Let’s not forget
Pioneer Anomaly, which is happening fairly close inside our solar system, where both probes traveling at ‘escape’ velocity in opposite directions from the Sun are accelerating at a constant rate
into the Sun, or slowing, so they are less distant from us than Newtonian gravity dynamics would predict. Then there are the Bouguer anomalies on Mars and Venus which show consistent irregularities in gravitational measurements for mounts and valleys. Then there were discussions such as mine,
Hypothetical variable mass in hypo variable G?, which got good mileage back in the days when Bad Astronomy was an open forum for new ideas. Was it all ‘hot air’? Perhaps some seminal ideas are poorly formed, even amateurishly unprofessional, but ideas are ideas, when we are free to discuss them, so new things get examined we had not thought of before. What good is the process of exploration if the only allowed is mainstream re-confirmations of what had become the accepted norm, but prohibits real examination of new ideas? I think this is what Jerry’s complaint, per this thread and others, is really about. We are no longer encouraged to think ‘outside the box’ but are boxed in by both the 30 day rule (which I can live with), but more importantly by the almost immediate dismissal of any new idea that challenges accepted
orthodoxy in cosmology, unlike in any time in science history except during the days of the Inquisition. That, alas, leads to any ATM idea’s demise even before it gets voiced, or examined, so it goes immediately into the cosmological ‘penalty box’. I don't find new ideas presented here with the same enthusiasm Bad enjoyed in the old days.
Why can’t we find any evidence of Dark Matter? What are doing wrong when our crafts land too hard on the outer planets, and too soft on the inner? Or when gravitational slingshots come in too high or too low, consistently in the same manner? Is our understanding of physics in the “local terrain” truly what applies to distant bodies? Is cosmic redshift really from an expanding universe, or is something else at hand? Why does MOND appear to work at galactic distances but not at planetary distances? These ideas were once discussed, sometimes
ad nauseum, but they were turned over on the old ATM, sometimes with humorous results. Today they are subtly discouraged from further study or examination under the new rules. Is this a complaint BAUT cares about? I don’t know… they pay the bandwith bills… so it’s their call. I must admit I miss the old ‘wild west’ days of the old Bad Astronomy ATM forums. They really were fun!
You could really sink your teeth in them!
As an afterthought, I think the faults in today's cosmology, everything from doubting Einstein to new gravity physics, are due to our overreliance on
mathematical structure as first cause. In the old days of Planck and Farraday, the math resulted from experimental analysis, but it did not drive the theory. Today, it seems the math, especially General Relativity and Qauntum supersymmetry, drive the experiments. If we have the cart before the horse, we may be driving with rear view mirrors and missing much of the greater landscape that could potentially offer truly new ideas. Why aren't ideas such as
R. Matsumoto's being developed further, rather than having them die on the vine? A whole new physics may be just around the corner, but our 'rear view' bias may have us miss it entirely. Well, it will happen, but perhaps not here.