Faith in science vs. faith in religion.

[Michael]

Agreed.

Really? Can either of you two explain how any of the *billions* of dollars of dark matter laboratory "tests" leave "little room for beliefs, opinions and plea bargaining."? It sure seems like the plea bargaining for dark matter is continuing unabated.

Further, I would add that words like belief and especially faith have zero or less value in proper scientific discussions.

How then would we categorize the "belief" that "space expansion" can cause photon redshift? Nothing of the sort happens in the lab. How then is that belief not an 'act of faith' on the part of the person making that unsupported (in the lab) assumption?

(There is a notion in philosophy that a fact is an objectively true opinion, or some such thing, but I have little use for philosophy.)

The closest thing in science is a "law", but even laws are subject to change.

On the science discussion boards of a place like CF where "faith" and "belief" have very specific and heartfelt meanings to so many posters and lurkers alike, it doesn't seem a good policy to use those words outside of the religious or divine contexts.

I don't frankly see how you can exclude them from discussions in science. Some people "hold belief" in the accuracy of the standard model of particle physics (like me). Others seem to 'have faith' that additional types of exotic forms of matter exist in nature.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How then would we categorize the "belief" that "space expansion" can cause photon redshift? Nothing of the sort happens in the lab. How then is that belief not an 'act of faith' on the part of the person making that unsupported (in the lab) assumption?

Why would you categorize "space expansion" in general relativity and its applications to cosmology as a "belief"? Can't you think of a better word, one that doesn't encroach on the primary purpose of this site (discussion of religious beliefs and practices)?

Scientists don't use the word belief to describe a widely understood scientific concept.

 

[Michael]

Why would you categorize "space expansion" in general relativity and its applications to cosmology as a "belief"?

For starters because GR theory is in no way *dependent* upon the validity of a belief that "space expansion' is a valid empirical cause of photon redshift. GR theory works fine without it, and there's no laboratory support for the concept.

Can't you think of a better word, one that doesn't encroach on the primary purpose of this site (discussion of religious beliefs and practices)?

Not really. If one chooses to "lack belief" in space expansion as a cause of photons redshift, the only thing 'threatened' by it is one otherwise falsified "blunder theory" variation of GR based cosmology theory, certainly not GR theory itself. That same theory violates the core tenets of GR theory from its very inception since anything that is supposedly smaller than it's Schwarzschild radius should have imploded to begin with according to GR.

Scientists don't use the word belief to describe a widely understood scientific concept.

You're confusing the terms "widely accepted" (on faith) with 'widely understood". They aren't the same. What exactly is "space" and how does it "expand"? Only distance and "spacetime" are described by GR. Doppler shift is "understood" to have a tangible effect on a photon in labs based on real experiments. "Space expansion" however is a "belief" one can hold without any support in controlled experimentation, or one can choose to lack belief in. It's an optional choice in GR theory in the first place.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're confusing the terms "widely accepted" (on faith) with 'widely understood". They aren't the same. What exactly is "space" and how does it "expand"? Only distance and "spacetime" are described by GR. Doppler shift is "understood" to have a tangible effect on a photon in labs based on real experiments. "Space expansion" however is a "belief" one can hold without any support in controlled experimentation, or one can choose to lack belief in. It's an optional choice in GR theory in the first place.

Perhaps I was trying to be too gentle in my wording. Even if we use the term "widely accepted" (I'm fine with that), acceptance does not (and should not) be described as "faith". Acceptance of a scientific concept is not made on "faith", not of the kind to which the term "faith" is generally used and certainly not of the kind upon which this site is focused.

I do accept that the application of GR to cosmology results in expansion of space based on the detailed evidence accumulated. It isn't necessarily something I would ask for or hope for in a universe, but physics is what it is, we do not get a say in the nature of reality. This acceptance of space expansion is not in any way similar to the faith I once had in the existence of god.

 

[Michael]

Perhaps I was trying to be too gentle in my wording. Even if we use the term "widely accepted" (I'm fine with that), acceptance does not (and should not) be described as "faith". Acceptance of a scientific concept is not made on "faith", not of the kind to which the term "faith" is generally used and certainly not of the kind upon which this site is focused.

Actually I would argue that it is a form of "faith" in the 'unseen' (in the lab). What's the empirical difference since the core concept cannot even be falsified? It's simply an "assumption" based on 'faith' in something that is never seen in the lab.

I do accept that the application of GR to cosmology results in expansion of space based on the detailed evidence accumulated.

The only detailed evidence we have is evidence that *something* causes photons to lose momentum over distance. There are many *empirically demonstrated* processes that cause such changes to photons. "Space expansion" isn't one of them, so why would you "hold belief" in that claim as to 'cause'? How is your "belief" not an 'act of faith" in something that you've never seen happen in a real experiment with actual control mechanisms?

It isn't necessarily something I would ask for or hope for in a universe, but physics is what it is,

It's "nonexistent" in the lab.

we do not get a say in the nature of reality.

But we do get a say in what we choose to "believe" and what we we choose to lack belief in. I don't lack belief in photon redshift, but I lack belief that space expansions *causes* photon redshift.

This acceptance of space expansion is not in any way similar to the faith I once had in the existence of god.

It's not any empirically different in the lab I can tell you.

 

[SelfSim]

'Electric Universe (EU) 'empirical' research laboratories exclude astronomical observations, right(?):

 

[Michael]

'Electric Universe (EU) 'empirical' research laboratories exclude astronomical observations, right(?):

Exclude astronomical observations? Of course not. Rely *exclusively upon them* when determining a physical cause of them? No. That's why we have no need for placeholder terms for human ignorance. An honest 'I don't know" is better than metaphysical conjecture.

 

[Kylie]

I would argue that science is defined by its process. This well-documented process distinguishes scientific thinking from logic based thinking, the latter of which posits the existence of some truth, whereas science wants to put all posits 'to the test'.

I would say that the two go hand in hand. Following the scientific method (the process) inherently leads to results that are testable.

.. (and so-called 'thought experiments' (or logical tests which invariably commence with stated or unstated posited truths), do not qualify as scientific tests, either).

I completely agree.

 

[Kylie]

Not true since space expansion as a cause of redshift cannot be tested, it has to be "assumed" on faith.

You really don't know how to science.

"If Model X of space expansion is real, then we should see A, B and C. We conduct a test and see A, B and C, therefore that is evidence that Model X of space expansion is correct."

That would depend on what type of "test" you would accept, and which religious concept you're talking about.

Type of test - Any test that can be repeated. For example, in a scientific sense, I can measure the pH of a certain liquid, say vinegar. I will get a certain result. If anyone else comes and tests that same vinegar, they will get the same result. The test has been repeated. Surely there is a religious equivalent?

Religious concept - Any religious concept you feel can be tested by the type of test I just described.

 

[SelfSim]

'Electric Universe (EU) 'empirical' research laboratories exclude astronomical observations, right(?):

Exclude astronomical observations? Of course not. Rely *exclusively upon them* when determining a physical cause of them? No. That's why we have no need for placeholder terms for human ignorance. An honest 'I don't know" is better than metaphysical conjecture.

.. Such a confused response!

Firstly, I asked whether EU research laboratories exclude astronomical observations .. (and nothing more than that).

Secondly, your implying that science is 'attempting to determine a physical cause', is your own perception bias revealing itself. Theory in science is only used as a tool to help humans make predictions and not to attain metaphysical understanding of the universe (such as cause and effect.)
Then you imply that astronomical researchers exclude themselves from 'I don't know', which is frankly incomprehensible, when that's such a basic tenet upon which all scientific research is initiated.

Thirdly, you then equate scientific honesty, (or specifically: lack thereof), with the metaphysics topic you yourself introduced, (by erroneously assuming that science is addressing metaphysical questions such as cause and effect), by introducing what you, yourself (again) then claim is 'metaphysical conjecture'!?

Sheesshh! The other philosophy-oriented folks in this thread could have a field day straightening you out all on this!

 

[Michael]

I would say that the two go hand in hand. Following the scientific method (the process) inherently leads to results that are testable.

Except space expansion as an empirical cause of photon redshift cannot be tested in controlled experimentation, nor can it be falsified by such experimentation. It's an act of faith on the part of the believer. Dark matter was tested to the tunes of billions, and yet falsification is impossible via 'testing'. What's the value of 'testing' if scientists refuse to take no for an answer?

 

[Michael]

You really don't know how to science.

Of course I do. Inelastic scattering is a known cause of photon redshift and I can test that concept in the lab. Space expansion is an act of faith. I can't test it at all in controlled experiments I can only accept the concept on faith, or choose to lack belief in it.

"If Model X of space expansion is real, then we should see A, B and C. We conduct a test and see A, B and C, therefore that is evidence that Model X of space expansion is correct."

The problem is that many *empirical* causes of photon redshift lead to observations A, B and C, and your claim as to cause does not have any such effect in a lab. You can't rule out the empirical causes either. Your space expansion claim is a pure affirming the consequent fallacy.

Type of test - Any test that can be repeated.

Now you're confusing an observation which can be repeated (photons are repeatedly redshifted), and the presumed *cause*, which cannot be 'tested', just "assumed".

For example, in a scientific sense, I can measure the pH of a certain liquid, say vinegar. I will get a certain result. If anyone else comes and tests that same vinegar, they will get the same result. The test has been repeated. Surely there is a religious equivalent?

In your analogy, there is no actual vinegar, just a liquid with a specific PH. You opted to ignore all the *known* potential causes of that PH (like vinegar) in favor of 'God did it'. The Ph is consistently "observable", but your premise as to cause (God) requires a metaphysical claim which *cannot* be tested. That's about the religious equivalent of your claim.

Religious concept - Any religious concept you feel can be tested by the type of test I just described.

How would I "test" your claim as to cause without *assuming* that none of the known empirical causes apply, and "space expansion" isn't a figment of your overactive imagination?

In terms of lab tested physics, I can test the "effects" of God on humans equally as well as you can test the effect of space expansion on photons.

 

[Michael]

.. Such a confused response!

Firstly, I asked whether EU research laboratories exclude astronomical observations .. (and nothing more than that).

Nobody excludes astronomical observatoins, they simply don't control them. I can observe redshift from distant objects, but I cannot observe the *cause* of redshift.

Secondly, your implying that science is 'attempting to determine a physical cause', is your own perception bias revealing itself. Theory in science is only used as a tool to help humans make predictions and not to attain metaphysical understanding of the universe (such as cause and effect.)

You aren't "predicting" the observation, you're postdicticting a fit to it and proposing a 'cause', specifically a *metaphysical* claim as to cause called "space expansion". Such a "cause" has no effect on any photon in a controlled experiment, rather it's an "act of faith" on the part of the believer in 'space expansion'.

Then you imply that astronomical researchers exclude themselves from 'I don't know', which is frankly incomprehensible, when that's such a basic tenet upon which all scientific research is initiated.

Do you build strawmen from *all* of my statements? I simply pointed out that EU/PC would rather not speculate with metaphysical claims as to cause, like space expansion and exotic matter. An honest "I don't know" is better than "invisible genies did it" from the perspective of EU/PC theory.

Thirdly, you then equate scientific honesty, (or specifically: lack thereof), with the metaphysics topic you yourself introduced,

I didn't "introduce" any metaphysics, LCDM introduced four different types of metaphysics.

(by erroneously assuming that science is addressing metaphysical questions such as cause and effect), by introducing what you, yourself (again) then claim is 'metaphysical conjecture'!?

Sure. You've collectively spent *billions* of dollars looking for exotic forms of matter because you claim they are the 'cause' of missing mass in various observatoins, but somehow you're not claiming the 'cause" is exotic forms of matter? How does that rationalization work? You're most certainly describing "cause" with "space expansion", and exotic matter. In fact ordinary matter would not work properly in your model which is why you persist in engaging in dark matter snipe hunts (plural).

Sheesshh! The other philosophy-oriented folks in this thread could have a field day straightening you out all on this!

Ditto.

 

[SelfSim]

I would argue that science is defined by its process. This well-documented process distinguishes scientific thinking from logic based thinking, the latter of which posits the existence of some truth, whereas science wants to put all posits 'to the test'.

I would say that the two go hand in hand. Following the scientific method (the process) inherently leads to results that are testable.

Yep .. agreed.

As an addendum to this sub-conversation, I think its also worthwhile highlighting that the scientific method makes philosophical logic useful by defining only operationally testable entities, and then applying logic's well-known types (deductive, inductive, abductive, etc). Philosophical logic, when applied to untestable posits, (eg: believed 'Truths'), can only, at best, lead straight back to those same untestable posits.

Science's main aim is make things useful, by way of predictions, and never to uncover believed 'Truths' about the universe (as others in this thread seem to think).

 

[SelfSim]

Nobody excludes astronomical observatoins, they simply don't control them. I can observe redshift from distant objects, but I cannot observe the *cause* of redshift.

Astronomical observations are one of the most highly controlled types experiments yet devised. When combined with other reproducible objective test results under the logic 'rules' of induction, deduction and abductive logic, other information becomes apparent, which then constrains the outcome. Often, you disregard the impacts of this other knowledge being brought to bear ...

You aren't "predicting" the observation, you're postdicticting a fit to it and proposing a 'cause', specifically a *metaphysical* claim as to cause called "space expansion". Such a "cause" has no effect on any photon in a controlled experiment, rather it's an "act of faith" on the part of the believer in 'space expansion'.

Yet again you ignore that science targets only predictions ... 'Cause' seems to be your own personal quest and its a philosophically driven one (and not science's).

Do you build strawmen from *all* of my statements? I simply pointed out that EU/PC would rather not speculate with metaphysical claims as to cause, like space expansion and exotic matter.

Again, you only 'see' metaphysics because you pursue 'answers' in your philosophically motivated quest and not predictability. Give it up!

I didn't "introduce" any metaphysics, LCDM introduced four different types of metaphysics.

Thank you for succinctly confirming what I wrote.
(In one concise statement too, I might add).

Sure. You've collectively spent *billions* of dollars ...

Oh to personally have *billions* of dollars to spend in the first place!

.. looking for exotic forms of matter because you claim they are the 'cause' of missing mass in various observatoins, but somehow you're not claiming the 'cause" is exotic forms of matter? How does that rationalization work? You're most certainly describing "cause" with "space expansion", and exotic matter. In fact ordinary matter would not work properly in your model which is why you persist in engaging in dark matter snipe hunts (plural).

'Cause' is your personal obsession .. and not science's, (which is only predictability).
Do ya get it yet?

 

[Michael]

Yep .. agreed.

As an addendum to this sub-conversation, I think its also worthwhile highlighting that the scientific method makes philosophical logic useful by defining only operationally testable entities,

Not always. Your space expansion claim, and M-theory are prefect examples of entities that are *not* directly testable. Photon redshift has many known causes, but "space expansion" isn't one of them. M-theory is another example of theory in science that doesn't even make any unique testable predictions to start with. Your premise goes: "If photon redshift, then space expansion did it" which is eally nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacy because we know that redshift happens, and we know that it has many known causes, and space expansion isn't one of them.

and then applying logic's well-known types (deductive, inductive, abductive, etc).

Except that there is no evidence that space expansion has any tangible effect on a photon, so the "logic" you might apply to your claim as to cause is completely and totally subjective, not objective. If I lack belief in your claim, the "logic" is inapplicable. If space expanding Elves then Redshift is equally untestable.

Philosophical logic, when applied to untestable posits, (eg: believed 'Truths'), can only, at best, lead straight back to those same untestable posits.

Which is exactly where your "space expansion causes photon redshift' claim leads us. It's a pure affirming the consequent fallacy because the mere presence of redshift isn't evidence of magic expansion, or space expansion. We observe evidence of redshift and cause is not determined.

Science's main aim is make things useful, by way of predictions, and never to uncover believed 'Truths' about the universe (as others in this thread seem to think).

Except we have to accept your "space expansion causes redshift" as 'truth' because there are many *other*more likely and more empirical causes of photon refshift which *do* work in the lab. The mere observation of redshift is not evidence of the cause.

 

[SelfSim]

Not always. Your space expansion claim, and M-theory are prefect examples of entities that are *not* directly testable. Photon redshift has many known causes, but "space expansion" isn't one of them.

Cosmological redshift is testable. So is scattering. Cosmological redshift accounts for what is astronomically observed over large scales. It leads to other testable predictions. Scattering doesn't account for what is observed over the large scales.

M-theory is another example of theory in science that doesn't even make any unique testable predictions to start with.

M-theory predicts gravity according to M-theorists. M-theory is a framework (a mathematical toolset) for building other testable hypotheses. That's all.

Your premise goes: "If photon redshift, then space expansion did it" which is eally nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacy because we know that redshift happens, and we know that it has many known causes, and space expansion isn't one of them.

... in your limited, and demonstrably overly constrained paradigm of;
- denial of the knowledge made available by mathematically described physical models and;
- your cloistered EU laboratories (capable only of replicating already well understood physics), sure.

Except that there is no evidence that space expansion has any tangible effect on a photon, so the "logic" you might apply to your claim as to cause is completely and totally subjective, not objective. If I lack belief in your claim, the "logic" is inapplicable. If space expanding Elves then Redshift is equally untestable.

The only purpose for any references to 'cause', is objective testability and thence, predictability .. but you actually have to open your eyes and mind to see that.

Which is exactly where your "space expansion causes photon redshift' claim leads us. It's a pure affirming the consequent fallacy because the mere presence of redshift isn't evidence of magic expansion, or space expansion. We observe evidence of redshift and cause is not determined.

Ah yes .. your philosophically motivated 'cause' obsession again ...

Except we have to accept your "space expansion causes redshift" as 'truth' because there are many *other*more likely and more empirical causes of photon refshift which *do* work in the lab. The mere observation of redshift is not evidence of the cause.

'Truth'?? .. Ahh .. back to 'Faith' again to support your views, eh?

 

[Michael]

Cosmological redshift is testable.

It's "observable", but since you can't 'control' it, what makes you think it's "testable"? 'Testable' in what way? Certainly not as to it's direct cause, particularly if it's a "hypothetical' cause.

So is scattering.

Scattering and moving objects are "testable" causes of photon redshift because we can apply control mechanisms and play with the cause/effect phenomenon in the lab.

Cosmological redshift accounts for what is astronomically observed over large scales.

Cosmological redshift is just a name for an observation of a distance/redshift relationship. It's cause is not determined by the observation itself. The empirical causes of redshift are also well known in the lab.

It leads to other testable predictions.

Not until you propose a 'cause' of the redshift. The observation of redshift leads to no testable predictions, but various potential explanations/causes for it might.

Scattering doesn't account for what is observed over the large scales.

False. You simply asserted a 'truth statement' as fact which is not fact and not truth. You can't even cite a paper that professes to have 'tested' all the various types of scattering, moving objects and all the possible combinations of known causes of photon redshift.

M-theory predicts gravity according to M-theorists.

Ya, but lots of theories predict gravity. There's nothing "unique' about M-theory predicting gravity anymore than there's anything particularly 'unique' about cosmological redshift. Even moving objects and time dilation would produce similar results.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

M-theory is a framework (a mathematical toolset) for building other testable hypotheses. That's all.

It's also a "statement of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab) in extra spacetime dimensions.

... in your limited, and demonstrably overly constrained paradigm of;
- denial of the knowledge made available by mathematically described physical models and;

Math isn't knowledge or those 'epicycles' that were used to keep the Earth at the center of the universe were "knowledge" according to you. That's not necessarily "knowledge" even if you can predict (more like postdict) things with it.

- your cloistered EU laboratories (capable only of replicating already well understood physics), sure.

Well understood physics? You can't even tell us what "space" is as separate from "spacetime", let alone physically explain how it physically "expands" over time. You'd need an expanding aether theory of some kind to pull off that nifty trick physically.

The only purpose for any references to 'cause', is objective testability and thence, predictability .. but you actually have to open your eyes and mind to see that.

There's no such thing as "objective testability" in an uncontrolled and unsupported assertion as to cause. You're already *subjectively* excluding the known causes of redshift in favor of a purely hypothetical process. It's no longer an objective test. At best case it's a subjective test of your own statement of faith (in space expansion). You'd have to open your eyes (in the lab) to see that.

Ah yes .. your philosophically motivated 'cause' obsession again ...

Cause, specifically physical cause is the whole debate in fact. That's where your beliefs in space expansion turn into statements of faith.

'Truth'?? .. Ahh .. back to 'Faith' again to support your views, eh?

Let's try a religion/science analogy here:

Without first *assuming* that space/God exists as separate from spacetime, and without *assuming* that space/God has some specific (redshift) effect on a photon, there's no way to construct a "test" to test for cosmological redshift as caused by 'God expansion' or by "space expansion". How would I even go about differentiating between God expansion and space expansion in the lab or anywhere else?

 

[Michael]

FYI, while we're opening up the metaphysical cans of worms in your scientific statements of faith in the LCDM model, we should definitely look at your *most* empirically testable hypothetical entity to see if it has been successful at predicting the outcome of various empirical lab tests.

Exotic matter claims have become all the rage in astrophysics these days. Why? Frankly because LCDM won't correctly predict anything about relative abundances of elements, or power curves in the CMB, or much of anything related to cosmology in general without exotic matter.

If we look at exotic matter theory first of all from the perspective of only particle physics, pure curiosity compelled us to consider mathematical speculations galore which were also "tested" at LHC along with the last unseen mathematically predicted particle of the standard particle physics model.

In terms of what LHC accomplished in the realm of particle physics, it has been a *huge* success by any measurable standard. Not only did they find the last unseen particle of the standard model, they also put SUSY theory (of WIMP fame) to the test, and other 'alternative' particle physics models.

Without a doubt the standard particle physics model has been tested throughout it's inception and it has passed every conceivable test to date, including testing it's predictive ability related to secondary decay processes. The standard particle physics model has been mathematically and physically verified to *remarkable* precision thanks to the herculean efforts of the folks at LHC.

Their "testing" of 'alternative' (non standard) models was equally impressive, but less impressive were the 'predictions' of various non standard particle models. For instance, in defiance of popular SUSY models, not a single "sparticle" was ever detected by LHC. The foundation of WIMP theory via SUSY maths is pretty much annihilated by those results. There could be other WIMP models found (or yet to be created) in of an infinite possible number of alternative particle physics models however so even WIMP theory isn't directly falsifiable, and exotic "dark matter" concepts aren't limited to WIMPs.

The lab results *overwhelmingly* favor the standard particle physics model and no hints of exotic matter were found at LHC.

The WIMP model in particular has also enjoyed extensive "testing' at LUX, XENON-1T, PandaX-II, and many other previous incantations, and yet no hint of any extension to the standard particle physics model has been observed and they're quickly reaching the interaction cross section of neutrinos now.

We've quite literally spent many billion and many more tens of millions of dollars "testing" exotic matter models, and they have consistently failed all of those tests. Exotic matter theory has a batting average of 0 in fact when it comes to predicting the outcome of laboratory experiments.

Now let's look at the so called "astronomical evidence" of exotic matter. For over 80 years Zwicky and his generation noticed that their 'estimations' of the mass of various galaxies based on direct light came up with numbers that didn't begin to explain the needed mass to hold galaxies and galaxy clusters together. Zwicky however wasn't egotistical enough to *assume* that his mass estimates of galaxies were 100 percent accurate, nor did he make any assumption about the nature of that mass, other than to suggest that it was 'dark' to his primitive technology (by our standards today).

In 2006, a little more than a decade ago, astronomers conducted another "landmark" study on galaxy (Bullet) cluster collisions and "dark matter". Those astronomers however were also forced to rely upon "estimates" of galaxies based on their brightness that were chalk full of dubious 'assumptions' about galaxies and their content in terms of different sized stars, the amount of plasma and gas, etc.

Over the past decade, *numerous* studies by astronomers including NASA studies have demonstrated that the then 'state of the art" 2006 baryonic mass estimates were *riddled with huge flaws*. It turns out that they underestimated the brightness of galaxies by at least a factor of 2, due to *scattering*, something astronomers have consistently underestimated since Zwicky first noticed a problem with the mass estimates some 8 decades ago.

They also grossly underestimated the number of whole stars in those various galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the type of galaxy and the size of the star. They even underestimated the number of stars located *between clusters* that are shared by the cluster.

More importantly as it relates to galaxy rotation patterns, astronomers have found more mass in the form of two different "halos" in the past five years, one composed of million degree plasma, and another halo of ordinary gas, than exists in all the stars combined! Those recently discovered halos contain more mass than all the mass in the stars that astronomers had found in our own galaxy prior to 2012. Not surprisingly, the halo configuration of the discovered plasma and gas also fits very nicely with dark matter mathematical 'halo" models.

If we haven't been correctly predicting the amount of ordinary mass in our own galaxy yet, and we know for sure that we've botched the mass estimates of distant galaxies all along (and we do), then there really is no need to "assume" anything other than our mass estimates of galaxies need a serious revamping.

There's no need for exotic matter to explain those DM 'halo' models. In fact the finding of those two different halos of gas and plasma would suggest that all "dark" matter means is that it's been "dark" to us, but only because it's been beyond our current technology to locate and to estimate properly at the moment.

The cold hard fact is, the only drug addict of exotic dark matter junkie fame is a single FTL expansion oriented cosmology model, which should have imploded instantly if GR theory (which it is based on) is correct. The LCDM model is the only physics model that requires stable forms of exotic matter. That same LCDM model has consistently failed many "predictive tests" that are made by GR theory since it's inception when it miraculously managed to escape it's own Schwarzschild radius.

It's hard to think of any other physics theory that has failed so many important predictive tests in fact.

Considering DM mathematical models (plural) have failed to predict anything useful (or correct) in any laboratory experiment to date, what else could you call belief in exotic matter theory anything other than a "statement of faith" in the "unseen" in the lab?

It's ironic that atheist proponents of LCDM actually require 4 "statements of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab), whereas most Christians need but one such unseen entity to explain God.

What is the purpose of these scientific "tests" you admire so much if you refuse to take "no" as an answer and your model is a consistent failure in the lab, and it is based on technological limit quicksand in terms of astronomy? How is belief in the LCDM model anything but an act of faith in the unseen on the part of the believer?

 

[Michael]

Should I dare even mention dark energy considering that all of it could be replaced with even a *tiny* bit of scattering? Dare I ask about that hemispheric variation in the CMB that defies the "homogeneous" claim of Guth's inflation theory? How many metaphysical inflation models are there to choose from now anyway?

The parallels between acts of faith in the unseen in science, and acts of faith in religion are staggering. Atheists will often evangelically defend the LCDM model, with four hypothetical entities in all, while poo-pooing a theist for having faith in one unseen God. It's really quite an ironic metaphysical juxtaposition.