Robert Comsol wrote:
Robert Maxwell wrote:
The Higgs boson was only inferred by the mathematics, rather than observed in reality, and its existence was not proven--until it was. Dark matter is much the same. Either we will actually find some, or we'll discover something else that's responsible for the same observed effects, and adjust our understanding accordingly.
Or our current science and our way to apply it is not compatible to adjust our understanding accordingly. If I'm not mistaken the issue of "dark" "matter" became a topic in the early 1970's and 40 years have passed since. Just the thought that our galaxy only has 1/10th of visible mass required to hold it together is mesmerizing.
Robert Maxwell wrote:
Either way, science has not failed. It sounds like some people are taking issue with current science not being 100% complete and correct about everything right now, and so their response is to chuck out all current cosmological science and replace it with something that has very little empirical underpinning and no supporting observational evidence.
Science has not necessarily failed, but it has hit a wall. It reminds me a lot of Stanislaw Lem's Solaris
and the frustration of scientists not to be able to establish contact with the ocean lifeform. To have come so far but to a standstill is frustrating, understandably. I'm only aware of the popular cosmological science but after 40 years it can't be heretical to ask about alternatives, IMHO.
It's nonsensical to suggest alternatives which ask a lot more questions than they answer, though. What's basically being suggested here is that, because we've not yet observed dark matter itself, we must throw out all existing astrophysics and cosmology, even though those do
adequately explain most observed cosmological phenomena. That's really the problem. Don Scott pretends that relativity hasn't been empirically observed--but it has. Scott makes an all too typical mistake: an electrical engineer by trade, he views everything through the lens of electricity, while knowing next to nothing of current astrophysics and cosmology.
From what I know of Scott's claims, few of them are even described robustly enough to be tested in any reliable way. Metryq
's own dismissal of mathematical approaches makes it clear that "electric universe" proponents have no interest in scientific rigor, they just want plausible-sounding explanations that will win over the uninformed.
Basically, Scott's ideas are not scientific, because they're too vague and lacking in mathematical description to be tested. That puts his claims on roughly the same level as "Intelligent Design."