Why is this considered a legit scientific approach?
>>16480412>math like a physicistMathematicians make up nonsense like negative numbers and irrational numbers all the time.>wait you can't add any number to 2 to get 1??>let's just make up a "negative number" -1 with the property that 2 + (-1) = 1 durrrrr
>>16480412Astronomers arent real scientists. They are getting there. Crashing shit into asteroids and taking precise measurements is getting close to a real experiment. But unless you have the budget for those kinds of space missions astronomy is observation only, no tweaking variables. Therefore not real science.
>>16480412>create theory>theory works great in most cases and predicts a bunch of stuff incredibly well>get more data>some data in edge cases doesn't fit>theory still works in most cases>find ways to modify theory such that edge cases fitdo you not understand how science works or are you just retarded?
>>16480423Astronomy is one of the first sciences. Cope seethe etc
>>16480427>>some data in edge cases doesn't fitultraviolet catastrophe is anything but an edge case
>>16480412Filling blanks in models with plausible functions is indeed a legitimate approachSelling it as "Dark Matter" and grifting out millions in grants for it is not
>>16480497Thankyou. Finally someone said it. This. So much this. Where has common sense gone?
If you knew how much damage this is...
>>16480497>Selling it as "Dark Matter" and grifting out millions in grants for it is notSo then how would you gain the funding to discover it's properties?
>>16480427>Observations suggest a mismatch in observed forces and theory.>Jump ten steps ahead and conclude invisible mystery mass is responsibleWe'd still think phlogiston are heat if we used the same reasoning in the past, we'd just have 12 flavors of dark phlogiston to make it do the approximate job of thermodynamics.
>>16480511>Jump ten steps ahead please enlighten me what steps were skipped
>>16480509By describing it as an anomaly and not some new bullshit voodoo particle that violates physics
>>16480527>what steps were skippedAll of them
>>16480539Nobody claims dark matter violate physics you sperg lord. It makes physics work
>>16480511>see shit orbiting faster distant from center of galaxy>either there's more shit such that it's bound tighter gravitationally or f_g=1/r2 is wrongno 10 steps there, it's pretty fucking basic.Either it's held in tighter or force doesn't drop as quickly as we expected.Something doesn't match, those were the two most popular possibilities they came up with.Dark Matter is in no way confirmed, and no one is claiming otherwise.
>>16480447seems like that theory wasn't describing our observations well in that case...anon... get your shit together, OP was clearly referring to dark matter
>>16480561It's also been confirmed through gravitational lensing
>>16480586You referring to the Bullet Cluster?Hossenfelder at some point made a video how that might be supporting MOND, but I won't pretend to be an expert.Simply competent enough to call out the fags that don't understand the basics of why Dark Energy/MOND/something is required to fix our models.
>>16480586Gravitational lensing doesn't confirm dark matter any more than rotational curves do. It only says our models are shit.>Our model says a galaxy couldn't spin like this. >Let's add a freely adjustable parameter of mysterious mass that we will never be able to observe to fudge the number.>Mystery mass have to be the dominant form of mass if we do this? No problem just fucking dial it to 11
>>16480598>something is required to fix our models.Yeah the models are shit. But fixing it with dark matter is on parity with saying it's the hand of god variable that can apply an arbitrary force vector of any size in any direction to any or all particles at any time.>Is the hand of god detectable? Sure if god Wills it. I can suggest a hundred experiments to investigate it. >Is it explainable as rules. Yes sure but God moves in mysterious ways so we can always repostulate the rules as experiments fail and observations change.Sounds better than dark matter, everyone will understand the core concepts of the theory just by its name unlike the subterfuge that supports dark matter
>>16480681Sorry but "We don't know, therefor God" is an order of magnitude more retarded than saying "We know there is a type of matter out there, but we don't know it's properties yet"
>>16480681>I can suggest a hundred experiments to investigate it.>Gives none
Poo
>>16480704This has to be a well thought out punishment and thereafter. it's not just doing something they don't like. In my opinion, leave it to me. Not because you can't, but because of how much intentional training and bulking up I did enough to create any tech including proper advanced tech, and defeat countries by myself or with bots. I'm trying hard to express some kind of super intelligence.
>>16480712At least consider sentence 1.A bit of poo for you
>>16480412I don't see you doing any better
Scientism is a coping drug for logical errors
>>16480846Your god must be a real retard, just like you
>>16480412science studies modelsif a theory fits observation, is explanatory, is predictive, and doesn't contradict known good models within their domains of applicability, it's a good modelnot everything is figured out at once. models are made tractable by making simplifying assumptions that focus on only the most important things relevant to what is under study. if an existing model is known to be good in certain domains of applicability, refinements to the model to extend it to other domains of applicability shouldn't negate what is already known. for instance, quantum mechanics is weird on the microscopic scale where it applies, but gives way to classical mechanics on the macroscopic scale. QM doesn't negate classical mechanics.
>>16480427science requires that your theory works for every case, not just most.
>>16480427That theory can't predict anything.In the other side if advanced civilizations hide themselves to survive, and migrate as far away as possible from each other we can make some predictions:There should be less "DM" in younger galaxies and if we look at far away galaxies those should also contain less "DM". All that because it takes time for advanced civilizations to emerge, hide themselves, and migrate far away from the visible part of their galaxies.The data we have so far agrees with such predictions.
>>16480412Are you mixing up science with religion. Science is 1+1+1=3, religion is 1+1=3
>>16480412I would like to point out that both the planet Neptune & Neutrinos were predicted to exists by other observations not adding up right, and some scientist proposing that some matter that they were not able to see yet was needed to explain things. With neutrinos being a thing, I don't see why the idea of dark matter (in the form a particle that is similar to a neutrino but even more of a bitch to detect) makes so many people butt hurt. It may or may not be true, and wish the MOND guys the best of luck in creating an alternate explanation, but it strikes me as pure hubris to assume we have discovered every form of matter and should not try to see if we are missing anything.
>>16480412Step 1 of revising any hypothesis is to start with relaxation of assumptions.Ex. If an experimental result doesn't match with conservation of energy, you don't throw conservation of energy out, you ask 'is there some interaction I'm not accounting for that's using some of that energy?'. If relaxing that assumption works, you ask questions about what that interaction might be (friction, drag, etc.) if not, then you start considering major revisions to the theory.Same thing here. We have a hypothesis, GR, which can very accurately predict behavior across ~60 orders of magnitude in terms of mass, but struggles with orders of magnitude about 10 orders above or below this range (subatomic particles and clusters of galaxies). Relaxing an assumption (maybe there's more mass on the bigger scales that we're not currently able to detect) solves the disparities between the observations and the models on those larger scales without requiring us to completely rewrite everything about gravity (again) and come up with an even more complex model that not only need to explain the new results, but also accurately fit all of the existing results that GR previously explained.Relaxing a single assumption is always, always easier than starting over from scratch, and therefore always the first thing you try.
>>16480656What are the alternative explanations, then, for the distortion of spacetime?
>>16481301>That theory can't predict anything.Distribution of galaxies, shapes and sizes of galaxy filaments/voids, baryon acoustic oscillations, size of galaxies, rate of star formation in early universe...there's quite a lot of predictions lambda-cdm makes, I've got no clue what you're on about.
>>16480681oh my yuhabaha
>>16480412Because it's necessary to maintain the reputation of Saint Albert the Einstein, the infallible jew god of the soience atheist religion
>>16482862That seems silly; Newton still has a very good reputation with the general public despite his theory of gravity ending up just being a good approximation for everyday speeds & masses. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for Einstein if his theories also end up just being good approximations for certain use cases.
>>16480412Memes aside, why wouldn't this be?>observations shown to be missing component to be consistent with reality>assume missing component must exist and we simply haven't observed it yet>run tests to observe it until successful or until evidence of contrary foundIt's literally the scientific equivalent of algebra.
>>16482862You are dumb. Relativity is proven and nothing will change that. If and when a new theory replaces Relativity, the new theory will not disprove relativity rather it will be a more accurate description of reality, but in many cases will match the results of relativity. The same thing happened for newtonian gravity, relativity is more accurate, but still matches newtonian gravity in most cases.
>>16485851>oy vey muh sacred Saint Albert the Einstein, the infallible jew god of the soience atheist religion!!!you've never studied physics, can't do math and have no idea what you're talking about, you're also completely ignorant of the scientific method. you're just a cringey IFLS tier soience atheist worshipping your false god
Because in the beginning, all we had is 3, and most people are retarded so they cannot figure out how we got there.
>>16485854explain why a rocket keeps accelerating mid-flight despite its thrust being constant, without sounding mad
>>16480412it isn't considered a legit scientific approach, astronomy isn't a science, it doesn't have disprovable theories or repeatable experiments. it trys to dress itself up as a science in order to gain respectability, but it doesn't follow the rules laid down by the scientific method so it isn't a real science
>>16487424Experiments are not a fundamental part of science. Observation is whats important. Experiments are just a means to create useful things to observe. Experiments are obviously impossible in astronomy, but its not an issue because nature has created numerous interesting things to observe.
>>16482862This, but unironically
>>16487522
