> Meaning basically that other experts haven't had time yet to check his work? How long is that expected to take? The paper I referenced was published in 2015.
Likely never, as I have explained. Someone loud will be pushed aside from the community and simulations of this type/scale take too long to 'jsut test' or 'just repeat'.
> Yes, on the basis of his claim that dark matter models make predictions about the orbits of small satellite galaxies around larger galaxies that don't match observations. As I've said, these kinds of claims get made in science all the time. Scientific models are supposed to be tested against observations. When someone sees a mismatch, they're supposed to say so. That's part of how science is supposed to work.
This is not a reasinable assertion based on his work so, in simple terms, no.
> More precisely, it "breaks" the belief that we can construct a valid model of our universe using standard General Relativity, on the basis of the claim that we cannot find any assumption for the distribution of matter that gives a satisfactory fit against all observations. That's the larger claim he's making and the basis of his advocacy for alternative theories of gravity, yes. But, as I've already stated, that larger claim is not what I have been asking about.
No you cannot make claims in isolation that break the rest of science that's not how it works. Ever.
> While this is all valid information it's not information I really needed. I'm well aware of the difficulties involved in constructing these models and checking them against observations.
This is _essential_ to the discussion to underatand what is being discussed. To throw the topic aside is showing a lack of focussing on the article, but I think
> That doesn't change the fact that there should be some answer to how that one test comes out: either it does come out the way he claims, or it doesn't. Which is all I was asking about. If the answer is "nobody else has had the time or resources to check as yet", then that's the answer.
Again, a loud person jumping up and down with a simple test over a single overvation will not get the community to divert funding, time and effort. Reasonable arguments for diverting of limited resources are to approach the community with fact based evidence and reason.
> Your guess would be wrong. I don't currently do scientific research for a living, but that doesn't mean I don't have a lot of background in how science works.
Please stop being blunt and defensive, I'm trying to be polite.
> I have no idea where you are getting this from. I haven't asked about "sociological implications" at all. You're the one who keeps bringing that up. And I have already explicitly recognized that no scientific model matches observations with 100% exactness.
You brought it up in a paragraph with the theme of "how the community should change" which is the main shouting point from this article.
> Has nothing to do with what I've been asking about.
as above.
OK, to avoid this going further I think I've in good faith discussed everything in reasonable detail. You may feel different, you're entitled to and you're entitled to reply. But to move on I feel I've given you the large benefit of an experienced insight that is for you to make of what you chose. Have a great day/week/year, I won't be replying further.
Ok, that answers my question. I won't comment on the rest except to say that I don't think I have the same views about how science works (or should work) that you do. But scientists all have the freedom to choose what to work on, so ultimately that will determine how all this plays out.
> You brought it up in a paragraph with the theme of "how the community should change"
To be clear, nothing I have posted in this thread was intended to make any such claim. As I have said all along, I was only interested in a specific answer to a specific question, which you have now made clear. As I noted just above, scientists are all free to choose what they will work on, and I have no issue with that at all. Kroupa is free to express his opinions about more general questions like "how the community should change", and other scientists are free to ignore him, which is what seems to be happening. All of that is beyond the scope of what I was asking about.
Likely never, as I have explained. Someone loud will be pushed aside from the community and simulations of this type/scale take too long to 'jsut test' or 'just repeat'.
> Yes, on the basis of his claim that dark matter models make predictions about the orbits of small satellite galaxies around larger galaxies that don't match observations. As I've said, these kinds of claims get made in science all the time. Scientific models are supposed to be tested against observations. When someone sees a mismatch, they're supposed to say so. That's part of how science is supposed to work.
This is not a reasinable assertion based on his work so, in simple terms, no.
> More precisely, it "breaks" the belief that we can construct a valid model of our universe using standard General Relativity, on the basis of the claim that we cannot find any assumption for the distribution of matter that gives a satisfactory fit against all observations. That's the larger claim he's making and the basis of his advocacy for alternative theories of gravity, yes. But, as I've already stated, that larger claim is not what I have been asking about.
No you cannot make claims in isolation that break the rest of science that's not how it works. Ever.
> While this is all valid information it's not information I really needed. I'm well aware of the difficulties involved in constructing these models and checking them against observations.
This is _essential_ to the discussion to underatand what is being discussed. To throw the topic aside is showing a lack of focussing on the article, but I think
> That doesn't change the fact that there should be some answer to how that one test comes out: either it does come out the way he claims, or it doesn't. Which is all I was asking about. If the answer is "nobody else has had the time or resources to check as yet", then that's the answer.
Again, a loud person jumping up and down with a simple test over a single overvation will not get the community to divert funding, time and effort. Reasonable arguments for diverting of limited resources are to approach the community with fact based evidence and reason.
> Your guess would be wrong. I don't currently do scientific research for a living, but that doesn't mean I don't have a lot of background in how science works.
Please stop being blunt and defensive, I'm trying to be polite.
> I have no idea where you are getting this from. I haven't asked about "sociological implications" at all. You're the one who keeps bringing that up. And I have already explicitly recognized that no scientific model matches observations with 100% exactness.
You brought it up in a paragraph with the theme of "how the community should change" which is the main shouting point from this article.
> Has nothing to do with what I've been asking about.
as above.
OK, to avoid this going further I think I've in good faith discussed everything in reasonable detail. You may feel different, you're entitled to and you're entitled to reply. But to move on I feel I've given you the large benefit of an experienced insight that is for you to make of what you chose. Have a great day/week/year, I won't be replying further.