Really, Really!
>I'm glad to hear that the cosmology community is still considering alternatives. <
You should read some of the things people say about such studies! Especially you should do so before screaming "conspiracy!" or "idiocy!"
For a start, the number of alternatives those guys have come up with in the last few decades have been so numerous that I, as layman, have nearly stopped listening. So forgive me if I find your astonishment odd.
then again:
>We aren't exactly talking about 1+1 here. We are talking about "theoretical" equations that work sometimes but not others. If the equations worked as well as "+" then I would agree with you. <
What is anything but theoretical about "1+1=2"? It is a highly specific statement depending on very limited sets of axioms. It works as a useful model, a practical approximation of certain classes of physical and certain classes of formal relationships. In all other classes it is nonsense. Seen in such a light the maths for the dark matter is neither more applicable nor less: you have your axioms and you apply them and your hypotheses to explain your observations. Then, if things look good you make some predictions and check them against further observations. If things work out, you carry on along those lines, otherwise you reckon that the hypotheses have failed the test of falsification and you try something else.
Seems good to me. It is much like what we have on Earth. Suppose we have an opaque bag hanging from a balance. The balance registers 1. We drop a ball into the bag and the balance registers 2.
OK! This looks good! Right! Our advanced mathematicians do a bit of hard work and say that they have a suspicion that 1+1 = 2. But then someone does a bit of work on momentum and mutters things about discrepancies! Idiot! So then we take the bag off the balance and the dam' readout says -1!
Well, good commonsense folks like us aren't going to let nonsense like that lead us by the nose are we? We'll scrap the 1+1 crap that confuses our observations and change our maths to 1+1=3 (for small values of three of course!) After all, we have the evidence of our sense and our senses! The thing to change is our maths!
To hypothesise that there was a third ball in the bag in the first place is simply too unrealistic. We should change the maths to match the science, like any sensible man would do.
So I'm being unreasonable, you say? Well, who am I to argue with common sense like yours?
And yet, the reasoning of the cosmologists really came down to much the same thing really, Really! They weighed the visible galaxies and found that they were heavier than they had thought. So instead of assuming 1+1=3, they assumed that there were more balls or strings or axions or dark meteors or something else... than they had been able to see through their telescopes. Maybe! Subject to further falsification.
Then they proceeded to evaluate their alternate ideas in their turn. Sadly, this proved so challenging that they have not yet finished, the ignorant, lazy swabs! Would you believe that the universe doesn't come with little labels saying "Duhhh... Thisyer Dark matter" "Thatther lite matter." "Special discount!"
John Maynard Keynes said something like: "When the facts change, I change my mind Sir! What do you do?"
Well, Really? What DO you in particular do?
Go well,
Jon
