Finding out the nature of Dark Matter requires a positive change to Methodology

[questfortruth]

The arXiv.org looks like a cemetery of the unchecked solutions to known conjectures, however the Positive Methodology, if widely accepted, can get them journal publication.

Today's science, if the author is not a recognized top scientist, demands that the manuscript be absolutely obvious as 2 + 2 = 4.

However, science is not always as apparent as 2 + 2 = 4. The top scripts of scientists use much more hope for the correctness of calculations than just using 2 + 2 = 4. Yes, the calculations are determitive, but much more complicated than simply writing school math. Thus, any top scientist as an author very much hopes, that if somebody will find a mistake, then it will happen not right away after the publication. Thus, the scripts, which are using University math, are always vulnerable. However, they must be rejected not but groundless pessimistic feeling "our journal does not want the paper'', but by discovering logically the errors in author's logic.

 

[David T]

The arXiv.org looks like a cemetery of the unchecked solutions to known conjectures, however the Positive Methodology, if widely accepted, can get them journal publication.

Today's science, if the author is not a recognized top scientist, demands that the manuscript be absolutely obvious as 2 + 2 = 4.

However, science is not always as apparent as 2 + 2 = 4. The top scripts of scientists use much more hope for the correctness of calculations than just using 2 + 2 = 4. Thus, the scripts are always vulnerable. However, they must be rejected not but groundless pessimistic feeling "our journal does not want the paper'', but by discovering logically the errors in author's logic.

Well based on that solely newton would have been rejected. In a sense calculus is incredibly accurate but its not determitive. It was at that time that the universe was a like a mechanical clock. That of course was over turned as math and our insight developed. And on and on we go over time. Ironically if i am not mistake. Einstien actually used algebra for the basis of relativity.

So really this whole discussion is in the field of math. A language and thus limited..

 

[Polymath257]

Well based on that solely newton would have been rejected. In a sense calculus is incredibly accurate but its not determitive. It was at that time that the universe was a like a mechanical clock. That of course was over turned as math and our insight developed. And on and on we go over time. Ironically if i am not mistake. Einstien actually used algebra for the basis of relativity.

So really this whole discussion is in the field of math. A language and thus limited..

Einstein used differential geometry for general relativity, which is well beyond algebra.

For special relativity, he used partial derivatives a lot, so that is calculus.

 

[Darkforbid]

Einstein used differential geometry for general relativity, which is well beyond algebra.

For special relativity, he used partial derivatives a lot, so that is calculus.

Once you have grocked special relativity you can understand general relativity as a generalisation of the same mathematical principles but instead of vector and matrix algebra you use vector calculus and tensoranalysis.

 

[David T]

Einstein used differential geometry for general relativity, which is well beyond algebra.

For special relativity, he used partial derivatives a lot, so that is calculus.

Yes i did say "i think" and i just knew you would straighten me up on that if needed. I actually wrote it thinking "polymath knows" lol. But none the less math and our way of thinking changes over time. And what i really said is echoed in Feynmans observation "science cant prove its right it only can prove its wrong over time" is consistent with at least what i was attempting to say. Science changes over time its a slave to evolution not objective to it regardless of the narrartive it creates.

 

[Polymath257]

Once you have grocked special relativity you can understand general relativity as a generalisation of the same mathematical principles but instead of vector and matrix algebra you use vector calculus and tensoranalysis.

That is a first step, but what is *really* going on is differential geometry. The tensor analysis is to find coordinate invariant ways to express the basic laws. After that, you can choose a coordinate system that makes the calculations easier (or even do the vectors and tensors in a non-coordinate basis).

 

[Polymath257]

Yes i did say "i think" and i just knew you would straighten me up on that if needed. I actually wrote it thinking "polymath knows" lol. But none the less math and our way of thinking changes over time. And what i really said is echoed in Feynmans observation "science cant prove its right it only can prove its wrong over time" is consistent with at least what i was attempting to say. Science changes over time its a slave to evolution not objective to it regardless of the narrartive it creates.

There are actually two aspects. One is observation. And, while observation isn't completely model independent, it is much more so than we might initially think. Then there is the theory building.

Of the two, observation is MUCH closer to being objective. Whatever happens, the observations have to be explained.

Now, it is possible (even common) that the observations are due to trivial things like mis-calibration or faulty equipment, or hidden magnets. And those are perfectly good explanations of the observations when they apply.

But, the models, the theories, cannot be proven absolutely. That is because we can only observe to some level of accuracy. So, it our theory agrees with observations to 5 decimal places, it is always possible that it will fail when we push observations to 7 decimal place accuracy.

But, what *should* happen (and does in practice) is that new theories add decimal places. So, if the old was accurate to 5, but failed at 7, then the new might be accurate to 8 and might well fail at 10. But any particular observation/experiment should find better and better agreement between that observation and the theory over time.

So, Newtonian physics is 'wrong'. It works to 5 decimal places within the solar system, but fails at about 8 or 9. But we can still use it to plot the orbits of probes going to Jupiter. The better theory, general relativity, has not been found to be inaccurate to the extent we have been able to test. So, in *some* sense, both are 'objective': they work to some degree and you can even relay on Newton's theories if you don't need past 5 decimal places of accuracy.

 

[questfortruth]

Well based on that solely newton would have been rejected. In a sense calculus is incredibly accurate but its not determitive.

Yes, the logic of any paper is determinative, but much more complicated than merely writing elementary school math. Thus, any top scientist as an author very much hopes, that if somebody finds a mistake, then it will happen not right away after the publication. Thus, the manuscripts are always vulnerable.

 

[Darkforbid]

Don't you think the problem is the basic model of galaxy formation is incorrect?

 

[David T]

Yes, the logic of any paper is determinative, but much more complicated than merely writing elementary school math. Thus, any top scientist as an author very much hopes, that if somebody finds a mistake, then it will happen not right away after the publication. Thus, the manuscripts are always vulnerable.

Its all in a sense transitory thats a fact and thats good. In fact if anything there are two things than tend to be in a constant state of flux together science and religion. One is evolution by jerks(science) the other is evolution by creeps(religion). I am a generally a creepy jerk, and sometimes a jerky creep. Depends whom i am talking to!!!!

I really cant stand purests. Like all truth is being a creep. Or "only jerks use logic and reason, creeps are so out of touch." Which is true at least to a degree but stating the obvious isnt actually staying anything!!!