I don't imagine their existence. I observe their effects, and ask what sort of theory describing them would explain those effects. That is empirical. I use my senses in all manner of observation and experimentation to test this theory. That is empirical.aristarchusinexile wrote:You can't see, hear, smell or taste the smallest particles, you can only imagine their existance and effects, yet you call that area of science "science" .. while saying science must be empirical .. must be seen, heard, smelt, or tasted.
In fact, I've read some excellent summaries of his work. I haven't read his original papers because they are outside my area of expertise and are far too dense. I know for certain that you haven't read his original papers, either.I find it difficult to accept that you have read much on MOG, especially Moffat's latest.
The work is interesting in the abstract, because he has found a mathematical solution that can explain certain observations. However, IMO dark matter is a better explanation. If you assume that his theory is correct, it could provide an alternate (but no better) explanation for galaxy rotation curves and some apparent mass distributions in clusters. But it doesn't appear to explain at all other observations that are tied to dark matter- gravitational lensing characteristics, and most important, the role of dark matter in creating the structure of the Universe itself, as evidenced in the CMB and even the evolution of galaxies.
The bottom line is that the work is valid science, but neither the theory nor the supporting evidence comes close at this point to tipping things away from the concordance model. Note that there is nothing the slightest bit insulting here toward Moffat personally or MOG in general. We're simply talking about a theory that has a long ways to go yet in order to prove its merit.