What is a Law of Nature?

That said, science isn't about "stories", either.

In a way it is.  It is about the best thing we can say at the present time about our universe.  I suspect the demon in this discussion isn't science at all  but how science comes across to us lay people via popularizers of science.  Having DM and DE as working hypotheses for the time being is perhaps a good thing but talking about them as if they are proven facts isn't.  Unfortunately the bulk of lay people are swayed very much by information from popular science books.

I suspect the demon in this discussion isn't science at all  but how science comes across to us lay people via popularizers of science.

I don't agree with that! Just about everyone here seems to have a certain level of technical sophistication - people who don't probably neither know nor care if there is a 'shortage of mass' in many galaxies! It is precisely because we realise that the evidence may simply relate to limitations in the GR/NG theories, that we are interested in it.

David

Just about everyone here seems to have a certain level of technical sophistication

David

   A few do David, a few do!

I suspect finding a black hole is a great thing to put on a CV. I do wonder if these things may have themselves emerged from tortured data!

David

That is exactly the arguments some have made against "singularities" ~ that they're simply the result of broken mathematics.

Instead of accepting that their equations could be broken, must be broken, they've instead enshrined them as a reality!

No-one has ever observed or experienced a "singularity", so believing that they exist simply because of a mathematical equation... that's not science by any definition. It cannot ever possibly be confirmed or denied by any independent experimentation. No experiments can be done on "singularities", either.

Some, like Miles Mathis, go much further, and proclaim modern physics to simply be entirely based on flawed data and broken mathematics for the sake of careerism.

In a way it is.  It is about the best thing we can say at the present time about our universe.  I suspect the demon in this discussion isn't science at all  but how science comes across to us lay people via popularizers of science.  Having DM and DE as working hypotheses for the time being is perhaps a good thing but talking about them as if they are proven facts isn't.  Unfortunately the bulk of lay people are swayed very much by information from popular science books.

Perhaps... but I don't think it makes for good science at all.

I don't think it is the best thing that can be said about the present time about our universe. Not at all.

Not when it is basically pseudo-science whose goal is to prop up a broken theory that continues to become ever more derelict and useless in its predictions.

All it leads to are cults like Scientism.

That is exactly the arguments some have made against "singularities" ~ that they're simply the result of broken mathematics.

Instead of accepting that their equations could be broken, must be broken, they've instead enshrined them as a reality!

No-one has ever observed or experienced a "singularity", so believing that they exist simply because of a mathematical equation... that's not science by any definition. It cannot ever possibly be confirmed or denied by any independent experimentation. No experiments can be done on "singularities", either.

Some, like Miles Mathis, go much further, and proclaim modern physics to simply be entirely based on flawed data and broken mathematics for the sake of careerism.

I don't quite like the expression 'broken mathematics' because it sounds like they dropped a minus sign or something in their calculations. The point is that older physics always took their equations to be valid over a finite range - even if that range was not explicitly spelled out. The gas equations were derived using various simplifying assumptions, such as that molecules had a negligible volume. Ohm's law assumed that the current flowing the resistor was not such as to melt or vaporise the component. All through such science nobody expected the equations to hold regardless of everything. Nobody made a big thing of the singularities that existed in those equations.

It would be prudent if people assumed that some sort of limits apply to equations such as those in GR, and that at least these need to be subject to test each time a the scale is increased.

Paul got it best when he said what else can they do?

David

No, you don't. Science doesn't require "better" theories or hypotheses for a current theory or hypothesis to be declared unfit.

That said, science isn't about "stories", either. That's the purview of religion, not science.

We don't dump mainstream consensus stories until we have a better story.

And yes, we make up stories to join our observations together.

We don't dump mainstream consensus stories until we have a better story.

And yes, we make up stories to join our observations together.

Maybe so, but this is an example of human frailty, the lack of determination to always follow the data and reject theories that are now contradicted by a lot of the actual data. Complete objectivity would require the "consensus theory" to be rejected for all its history of abject devotion, followed by a consensus that there is no satisfactory theory for the phenomena any more - an intolerable condition psychologically.

We don't dump mainstream consensus stories until we have a better story.

We totally can. Science isn't about "consensus" nor rigidly sticking to stories. Science is supposed be about progress, not stagnation.

Proper science has never about sticking with a story until we have a better one ~ science is supposed to constantly test the rigor and stability of existing stories constantly in the face of new data, throwing them out when the contradictory data becomes too damning.

What we have today is not science, but blind ideology by Materialists / Physicalists who have infiltrated and turned science on its head, all in order to fight a holy war against the Christians, and anything and everything considered adjacent to that.

And yes, we make up stories to join our observations together.

Stories, myths, fairytales... they're supposed to be about life lessons and how to be a better person.

Something that isn't anything like science at all, not even the original form of it before the Materialists / Physicalists got hold of it.

We totally can. Science isn't about "consensus" nor rigidly sticking to stories. Science is supposed be about progress, not stagnation.

Proper science has never about sticking with a story until we have a better one ~ science is supposed to constantly test the rigor and stability of existing stories constantly in the face of new data, throwing them out when the contradictory data becomes too damning.

What we have today is not science, but blind ideology by Materialists / Physicalists who have infiltrated and turned science on its head, all in order to fight a holy war against the Christians, and anything and everything considered adjacent to that.


Stories, myths, fairytales... they're supposed to be about life lessons and how to be a better person.

Something that isn't anything like science at all, not even the original form of it before the Materialists / Physicalists got hold of it.

Maybe one should learn a bit about math and physics before hasting to extreme views.