming are there. Dark matter enthusiasts love to espouse the "shoulders of giants" thing with their tiny incremental modification to LCDM but they're taking an approach that fails to learn from the historical blunders of physicists before who wanted to assume some substance exists and then try to back-prove its existence with increasingly elaborate and specialized theories of origin.

uoaei 3y ago

"Dark matter" didn't predict anything. Dark matter is always and every time an exercise in begging the question. Show me a single dark matter theory from first principles, that doesn't start with assuming the conclusion, and you will show me a dark matter "theory" worth considering.

russdill 3y ago
Yes, that's the general idea of individual dark matter theories. We have an enormously successful cosmological model, lambda CDM, that includes cold, weakly interacting matter. Many theories have been put forth to explain what the additional matter actually is. A few of them are actually not created originally to account for the matter in lambda CDM, such as axioms. But yes, there correct, it's the lambda CDM model making successful predictions, the individually dark matter theories are just along for the ride. Anyway, you are free to spend as much or as little time as you like considering different speculative theories by whatever metric you see fit. I find it odd that you are a proponent of MOND theories but seem to dislike theories that modify existing frameworks and are continually refined to match observational data.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Au contraire, I am seeking precisely theories that actually modify existing frameworks without merely begging the question. The approach of "oh, must just be more matter but it's weird that we can't see it" is going to be seen as ether or geocentrism is now. It's just grossly unimaginative and ironically doesn't actually modify existing modes of thinking, i.e., assumes that gravity is still a fundamental force if only we could describe it as a quantum field. MOND is a change to the existing framework that makes predictions from the basis of a theory that actually explains the data "discrepancies" we're seeing vs typical assumptions. The discrepancies are testable with MOND. It's not merely a post-hoc justification of some detailed maps of where matter "isn't". While with dark matter all one can try to do is detect particles that we are already blindly assuming are there. Dark matter enthusiasts love to espouse the "shoulders of giants" thing with their tiny incremental modification to LCDM but they're taking an approach that fails to learn from the historical blunders of physicists before who wanted to assume some substance exists and then try to back-prove its existence with increasingly elaborate and specialized theories of origin.