"As long as you don't have math (and hence can't make quantitative descriptions and predictions), you are not doing physics - you are merely making up stories." - Bjoern (source).
Astronomy is quantitative.
I'm sure we've all read about some of the earliest astronomers, and their quantitative calculations - the Caldeans and the Saros cycle, and Maya astronomy, to take just two examples.
In the history of (western) science, the detailed quantitative observations made by Brahe enabled Copernicus and Kepler to do the detailed quantitative calculations that lead to the quantitative description of heliocentric (elliptical) planetary orbits.
Newton not only developed a quantitative (physics) theory that accounted for those orbits (and much more besides), but also a whole new branch of mathematics, the better to work with this new theory.
In modern times, the vast majority of astronomical data is quantitative, and observations made in wavebands other than the optical (and often enough there too) are based on the application of quantitative (physics) theory - from TeV gammas 'imaged' using the air Cherenkov technique, to 'radio images' of M87 jets obtained by very long baseline interferometry (VLBI).
The theory of General Relativity (GR) superceded Newton's theory of gravity ... based on the quantitative results of experiments and observations designed to test the quantitative predictions of that theory. Cosmology today is based on GR, and some of the most stringent tests of GR are astronomical.
And so on.
Yet it seems many proponents of ATM ideas have little or no regard for this quintessentially quantitative aspect of astronomy, let alone astrophysics or cosmology ... at least, that is my conclusion from reading a great many of these ideas.
How can this be?
Do the proponents of non-quantitative ATM ideas feel that these ideas are exempt, somehow, from the kind of scrutiny which the rest of astronomy is subject to? That a re-writing of all of astronomy is possible, to put it on a purely qualitative basis? That vague, qualitative ideas are somehow superior to detailed numerical models built from quantitative physics theories?
I am puzzled.
So I started this thread to give those who disagree with Bjoern the opportunity to present their case.
What is the realm - within astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - within which an insistence on maths, numbers, equations and stuff is misplaced, or even downright antithetical to science?
How can ATM ideas - in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - be tested, other than by quantitative means?
FYI, here, here, and here are much earlier threads on closely related topics.