Galaxy Rotation and the MetaModel

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>A recent story on space.com talks about the discovery of an X-ray halo surrounding a galaxy that is claimed to destroy the MOND theory of rotation. The assertion that the halo is tilted implies other invisible mass that is making it do so. The Meta Model uses the finite range of gravity as an explanation of galactic rotation curves. What have ye Tom of VanFlandern to say on this new piece of data and what it means?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I try not to comment on science by press release. Crucial details needed to understand and judge the work are absent. When the paper does finally appear, I'll wager it does not necessarily imply what the space.com article said.

The larger problem, of course, is that few people state their assumptions anymore. So without a careful reading and inspection of the data, one cannot tell how much of the conclusion follows from the data and how much follows only from the assumptions. -|Tom|-

"The larger problem, of course, is that few people state their assumptions anymore. So without a careful reading and inspection of the data, one cannot tell how much of the conclusion follows from the data and how much follows only from the assumptions. -|Tom|-"

This is a good statement. I would like to extend it a little more by saying that data in itself cannot contribute to any conclusion at all and about anything at all, unless the data is "modelled". All models include assumptions and possibly axioms. Especially, the very same process of making inferences from data and models involves axioms of some type of logic, linear or non-linear. Therefore, any conclusions from data is implicitely axiomatic and explicitely a hypothesis testing. The conclusion is that knowledge based on pure data is impossible unless the deduced hypotheis can be verified by other means. Such "other means" are unknown presently in science and therefore all human knowledge is hypothetical.

I am sorry for the bad English. Enrico

Science fails to reaffirm the tenuous nature of the growth of knowledge. It continues to look for a pattern, but keeps finding a picture instead. It looks like Enrico was alluding to the "physical theory" of Pierre Duhem, who I believe was on the mark. However, by the time Quine came along, the picture had completely departed from the pattern that was growing at the time. The result is the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of quantum phenomena, without any deep reality. MM retains a concept of such a deep reality (and adheres to common sense -also a litmus test of Duhem's that is often forgotten today).

I have to go back to the previous post (made 5 years ago) just to paint a "picture" of scientific development in progress. Here's how physical science is growing today:

When playing poker, and you have 5 different cards in the first hand, what do you do? What I do is throw away the four lowest cards. Chances are equal for a pair (or better) with all of them -- you may as well apply the same chances to the highest card.

Dark matter runs on assumptions that are as arbitrary as any other. The highest denominator in this case is the following: "if I'm going to arrive at a break-through, I may as well apply the same chances to my tenure, or my research grant, etc."

I think it would be good for academics to face this from time to time, then continue nursing fledgling theories with clear consciences. Science would also start to make sense with the public at large (and probably get more grants).

If science made more sense to the general public the geewis factor would be lost and a lot of science would be exposed as was the the result when Dorthy did in the guy behind the Oz capor. But, it would be a good thing if laws against insider talk were adopted.