Michael Mozina wrote:It's simply bizarre that astronomers don't seem to even have a clue about 95 percent of their own model. Nobody can even name so much as a single source of 'dark energy' let alone explain how it retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, and that nonsense makes up 70 percent of their entire model.
That reminds me of my field. I'll explain in a moment...
Michael Mozina wrote:If the web is any indication, most of what astronomers *think* that they know about EU/PC model is absolutely wrong, and it's utterly pathetic. For instance, so called "professionals" seem to believe that EU/PC models predict "no neutrinos". The misinformation campaigns that I read on the internet that are related to EU/PC theory are just absurdly false and intentionally misleading. More telling however is the fact that none of the so called "professionals" ever bothers to correct any of it. They are about as "unprofessional" as it gets in fact.
Exactly the same here too...
Michael Mozina wrote:Failures are not ever treated as a 'falsification' of the concept, rather the unending stream of failures are constantly "spun" as a being "successful constraints" on dark matter models.
My field works more or less like this.
1. First, there is a wide variety of science; science that addresses different phenomenon from differing perspectives. Various concrete sets of knowledge, each like blind men feeling the proverbial elephant. The elephant is real; we need to compare notes and come to better conclusions. But, as we say, the nice thing about science is there's so much to chose from.
2. A certain contingent of the field has selected
a science and declared it
The Science. Previous and/or differing
sciences - in one notable case of a distinctly more professional basis - is ignored. It's not a malicious act but it is highly motivated by both financial reward and the usual investments in ego. It happens.
3. The Science, as I'll call it, doesn't deal with the mechanisms within the machine but the secondary, peripheral effects of the machine in action. Note that we've separated the real workings from evidence
of their workings, and that in so doing we introduce a real risk of missing those workings because we've already declared some of their manifestations to be The Science.
4. This Science shows flaws, as you'd well imagine. Some are logical and can be exposed with nothing more than a logical statement exposing the break between effect and mechanism, as I have, and some are self-evident to any reasonably intelligent scientific analysis. It's not that we all lack logic or perspective; it's that some of us have already made another investment.
5. In sum, the dichotomy is well-established and anyone challenging it is subject to attack, to some degree or another, as a heretic whose aim must be to deny The Science.
The problem is obvious: What a thing appears to
do is not what a thing
is. In my case, since I understand the science from the inside out, I know to a reasonable degree 1) what the inner mechanisms are so that I can 2) separate the manifestations from the causes. Hundreds can easily do so, although we're not talking while the amateurs carry on as if no other explanation could exist. It's a very obvious blunder, this cross-domain set of false assumptions.
But there's a larger problem. Cosmology doesn't have the inner mechanisms that my field has. Nobody knows what's really going on and all we have is patterns of evidence and abstract models.
If an established field can miss the real, actual, material science of a set of understandable mechanisms, I have little doubt that a larger, greater field - one with all sorts of incentives to stay their course - would indeed miss theirs.
