Absent some ongoing event that is creating the time aspect of spacetime, which no observation supports, spacetime is extant as a field, which we observe of it's spatial aspect. Given that space is visibly a field, how could time not be, since spacetime is one thing?
This idea is absent from the list because it has no mathematical formulation. Qualitatively, there are issues with it (we already discussed them) and without any way to make predictions to be compared with data, there is no way to get it considered by physicists. For this, a way to make predictions is unavoidably needed.
We have evidence that mass in the past and future do effect gravity in the past - the same evidence used to claim some other form of matter must exist - of more gravity being effected than matter observed effects in a given instant. The matter observed presently isn't extant presently. It is present at various times in the past, depending on how far away from us it is and how long it took light from there to reach us. It is assumed to only effect gravity in a series of sequential instants, across a spatial field. But spacetime is a field and time is not separate from that field, not only occurring as a sequence of instants that confine the affect of matter in that field to such instants.
Do you mind showing me which evidence we have that future events impact us? I am not aware of any.
Note that there is no direct evidence for dark matter. The only thing we know is that the simplest explanation for many cosmological observations requires it. This is not an evidence, which is actively searched for today.
Moreover, it is not a proof we need dark matter at all costs. Maybe the greatest explanation has not been invented yet. Who knows? In the meantime, this is a model (which is slightly different from a theory) that works well.
[…] Math is very powerful, but it is not the only thing necessary to understand physical reality.
The purpose of physics is to provide a description of any phenomenon from a small number of fundamental principles. There, we rely on what we call a theory. In common parlance the word “theory” describes an attempt to explain events. In scientific language, it is different. A theory is a mathematical structure which precisely explains all known experimental facts in a certain domain.
Therefore, maths are needed for physics. Also, the example of the clock you raised, I don’t see how it does not agree with what I wrote. For each aspect, there are laws allowing to understand it, that we can formulate mathematically.
Let me know move on with the discussion on falsification.
Estimating the movements of the masses involved over time would be necessary to estimate the intensity of the acceleration from masses in former and future positions than observed presently, as well as the impact of the inverse square law on mass earlier or later than the time of observation.
How is this possible? You could this estimation be done? How should I modify the calculations to account for this? Without this, the idea is neither testable nor falsifiable, isn’t it? This is what puzzles me from the beginning.
these are the kinds of calculations that have produced the claim ~85% of the mass effecting gravity is invisible,
I disagree with this. Classical mechanics and observations of visible objects in the universe have shown a disagreement. Adding some invisible mass and redoing the calculations using the same laws allowed to obtain agreement between theory and data.
However, the story does not stop with galaxy rotation curves. There are many cosmological observations for which predictions can be made and that feature agreement with data once the same dark matter is accounted for. For that reason, I insisted several time on the fact that the standard model of cosmology will only be replaced by something that does as good related to data.