I hope to solve this problem by focussing on observations.jimmcginn wrote: James McGinn:
I think this is a really cool idea. There is one huge obstacle, however. And I think this obstacle is insurmountable: people (scientists) in specialized fields/disciplines tend to deeply buy-in to certain myths and extremely often
these myths are irrational, even plainly irrational.
If certain groups want to introduce the idea of "dark matter", they have to refer to the observations.
Which is in this case "the acceleration of matter inside galaxies greater than can be explained by gravity".
The group supporting dark matter has to focus on the actual evidence, and not all kinds
of maths to support their idea. The group also has to add the failed searches for evidence.
The group supporting electromagnetism comes on a similar level, except that they can add actual
observations of electromagnetism in the galaxies.
That is true.Unfortunately these myths--some of which are obvious nonsense--are believed on a deeply subconscious level.
First: The website should surely state that models of our reality are "mathematical approximations".
That means that different models are valid within certain limits.
Like: g=9.81 is valid for a falling object.
It is a perfect valid theory within certain conditions.
It is also the simplest one.
According to "Occam's razor", this would be the best solution,
and we do not need to look at alternatives. That is why I hate Occam's razor.
It is for people that can not deal with different ideas simultaneously.
The website would be open to alternatives, but you will need to add observations.
A deeper example would be quantum physics.
The observation is that we see step-wise transfer of energy and charge.
Each step is called a quantum.
And we see that the distribution of these quanta are following wave-logic.
That's it. Most people agree with these observations.
We do not know what is behind this process, but for that we have
I hope that by "forcing" observations before maths, that people
will think differently about everything.
The mainstream theories of science suddenly become very vague due to the excessive use of maths.
And certain observations even break these theories.
Too much Maths can lead to fantasy in my opinion.
Steven Crothers's work seems to confirms this.
Additionally we can discuss about the validity of certain observations.
- Were the photographs that were used to debunk Halton Arp wrong or even manipulated?
- Are the LIGO-"gravity-waves" caused by something else instead?
To improve the discussion it should again focus on observations.
The galaxies related to Halton Arp, were photographed by amateurs, confirming his ideas.
Are the LIGO results a consequence of cherry-picking, or false identification?
Did LIGO test the (likely) sensitivity of the system to magnetism?
Are there any other observations confirming LIGO's findings?
If a certain group wants to strengthen their point, they need to talk about certain observations
that they would often avoid.