A list of wild animals and plants that will be affected by climate change has been published

86 תגובות

1. sympathetic:
   In my opinion, this is not a true generalization.
   You can add all kinds of constants/variables to any function just like that and claim that it is a generalization of the original function.
   In my opinion, this is not a meaningful generalization, but one Kurdish generalization out of infinity.

   But this discussion won't end so let's just end it.

2. Michael

   What is the physical basis for Newton's laws? Why can't force depend on acceleration?
   What principle is hidden here?
   Newton's laws are correct in certain scales they have been well tested in the solar system. their inclusion
   They are the laws of general relativity that only in the Newtonian limit give the same results. Why is inclusion in general relativity good and other inclusions are impossible?

3. sympathetic:
   But please - don't claim that you are the only one who sees problems in the incompatibility of relativity with quanta.
   This is no longer a problem that anyone sees as a cloud on the horizon and great efforts are being made to solve it (one such effort is string theory).
   You yourself admit that you cannot even imagine a gravitation theory that would cause galaxies that look the same to behave differently without these galaxies having invisible differences (ie - dark matter) so it is not clear to me how you are trying to propose a new theory that would not require dark matter.

   We will live and see (but in my opinion - to see - we will have to live to infinity)

4. In my opinion (and probably also to the knowledge of whoever invented MOND and gave it the name) - there is no radical change here (that's why he only defined it as a modification of Newton).
   In my opinion - all this modification does is spoil it.

5. Michael

   There are people who always predict crises and there are people who predict crises and are right. For example about Lord Calvin always
   They mock the speech he gave in 1900 in which he claimed that physics has come to an end because they know how to explain all the phenomena,
   Apart from two clouds on the horizon: black body radiation and the Michelson-Morley experiment (the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the source or the observer). Lord Calvin thought that these problems could be overcome by correct science but it turned out that they are
   The markers of two revolutions in twentieth century physics: relativity and quantum theory. Lord Calvin's greatness as a physicist was not that he did not see the revolutions, but that out of all the physical problems that had not yet been solved at the time, he knew how to locate the essential problems.

6. Michael

   For me, MOND is a step on the ladder that, after you climb it, you can throw it away. Similar to Bohr's model of the atom.
   The model is essentially semi-classical and is not correct, but it was a breakthrough in the creation of quantum theory.

   My attempts lie in explaining what the psychological origin of MOND is again as a theory that is clearly not true but points to a radically different way of thinking.

7. sherlock,

   I believe that a scientific revolution will come, but I don't know if in the near or far future. In physics there are many problems that cannot be reconciled and in order to solve this we are forced to make a serious change in the standard model. Hopefully it will be in our lifetime.

8. There are crises that we cannot even predict in advance, and therefore there are people who, in order to predict them, always predict a crisis.
   In this way, they are guaranteed that when the crisis comes, they will forget their everyday life and they will be able to say that they predicted the crisis.
   This reminds me of a poem that once appeared in the Haaretz newspaper in which a leftist poet slammed the rightist with a similar idea.
   In the song the right kept claiming "today is the fifth day".
   On Sunday he was fooled, on Monday he was fooled, but in the end - on Thursday he was right (which of course also reminds us of the story about a clock ticking twice a day)

9. Actually I should have described it more severely.
   MOND - even according to its name - tries to be Newton's facelift and sew them directly to the garment and this - not only without solving the problem of dark matter and without dealing with the relativistic results that were confirmed but also while creating defects that were not even in Newton's original theory!
   In short - this is a modification of Newton that only causes damage.
   In my opinion, the theory of relativity gave predictions that seemed so strange and unintuitive before it, predictions that were all confirmed later in the experiment - that there is absolutely no chance that it is not in the right direction (even if its interface with quantum theory needs to be corrected)

10. Yael

    I agree with you.

    There is a famous sentence by the American Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, following which he was laughed at a lot:
    There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know.

    Even though at first glance the sentence seems silly, it reflects an interesting truth. When we make estimates there are always uncertainties arising from the stochastic nature of the system. Engineers try to estimate the uncertainties and quantify them
    This way we will get a measure of deviation that can be obtained through the statistical nature of the system, but sometimes there are hidden factors that we have no knowledge of (the story of the turkey). For example: since the dollar is falling, a linear interpolation can be made that it will continue to fall. Its jumps can also be estimated using the noise but if there are investors
    who do not invest in the dollar but have an interest in its value not falling below a certain threshold, then as soon as the dollar approaches this threshold they will start raising its price. We could not have predicted this effect in advance... these investors are the
    unknown

11. Yael Petar:
    Do you believe that a scientific revolution is on the way?

12. sympathetic:
    Indeed - there is no agreement.
    Beyond that - in my opinion MOND does to Newton exactly what you don't like that TeVeS does to MOND

13. To admire,

    What you said very much connects me to the book I am reading now in which this claim takes on an even more radical aspect. In his book "The Black Swan", says Nissim Nicholas Taleb, that sometimes we cannot even see the thinnest hints of the coming of a crisis.

    He gives as an example the 'story of the turkey' - the turkey is fed every day. Every single feeding reinforces the chicken's belief that "a general law of life states that friendly members of the human race, who care about its welfare, feed it every day. On the afternoon of the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, something unexpected happened to the turkey. He will experience an update of faith...". The author talks about the subject in the context of the problem of induction and the scientific method, and of course there is some truth in his words, as depressing as it is to see it this way.

    There are crises that we cannot foresee, but they have a huge and immediate impact on our lives. This can be seen, for example, in the stock market, in the consequences of economic crises, as well as in scientific revolutions.

14. rationalize

    The saying little by little and then all at once describes what Kuhn describes. Applied science believes that it will be able to handle observational problems with standard tools and this is the science of solving problems. This method usually works and they succeed through expanding the theory to explain the new results - there is no need for a fundamental change. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to change the way of thinking completely and this only happens when the reality is really reduced in front of us.

    I think the best graphic description is the one from cartoons: the wolf chasing the Road Runner (a type of ostrich?) often finds himself walking through the air over the edge of a cliff. He manages to take several steps in the air but only when he looks down does he fall. I think this is what Mengwi meant in his description of the man who was stripped of his possessions, how it happened to him.

15. Michael

    I think we will agree that we do not agree. In my opinion, it is possible to say about something that it is defective without comparing it with an alternative. For example, if conclusive evidence were found that there could be no dark matter (even though the way the theory is formulated it would be very difficult to find such evidence) we could say that the theory is incorrect without offering an alternative. In my opinion there is evidence that there are fundamental flaws in the dark matter "model". I also agree that I am in the minority in this claim, but science is not democratic and is not devoid of considerations that are not relevant (as Yael also claims).

    The reason Yael tried to place my words in the context of a revolution is that Kuhn's book is called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", but if I'm not mistaken (I read the book a long time ago) Kuhn claims that first there is a crisis of the prevailing theories facing experiments or observations that they have difficulty explaining. Voting on the crisis is the first step in the revolution. Then comes the revolutionary who proposes the exchange theory (but the crisis already exists). Therefore, in my opinion, Yael meant this stage in Kuhn's discourse, rather than the revolution itself.

    Thanks for the flaws you mentioned before in MOND, I was aware of them as well as the fact that there is no conservation of momentum and angular momentum in MOND. In addition, I am trying to address the problems I see in gravitation: incompatibility with quantum theory and the requirement for dark energy. By the way, you of course know that TeVeS takes care of correcting MOND's defects, but I am not a follower of TeVeS, which in my opinion was only built to correct MOND's defects. The suit is a bit tight at the elbow, but the tailor doesn't have time for repairs, so he suggests that the boy walk with a bent elbow, but then the neck of the suit is loose. And deformed, but what a genius tailor, look what a suit he will sew for him"...

    Regarding the likelihood of the discovery of dark matter from the CDMS-2 experiment, all that remains is to wait and see what came out of it....

16. sympathetic,

    Nicely said, but I still think that these two human phenomena can be included under the category "ego". After all, both stem from egocentric thinking - those who are focused only on themselves, cannot absorb reality and their environment well. But it's really just a matter of semantics.

    On the other hand, there was actually something I didn't understand in your previous message - the statement "slowly and then all at once" and anticipating crises. Can you confirm the nature of the subject?

17. Yael

    I agree with you and Michael because scientists tend to be more stubborn than average and especially the best of them.
    A number of random examples are: Ada Yonath who was considered crazy and went against everything they said that crystallography of ribozyme cannot be done using x-rays, Boltzmann who believed in the atomistic theory against the strong opposition,
    Dan Shechtman from the Technion who discovered the pentagonal symmetry even though Nobel laureate in chemistry Linus Pauling called him a complete idiot above all possible and even though they proved that such symmetry cannot exist in crystals in nature and many other good examples. In my opinion, what you call ego has a neutering effect when a scientist who has reached greatness is more afraid to dare and offer innovative proposals, but on this I have already argued many times with Michael and we have exhausted the issue, at least in my opinion.

18. Compulsiveness is a trait that is attributed to humans and is part of the nature of those humans.
    Therefore, compulsive stubbornness - in any subject - should definitely be attributed to human nature.
    The thing is, of course, that not all the insistence of scientists is compulsive.
    In fact, most of the time it is not like that and in most cases they insist only on what seems to them to be true.
    Of course, in a large part of the cases in which they are described as stubborn, they are also right.

19. sympathetic,

    We may both be talking about the same phenomenon - you call it "human character" and I called it "ego". I agree with you that sometimes (close to) people see what they want to see, and don't see reality as it really is. And of course it's hard because when you get used to a certain pattern of thinking, for example gravity and dark matter, it's hard to get out of the box and come up with new ideas and other ways of looking at the world.

    If, for example, we are told that from now on we should only use the hexadecimal or binary counting system instead of the number system we are used to (based on 10), it will be difficult to impossible to get used to it. And even if we get used to the new system, we will still continue to think in terms of the old counting system.

    But it sounds too simplistic to me to attribute the compulsive stubbornness of scientists when it comes to theories to "human nature".

20. sympathetic:
    מה לעשות?
    The "good-bad" scale is a relative scale and when you say that something is bad - it has to be in relation to something else because there is no sense in defining the best that exists as "bad" - when you do it anyway - it does not say anything about the theory that is said to be bad because the properties of the theory Everyone knows and such a claim does not increase our knowledge of its properties. At most it says something about the complainant.
    Science is always in crisis because we have not arrived at a theory of everything, but there is nothing special about the current crisis compared to past crises, except for the fact that our theories today give much more accurate predictions.
    Therefore the atmosphere of crisis you are trying to sow is not based on anything special other than your own private turmoil.
    But this time - when I pointed out that you do not offer an alternative - I said it for another reason:
    The conversation between you and Yael tried to place your words in the context of a "new scientific revolution" and this is clearly not true because beyond the fact that the statement that everything is bad is perceived by me as a slander, this statement does not at all contribute to the desecration of a scientific revolution.
    A scientific revolution - by definition and not from some special approach of mine - is a revolution in which an old theory is replaced by a new one.
    There is no shame in working on an alternative model and I don't know why you are ashamed to admit it.
    In my opinion, anyone who is able to do this does so at one level or another of intensity.
    In fact, even those who search for dark matter do so because if they discover dark matter, they will save some of the work for all those who try to build a theory that denies its existence (at least for those among them who are willing to refer to the findings).
    I hope you give your opinion on all the flaws of MOND (such as not providing an explanation for gravitational entanglement in general and gravitational entanglement around an apparently massless point in particular, such as the fact that it does not explain the time distortions predicted by the theory of relativity and measured in experiments and such as the fact that its formulas are hidden - in fact by M94).
    In any case - I wish you success.
    Of course, all the assumptions you propose to make about dark matter are certain types of interactions between it and itself or between it and normal matter.
    Since this is the case - you are not talking about the dark matter that those who believe in the existence of dark matter are talking about and the question about the meteor is similar - if we exaggerate it a little - to the question "If there is dark matter, then how is it that a spaghetti meteor hasn't fallen on us yet?".

    And in relation to your words about theories that are trying to get off the stage of history - as I said in a previous comment - this is caused by exactly the same motives that make other people want to put new theories on the stage of history.
    The workshop is sharp.

21. Michael

    The debate with you always comes back to the same point - you can't criticize without offering an alternative, as I said I don't agree with that. The boy who shouted the king naked did not offer the king an alternative fashion. Indeed, a revolution requires an alternative proposal, but I did not claim that I was trying to carry out a revolution. I argued that in my opinion the signs indicate that the standard gravitation accompanied by dark matter is undergoing an acute crisis both on the theoretical side and on the experimental observational side. My claim has nothing to do with what I think will replace the existing model. By the way, I am working on an alternative model to the dark matter "model", but this does not concern the debate between us, beyond the shame I feel in admitting this. I feel like an undergraduate student in mathematics who claims that he is trying to prove Fermat's hypothesis (today the motivation for this has decreased somewhat).

    Regarding the dark matter and if it is possible to get lumps of it, and this is purely my speculation, I have not read any material on the subject. If I were to take the model seriously I would describe it in a model of statistical physics as a gas of particles whose temperature is characterized by the average speed of the dark matter particles. How can you get fluctuations in the gas density at different points, i.e. clumps of dark matter. Each gas has statistical fluctuations, but this is not enough to get lumps that will survive for a long time. To get clumps of dark matter there are two options to assume that the matter has internal degrees of freedom like atoms and molecules and thus the gas can "lose" kinetic energy in favor of the internal degrees of freedom. Another possibility for local loss of some of the kinetic energy is coupling to a normal substance that will emit the excess energy in light. The cases are very complex calculations that strongly depend on what assumptions are made about the dark matter and in my opinion there is enough happiness here to describe any phenomenon we want.

22. Yael

    You claimed that scientific theories that were found to be wrong survive because of the ego of the scientists who developed them as well as the demand to replace everything that had been done up to that moment.
    In my opinion, the reason lies more in human nature. There is a short story of the Mangwi where a man is asked how he lost his assets and his answer is "slowly and then all at once". This answer holds much of human nature. We tend to see things the same way until reality really hits us in the face. The person who lost his assets thinks at first I lost some money but he will come back to me, he refuses to recognize the crisis signals. This human phenomenon works both on groups of people and in science.

23. For a new theory to replace the old - it is not enough to wait impatiently for the retirement of the old generation. We need to bring new ideas that work.
    It was not part of the current discussion.
    The scientists of the old generation were once young.
    The younger generation is not "used to revolutions" but is interested in revolutions for exactly the same reason that the older generation is interested in preserving existing knowledge. Those want to buy themselves a status and those want to keep the status they bought.

24. sympathetic:
    I don't expect you to read my mind.
    I will be content with you reading what I write.
    Gravitation alone does not allow clumps to form in any way.
    The formation of lumps through gravitation alone is in contradiction to the law of conservation of energy.
    It rather surprises me that I should remind you of this fact.
    Every discovery made during the development of science is one that was not discovered for billions of years before.
    The accumulated findings make it possible to conclude the existence of dark matter and the fact that eighty years of searching for it shows how convincing these findings are to most of those involved in the subject.
    With all due respect - you are not currently involved in any scientific revolution because you are not proposing any new paradigm.
    In fact you are simply sticking to an old paradigm - the one that existed before there was so much evidence for the existence of dark matter.
    As I predicted in the past, I'm not at all sure that you won't continue to adhere to this theory even after suitable particles are discovered because you can always claim "yes, fine, we found two suitable particles - but who knows how many there are and we found them here and not there".
    In other words - in the meantime it turns out that you are the one who stubbornly holds the opinion that the findings have already contradicted. This shows that your basic position is a theory that cannot be refuted (not because there is no experiment to disprove it but because there is no refutation that you will accept as such).

25. sympathetic,

    But as far as I remember, Kuhn does not give a solution to the dilemma, except to wait until the old generation is gone, and in its place will come a new generation that has already gotten used to the revolutionary ideas.

26. Yael

    Thanks. Indeed, you have correctly guessed the way I see science. My worldview is indeed based on a con.

27. Michael

    Indeed, I also read the article in Haaretz today about the discovery of dark matter. I drafted the response I wrote before and it seems unfair to me to change my response considering today's article and therefore I left the part concerning the fact that the dark matter has not yet been discovered. Since you are a person who believes in the theory of probability, the question arises, what is the chance that after eighty years that dark matter has not been discovered, it will be discovered precisely in the two or three days in which we conduct our discussion? My assessment is that the likelihood of this is small but not zero. It is possible that the news in the newspaper will turn out to be a mistake, meaning some kind of unexpected noise in the detectors, but if not, I will not be ashamed to say that I was wrong.

    I apologize if I misunderstood your words regarding the meaning of the word gravitation, but in my opinion the laws of physics have a lower factual basis than direct observations. In other words, admitting that it rained and you watched it is much greater than that of this or that law of gravity. After all, the laws of physics themselves are deduced from observations. My intention in the responses was that when we come to discuss science we must do so out of humility. Even what seems true to us today with a high probability can turn out to be partial or wrong in the future (that's why we talk about probability and we agree with this). Which is often not true of observations. These are at least the criteria on which I base my beliefs, they are of course not binding on you and it is possible that you think that the laws of physics have the same validity as the observations themselves.

    Regarding the assessment of the probability of the correctness of a scientific theory, it is not enough to look at the compatibility with the observation, you must understand how the scientific method works and how scientific experts determine their opinion on a problem, and therefore I tried to convince you that when it comes to evaluating the validity of a certain theory, you can learn a lot from the history of science and how scientific ideas developed.

    Regarding the dark matter, it is true that it creates almost no interactions, but it is exposed to gravitation, and therefore there is a probability that it will create large clumps, clumps that would not break up into small parts (for example, a meteor) since there is no force that would oppose their gravitation and create a supernova that would disperse the matter, for example the visible matter. The meteor example was just a cheap tease.

    Regarding the necessity of dark matter, in a simple way the motion of the galaxies was supposed to behave according to Newton's laws F=M*a in order to match the observations we can: 1) assume that M is not well known to us - ie dark matter or 2) F is not given according to Newton's laws for example F depends in a is one version that gives MOND.

    Another personal note, again I may not be good at reading your thoughts and I'm sorry but in my opinion the theories in which you believe with high probability are more like tautology to me than science. For example: the multiple worlds theory is not a scientific theory, it cannot be contradicted, dark matter is again almost not open to refutation, the great difficulty in observations prevents a decisive examination of it and it is always possible in the model to change its initial parameters so that it fits the observation, regarding evolution I have similar misconceptions. The problem with Hanel's theories is that Popper's principle is refutable!

28. Did I miss something?
    Did Ehud come up with a theory?

29. sympathetic,

    You raised an interesting problem and that is, why scientists sometimes jealously guard old theories, even when they come to a contradiction with reality. First, let's talk about science and scientists in general and not in the context of the website's limited forum, so as not to offend anyone.

    Great debates in history and the difficulty of changing dogmatic scientific worldviews (for example the difficulty of changing to a relativistic, or Newtonian worldview) in my opinion arose from two main reasons: 1) Ego.
    2) The survival instinct of theories and of scientists, and I will explain-

    The philosopher Thomas Kuhn in his book "The structure of scientific revolutions", says that scientific theories are not built on top of each other (like a tower), but rather they develop in a certain direction, and then a revolution comes that destroys all the foundations and from there you have to start building a new scientific model in a different direction. For example, the quantum theory did not add anything to the theories that were discovered before it, but it literally destroyed the scientific paradigm that existed until that moment. It changed the basic way of thinking and the scientific worldview. So is the Newtonian and so is the relativistic Torah.

    In order to carry out a scientific revolution, all of science and the scientists need to make a "switch" - that is, to change measuring tools, to change attitudes, to change the theories and research according to which they were operating until that moment.

    And so the scientists would rather do anything than admit that they may have been wrong, and carry out this revolution. Because the meaning of a scientific revolution is that everyone can "close the basta" and go home. This means that all their years of work can be thrown away. Kuhn describes it like this: "The replacement of the scientific paradigm is a process that is mainly sociological, similar to converting a religion" (I'm not sure if this is an exact quote from him, but it appears on Wikipedia, and in general this is what he claimed)

    If so, it is understandable why scientists religiously guard their scientific "beliefs", and it is understandable why the scientific community tends to hate and abhor revolutionary theories that go against the consensus. Including theories that go against relativity (as you presented), or even the climatological consensus.

30. Ehud (54):
    You are wrong both in the interpretation of my words and in the interpretation of reality.

    First of all - as for your words - I said that I believe in gravity and I deliberately did not refer to a specific set of laws of gravity but only to the existence of gravity.
    Of course, beyond this belief that I mentioned, there is also the belief - which is very confirmed - that the laws of gravity known and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community are the correct laws, but even though I do believe in these laws - my level of faith in them is lower than my level of faith in the actual existence of gravity.
    In general - since we are not talking for the first time - you should know that with me "belief" (as, by the way, also "knowledge") is nothing more than a description of the level of probability I attribute to a claim.

    As I have explained many times - dark matter is necessary - not only in the accepted laws of gravity but in any system of laws of gravity.
    Your ignoring this point in my words stems from the same misunderstanding that you had in the interpretation of the object of my faith in the sentence "I believe in gravity" but if you had read my words carefully you would have been able to overcome this explicitly written argument even without discovering the first mistake.

    If you had seriously read what is being talked about when talking about dark matter - you would not have even mentioned the strange idea of ​​a "dark matter meteor".
    Dark matter creates almost no interactions and therefore will never form a meteor.

    The truth is, I thought you would be involved and smart enough not to write the current comment because this morning it was published in the press that apparently dark matter particles had been discovered.
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1136274.html
    Of course there is still room for further tests, but if I were you - in light of these circumstances - I would at least wait with the statements.

    But as you said - you can believe in anything and like the believers of different religions - you can also ignore all the findings.
    I assume that there will be someone who will propose to check if the discovered particles are nothing but angstrometric angels.

    In your response to Yael, you present an even more delusional aspect of the very existence of this debate.
    Do you accuse someone of believing without question and without doubt?
    Do you claim to know better than I do about what I have or have no doubts about?
    A sane person considers the findings and chooses the most likely hypothesis in his eyes.
    The findings show me a very high probability of the existence of dark matter.
    You - from those findings - and without any findings contradicting the existence of dark matter - choose to attribute a higher probability that it does not exist.

    Therefore, it seems to me that we both understand - the one who is closer to the state of believing in something without hesitation is precisely you (and you don't even need to lean on experts - in fact, your belief is so strong that you continue to hold on to it despite the contrary opinion of the experts).

31. rationalize

    My argument is broader than the dark matter, but I try to focus it on a specific point.
    The argument is that in science, unlike religion, even the experts can be wrong. Therefore, the accepted claim must be carefully examined
    The experts must (do so with the humility of a non-professional) but not accept it with closed eyes.

    For me, the dark matter "model" is problematic and is an example of scientific fixation. Instead of identifying the problems in the previous model, experts in the field continue to hold the same opinion that Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravitation are correct
    and introduce "strange" elements to explain the observations. Those strange elements to me are "dark matter" and "dark energy". The fact that science advances by doubting and deviating from the opinion of the majority can be demonstrated in dozens of cases, among which I have already mentioned the theory of Copernicus versus the Aristotelian cosmology, the negation of the period of Newton's laws and the ether by Einstein, and many more. By the way, experts have estimated that it is forbidden for a train with passengers to travel at a certain speed because the air will be sucked out of the train and the passengers will die.

    As far as I'm concerned, Michael represents the concept that the experts are always right and the commenters on the site are not allowed to have an objective debate about their claims. There are many commenters on the site (superficial knowledge) who deny the opinion of experts in various fields of science without any knowledge in the field or forethought, and here I admire Michael's willingness and patience to put them on the spot, on the other hand, I believe that there is room to freely discuss the claims of experts in various fields, as well as challenge their words.
    In a framed article it is possible that there is dark matter and I am wrong, I am just not sure because it is not certain just because experts in the field think so. Matter-of-fact arguments must be brought to convince and not just quote experts.

    In conclusion, in the eyes of science without doubt and appeal to the opinion of the experts is equal to religion.

32. sympathetic,

    Sorry for interrupting, I didn't read your entire discussion, but what are you actually trying to argue about dark matter?

33. point

    Thanks for the tip, but you didn't notice because the past did it before... The theory of angels who don't obey the laws of humans and hold the stars of the sky in place is called the "dark matter model".

    Michael

    I will try to summarize, therefore I will not write my opinions about MOND and TeVeS. If you are interested in them, I would be happy to mention them, but they are not of interest to us at the moment.

    What is the issue? In the list you wrote, you mentioned to Yael what are the things you believe in, these included gravitation, dark matter and the fact that it is currently raining near your house (of course you also defined the time and day). It is not clear to me if the degree of recognition you attribute to these subjects is the same and I was hoping to check this subject with you.

    In the discussion with you it turned out that for you the belief in gravitation and dark matter are at the basis of that belief. To adjust the observations to the law of gravitation, dark matter is needed. Since you believe that the astronomical observations are correct and you believe in gravitation, you believe that there must be dark matter.

    I, for my part, raised doubts about the validity of gravitation and therefore also doubts about the existence of dark matter, which in my opinion was invented solely for the purpose of adapting gravitation to astronomical observations. Note: The use I will make of the word gravitation will be to indicate Newton's laws of attraction and Einstein's general relativity.

    My arguments against gravitation:

    Theoretically, it is not compatible with quantum theory, so it is likely that it is wrong or requires correction.

    Experimentally, it does not fit the astronomical observations and requires both dark matter and dark energy in significant quantities so that it can indeed be claimed that it is not hidden by observations.

    I charged against the dark matter

    It is intended solely to match the observations with the theory of gravitation (it does not originate in the standard model of matter, but it does not contradict this model) I suppose there were already such theories.
    Although it is supposed to be distributed across the universe, no such substance has yet been found on Earth. In all the millions of years of its existence, a meteor of dark matter has not yet fallen on Earth and they have not yet succeeded in producing dark matter in a laboratory.
    In other words, it is over fifty years of experimentation when the prize promised to the discoverer is world fame and the substance has not yet been found.

    If, after the doubts I raised, you still believe with certainty in dark matter, I cannot dispute this belief. There are also people who choose to believe in God or angels as preventing the cosmos and are confident in their existence...

34. and loved It seems to me that the idea you brought up of angels pushing the stars and galaxies is an excellent idea. You should go for it and develop it.

35. sympathetic:
    First of all - a scientific argument heard from people is a scientific argument.
    Second - all the arguments I presented are not arguments I heard, but a processing of the information I read.
    Your attempt dwarfed my words in such a non-serious way…. is not serious
    Do you think that the very fact that you say something that is not accepted by almost any scientist in the field gives your words extra validity?
    As mentioned, MOND is hidden by the findings, is not compatible with quantum theory and does not predict gravitational repulsion.
    Beyond that, it also requires dark matter.
    If you like her - that's fine by me, but I still suggest you don't think that everyone is stupid.

36. sympathetic. The proven way to know how confident and believing a person is in something is to interfere with him in a certain relationship. The more he is willing to raise this attitude to his detriment, the more he believes.

37. Instead of thanks to Planck's constant, the meaning was similar to Planck's constant.

38. Instead of excuses, I mean accelerations (there are several more typing errors - sorry).

39. In light of the audience's request, I will try to make it shorter, although I am not sure that I will comply with it...

    Michael

    The discussion is not MOND yes or no but gravitation yes or no (although I say a few words about MOND at the end).

    Is a theory whose mathematical foundations are at odds with the rest of physics true in my eyes for sure? No! And what if this discrepancy hasn't been measured yet? The answer is not yet. The theory as it is formulated must change! That is, gravitation must change, quantum theory was verified by experiments, not by observation!

    A small story from the beginning of the last century that I hope will clarify the issue for you. Newton's laws do not match Maxwell's equations, should they apparently be changed, there is no observation or experiment that indicates this... everyone on the radio believes that everything is fine, are they crazy? In the end it turns out that it is. The experiments that tested Newton's mechanics were at low speeds and there is no problem there, it turns out. Little by little, attempts are coming that indicate a problem. Have the crazy people over there on the radio been convinced? They didn't invent the site - a wonderful invention. Finally it turns out that there is a more comprehensive Torah that explains (yes it explains and was not invented to the point of correcting the experimental results that were compatible with the theory) the experiments for the Torah are called special relativity.

    First, it is clear that the theory of gravitation must change and now the only question is how. Will adding dark matter solve the mathematical problems with quantum theory definitely not.

    According to your opinion, which is not based on a scientific argument, only on the opinion of the people on the radio (those who set the tone) "How is it that galaxies that look similar - in terms of visible matter - behave so differently?
    In my opinion, a theory of gravitation that solves this is simply not possible." Although it seems as if this is an experiment with a control group, we have already agreed that this is not the case. The fact that your imagination and mine are limited still does not mean that there is no explanation and it is not possible unless you have a mathematical proof Which I would love to hear.

    I will summarize my opinion and unfortunately I will not be able to respond until tomorrow evening but I would be happy to continue the discussion if you see it as useful.
    1. Mathematically gravitation is flawed.
    2. Observationally defective gravitation.
    3. Adding dark mass is not enough to correct the discrepancy between experiment and existing theory, dark energy is needed (in percentage terms a huge correction).
    4. Attempts to find a dark mass candidate in the laboratory have failed in the last forty years, although there is always one on the horizon.

    On the other hand, you are sure of the existence of dark mass...
    As for MOND, it has at least a parameter that determines up to which gravitational forces will behave in a Newtonian manner, but not thanks to Planck's constant in quantum theory, therefore I find MOND as a preferred option.

    I would love to write to you why I am not a follower of TEVES and prefer MOND to her, but as mentioned, if it interests you, I can only do so maybe tomorrow evening.

40. Avi. You have to find a way to limit the amount of words each person is allowed to write.
    The comments here become articles. 🙂

41. I sent again

42. "One?", he asks himself, "Where do they live there on the radio?! All of them!!!)"

43. sympathetic:
    It is not clear to me why MOND, which suffers from all the problems of conventional gravity and many other problems, seems to you to be a step in the right direction.
    Do you think MOND is compatible with quantum theory? It simply has no advantage and you prefer it just like that (and I'm also making an assumption that when I say MOND I actually mean what was obtained by Bekenstein's renovations - and bears the name TeVeS - renovations before which MOND did not manage with many additional observations and after which it looks less or More like spaghetti with a number of ad hoc assumptions that dwarfs the only assumption of dark matter and all this without this Torah managing without it).
    Relativistic gravity has not yet been integrated with quantum theory but that is really no reason to claim that Apollo drives the sun in his chariot.
    The problems of relativity with quantum theory seem to focus on tiny scales and the directions of investigation towards the solution focus - see it as a miracle - on things that do not contradict reality.
    One of the possible combinations is string theory - speaking of a step in the right direction - even though this theory still does not provide special predictions that can be tested. At least it doesn't predict things that are hidden by the observations!
    You are not dealing with something that I keep saying over and over again: how is it that galaxies that look similar - in terms of visible matter - behave so differently?
    In my opinion, a gravitation theory that solves this is simply not possible.
    No other gravitation will also settle with a center of gravity that is outside the cluster.
    The exercise you are doing is extremely strange. You are trying to argue that there is no dark matter because the theory of relativity is incompatible with quantum theory and this despite the fact that no conceivable theory of gravity would work without dark matter.
    Are you also claiming that the planets discovered by this method do not exist because they have not yet combined relativity with quantum theory?

44. Avi,

    I didn't receive any email from you, but it doesn't matter, I know exactly what you mean.

45. Michael

    The dark matter "model" assumes that the theory of gravitation is correct and accordingly the observations must be corrected (adding dark matter). You didn't answer the main question, why should it be assumed that the theory of gravitation is correct when it is well known that it does not agree with the quantum theory?
    By the way, Newton's mechanics also did not fit in with Maxwell's laws, none of the experts thought of abandoning Newton's laws of mechanics. In the end it turned out that Newton's laws of mechanics are not correct in the high speed limit.
    In light of the problems in explaining the cosmological observations, is it not appropriate to abandon Newton's laws of gravitation in favor of a generalized MOND theory. From theoretical considerations it is clear that either gravitation or quantum theory require a change!

    Further evidence of the gathering battle of goitization as a legitimate theory is the need for dark energy to explain the observations.

    I do not require a scientific theory to stand up to a controlled experiment, this is like an unfounded claim, I require consistency between scientific theories. Compared to gravitation, quantum theory has already proven itself in a much more convincing way both in observations and in controlled experiments, the conclusion is that gravitation should be abandoned as it is. I'm not ready to commit to what will replace it, I'm just pointing out that even though MOND has problems, it looks like a step in the right direction.

46. sympathetic:
    I'll start, with your permission from the beginning.
    Your claim as if the fact that acceptance or rejection of any scientific claim requires a controlled experiment is fundamentally wrong for at least two reasons.
    One is that we are not always able to perform an experiment.
    In fact - in cosmology it is never possible to perform an experiment.
    The second is that the word "controlled" does not always have meaning. What "control group" can there be for gravity experiments (besides the fact that in a broad sense - each additional experiment controls all its predecessors - a fact I pointed out and which you ignore)?
    Therefore - in all historical sciences we rely on the evidence provided by nature. Our ability to examine reality is limited by this fact but this is not a reason to abandon the practice of these sciences but only to do the best with the information we receive naturally.
    There is no, there is no (I repeat: there is no!) requirement for a controlled trial to confirm a claim.
    What is needed is a confrontation with reality in every possible way and a claim is not scientific if there is no way to confront it with reality - that is - if it does not provide predictions that can verify their existence.
    This is not the state of dark matter.
    It acted as a solution to the problem of galaxy rotation, provided a prediction of gravitational recirculation and such recirculation was indeed observed.
    Being a substance and not a "law of nature" its distribution in space is not uniform. Therefore, dark matter provided a prediction of non-uniformity in the behavior of galaxies and this was indeed observed.
    He raised the possibility that the center of gravity of star clusters would not always coalesce if the center of visible matter in them (a possibility that is incompatible with any possible change in gravity) and this possibility was indeed observed.

    I brought the other scientists so that you get a proportion and not as a reasoning.
    I wanted you to understand that when you say that I do not demand sufficient confirmations from the dark matter - you are saying this about the vast majority of the scientific community.
    It reminds me of the man who is driving on the freeway and hears on the news that on that freeway there is some crazy person driving in the opposite lane. "One?", he asks himself, "Where do they live there on the radio?! All of them!!!)".
    You can continue to demand controlled experiments in cosmology and invalidate the entire kit. It won't affect other people for whom understanding is important than some wordplay that people were charmed by.

    I repeat:
    MOND contradicts the observations and at least one of its two main developers - Jacob Bekenstein - (oops! I'm hanging on other people again!) admits that it also requires dark matter and as mentioned - this need for dark matter is beyond the fact that it is hidden by the observations in a way that no dark matter can correct (I repeat and mention M94).
    Milgrom meanwhile maintains neutrality and says only that there may or may not be dark matter. Reasoning this, he says that it is not certain that the measurements carried out in M94 were correct. Come on! It's hard to give up a foster child. When I asked him about the Bullet cluster, he already chose not to answer (and let's be clear - there was no debate here - I just asked him questions).

    The method that you dismiss - assuming the existence of data that is hidden from our eyes and not of inconsistent changes in the gravity formula has already been used by us in many discoveries - starting with additional planets in our solar system and ending with the discovery of planets in other solar systems.
    Imagine that in any such case a person like you would rise up and demand an adjustment of gravity! We just wouldn't find out anything!

47. Michael

    With your permission, I will start from the end to the beginning or go back to the beginning of the discussion. When you analyzed the reasons for accepting or rejecting part of what is known as alternative medicine, you brought as a requirement the compliance with a controlled experiment. So far there is no disagreement between us, but when I examined the list of things you believe in, I was surprised to find that in my opinion they do not meet this criterion and in my opinion are not scientific. I will only refer to the subject of dark matter to clarify the point, if you are interested I would be happy to write more about the biology experiment I was talking about. I thank you for the much information you sent me on the subject of evolution, a subject in which I have less knowledge and my claims regarding its validity as a scientific theory are not harsh.

    Your reasons for believing in dark matter are:

    1. Relying on the opinions of scientists and Wikipedia (source of information):
    "If you listen to what is said in it and not just read the article, you will see that at least the experts familiar with the matter are completely convinced of the existence of dark matter and the whole question they are trying to solve is what that matter is (when they find out it will be less dark)."

    Relying on expert opinion is not a scientific claim. Science is not a hierarchical field and allows even unknown researchers to present their theories (just mention the clerk from the patent office who was not associated with any university and his words were heard). It is necessary to give a convincing reasoning and not just state that the experts know everything. Science developed as a result of the mistakes of experts.

    I am reminded here of the story of the king's new clothes that were sewn on the "model" of the dark matter.

    2. You say that in science there are no proofs and you point to confirmation as a scientific criterion, here we agree.
    Let's go back to your claims: "The MOND theory that you like for some reason - simply contradicts the observations".

    Were there observations that confirmed the dark matter? Dark matter is not a theory that was proposed for theoretical reasons and was confirmed, but was proposed to bridge a gap between observations and theory. As I already mentioned, for alternative gravitation models it is enough to observe the light from the stars to determine what their velocities are, while according to the dark matter "model" calculations must be made for each galaxy separately to determine the distribution of dark matter. Any observation can be adjusted to dark matter by adding assumptions about how it is distributed since it is not seen.

    As for my reasons. The decisive reasoning for me is:
    The dark matter "model" assumes that the theory of gravitation is correct and the results of the observations must be adjusted to it.
    How can gravitation be correct when we know for sure (mathematically) that gravitation and quantum theory cannot be combined. Is our knowledge of the world partial and are there separate theories for each set of phenomena? If you assume that physics should at least describe all phenomena with the same laws, which of the theories should be rejected or changed: gravitation or quantum theory?

    For reasons based more on personal scientific taste:
    An important requirement for a model is that it knows how to explain phenomena, for example the Tully-Fisher empirical relation
    MOND explains it while the dark matter model explains nothing. indeed MOND apparently is not
    Able to explain the behavior of bullet clusters. Regarding galaxy M94, as far as I understand, both MOND and the dark matter "model" have a problem explaining its behavior. Regarding the incompatibility of MOND with some of the experiments, I think I heard that Prof. Motty Milgrom does not agree with this and unfortunately I did not get into the thick of it. I do not pretend to defend MOND here as the correct theory, but I do pretend to claim that it is much more scientific in my opinion:
    It has no fine-tuning parameters.
    There is one physical scale that defines it.
    She explains imperial laws in a simple way.
    It does not assume the existence of angels.

48. Yael, I asked for something in an email.

49. Yael:
    so you think
    The fact that it's not true probably doesn't interest you.
    Nor are you interested in dealing with the hard facts I present.
    Almost all of your reactions towards me are judgmental sentences and a large part of them come out of nowhere - even without any argument - you just feel like attacking me and you do it without hesitation.
    I repeat - here too - this is exactly what happened.
    Do you think you can convince anyone that that's not what happened here?

50. I think you have a problem. Have you noticed that you get into clashes and fights with every person who writes a comment on any topic here on the website?

51. By the way, Ehud:
    Pay attention to the beginning of the discussion.
    I talked about the reason why they accept acupuncture and reject homeopathy.
    You, for some reason, decided that the whole universe is a drug test and started demanding from me proof of the validity of a drug on every scientific theory.
    Everything else is a result of this strange requirement.
    I explained it, but then you decided to drag me into a debate about dark matter and evolution.
    The fact that your claims on these issues are incorrect is not relevant for the purpose of answering my following question:
    Can you explain to me what's going on here?
    Are you trying to tell me you don't accept the scientific method?
    Can you point to a better way to seek the truth?

52. sympathetic:
    We've been here before and I'm not going to repeat it all again.
    First of all - it is true that it has not been proven and this is because there are no proofs in science.
    What is also true is that the matter received many confirmations and in fact today there is no theory (literally none!) that competes with the dark matter theory.
    The MOND theory that you love for some reason - simply contradicts the observations. How it can be a step in the right direction is really not clear to me.
    It's also not clear to me how you expect to find a gravitation theory that will make similar galaxies behave differently. can you give a hint
    In relation to the correctness of the current theory of gravitation - galaxy M94 is a strong confirmation of its correctness at large ranges and is only one of the examples that disprove MOND and all theories that try to increase gravitation at a long range in order to accelerate the rotation of galaxies.
    Since our previous debate on the matter, this article has been added:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantum-to-cosmos-3110098/
    If you listen to what is said in it and don't just read the article, you will see that at least the experts familiar with the matter are completely convinced of the existence of dark matter, and the only question they are trying to solve is what that matter is (when they find out it will be less dark). So what seems like nonsense to you seems completely serious to completely serious people and Catherine Paris says without hesitation something like (I haven't re-listened so I'm not sure of the wording) that dark matter is one of the things we are most sure of its existence.
    I already commented in the previous discussion that according to your approach - there is simply no way to verify the matter because your approach rules out in advance - even if you don't mean it - any evidence that does not come from a visit all over the universe.

    In relation to evolution - the prediction that fossils of life forms that are between the life forms that exist today and those that have already been discovered - is also a prediction and it has come true many times - whether by finding "missing links" between us and our ancestors and whether by finding "missing links" between the whale and terrestrial animals.

    Of course, with the "breakthrough" of genetics, additional predictions were added that matched it.
    For example - the need to reconcile the fact that great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and the fact that humans only have 23.
    Loss of an entire chromosome is out of the question because it is too large a mutation and its product would not survive.
    Therefore, they assumed that during the development of man, two ape chromosomes came together.
    This fact was found to be true after the human and chimpanzee genomes were deciphered!
    One of the human chromosomes is actually a chain of two ape chromosomes and they haven't even finished "cleaning up all the garbage" and therefore this chromosome (unlike the others) has telomeres in the middle as well and in addition each (again unlike the other chromosomes) has two centromeres (in one place) - one From each side of the telomeres in the middle - one of which is silenced.
    Want to hear it from a religious person? here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded

    What you "know" about bacteria overcoming antibiotics is not really clear to me.
    No one claimed that bacteria have a laboratory where they sit and crack the structure of the antibiotic and adapt themselves to it - this is in direct contradiction to the idea of ​​evolution. They simply multiply so quickly and undergo so many mutations that occasionally a bacterium is created that is more resistant than others. It multiplies more and from time to time even more resistant bacteria are created from it.
    Also the fact that every year we have a different flu is evidence of evolution and so are the experiments described here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
    Or here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
    (And there's a lot more! Just a lot!)
    The fact that Darwin did not know what a gene was is irrelevant.
    He described the general mechanism - the one that is also used today in writing software.
    The details were found later.
    Just finding the details, by the way, is confirmation in itself!

    Yael: This is simply not true and if you examine history you will see (even though you probably know) that the vast majority of the clashes between us started with your personal attack on me. The others started with the fact that I enjoyed disagreeing with your words - something that led - again - to your personal attack on me.
    There is no shortage of examples.
    You are welcome to follow, for example, the escalation process in this discussion:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/shocking-impact-of-galaxy-jet-28090466
    Here it at least started with a legitimate discussion but your inability to deal with corrections to your words turned it into a fight.
    In the current discussion you had no need for an argument. You just broke into a fight for no reason.

53. sympathetic,
    You did a good job of presenting the paradoxes in scientific semantics.

54. point

    If instead of dark matter I would talk about invisible angels that cannot be observed. They do not live on Earth. And with the power of their wings they push the stars. No need to ask, but I'll answer you anyway, the angels don't follow the normal laws of physics, their job is just to push stars. Does my theory of angels sound like science to you? And if I change the name angels to dark matter, now it sounds like science.
    Angels

55. Michael,

    I'm not sure about the questions and answers. But what I can conclude from your way of speaking (not necessarily in this specific discussion) is that you have something personal against me, and that you want to eradicate me from the site.

56. By the way, the intention was "not exposed to the other three forces" of course.

57. point

    First you send me to study and then you claim that I'm confused...

    You are talking about matching phenomenon A with phenomenon B. "After all, every explanation of any kind comes to match phenomenon A with phenomenon B. This is the essence of an explanation." But dark matter is not a phenomenon. I think you are confused here?

    First you must distinguish between matching theory with experimental results by adjusting parameters in theory which is an accepted and normal practice. Proposing additional elements such as matter that maintains only gravitational interactions and is not exposed to the other three laws. This is a correction of the theory by Hooke. See again the case of the ether or the Aristotelian Torah

58. Ehud, "as long as the superiority of a theory over its competitors has not been proven in an experiment, they must be considered valid" you probably did not understand the matter.
    Experiments do not prove things. refuting
    You seem to have read and have some knowledge but on the other hand you still sound confused. You may have read or heard a fair amount of nonsense and nonsense and it makes you confused.

59. Ehud, if there was a method of thinking based on meridians and chi that actually worked, you know that we would have to take it seriously!! But the fact is that there is no such method. Only fools, idiots, quacks, liars and charlatans who spread grandmother's stories in Alma.

    It's a shame that there is no non-scientific method that meets this requirement. 🙁

    "The dark matter hypothesis came about in an attempt to match observations to the theory of gravitation. "Well and? I did not understand your argument that should present the problems in this act. After all, any explanation of any kind comes to match phenomenon A with phenomenon B. This is the essence of an explanation.

60. Michael

    Regarding evolution, I don't understand much in the field and I was surprised to hear that it has predications.

    Regarding the adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics, I happen to know a study that shows that the surviving bacteria do not show resistance to antibiotics, but there are two groups in bacterial populations: one that divides (multiplies) quickly and the other at a slow rate. The antibiotics harm the bacteria in the division phase, therefore only the bacteria that divide quickly are harmed. When the administration of antibiotics is stopped, the population of bacteria increases again, but it is not resistant to the antibiotics and will again show its decline in time if antibiotics of the same type are used against it.

    There is also the question of what evolution is, after all, Darwin did not know about DNA or genetics when he presented the theory of evolution? In addition, today it turns out that there are processes that operate according to Lamarck's model (epigenetic) that have been abandoned in favor of evolution.

61. Michael
    The existence of dark matter has never been proven!

    If it is assumed that the theory of gravitation is correct, problems are revealed in explaining observations, which is why scientists have proposed the existence of dark matter. As long as the superiority of a theory over its competitors has not been proven in an experiment, they must be considered as valid and the belief in one over the other originates from personal preference and not from scientific foundation. In my opinion, alternative theories of gravitation are more scientific according to Occam's razor criterion. It is enough to observe the light emitted from a certain galaxy and you can get the speed distributions of the stars in it. In the dark matter theory, a different model of the dark matter must be built for each galaxy, and only after running countless simulations can it be determined how it is apparently distributed.

    Although the MOND theory is not able to explain all the experiments, it is in my opinion (again my taste and not scientific) a step in the right direction. For example, physical models such as Bohr's model of the atom, which was not correct and was not valid for all atoms, but nevertheless formed the basis of quantum theory. In this respect the dark matter theory is more similar to ether theory. As soon as a suitable candidate for dark matter is found and such has not yet been found, it will be possible to begin to assume that the dark matter theory is a scientific theory that can be disproved, before that it is nonsense in my eyes.

62. point
    If I understood you correctly, if a way of thinking works on meridians or the flow of chi and it succeeds, then you should continue with the same way of thinking regardless of how it integrates with medicine. According to you, there is no need for matching between different branches of knowledge?

    Regarding your claim that "the dark matter hypothesis is required in light of the scientific results and the way we understand how things happen in the universe (learn physics)." is not correct. The dark matter hypothesis came about in an attempt to match observations to the theory of gravitation. We tested the gravitation on local scales such as the Solar System, but on the larger scales discrepancies are revealed. To continue to hold to the theory of gravitation as it is, the existence of dark matter is assumed! In the same way, the existence of the site was assumed (which, as you know, has been disproved as a theory). For example, Newton's laws were considered correct until the Michelson-Morley experiments and Einstein's theory of relativity. The attempt to hold on to a certain model despite its incompatibility with the experiment is pathetic, for example the Aristotelian cosmology compared to that of Copernicus. Many attempts have been made to fit observations into Aristotelian cosmology (although this too has been disproven FYI).

    It is true that science is based on refutable ideas and as long as there is no basis for one theory over the other one must hold to both and if one of them is dismissed it is based on personal taste and not on the scientific method.

63. Yael:
    come on!
    Maybe enough ?!
    All the questions hit. At all - the whole thing started with a statement and not a question. Then the questions were repeated without referring at all to the answers given.

64. Michael,
    What about my question offended you?

65. Yael:
    My "arrows" no more hurt than your "innocent questions".

66. sympathetic:
    You didn't understand my words.
    I'm talking about the need to experiment.
    The controlled experiment is relevant to confirm statistical phenomena that compare different methods of operation and choose the best among them.
    This is the type of experiments carried out in medicine, but it is not the only type of experiments.
    In contrast to medical treatment, for which the claim is not sweeping but that it "works better than the alternative" - ​​gravitation is a sweeping claim, therefore any situation in which you see that it does not work will be a refutation of the gravitation theory. In other words - even if in one and only case the system behaves in a way that contradicts the prediction - the theory has been disproved and in even more different words - each experiment is a control group that can overthrow all the experiments that preceded it.

    The existence of dark matter has also been proven and I have already conducted enough debates on the matter here.
    I won't start another one here but if the topic interests you (and I guess not) you can find a lot of material about it on Wikipedia.

    The predictions of evolution have also been confirmed in countless experiments and those who understand what evolution is also understand that it is a result derived by mathematical necessity from the way DNA replicates.
    It also gives many predictions (such as the adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics, such as the ability to cultivate animals - something our ancestors knew how to do even before they knew what evolution was) that are fulfilled before our eyes every day.

67. Ehud, even the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow does not stand up to a controlled experiment.

    The idea is that when a method of thinking is successful, this is its controlled experiment, and therefore it is possible to continue with the same method of thinking and reach conclusions that can be believed even though they themselves have not undergone a controlled experiment. And of course I'm aiming for the exact sciences. A chemist can tell you what will happen to a particular compound even though he hasn't assembled it yet. The dark matter hypothesis is required in light of the scientific results and the way we understand how things happen in the universe (learn physics).

    And you probably didn't understand what it means that science is based on ideas that can be refuted, and if we don't allow ourselves to believe from time to time in ideas that can be refuted, there will be nothing to refute. Think about it.

68. Michael,

    I asked because the topic really interested me. I neither attacked nor criticized you, but asked in a civilized manner and out of curiosity and openness what your opinion is on the subject. Too bad you use the opportunity to shoot arrows in every direction.

69. Michael

    When you come to verify or refute the claims regarding alternative treatments such as acupuncture or homeopathy you demand that they successfully meet the scientific criterion of a controlled experiment. On the other hand I read the list of things you believe in (response 13) and some of them do not meet the scientific requirement of a controlled experiment for example: dark matter, gravitation, as well as evolution. Regarding these three beliefs of yours, they cannot be confirmed or disproved by an experiment and comparing it to a control experiment. Cosmology is an observational science, while evolution explains retrospectively and does not make predictions.

70. point:
    Your words are indeed true, but Yael is not seeing them for the first time, so it is doubtful whether they will be useful.
    After all, the whole discussion started with me having the courage to respond This response:

71. Yael, the theory of a particular method must be separated from the results of practice.
    The theory of Chinese acupuncture includes within it the qi and all kinds of explanations about how the qi flows in the body and that the acupuncture itself clogs or opens tubes for the qi to flow, etc.

    Obviously, this theory is nonsense. And that this part of Chinese acupuncture is not science at all, just childish ideas and nothing more.

    Many drugs work without us even knowing how. But what is important is that they work.
    Does acupuncture work? checking. In general, the answer is that acupuncture does not help the usual diseases. Maybe just small things related to pain.
    True story: I remember last year I had a general headache and at the same time something unrelated happened and I received a strong and painful blow to my leg, and it was a miracle the headache disappeared in an instant.

72. Yael:
    I have explained myself more than once.
    What is so hard to understand?
    First of all - acupuncture is not a science just as giving aspirin is not a science either.
    Science deals with trying to decipher the laws that govern the world and these two actions are attempts to utilize these laws to our advantage.
    As part of science, they check whether acupuncture (or aspirin) works and do this by experiment.
    If the people who receive the treatment recover better than those who received a sham treatment and if this result is repeated several times and on a large scale - we tend to see this fact as a confirmation of the claim that the treatment works (the claim was scientific to begin with but it could be both scientific and wrong. The experiment helps us decide between the two possibilities ).
    The claim that homeopathy works is a scientific claim, but it is a claim that is considered wrong because it has been disproved in an experiment.
    The claims behind acupuncture are many - some claim it helps cure headaches and some claim it helps cure other pains.
    These claims (which are all scientific) were tested one by one in a controlled manner. Some were found to be correct and some were not.
    That's why I kept qualifying my words and talking about "certain patients" and not about "all patients".
    I provided (as part of the discussion that you jump from thread to thread for some reason) the summary of Wikipedia on the matter so that if you wanted to understand what I was saying you could also see what is written there.

73. Michael,
    And acupuncture: yes?

    I mean, do you consider acupuncture a science?

74. Yael:
    To date - the research as a whole indicates that homeopathy does not work.
    Why should I believe that?
    By the way, I'll spare you the rest and mention a few things you won't need to ask about:
    Voodoo: No
    Gravitation: Yes
    Dark Matter: Yes
    Rain dances: no
    Evolution: Yes
    Creationism: no
    Vaccinations: Yes
    The fact that right now (December 18, 2009 - 12:07 p.m.) it's raining near my house: yes
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster (including its manifestations under other names): no
    This call is a waste of time: Yes

75. Koala bears?

    Since when is a koala a bear?

76. Thanks for the recommendation point (?)
    I think I heard about the book, and in general books from Singh's author house are interesting.

77. Yael.
    I recommend you also read the book. You saw comment 7

78. So wait, Michael, do you believe in acupuncture? interesting
    And what about homeopathy?

79. point:
    Thanks.
    I will probably add it soon to the pile of books I bought and haven't had time to read yet 🙂

80. Michael Regarding complementary medicine, I would recommend the book "Cure or Temptation" by Simon Singh (Ferma's Last Theorem)
    He provides an overview and fairly recent studies of the subject. Including scientific conclusions on how different types of treatments should be treated. What is useful and what is not.

81. Yael:
    It has already been said many times that when the predictions of the theory do not match reality, what is flawed is the theory and not reality.
    If you were surprised - a sign that the theory you were based on is wrong and you need to correct it.
    In fact, information has already appeared here in the past that could probably disprove this theory:
    Please note that the article about the glaciers is an old article on this website, and the fact that I believe in the results of controlled experiments is also not new.
    The truth is that even regarding acupuncture I have already expressed myself in the past (and I must say that this is not about my personal experience and that I was indeed quite surprised when I read that there were studies that confirmed acupuncture as an effective tool for certain types of problems but - in science as in science - it is not the prejudices that determine but the results of the experiment and the surprise that I was surprised brought me to change my theory regarding acupuncture).

82. I didn't think I would see here links to articles about the expansion of the glaciers. Along with Michael's admission that he believes in acupuncture, I'm beginning to suspect that the days of the apocalypse the Mayans talked about are really coming.

83. Ron, I'm in meetings all day, I'll check your links later, anyway apparently we don't live on the same planet

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/satellites-confirm-half-century-of-west-antarctic-warming-2601093/

84. He doesn't need to explain.
    This is propaganda, as usual these are just estimates based on... ????
    when in reality
    Nothing special really happens at the South Pole
    On the contrary the ice grew
    An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979

    http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+P
    ace+on+Record/article13385.htm

    Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

    http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

    Look at the spin of the warming liars
    Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html

    Polar bears are at the forefront of propaganda - they are so cute

    Are polar bears in danger?
    – That's what National Geographic shows us, isn't it?
    Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor,
    one of the foremost authorities
    on polar bears, says: "We're seeing an
    increase in bears that's really unprecedented,
    and in places where we're seeing
    a decrease in the population
    it's from hunting, not from climate change.

    thenewamerican.com/index.php
    /tech-mainmenu-30/environment/675

    Simply burn the science in the eyes of the public - it will come back like a boomerang

85. Too bad the Imperial Penguins don't ask Professor Faldor.
    He would explain to them that nothing special happens at the South Pole so their chicks have no reason to drown.

86. The lily fish = Nemo
    I liked.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.