> in that adding more mass accounts for the observed behaviours without changing the known laws of physics
I disagree with statement in that I feel this is an incorrect interpretation of what transpired with physics.
Classical physics, modified and tweaked over the centuries, worked well and it’s still valid for the domains where it was already conceived and tested for.
The cracks in the model
formed when we pushed experimental boundaries.
Very high speed and extremely tiny were both new, but most (all?) of the vetted modern models will simplify down to
classical physics when in every day conditions.
The new boundary condition is galactic scale mass and distance but with mostly (?) non-relativistic speeds and probably subtle GR gravity conditions.
MOND? Darkmatter? It’s good science explore all avenues, not shutdown a discussion until conclusive evidence and lack of rebuttal shows otherwise.
Otherwise it’s not science. These days, I’ve started to suspect that it’s not scientists that have such a black and white view and certainty.
> It’s good science explore all avenues, not shutdown a discussion until conclusive evidence and lack of rebuttal shows otherwise.
I couldn't agree more. I don't think anyone should claim to be certain about any of our understanding of the universe. I just say that it isn't very useful to think that way, we make more progress if we have the courage to trust in a theory and dare to be proven wrong, than to go back to the drawing board when we get stuck.
For uncertain things, as long as the courage extends to all feasible (meaning, not outright disproven like flat-earth…) models then we’re in agreement.
What bothers me generally, is how one speculative theory
dwarfs others when the scientists themselves will admit that there’s far
more wiggle-room.
This has implications in funding and brainpower, hindering progress in the long run.
Yes, in case someone asks: The contrarian side where alt-theories include the outright disproven is also worrisome; but in HN at least everyone seems pretty bright and attentive to good science; far smarter than yours truly, certainly.
I disagree with statement in that I feel this is an incorrect interpretation of what transpired with physics.
Classical physics, modified and tweaked over the centuries, worked well and it’s still valid for the domains where it was already conceived and tested for.
The cracks in the model formed when we pushed experimental boundaries.
Very high speed and extremely tiny were both new, but most (all?) of the vetted modern models will simplify down to classical physics when in every day conditions.
The new boundary condition is galactic scale mass and distance but with mostly (?) non-relativistic speeds and probably subtle GR gravity conditions.
MOND? Darkmatter? It’s good science explore all avenues, not shutdown a discussion until conclusive evidence and lack of rebuttal shows otherwise.
Otherwise it’s not science. These days, I’ve started to suspect that it’s not scientists that have such a black and white view and certainty.