Michael Mozina wrote:Nereid wrote:This is a pretty succinct encapsulation of the difference between what seems to be your view of how the science of astronomy works and how, to the contrary, it does actually work.
Ok.
However, to see the difference more clearly, you need to turn the statements upside down; something like this:
All scientific theories rest on postulates. Postulates are "invisible things".
No. You'll have to start with a better argument. Postulates can be lots of things. They need not be invisible.
Good ... the gulf between modern astronomy as a science and your own view is, as I suspected, quite large.
Let's take the two most general and most successful theories in modern physics - General Relativity, and the Standard Model.
Each rests on a set of premises (postulates) from which various conclusions are (logically) derived (including all the phenomenology).
Which of the premises of these two theories are "visible"?
One corollary to this is that the existence of 'invisible things' (the postulates, and other non-observables derived logically from them) is only as good as the extent of the correspondence with observations. In modern science (physics, astronomy, cosmology, ...), 'electrons' and 'space' and 'energy' and ... are theoretical entities, "invisible things" whose characteristics (nature) are (is) either postulated or derived from postulates.
Such "postulates" as you call them are only as good as the evidence to support them. We can test for the existence of electrons and neutrinos in very controlled and precise ways today here on earth. Why can't you do that with dark matter? I'll tell you why. You can't do that because you really A) don't know if it even exists, and B) you don't know where it comes from.
In view of how large this gulf* seems to be, it may be worth spending some little more time on it.
However, as it's only tangential to astronomy, it might be a good idea for you to find some other fora where you can explore the nature of modern physics (and science in general) in more detail ...
As I said above, modern scientific theories - as logical constructions - begin with premises, or postulates. What's tested is not (generally) the postulates, but the directly observable, predicted phenomena that follow by developing the theory in a logical fashion.
Of course, historically, the first form in which a theory is published may differ considerably from its later form - this is particularly true of General Relativity.
Take
"the equivalence principle". Einstein's original formulation is: "
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system." (note that it is full of 'invisible things'!).
Today there are three equivalence principles in use (note that they, and GR, have been reformulated since the first publication of GR, to facilitate testing, among other things):
the weak: "
All bodies at the same spacetime point in a given gravitational field will undergo the same acceleration"
the Einstein: "
the result of a local non-gravitational experiment in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the velocity or location in the universe of the experiment"
the strong: "
the results of any local experiment, gravitational or not, in an inertial frame of reference are independent of where and when in the universe it is conducted"
What's interesting to note is that experiments and observations to find any deviations from the inverse square law are tests of the strong equivalence principle (do you see why?).
To re-iterate: the way astronomy, as a science, works is through theories. Theories are logical constructions, resting on premises, which can be worked with to produce (logically consistent) conclusions. It is these conclusions that are tested, directly, by experiments and observations. Failure to match experimental or observational results is the most powerful method of invalidating a theory.
So, wrt 'dark matter', you can most powerfully knock it out by showing that predictions derived logically from the premises are inconsistent with good observations or with experimental results.
It follows that many - perhaps most, or even all - of your objections to 'dark matter' are not, in fact, scientific objections at all.
Why? Because they are not related to either the premises or conclusions of any 'dark matter theory'.
Specifically, if any such theory is silent on the nature of DM (other than that it is a form of mass-energy and does not interact with photons), then your inability to buy a gram of it at your local Tesco is irrelevant.
This lack of understanding you have about the very nature of your presumed dark matter precludes us from even devising legitimate controlled tests to find them. With the neutrinos experiments, we put our detector next to a nuclear reactor and turned the reactor on and off to make sure it was in fact the source of neutrinos, and we were really detecting neutrinos. What is the source of dark matter?
Good questions all.
However, as I think you are now beginning to see, also irrelevant, in a narrow sense, to any 'dark matter theory'; specifically, DM in modern astronomy (and cosmology) is not presumed to have any particular origin (though many folk are working on it!), beyond that it existed in its present (cold, mass, non-interaction with photons, etc) form well before (baryonic) matter and photons decoupled.
They didn't just put a label on it, they started ascribing properties to it. In other words, rather than referring to it as an "unidentified mass", or "unidentified matter", it became invisible, non baryonic mass, able to pass through walls at will.
By turning this on its head - which is what you need to do to give it the correct, scientific, characterisation - I think you'll see where you've gone wrong.
I'm sorry, I don't see it. You started ascribing properties to something that is billions of light years away. You can't actually see that far with your equipment, and you can't even 'see' your presumed dark matter with your equipment in the first place according to your theory. It's a circular feedback loop. You do not know if that missing mass is related to heavy suns/solar systems or dark matter, you simply choose to put faith in something that has never been shown to exist or have any effect on matter or light in any controlled scientific test. Why?
Hmm, ... it seems you've missed the parts about consistency ...
Take the large body of good astronomical observations as input.
Your challenge is to account for them in a consistent fashion.
For rich clusters, there are several sets of independent observations, based on quite different physical mechanisms.
If you
postulate 'cold dark mass', you get a very pleasing consistency.
If you postulate anything else (that I'm aware of), you don't get any consistency worth writing home about.
Specifically, "heavy suns/solar systems" are very easy to rule out ... the missing mass is dark, and it's not in the galaxies in the rich clusters (it has a more or less radial density profile, with a peak near the central cD galaxy/galaxies).
Of course, if these "heavy suns/solar systems" do not emit light, nor explode as supernovae, nor generate winds (of H, He, etc), nor ...
This now precludes us from entertaining other possible options, like current flow, and iron suns, etc.
Just the opposite in fact.
How's that? You've basically ruled out any idea you've never seen in print before. You've even somehow in your head ruled out solar theories put forth in the papers that Dr. Manuel and Hilton and I got published over the last two years as well. According to you, the idea has to be found in the "right" (lingo for mainstream) publications, or you refuse to consider them. Heavy solar systems would eliminate the need for dark matter entirely.
[snip]
Now THAT is what I call a pretty dramatic claim!
Would you care to start a new thread whose specific and focussed objective is to present quantitative details of such a claim in regards to the three sets of astronomical observations of rich clusters that I have mentioned earlier?
A corollary is that if an alternative - current flow, iron suns, TeVeS, unicorns - comes along which can account for the relevant good observations, then it will be paid serious attention.
If that were true, you'd be on my side by now, because I'm quite sure that you personally and nobody else here on this forum can explain that very first Lockheed Martin Running difference image on my website using gas model theory. It's never happened in two years of online debates, and most people run for cover when I ask them for an explanation of that specific solar image. Care to be the exception to that rule Nereid?
[snip]
Let's stick with theme of this thread, shall we?
In which lab, on Earth, may one see a reproduction, under controlled conditions, of the {Michael Mozina idea}? Specifically, running difference images identical to the LM running difference ones?
[Edited to add the missing footnote:
*
or how comprehensive the misunderstanding of the nature of modern astronomy seems to be.]
I mean, N thousands of years before noone could, obviously; probably, we owe every bit of geometry to these new senses selected individuals have developed since then.