The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[Mountainmike]

People often speak on this thread as though the physics model WAS reality, rather than just an observation model of it.

They see the elegance of some of the maths and marvel at how "elegant" nature is, and its true. Some of the maths - like maxwells equations - is elegant. The problem is, it is the model that is elegant, not nature!

I marvelled once at the exactness of the proof of the permeability of free space.
As a simpleelegant formula but you need some maths and physics knowledge to calculate it!. When I got more advanced I realised. That "pretty" formula was simply built into the axioms of the model.! It was there because when we defined "field " and "permeability" it was just a consequence of our definitions. no more or less. Nothing to do with the universe. Which is why you dont need to measure ANYTHING at all, to calculate the permeability of free space.

For sure it is a valuable model - it has enabled progress (of a sort)
(for people really think atom bombs , fertilizers that kill all wild life and ozone destroying gas guzzling cars are progress - but I digress!)

I think they need to get grounded in what science really is.
And the easiest way to illustrate it, it is one of the simplest equations of all that everyone knows. Or they think they do. But they dont....

V=IR
Many people will call it ohms law, and many text books wrongly call it such.
And that is the first problem!

Actually it is not a law.
It is a definition of resistance.
So it is an "equivalence" not even an equation.
R= V/I is that defintion.

Ohms law is actually that
"for a range of materials and operating points, resistance is (reasonably constant)"

So for those materials if I double voltage, (within reason) I will see double current.

But many materials DO NOT obey ohms law, and most do not, at extremes of operating point.
So it is hardly universal.
Take our old favourite semiconductors. Or semiconductor junctions.
They dont obey ohms law.
But the resistance is still V/I ! it just isnt constant as you change V!
So everyones favourite equation is still true, even if Ohms law does not apply!

So here we have the reality of the physical model.
WE DEFINE an axiomatic quantity called resistance R=V/I
It doesnt exist in the universe , just in our heads or on paper.

WE OBSERVE for some materials over a range of operating points
Voltage is proportional to current - so resistance is constant.
Ohm was the first to document it, so it bears his name.

WE PUT ohms law into the model. It wasnt there before we put it there.
It is only true for some materials some of the time, over some operating points.
So it is JUST a model.

We can take it all a level deeper. But the principle is just the same.
We can model charge carriers too. I can make the same observations of charge carriers, and arrive at electro kinetic axioms and laws. But they too are a model.

So then we come up to our old friend an electron.
What is it? Well it depends.... Charge is a model. Who knows what it is, it describes a behaviour. Electron is a model of charge carrier. We also have models called particles and waves. And sometimes electrons behave as one, sometimes the other. Sometimes they cant seem to make up their minds. Not that they have amind.

We expect them to repel. Except when they dont. Two electrons in a box are observed more likely at one end than opposite! So where are you repulsion?

Then it gets really bizarre. Electrons whose history is written only when they are observed Easily shown with single quantum double slit experiments.
But things have a unique history dont they? Er well...no not in quantum world.

And at that point people need to get grounded again.
Why all these stupid paradoxes on observablity, causality, history , uniqueness?
Answer because it is ONLY a model.

When we say "explained " by physics we dont mean the universe explains behaviour.
We mean it is or is not in the model yet! The model either does work or not for whatever we say it "explains" or not explains as the case may be.

So we cannot take God out of the model , not because He is not the universe ,but because nobody put Him in the Model.
There is no shrinking "god of the gaps" because outside the model Nothing is explained. We only observe what it normally does. And explain just means it is modelled!

And the model models it well sometimes. But then...the cosmology model seems to not have over 90 percent of the mass. So the model is not very good in places...

So I urge all to go back to the idea, that if you are looking for "explanation" science is not the place to start. Its a model, not the real universe. It predicts what it is normally observed to do Not what it is , or why it is.

 

[Steve Petersen]

People often speak on this thread as though the physics model WAS reality, rather than just an observation model of it.

They see the elegance of some of the maths and marvel at how "elegant" nature is, and its true. Some of the maths is elegant. The problem is, it is the model that is elegant, not nature!

For sure it is a valuable model - it has enabled progress (of a sort)
(for people really think atom bombs , fertilizers that kill all wild life and ozone destroying gas guzzling cars are progress - but I digress!)

I think they need to get grounded in what science really is.
And the easiest way to illustrate it, it is one of the simplest equations of all that everyone knows. Or they think they do. But they dont....

V=IR
Many people will call it ohms law, and many text books wrongly call it such.
And that is the first problem!

Actually it is not a law.
It is a definition of resistance.
So it is an "equivalence" not even an equation.
R= V/I is that defintion.

Ohms law is actually that
"for a range of materials and operating points, resistance is (reasonably constant)"

So for those materials if I double voltage, (within reason) I will see double current.

But many materials DO NOT obey ohms law, and most do not, at extremes of operating point.
So it is hardly universal.
Take our old favourite semiconductors. Or semiconductor junctions.
They dont obey ohms law.
But the resistance is still V/I ! it just isnt constant as you change V!

So here we have the reality of the physical model.
WE DEFINE an axiomatic quantity called resistance R=V/I
It doesnt exist in the universe , just in our heads or on paper.

WE OBSERVE for some materials over a range of operating points
Voltage is proportional to current - so resistance is constant.

WE PUT ohms law into the model. It wasnt there before we put it there.
It is only true for some materials some of the time, over some operating points.
So it is JUST a model.

We can take it all a level deeper. But the principle is just the same.
We can model charge carriers too. I can make the same observations of charge carriers, and arrive at electro kinetic axioms and laws. But they too are a model.

So then we come up to our old friend an electron.
What is it? Well it depends.... Charge is a model. Who knows what it is, it describes a behaviour. Electron is a model of charge carrier. We also have models called particles and waves. And sometimes electrons behave as one, sometimes the other. Sometimes they cant seem to make up their minds. Not that they have amind.

We expect them to repel. Except when they dont. Two electrons in a box are observed more likely at one end than opposite! So where are you repulsion?

Then it gets really bizarre. Electrons whose history is written only when they are observed Easily shown with single quantum double slit experiments.
But things have a unique history dont they? Er well...no not in quantum world.

And at that point people need to get grounded again.
Why all these stupid paradoxes on observablity, causality, history , uniqueness?
Answer because it is ONLY a model.

When we say "explained " by physics we dont mean the universe explains behaviour.
We mean it is or is not in the model yet! The model either does work or not for whatever we say it "explains" or not explains as the case may be.

So we cannot take God out of the model , not because He is not the universe ,but because nobody put Him in the Model.
There is no shrinking "god of the gaps" because outside the model Nothing is explained. We only observe what it normally does. And explain just means it is modelled!

And the model models it well sometimes. But then...the cosmology model seems to not have over 90 percent of the mass. So the model is not very good in places...

So I urge all to go back to the idea, that if you are looking for "explanation" science is not the place to start. Its a model, not the real universe. It predicts what it is normally observed to do Not what it is , or why it is.

So what is the real universe then? Something that can't even be modeled?

 

[Dave-W]

Take our old favourite semiconductors

I have a good friend who is one of those. Conducting a symphony orchestra is his part time job. Running the library computer network at a major university is his day job.

 

[Mountainmike]

So what is the real universe then? Something that can't even be modeled?

Some of it can be modelled. We have clearly done it! And we have done very well modelling it.
But that does not make the model the universe.
Physics is a suit of clothes on a body. It is not the body. And in places, (like armpits) , it doesnt fit very well!

 

[Steve Petersen]

Some of it can be modelled. We have clearly done it! And we have done very well modelling it.
But that does not make the model the universe.
Physics is a suit of clothes on a body. It is not the body. And in places, (like armpits) , it doesnt fit very well!

So what? Drop the other shoe. Why does this matter? Are we supposed to infer God? What is it you want us to take away from your OP?

 

[Halbhh]

People often speak on this thread as though the physics model WAS reality, rather than just an observation model of it.

They see the elegance of some of the maths and marvel at how "elegant" nature is, and its true. Some of the maths is elegant. The problem is, it is the model that is elegant, not nature!

I marvelled once at the exactness of the proof of the permeability of free space.
As a simple formula. When I got more advanced I realised. That "pretty" formula was simply built into the axioms of the model.! It was there because when we defined "field " and "permeability" it was just a consequence of our definitions. no more or less. Nothing to do with the universe.

For sure it is a valuable model - it has enabled progress (of a sort)
(for people really think atom bombs , fertilizers that kill all wild life and ozone destroying gas guzzling cars are progress - but I digress!)

I think they need to get grounded in what science really is.
And the easiest way to illustrate it, it is one of the simplest equations of all that everyone knows. Or they think they do. But they dont....

V=IR
Many people will call it ohms law, and many text books wrongly call it such.
And that is the first problem!

Actually it is not a law.
It is a definition of resistance.
So it is an "equivalence" not even an equation.
R= V/I is that defintion.

Ohms law is actually that
"for a range of materials and operating points, resistance is (reasonably constant)"

So for those materials if I double voltage, (within reason) I will see double current.

But many materials DO NOT obey ohms law, and most do not, at extremes of operating point.
So it is hardly universal.
Take our old favourite semiconductors. Or semiconductor junctions.
They dont obey ohms law.
But the resistance is still V/I ! it just isnt constant as you change V!
So everyones favourite equation is still true, even if Ohms law does not apply!

So here we have the reality of the physical model.
WE DEFINE an axiomatic quantity called resistance R=V/I
It doesnt exist in the universe , just in our heads or on paper.

WE OBSERVE for some materials over a range of operating points
Voltage is proportional to current - so resistance is constant.

WE PUT ohms law into the model. It wasnt there before we put it there.
It is only true for some materials some of the time, over some operating points.
So it is JUST a model.

We can take it all a level deeper. But the principle is just the same.
We can model charge carriers too. I can make the same observations of charge carriers, and arrive at electro kinetic axioms and laws. But they too are a model.

So then we come up to our old friend an electron.
What is it? Well it depends.... Charge is a model. Who knows what it is, it describes a behaviour. Electron is a model of charge carrier. We also have models called particles and waves. And sometimes electrons behave as one, sometimes the other. Sometimes they cant seem to make up their minds. Not that they have amind.

We expect them to repel. Except when they dont. Two electrons in a box are observed more likely at one end than opposite! So where are you repulsion?

Then it gets really bizarre. Electrons whose history is written only when they are observed Easily shown with single quantum double slit experiments.
But things have a unique history dont they? Er well...no not in quantum world.

And at that point people need to get grounded again.
Why all these stupid paradoxes on observablity, causality, history , uniqueness?
Answer because it is ONLY a model.

When we say "explained " by physics we dont mean the universe explains behaviour.
We mean it is or is not in the model yet! The model either does work or not for whatever we say it "explains" or not explains as the case may be.

So we cannot take God out of the model , not because He is not the universe ,but because nobody put Him in the Model.
There is no shrinking "god of the gaps" because outside the model Nothing is explained. We only observe what it normally does. And explain just means it is modelled!

And the model models it well sometimes. But then...the cosmology model seems to not have over 90 percent of the mass. So the model is not very good in places...

So I urge all to go back to the idea, that if you are looking for "explanation" science is not the place to start. Its a model, not the real universe. It predicts what it is normally observed to do Not what it is , or why it is.

Nice point to make, and valuable.

Now, in physics, we have learned that there are objective laws of nature, though we can't easily be sure our best theories are the final accurate representations of those hard and real laws, but we can over time feel more and more confident of our theories.

How?

One way is when a theory allows us to predict even things that have never been observed or even guessed to be, and then when finally searched for, are as the theory predicted.

Example: Einstein's new General Relativity predicted the gravity of the sun would bend light gravitationally.

According to General Relativity, light traveling near the sun (from distant stars) would be deflected by specific amounts specified by the theory.

This was not already known, and had not been observed.

Several years later astronomers were able during a solar eclipse to observe this for the first time, and find out that amazingly this prediction of a never-before-observed exact amount of gravitational bending of light was just what Einstein's new theory predicted.

And General Relativity has since in the last 100 years stood up to test after test after test looking for any instance of it being wrong.

We can deduce there are fixed, real laws of Nature, which we can try to discover.

They preexist our discovering them. They are fixed and real and objective.

We can't know we have perfectly discovered them, but we can know when we have a theory that is consistently performing well, so that we have at the minimum a correct (objectively correct) approximation at the least.

Newton's theory of gravity was thought to be correct for centuries until we finally found out it was simply a correct approximation. This doesn't mean Newton's theory was wrong, but rather it was correct and incomplete, essentially. It was only a correct approximation.

But the real, fixed, objective reality does indeed exist.

And this is part of the wonder of God's creation -- physics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

People often speak on this thread as though the physics model WAS reality, rather than just an observation model of it.

They see the elegance of some of the maths and marvel at how "elegant" nature is, and its true. Some of the maths - like maxwells equations - is elegant. The problem is, it is the model that is elegant, not nature!

I marvelled once at the exactness of the proof of the permeability of free space.
As a simple formula. When I got more advanced I realised. That "pretty" formula was simply built into the axioms of the model.! It was there because when we defined "field " and "permeability" it was just a consequence of our definitions. no more or less. Nothing to do with the universe. Which is why you dont need to measure ANYTHING at all, to know the permeability of free space.

For sure it is a valuable model - it has enabled progress (of a sort)
(for people really think atom bombs , fertilizers that kill all wild life and ozone destroying gas guzzling cars are progress - but I digress!)

I think they need to get grounded in what science really is.
And the easiest way to illustrate it, it is one of the simplest equations of all that everyone knows. Or they think they do. But they dont....

V=IR
Many people will call it ohms law, and many text books wrongly call it such.
And that is the first problem!

Actually it is not a law.
It is a definition of resistance.
So it is an "equivalence" not even an equation.
R= V/I is that defintion.

Ohms law is actually that
"for a range of materials and operating points, resistance is (reasonably constant)"

So for those materials if I double voltage, (within reason) I will see double current.

But many materials DO NOT obey ohms law, and most do not, at extremes of operating point.
So it is hardly universal.
Take our old favourite semiconductors. Or semiconductor junctions.
They dont obey ohms law.
But the resistance is still V/I ! it just isnt constant as you change V!
So everyones favourite equation is still true, even if Ohms law does not apply!

So here we have the reality of the physical model.
WE DEFINE an axiomatic quantity called resistance R=V/I
It doesnt exist in the universe , just in our heads or on paper.

WE OBSERVE for some materials over a range of operating points
Voltage is proportional to current - so resistance is constant.
Ohm was the first to document it, so it bears his name.

WE PUT ohms law into the model. It wasnt there before we put it there.
It is only true for some materials some of the time, over some operating points.
So it is JUST a model.

We can take it all a level deeper. But the principle is just the same.
We can model charge carriers too. I can make the same observations of charge carriers, and arrive at electro kinetic axioms and laws. But they too are a model.

So then we come up to our old friend an electron.
What is it? Well it depends.... Charge is a model. Who knows what it is, it describes a behaviour. Electron is a model of charge carrier. We also have models called particles and waves. And sometimes electrons behave as one, sometimes the other. Sometimes they cant seem to make up their minds. Not that they have amind.

We expect them to repel. Except when they dont. Two electrons in a box are observed more likely at one end than opposite! So where are you repulsion?

Then it gets really bizarre. Electrons whose history is written only when they are observed Easily shown with single quantum double slit experiments.
But things have a unique history dont they? Er well...no not in quantum world.

And at that point people need to get grounded again.
Why all these stupid paradoxes on observablity, causality, history , uniqueness?
Answer because it is ONLY a model.

When we say "explained " by physics we dont mean the universe explains behaviour.
We mean it is or is not in the model yet! The model either does work or not for whatever we say it "explains" or not explains as the case may be.

So we cannot take God out of the model , not because He is not the universe ,but because nobody put Him in the Model.
There is no shrinking "god of the gaps" because outside the model Nothing is explained. We only observe what it normally does. And explain just means it is modelled!

And the model models it well sometimes. But then...the cosmology model seems to not have over 90 percent of the mass. So the model is not very good in places...

So I urge all to go back to the idea, that if you are looking for "explanation" science is not the place to start. Its a model, not the real universe. It predicts what it is normally observed to do Not what it is , or why it is.

The cosmology model only requires 95% Fairie Dust because they keep ignoring all that mass in the plasma state that obeys the electromagnetic laws as the dominating force.

But then that’s why every single plasma laboratory uses particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe plasma, while astronomers are still in the dark age trying to sledgehammer gravity (the physics for non-ionized matter) to a universe 99.9% plasma.

When you continue to try to use the weakest force in the universe while ignoring the strongest, you end up needing 95% Fairie Dust to explain why your model failed to explain things correctly......

 

[Halbhh]

People often speak on this thread as though the physics model WAS reality, rather than just an observation model of it.

They see the elegance of some of the maths and marvel at how "elegant" nature is, and its true. Some of the maths - like maxwells equations - is elegant. The problem is, it is the model that is elegant, not nature!

I marvelled once at the exactness of the proof of the permeability of free space.
As a simpleelegant formula but you need some maths and physics knowledge to calculate it!. When I got more advanced I realised. That "pretty" formula was simply built into the axioms of the model.! It was there because when we defined "field " and "permeability" it was just a consequence of our definitions. no more or less. Nothing to do with the universe. Which is why you dont need to measure ANYTHING at all, to calculate the permeability of free space.

For sure it is a valuable model - it has enabled progress (of a sort)
(for people really think atom bombs , fertilizers that kill all wild life and ozone destroying gas guzzling cars are progress - but I digress!)

I think they need to get grounded in what science really is.
And the easiest way to illustrate it, it is one of the simplest equations of all that everyone knows. Or they think they do. But they dont....

V=IR
Many people will call it ohms law, and many text books wrongly call it such.
And that is the first problem!

Actually it is not a law.
It is a definition of resistance.
So it is an "equivalence" not even an equation.
R= V/I is that defintion.

Ohms law is actually that
"for a range of materials and operating points, resistance is (reasonably constant)"

So for those materials if I double voltage, (within reason) I will see double current.

But many materials DO NOT obey ohms law, and most do not, at extremes of operating point.
So it is hardly universal.
Take our old favourite semiconductors. Or semiconductor junctions.
They dont obey ohms law.
But the resistance is still V/I ! it just isnt constant as you change V!
So everyones favourite equation is still true, even if Ohms law does not apply!

So here we have the reality of the physical model.
WE DEFINE an axiomatic quantity called resistance R=V/I
It doesnt exist in the universe , just in our heads or on paper.

WE OBSERVE for some materials over a range of operating points
Voltage is proportional to current - so resistance is constant.
Ohm was the first to document it, so it bears his name.

WE PUT ohms law into the model. It wasnt there before we put it there.
It is only true for some materials some of the time, over some operating points.
So it is JUST a model.

We can take it all a level deeper. But the principle is just the same.
We can model charge carriers too. I can make the same observations of charge carriers, and arrive at electro kinetic axioms and laws. But they too are a model.

So then we come up to our old friend an electron.
What is it? Well it depends.... Charge is a model. Who knows what it is, it describes a behaviour. Electron is a model of charge carrier. We also have models called particles and waves. And sometimes electrons behave as one, sometimes the other. Sometimes they cant seem to make up their minds. Not that they have amind.

We expect them to repel. Except when they dont. Two electrons in a box are observed more likely at one end than opposite! So where are you repulsion?

Then it gets really bizarre. Electrons whose history is written only when they are observed Easily shown with single quantum double slit experiments.
But things have a unique history dont they? Er well...no not in quantum world.

And at that point people need to get grounded again.
Why all these stupid paradoxes on observablity, causality, history , uniqueness?
Answer because it is ONLY a model.

When we say "explained " by physics we dont mean the universe explains behaviour.
We mean it is or is not in the model yet! The model either does work or not for whatever we say it "explains" or not explains as the case may be.

So we cannot take God out of the model , not because He is not the universe ,but because nobody put Him in the Model.
There is no shrinking "god of the gaps" because outside the model Nothing is explained. We only observe what it normally does. And explain just means it is modelled!

And the model models it well sometimes. But then...the cosmology model seems to not have over 90 percent of the mass. So the model is not very good in places...

So I urge all to go back to the idea, that if you are looking for "explanation" science is not the place to start. Its a model, not the real universe. It predicts what it is normally observed to do Not what it is , or why it is.

But I do agree with you about modeling reality -- our models tend to be a lot simpler than the reality, because we don't have the vastly more powerful computers it would take to make more accurate modeling. We are forced to use over-simplifications in computer simulations, because of our limited computer speeds.

The cosmology model only requires 95% Fairie Dust because they keep ignoring all that mass in the plasma state that obeys the electromagnetic laws as the dominating force.

But then that’s why every single plasma laboratory uses particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe plasma, while astronomers are still in the dark age trying to sledgehammer gravity (the physics for non-ionized matter) to a universe 99.9% plasma.

When you continue to try to use the weakest force in the universe while ignoring the strongest, you end up needing 95% Fairie Dust to explain why your model failed to explain things correctly......

 

[jayem]

This is not Manhattan:

It's a street map of Manhattan. It's a graphic representation that's useful for predicting a location. If you want to find Trump Tower, which is on 5th Avenue, south of 57th St., this will accurately show you where to go.

Am I missing the point? Seems to me this thread is just stating the obvious.

 

[Halbhh]

This is not Manhattan:

View attachment 245186

It's a street map of Manhattan. It's a graphic representation that's useful for predicting a location. If you want to find Trump Tower, which is on 5th Avenue, south of 57th St., this will accurately show you where to go.

Am I missing the point? Seems to me this thread is just stating the obvious.

That's a useful metaphor. He is talking also about a 2nd thing though -- how modeling often falls short of the complexity of something (such as climate, or even a small physical system even), and I tried to address that in #8, if it was at all clear. How even knowing the physics of something won't necessarily allow us to predict much in many systems.

 

[jayem]

That's a useful metaphor. He is talking also about a 2nd thing though -- how modeling often falls short of the complexity of something (such as climate, or even a small physical system even), and I tried to address that in #8, if it was at all clear. How even knowing the physics of something won't necessarily allow us to predict much in many systems.

Of course, scientific knowledge is incomplete. I'm sure it always will be. But that's what makes it so exciting. There will always be gaps to fill in, and new discoveries to make. The thrill of science is not so much in the destination as it is in the journey.

This is also what makes good science superior to religious belief. Religious doctrine is static. It doesn't change and it will never (or hardly ever) admit it was wrong. Good science will readily concede that all knowledge is tentative. And it will self-correct when the evidence demands it.

Science models the universe as it really is. Religion models the universe as it hopes it is.

 

[Halbhh]

Of course, scientific knowledge is incomplete. I'm sure it always will be. But that's what makes it so exciting. There will always be gaps to fill in, and new discoveries to make. The thrill of science is not so much in the destination as it is in the journey.

This is also what makes good science superior to religious belief. Religious doctrine is static. It doesn't change and it will never (or hardly ever) admit it was wrong. Good science will readily concede that all knowledge is tentative. And it will self-correct when the evidence demands it.

Science models the universe as it really is. Religion models the universe as it hopes it is.

:=) explore new worlds, and you find new things.

 

[46AND2]

A model, you say?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course, scientific knowledge is incomplete. I'm sure it always will be. But that's what makes it so exciting. There will always be gaps to fill in, and new discoveries to make. The thrill of science is not so much in the destination as it is in the journey.

This is also what makes good science superior to religious belief. Religious doctrine is static. It doesn't change and it will never (or hardly ever) admit it was wrong. Good science will readily concede that all knowledge is tentative. And it will self-correct when the evidence demands it.

Science models the universe as it really is. Religion models the universe as it hopes it is.

Except after 80 years and null result after null result after null result...., they don't seem to want to self correct their cosmological models at all...... but why would they, searching for imaginary things is a great cash cow and you never have to admit you were wrong. You just ask for another billion dollars to find more nothing.....

 

[Steve Petersen]

Except after 80 years and null result after null result after null result...., they don't seem to want to self correct their cosmological models at all...... but why would they, searching for imaginary things is a great cash cow and you never have to admit you were wrong. You just ask for another billion dollars to find more nothing.....

Null results? Such as..?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Null results? Such as..?

How many null results for Dark Matter does one need to falsify a belief?

 

[Steve Petersen]

How many null results for Dark Matter does one need to falsify a belief?

It is not a belief. It is a hypothesis.

Often we have to wait for the tools to falsify the hypothesis. The hypothesis of the existence of atoms had to wait 2500 years for the tools to find.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is not a belief. It is a hypothesis.

Often we have to wait for the tools to falsify the hypothesis. The hypothesis of the existence of atoms had to wait 2500 years for the tools to find.

Atoms were predicted by understanding you could cut apples into smaller and smaller pieces, but at some point you could not cut it smaller. Dark Matter was a ad-hoc rescue device only added when theory failed to describe the cosmos correctly... while ignoring 99.9% of it.....

No valid theory has predicted Dark Matter.....

Good try, but a useless comparison. One was deduced from logic, the other from illogical thinking.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Atoms were predicted by understanding you could cut apples into smaller and smaller pieces, but at some point you could not cut it smaller. Dark Matter was a ad-hoc rescue device only added when theory failed to describe the cosmos correctly... while ignoring 99.9% of it.....

No valid theory has predicted Dark Matter.....

Good try, but a useless comparison. One was deduced from logic, the other from illogical thinking.

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

 

[Tanj]

People often speak on this thread as though the physics model WAS reality, rather than just an observation model of it.

Meh. You get off easy. In my field, the primary model (evolution) is spoken of as a thinking, malicious entity.

I did have a friend tell me once that most of the "major" physics equations are differential expressions, which means we're never seeing the curve, just estimating it's slope.