Strange

It is worrying that someone who appears not to know how electronic circuits are designed is attempting to fix something. Hopefully it is only a matter of replacing complete sub-systems (which have already been design by engineers with a firm grasp of the mathematics required).

Your understanding is wrong. If it were a plot from the numbers, then it would be a series of straight line segments. If you calculate the orbital velocities then you would get a continously increasing speed as the radius approaches zero. You have included the Sun (which is obviously not orbiting the Sun) and then drawn a "nice curve" to match the predictions for galactic rotation but which does not match the predictions for planetary orbits. That is borderline dishonest. OK. But your argument appears to be that we only see this effect because we are looking at galaxies in the past. This is not true of our own galaxy. There is also no distance (time in the past) relationship with the amount of dark amtter required, which your hypothesis would suggest. Nope. Observational data. The facts won't just go away because you disagree with them. Well, at some point you are going to have to. Good. I suggest you do it then.

Nonsense. Your computer wouldn't work if that was true. We model all aspects of the behaviour of circuits like that, at many different levels of detail, to be sure the circuit will work. Do you really think I would sign off a design to a manufacturing process that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if I wasn't sure it would work? No. I am pointing out that there are mathematical models for every aspect of the device. No. I am pointing out that your are dragging engineering into a discussion of science. As it happens, the same is largely true of engineering but that is not the topic of this thread. There are, of course, ways of modelling the behaviour of the device. Otherwise, as you say, it would be of no value.

It will implicitly contain mathematical axioms, as all mathematics does. It may contain unprovable results but that is extremely unlikely. Are there examples of theories which choose on one or other possible results of an undecidable proposition? I'm not aware of any (obviously there are in pure maths - new axioms are added and new areas of maths explored). Maybe the maths based on non-Euclidean geometry? Euclid's fifth postulate is unprovable based on the others and you can choose different versions to derive different geometries. And hence GR. Maybe ... 1. That is not science. 2. Which aspect? The logical function? The gain? The drive strength? The semiconductor physics of the manufacturing process? The thermal model of the packaging? Do you think it was designed by chance, or trial and error? No. It was designed using mathematical models for every aspect.

You have answered the question. The purpose of a model in science is to derive precise results. Either to test the theory or to produce useful results. That means it must be mathematical. A physical object, a visual representation or a verbal description may tell you something qualitative but it is not scientifically useful.

I didn't say he was. Oh well, if you can't be bothered to explain what you are talking about, I can't be bothered to discuss it.

You gave that the wrong way round.

And if there were unprovable deductions that had to be modeled then, arguably, it wouldn't be science as you couldn't have a model and therefore it couldn't be tested and falsified. Which brings us right back to my original point.

I don't think the rules allow you to pick and choose which questions to answer. Apart from that, I think my questions are reasoned and logical so I would appreciate some answers.

What unprovable deductions are there in physics, for example?

And how is that relevant to the fact that science uses (must use) mathematical models?

Yes. What you said does not appear to have any connection to anything I said. It appears to be a non sequitur. Please feel free to explain the relevance, if you wish. If it isn't a mathematical model, then it isn't rigorously and objectively testable, and therefore isn't scientific. (Is that wishy-washy flannel?)

None of that appears to be relevant to what I said. (And I think you are exaggerating the significance of Godel's theorem.) Just to be clear, what I said was: You can't create a scientific model without maths. (I'm surprised that is controversial. If it isn't a mathematical model, then it isn't rigorously and objectively testable.)

Perhaps you could apply your theory to a galaxy, rather than planets and show that it predicts the observed rotational velocities? As you will surely understand, you cannot use the solar system, with a central mass, as an analogy for the distributed mass of a galaxy.

So it is purely subjective and based upon whether you think it is significant. It is therefore utterly meaningless as a test of communication. Feel free to convince yourself that They are communicating with you. But don't be surprised when the men in white coats turn up!

The answer to your question is: yes, they are called analogies and they are crude approximations of limited use to explain the idea to those who don't understand the science or the maths. But, really, it is the wrong question. It should be: Is it possible to make a scientific model of an idea without maths? And the answer to that is: no.

What is this objection to "the book" (whatever that means) that comes up so often in the Speculations forum? Is it a specific book? And what is wrong with books, they are useful things? Is it a more general objection to education or expert knowledge? And how do you distinguish answers that have come from this "mythical" book from those that have been created purely by the intellectual effort of the poster? FYI, I don't have any books on dark matter. The only book on cosmology I have was written before dark matter was known about. In fact it pre-dates the CMB. The last chapter is Hoyle's "Continuous Creation" model. So it would be nice if you could answer some of the objections to your model: 1. why are you comparing Kepler’s Law to galaxies, when it is obviously not relevant? 2. Why have you faked the left-hand end of your red curve to match galactic rotation curves? 3. Why does your argument apply to our galaxy, which we don’t see in the past? And why doesn’t the effect increase for more distant galaxies? 4. How do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter? 5. How do you explain the large scale structure of the universe without dark matter? 6. How do you explain the motion of galaxy clusters without dark matter?

The need for dark energy was known before WMAP. That just gave us more precise data. Speaking of data: are you going to provide any evidence for your claims? Or just continue making baseless (and incorrect) assertions? If the latter, then I assume the thread can be closed. Please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail, how this would work. Yes, that is what we are asking you to do.

What if it isn't?

So this waffle isn't science and can just be ignored then. Good. Because it isn't. But relativity of simultaneity is not a postulate; it is a result. Feel free to present the evidence that shows it to be wrong. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to show that an aether cannot exist. Whichever version of aether you favour (however physically implausible you make it) there is an experiment that contradicts it.

As all experimental observation contradicts you (something you have neglected to mention) I wouldn't hold your breath. The universe doesn't really care if you think Einstein was insane; the speed of light is still the same in all frames of reference and therefore there is relativity of simultaneity.

Please show your calculations. Not "most likely," definitely. Therefore your comparison is meaningless. I have just noticed that your red curve is totally bogus. It should keep increasing as the radius gets smaller not drop to zero. So you have faked the graph to look more similar to a totally unrelated graph. But you are misapplying theory so your results are meaningless. Incorrectly referenced where? It has nothing to do with galaxies. But it does correctly explain the motion of planets. So what is incorrect about it? Apart from the fact that is a meaningless string of words, you have evaded answering the question: why does the same thing apply to our galaxy, which is not in the past? Er, they are moving forwards. Again you have evaded answering the question: how do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter? You can claim that dark matter doesn't exist, but that doesn't make the gravitational lensing go away. Nope. And another question avoided. Even though it was the first evidence for dark matter? Another question evaded. Word salad. It is plainly obvious that is incorrect.

It is not even half-proven. No scientific theory is ever proved. They are just not proven wrong. Not just difficult, but impossible. But if it were not the case, then the theory would not work. That is a very garbled view of history. It is not clear if Einstein had heard if the MM experiment but it certainly played no part in the development of special relativity. Huh? The twin paradox can be fully explained using special relativity. Really? What is a "G field"? Then those authors are wrong. Perhaps you could provide some references? The twin paradox isn't symmetrical.

There isn't.

You still haven't answered the question: how do you objectively distinguish this "Serendipity event" from pure chance? How do you define a "Serendipity event" in such a way that everyone will agree it has happened?