I don’t have a better theory, yet, I know about the history of science. From this perspective and for having work with scientists for quite many years, dark matter, inflation and so on, is blindingly wrong.
Downvote me all you want, this is still wrong.
You’ve given zero arguments on why they’re wrong, except that they “feel wrong to you”.
It’s clear from observations we have a gap in our knowledge. Whether you solve this with adding unknown forms of matter to your model or changing the laws of gravity is equally radical. The reason dark matter is the prevailing theory is because it solves several problems at the same time (galactic rotation curves, the 2nd peak in the power spectrum, the bullet cluster,…) without having to change General relativity at all.
I’m more in the DM camp myself (as an ex-astrophysicist), but am open minded to alternatives. I just haven’t seen anything that has convinced me the alternatives are better than LambdaCDM, despite its flaws.
Again, your comment seems to imply you have no idea what inflation is about.
There’s more in physics we don’t know than what we do; you, I or anyone. Now, do you know about the history of science ?
About this :
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-45807-6. wiki link
Summery of the book
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a book about the history of science by philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as “development-by-accumulation” of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of “normal science”, were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of “anomalies” during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere “puzzle-solving” of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the “map” directing new research.
I don’t have a better theory, yet, I know about the history of science. From this perspective and for having work with scientists for quite many years, dark matter, inflation and so on, is blindingly wrong.
Downvote me all you want, this is still wrong.
You’ve given zero arguments on why they’re wrong, except that they “feel wrong to you”.
It’s clear from observations we have a gap in our knowledge. Whether you solve this with adding unknown forms of matter to your model or changing the laws of gravity is equally radical. The reason dark matter is the prevailing theory is because it solves several problems at the same time (galactic rotation curves, the 2nd peak in the power spectrum, the bullet cluster,…) without having to change General relativity at all.
I’m more in the DM camp myself (as an ex-astrophysicist), but am open minded to alternatives. I just haven’t seen anything that has convinced me the alternatives are better than LambdaCDM, despite its flaws.
Again, your comment seems to imply you have no idea what inflation is about.
There’s more in physics we don’t know than what we do; you, I or anyone. Now, do you know about the history of science ?
About this :
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-45807-6.
wiki link
Summery of the book
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a book about the history of science by philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as “development-by-accumulation” of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of “normal science”, were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of “anomalies” during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere “puzzle-solving” of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the “map” directing new research.