I got gnomes in my garden that always turn invisible when I look for them too, that certainly doesn't violate SR or GR, Doubt it?
I'm sure they don't violate SR or GR. You don't
claim that they do! Thus it would be wrong of me to claim that you do claim that.
So, my objecting to your gnomes by saying they violate SR or GR would be silly. However, the burden of proof to show that the gnomes exist would still be on you. You might, for example, since the gnomes are invisible - look for secondary evidence of their existence. Footprints they leave, for example.
Assuming you could rule out any other animal having a footprint such as a gnomes, and then assuming you could rule out any tampering with the evidence - then you might have convincing evidence of the existence of invisible gnomes without being able to see them. Because invisible simply means our eyes cannot see them, but our eyes cannot see everything! Nor does everything that exists in the universe necessarily exist right here on Earth. Michael keeps asking when we might see dark energy in a lab without noticing that labs are made of bricks and mortar - matter.......and not realising the obvious implication of that requirement (for our very survival, or for the existence of test equipment!).
Thus - ever so crude the analogy you use, but eh - we are able to infer the existence of things we cannot
directly observe and most of the physics of the 20th century and beyond was about that.
We cannot directly observe the curvature of space-time, but we can observe the attraction matter has to other matter, for example, and calculate a model that very clearly shows that the curvature of space-time is the likely culprit.
We cannot directly observe the Higgs scalar field but the mathematics of it fits exceptionally well with our observations of mass, such that we can now say with quite some confidence that the Higgs field endows W and Z bosons with mass. We've not actually ever directly seen it, but we know it is there. Thus, things that are out of the small band of the electromagnetic spectrum we see with our eyes, out of the auditory spectrum, out of the range of things we can directly feel - their existence can be inferred.
Show me the gnomes aren't there within the confines of that theory. This is basically what they are asking us to do, prove invisible undetectable Fairie Dust isn't real.
No - we're asking you for a plausible alternative explanation to the actual observations (a wavelength and specially independent cosmological redshift that is Doppler-like), something that Michael, and now you have repeatedly failed to do. The metric expansion of space-time itself - irrespective of how much you like the concept or not - would produce the observed results. Dark matter WOULD solve the problems of galaxy rotation curves. Those who want to suggest alternatives that actually add up (eg. some variants of MOND) get to do so and are carefully listened to.
Those who merely go "waaaaah I don't like that idea" are ignored. It's called a meritocracy.
So ok, I will, How many null results did it take to disprove an ether? 5?
Michelson-Morley - like experiments continue to be done to this day. The preponderance of evidence is what matters. If you want to be technically accurate - aether was not disproved, just shown to be HIGHLY unlikely. Quantum gravity theorists are still testing the idea to see if there are lorentz violations at the smallest scales, but the range is down to a pretty tiny number.
Shall we go count the null results in their search for Dark Matter? They are up to what 10 or so null results?
The nature of our location in the galaxy precludes there being a great deal of dark matter in our vicinity, thus our likelihood of directly detecting such a particle is very small. This is not where the evidence of dark matter comes from mind you, nor does any theory say that we should be able to find large quantities of it in the immediate vicinity of Earth......
Am being generous in the numbers, I expect it is twice that many experiments in reality. Just children trying to play word games because they don't have one scientific fact to back it up.
Your condescension and remarkable inability to construct coherent sentences with a subject and a verb is noticed.
So like when it comes time to submit their justification to continue funding for the search for gravitational waves, they issue press releases and tell a gullible public how fantastic it is that they have found absolutely nothing
For those theorists that favored theories that predict gravitational waves - chaotic models generally - yeah, that result didn't help. For those that favored models that actually predict no gravitational waves should have been observed, it is a fantastic thing that we found no gravitational waves. Finding a null result is equally informative as a positive result, it just depends on your point of view - as you so beautifully demonstrated by citing Michelson Morley. Null does not mean failure, especially to variants of theories that predict null results to an experiment....
that a non-detection of a signal actually tells you something about the object.
It tells you that particular signal is not being emitted by that object, which is information, yes....the fact that we see light being lensed by matter which is not emitting electromagnetic radiation tells us something about that matter, for example.
And indeed it might, had they ever detected a single gravitational wave in what, 12 years now? The only thing a non-detection tells one when none have ever been detected is that the theory is flawed.
Yes - chaotic inflationary theories seemed to be flawed. Slow roll inflation - which does not predict long wavelength gravitational waves - not so much, by the gravitational wave data anyhow!
These object were the prime candidates for finding them, and zip.
Only in chaotic inflationary theories (generally).
Not even "background" noise to search through.
Well, actually, the background noise was exactly where people were looking, that's kind of the point of the CMB.........