DanMP

I don't quite understand what you mean, but the fact that "GR did not come from Newtonian physics" shows that a new theory may have a completely different approach. GR geometric approach was needed because at the time it was adopted it was not possible to find another, better one, because they didn't know about DM. Usually, when you feel that the way you took may not be the good one, you simply go back a bit and try another route. This was/is my suggestion, to make a step back and retry. The simulations I envisioned require simple math and real particles. I don't know about you, but I consider DM particles as real, as opposed to virtual or invented. Their proprieties cannot be found directly, so the alternative is to imagine/define a model and test it. Something similar was done for quarks. I'll explain it soon (within a week). Now I really have to go.

I wrote that any new theory must be in agreement with all the old experimental data, in other words to be consistent (compatible or in agreement) with all that we observed and measured before (in that particular field). I really don't understand why your reply is "Newtonian gravity did not give us GR". Newtonian gravity and GR are theories, not experimental data. Experimental data does not belong to a theory. Ok, GR proposed new experiments, that were confirmed. This is why I wrote "and then to predict things that can be experimentally tested afterwards". To give an example, MOND theories are able to explain the rotation curve of a disc galaxy, and more, but, being gravitational theories, they must also explain gravitational time dilation and gravitational lensing. I proposed to reassess the things more or less explained long time ago, like the invariance of c, having in mind DM, etc., as opposed to "randomly and blindly groping in the dark by inventing maths that don’t seem to be motivated by any real-world data points, hoping to just stumble across that next breakthrough". I can describe what I meant when I suggested to focus more on actual physics. I meant to work with real elements/particles (as opposed to virtual/invented), to define their behavior and how they interact, and then make computer simulations in order to check and refine the model. GR is purely geometric and the fields are like Greek gods (they are invisible but very potent, they interact with each other, they have well defined tasks and magic abilities). The situation in physics today may be similar to the one in medical science in Robert Koch's (one of the main founders of modern bacteriology) time. Before him, it was believed that illnesses are caused by bad air or by gods/demons (invisible, invented entities, like the fields are). Koch discovered bacteria and showed that not invisible, invented entities are causing the illnesses ... I think that DM particles can be used to explain things better than the fields we invented and the abstract geometry we created. Yes, you finally got it (any new theory must be in agreement with all the old experimental data). Yes. I meant all experimental data that concerns the new theory/model, not all the experimental data in all science, nor the previous interpretations of experiments.

Any new theory must be, first, in agreement with all the old experimental data, and then to predict things that can be experimentally tested afterwards. Yes, but this leaves room for new theories, theories that can explain more. Probably it's impossible to explain everything, but we can do more than we did so far. Yes, I didn't read many of your posts, so I really don't know/remember your pov. Anyway, my questions were not directed to you or any person in particular. I just explained why I think that it is still room for new foundational theories. My understanding of fields is not good. Perhaps that’s why I don't like them. Unfortunately no. In fact this may be the sign that we climbed in the wrong fruit tree 😀

There is no experimental data?!? So there is no experimental data to back GR? 😀 What in the world are you talking about?

You got it all wrong. The theory is (should be) a physical model. Yes, it usually includes math, but it isn't just math. And who said that "there’s no experiment" ?! I said:

Against reality (experimental data), of course. Why? The fact that current theories are not actually explaining the reality. Can you explain what a field is and how exactly a force is transmitted at a distance? Can you explain the invariance of c? Can you explain how a mass is warping spacetime? And no, I'm not asking how the model works, I'm asking what and how is really happening. Also, in the string theory, why the strings are vibrating? Anyway, it seems that I'm not the only one to expect more, better, models.

My input was related to that, so I wasn't off topic. We need to focus more on physics and less on math.

The rules were told and this is also what I said/implied. One may define/set the rules & model and check them using simulations.

Wow! Thank you! Very interesting and impressive. Of course, for such simulations math is very important, because simplification is necessary. The scale is too large. The thing is that we may/should use such simulations to make similar ones. AI may also learn from such simulations. Anyway, the simulations I have in mind are much much less complex, that's why they may be realized with less math. Ok, maybe now AI is not used, but I'm pretty sure that in the near future it will be used. AI is crushing humans in Go (the game). We gave/teach it the setup and the rules and it quickly learned to outperform us. Something similar I had in mind when I said

I said to focus less on math, not to forget about math. Even now it's maybe impossible, in the near future AI should be able to create a simulation based on our description of elements and interactions. Until then, we still have to use some math and/or to ask a computer specialist to translate our thoughts into a computer simulation.

In my opinion, physicists should focus more on actual physics and less in math, because nowadays we have computers, able to run simulations. I think that a good way to find the better model is to ask yourself why and how exactly things are happening, including things that are covered by the current theories but never really explained, like the invariance of the speed of light in vacuum. Once you have a viable model, one that is both logical and in agreement with all the observations, you must imagine/find ways to test it experimentally. So, yes, new experimental data is required. Yes, they are not farther away, but what if that tree (path) is not the best one? New information, like the existence of DM, may lead you to a much better tree ... Well, maybe, but I like it 😀

Interesting, but, in my opinion, the problem is that most of the physicists are interested in the higher branches (very sophisticated theories), ignoring that the "discovery" of dark matter opened the possibility for new/different "low branch" (simple) theories. This also means that the theories developed before/ignoring DM, like GR, may be misleading and/or a limiting factor, despite the fact that they offered very good results.

Interesting, please elaborate, or offer a link.

I searched in the article and in the referred articles and I didn't find why they claimed that: Maybe a more thorough read is needed. Also, the galaxy they investigated was: It appears that this galaxy is younger than ours, so it may have more circumgalactic mass. I tried Bard one year ago and now Gemini, Bard successor, and found that they are not reliable. Gemini is better than Bard, but still not reliable. I suggest to ask the AI for links to their source, or just search yourself. Maybe the answer you received from ChatGPT is not wrong, but it is always better to double check. Maybe because it has no effect on galactic stars rotation, being beyond them? When I opened this thread I also believed that this CGM would reduce the need for dark matter, but now I'm not sure that CGM affects stars rotation. Only if there is also more mass than expected between stars, the need for DM would decrease, but it seems that it's not the case.

True. I recommend you (all) a documentary on Netflix: "Homo Futurus, the inside story". It is about a controversial(?) theory regarding the mechanism that drove the evolution of humans from primates to modern man, also speculating on humanity’s future evolutionary path. Everything, in this theory, revolves around the sphenoid bone. Very interesting.