swansont

I don’t think that you have defined anything well enough (reason isn’t defined at all), and language is imprecise. Logic has a more solid foundation, and logic can be used to disprove logical arguments; you can make faulty arguments and you can use false premises. You can also have issues like the Epimenides paradox (the Cretan who proclaimed “All Cretans are liars”) So I think your axiom is ill-defined and a false statement on which you built an argument. Like the geometry example I gave, you might be able to build a system based on that axiom, but to apply it to our universe has additional requirements

From the linked article: - the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, including the “acoustic peaks” that simply cannot exist without some form of dark matter. - the clustering pattern seen in the large-scale structure of the Universe - the behavior of two clusters of galaxies colliding Too bad, but that’s hardly a serious objection. I don’t see any reason to waste time and effort arguing about it. You are free to come up with a rigorous analysis to try and explain it away. i.e. not the hand-wave you presented.

Moderator NoteI don’t see enough substance for discussion. Improperly-formatted equations with no explanation of meaning or examples of how they apply to anything.

You can use reason to point out flaws in reasoning, and saying that an axiom doesn’t hold is not “denying reason” Your axioms are not unassailable pillars of truth, and this has an air of “How dare you contradict me!”

Doesn’t matter in steady-state, since gravity isn’t changing.

Yes, it is. What lifeline? All I see is argument from incredulity. See above comment on MOND. Any new explanation has to cover what we already know. “Adjust your equations” doesn’t even begin to address anything, because the devil's in the details. The adjustments can’t break what already works.

With no evidence to support the suggestion, other than the huge systems. Because GR keeps passing all the tests. MOND, for example, explains the rotation curves, but fails to explain things like gravitational lensing, gravitational time dilation and redshift, Shapiro time delay, and more. And dark matter explains more than rotation curves. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-94-could-dark-matter-not-exist-de5cd810e446

Again: you are ignoring the fact that rotation speed is experimentally determined by red- and blue-shift of the spectra. Gravitation tells you the predicted speed. And yes, we assume the laws of physics apply everywhere. There are implications to assuming otherwise, which do not match with observation. Then you must abandon any notion of “now” having meaning for things that are not co-located. The laws of physics accommodate the speed of light. Conservation of angular momentum means that an object’s rotational parameters won’t change unless there’s an external torque, so it doesn’t matter when you measure the speed. What’s your evidence thst there’s an external influence changing the speed? The speed of gravity in GR is already factored in. Not that it matters; if the central mass isn’t changing, gravity is not changing, so the time lag is irrelevant. Any effect due to communicating with the “other side” is similarly constant, unless you have some evidence of mass appearing or disappearing (which violates conservation of energy).

As I said, it can be used for approximation. It’s that “different set of conditions” that matters here; that’s where you see axioms fail. And when/where axioms fail, the system built on them is invalid. If, and only if, your system is valid. Otherwise it’s just “because I said so” and it’s a circular argument because it’s all part of the same system.

The choice to do something, or not, is not up to science. Often not up to scientists, either. So, gods are not omnipotent then? Not provided by science in many cases. That’s one reason for the humanities requirements in college/university. Or psychology, philosophy, history and sociology (and perhaps others)

Yup. You find them in math, and the math is internally consistent, but math is not necessarily representative of the behavior of nature. That’s an additional burden that science imposes. e.g. Euclidean geometry. We know it’s not how the universe behaves (though it can be used for approximations under a lot of circumstances). It’s internally consistent but at least one axiom will fail if you’re in another geometry.

Natural and real aren’t contradictory or incompatible in any way, so I’m not sure what your point is. You seem to skip over the context that I’m sure you have in your head, but we can’t read minds, so this just reads as a non-sequitur. So what?

Axioms are made up; they can be incorrect. It only matters for internal consistency of the theorem. The idea must still match up with experiment. Many proposed theories fail to do so. The thing is, even if it were relevant, you’re made reason a result of causality, not determinism. In any event, you can’t base QM on human behavior. Tell me, what was QM like before humans existed, and there was no “we use it”?

What “implication”? All of which is beside the point. There are atheists and agnostics who are happily married.

RFK Jr is a quack. His crackpot views have no effect on the objective scientific facts

Some of the galaxies we observe are oriented perpendicular to us, which simplifies the issue of light travel time. In any event, it’s a solvable issue. Spiral galaxies are rotating; the spirals are not some accident of light travel time. The thing you’re not taking into account is that we get red- and blue-shift information from spectrographic analysis, which tells us a velocity component. We can get actual rotation information. Conservation of angular momentum is a real thing. IOW, your concern about the finite speed of light is not consistent

That’s not what you said, though. “I like science but today there are conflicting view such as is there climate change or not? Are vaccines good or bad? Sounds like science is being as misused as religion.” There are e.g. objective ways to show that vaccines are good, that they do what is intended — they save lives. How is that “misuse”? And if they can’t find a wife it’s God’s will. All paths lead to the same conclusion. No chance of falsifying the premise because the conclusion is not based on evidence. It’s not objective, and makes no effort to be. You have to trust your plumber know’s what they’re doing when they fix the toilet, too. You trust people to follow the rules of the road when you go out on a drive, bike ride, or go for a walk. You put trust in people all the time. It’s not an unusual thing. Vaccines are bad for you? They “made it bad”? Are you expecting others to inherently understand such cryptic statements? Ah, yes. The inevitable shifting of the blame. No, I have not been brainwashed.

“which violates (insults) reason itself” is not a rigorous statement. It’s subjective. It’s saying you don’t understand how it can be that way, therefore it’s wrong. It is argument from incredulity, which is fallacious.

But not of the offspring in question. So not the mother of science, which was your claim.

Well, it’s Colin Leslie Dean, so probably not, but just posting links violates rule 2.7 And “scientific”? Hahahahahaha

Great grandmother, perhaps. Curiosity was around long before science. Rigor is a closer relative. People dropped things and “studied” gravity in this way, and thought heavy things fell faster and that persisted because they didn’t test it.

No problem. Physics doesn’t pretend to speak to an underlying reality. Physics describes how the universe behaves. This is just a bullshit argument. As joigus says, it’s fuzzy. Vague. Not rigorous. As I said before, it’s a you problem. A lot of people don’t find QM to be intuitive but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

You can’t use speculations to support a topic in a mainstream thread, or advertise your pet theory

So now all you have to do is demonstrate nonlocality in some unambiguous fashion. But you claim it’s all one or all the other in order to claim everything is determined. And earlier you said “Undetermined or unknown state is due to observer ignorance only. It is not due to broken causality, which in principle, is impossible” but now we’re back to broken causality. How, exactly, does being in an undetermined state break causality?

Fermions obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics shows that they are identical.