What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

paddoboy:

So you dismiss the possibility that you may be the one with the problem? That is not encouraging, especially since James R, others, and I, have pointed out where your problems may lie.

You kneejerking like this, and expediently and unreasonably characterizing our joint efforts at pointing out those things for your benefit as "pretentious nonsense", is in itself a concrete indication that what James R, others, and I, have pointed out for your benefit was all too necessary and correct; and immediately falsifies your above claim that you "have" reflected.

When you can actually refute with cogent arguments and without defaulting to appeals to authority or your own faith based opinions, then you will have done what is necessary in a science discussion, irrespective of the poster. But as long as you fail to actually refute from your own cogent argument of the science instead of attacking the person etc, then you are just making empty posts which incite, inflame, insult or derail the discussion. Let those who can refute with science arguments addressing the OP do the necessary. Don't add your own trolling against those whom you perceive as trolls just because you cannot engage them in the science as others can.

And your "redshift debacle" assertions were already addressed and refuted elsewhere. Why drag it out again? The same problem (ie, certain responders not reading or understanding the subtleties involved in the OP before opining on their own straw men) was what caused the (all too common in the past?) "debacle"; not me or my OP. Do you understand the subtle point there now, paddoboy?

Please stop kneejerking; and do really take time out to consider what subtleties you may have missed or misunderstood that leads you to such intolerant attitudes, irrelevant attacks, trolling and derailing. Best.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ignoring our crank........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity

Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideologicalbases.[A 1][A 2][A 3] Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community.[1]

There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy:

Yet another concrete indicator of your inability to sense subtleties, even those unwittingly imbedded in your own statements and opinions. For example, your above use of the collective possessive term "our" is effectively and arrogantly presuming to speak for all Sciforums members and staff.

Do you realize how wrong in fact and in spirit such attempts at unfounded characterization are, paddoboy? It is both immature tactics and unscientific claim at best,; and just plain insulting, inciting, inflaming etc trolling tactics at worst.

Seriously, paddoboy, please take time out to reflect on that subtle point as well; among all the other subtle points conveyed for your benefit by James R, others, and myself. Best.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy:

This discussion is trying to get something sufficiently coherent together that may eventually be refereed and published; so why are you again posting the obvious while we are discussing towards that end; an end which will be determined by the course of this discussion of all the issues that may make the aLIGO claims less than claimed?

Please stop bombing appeals to authority which may not actually be taking into account the matters raised here which are coherent and scientific except when you post your faith based convictions and appeals to authority which may be irrelevant to the actual points raised in the OP which question the generalized claims from orthodoxy to date re GR GWs and claims of detection of such.

I ask you once again to not derail the discussion as before. Don't start another "bombing" and derailing flurry of empty posts as before. Please let the science discussion flow without interrupting with irrelevancies and faith based opinions and appeals to authority. Thankyou, paddoboy.

 

There are more "appeals to authority" as you put it to come.
enjoy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As per the thread title, what is required to falsify a accepetd theory, is of course observational and/or experimental evidence that conflicts with what the theory suggests. So far despite many valiant attempts by many trying to upstage Albert, GR still stands as the overwhelmingly accepted theory that matches reality best.

What certainly doesn't invalidate or falsify mainstream accepted theories is the type of nonsense expressed in the following.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/desperate-denial-of-general-relativity-by-the-god.156616/page-10

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-mainstream-views-on.156052/


Many many other valiant attempts can be seen in the cesspool and/or pseudoscience sections.

 

paddoboy:

What follows may be too subtle for you to absorb fully right away, and so may be tempted again to kneejerk, paddoboy; but please try to contain yourself until you have tried hard to understand the subtleties involved. Here we go:

There are more ways than one to falsify a theory and claims made according to that theory. There is the matter of Internal and External logical inconsistencies and also External Interpretational alternatives of the actual observations made before theory assumptions and interpretations are applied.

If a theory is found to have internal inconsistencies then no further action is necessary to falsify it. If a theory is claiming something observed is consistent with that theory, then a dissenting perspective presenting an alternative theory interpretation of the observations which is also consistent with what is observed severely constrains either theory from claims as to "exclusivity" of interpretation and confirmation etc. If some observation is found to not be consistent with a theory as it stands, that theory is falsified.

Now paddoboy, consider all that in conjunction with what James R, others, and I, have already pointed out about the aLIGO claims (and my and others' lessons pointed out re bicep2 'detection' and 'claims' etc).

Also consider the reason for being of these threads and discussions (such as Q-reeus's) which attempt to tease out all the relevant factors which go to possible Internal inconsistencies, External inconsistencies and Non Exclusivity of claims for observational Interpretation and confirmation etc.

After that you should have a better sense of what these discussions here and elsewhere are all about. They are not mere rubber stamping "blog" for mainstream claims (if that is what you want, there are plenty of those you can go to and enjoy). Here is a site for delving into the contentious and as yet unsettled aspects of orthodoxy which still bear objective and deeper scrutiny according to the scientific method. If anything comes of these discussions directly (or indirectly by the chance that some passing professional sees some point which piques their own valid scientific questions and further objective scrutiny), none of us can tell at this juncture.

Only finalized discussion one way or the other here, or future developments in the wider scientific discourse elsewhere, can tell. So please be patient and tolerant of actual science discussion, without kneejerking and immediate resort to name calling and mischaracterization just because of your own faith based opinions and low expectations of discussions here. Thanks, paddoboy. Best.

 

See, Paddoboy.

Neither your appeal to Thorne nor to David was decided on merit...

So if you get more such nonsensical responses, pl do not post.

 

Yeah sure my friend, sure!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At least three or four more to come......
At least if they find the time to reply to the nonsense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would really worry about what James has pointed out to yourself, particularly the four or five posts that he totally removed from the site, due to their insane nature.

Obviously the rest of your same old same old, hasn't even been read,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The need for you is to realise that amateurs on a science forum will near certainly not have any say in what the expert professionals have researched, obviously so.
You should really be thankful that some have taken the time to reply, in qu-reeus's thread and expressed their hurried views, and others in the past that have refuted nonsensical claims of others here.
Now you need to stop preaching or pretending to be the Holy Father [that's called blasphemy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] and assume your place as a pupil of which most of us are...listen, learn, read, take notice, learn again hopefully, and then you may get somewhere.

As Professor Blair said in the other thread....quote, "I have learnt over the years that it is best to ignore these people unless they are able to put something sufficiently coherent together that it gets refereed and published.You can’t prove ideas such as these by words alone".

 

paddoboy:

I see that The God has logged out. So before he comes back in to continue your relevant exchange as above, I would like to post this information as an FYI for your benefit before he returns:

Sir Roger Penrose was one of the founding fathers establishing the Big Bang theory. He said that whenever anyone asked him what came before the Big Bang, he would give the stock reply to the effect that the concept of "Before" was meaningless because time itself "began with the Big Bang". In other words, he too treated such questions as "nonsense" and gave kneejerked and insufficiently considered replies to legitimate questions seen as "nonsense" by the "experts" at that time. However, Sir Roger in later years regretted such kneejerk dismissals while characterizing obviously legitimate questions as "nonsense" merely because he had no real answer that made any more sense than the question! As you and all of us now know, those early questioners and questions (then treated cavalierly and arrogantly as "nonsense") prompted much review by those very fathers of Big Bang theory, and now mainstream itself is actively engaged in asking the question and trying to get an answer to what was once upon a time deemed "nonsense" by arrogant and evasive "experts".

The lesson which one can take away from that is:

An "expert" may at one stage treat a question or alternative as "nonsense", based on their own personal kneejerking and arrogant evasive attitude because they have no proper answer which is any less "nonsensical" than the legitimate questions asked. However, as the case with Roger Penrose, he later, much later, admitted that his earlier stock answer was a cop out avoiding facing the logical and physical implications of what the honest and considered scientific anwers to those questions may reveal.

So, paddoboy, beware "expert" opinions which have not properly considered the question or ideas properly before kneejerking to the usual stock standard replies which do nothing to advance the discussion on its merits. Best.

 

A wonderful video and explanation of the scientific methodology.........
By one of the umm, greats??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, I believe I can assume with reasonable confidence that he is one of the greats.

 

How could you say you see that the god has logged out? When as obvious to all, he hides is logging in, logging out details.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wanna try again?

 

paddoboy:

Obviously mistaken impression. Thanks for the heads up re his hidden logged in/out status. Have you taken note of the Sir Roger Penrose example of experts treating something as "nonsense" even when they are at all nothing of the kind? That is something which occurs, and can affect your own beliefs in your own expert sources and replies if you do not treat each case on its merits in discussion and not just as generalization that scrutiny and questions are "nonsense" just because you or an expert have made your mind up without considering all possible alternative perspectives. Have to log out. Best until next time, paddoboy.

 

I question this here so as not to fall for your purposely worked plan to off track the other nonsensical claim thread....

Again, how could you say that you have seen that the god has logged out, when he hides his log in and log out details? Interesting....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rubbish, where did you learn your history of physics? Seems I was correct about you not being a professional which you claimed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let me straighten you out: Sir Roger Penrose was not one of the founding fathers of the BB. Perhaps George LaMaitre, Friedman, Gamow, De-Sitter, Hubble could be termed as founding Fathers, certainly not Sir Roger Penrose. From memory he did in the late sixties, work with Stephen Hawking with regards to Singularities, but the BB was already popular by then.
I stopped reading your post at that point.

 

I'll 'see you' tomorrow (hopefully), paddoboy. Best.

 

Let's hope you learn something before then...on two counts....honesty and knowledge.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have certainly made a few points clear, and I certainly hope that I have also made a few points clear.

That's OK with me. I have so far posted two E-Mails from expert professionals in the GR/GW field, both essentially writing it off as the usual antics by the many out to show GR and the great man as wrong.
I have [I hope] more to come and hope I maybe lucky enough to snag a reply that does delve into the deeper mathematics of it.
Of course my other beef was the totally over the top arrogance and petulance in the title, and the continued issuing of challenges etc throughout and asking who had the balls to take him up on it.
That sums up the point I made the other day, re my total lack of respect for such arrogance.

And in Cosmoquest he would have been directed to stick it in the "alternative"section, with a month to answer all questions and explain why it invalidates GR.
That sensibly would/should have been where he posted it, considering the 110% confidence he has in his hypothesis.

In summing I would imagine you/mods are getting heaps of reports about myself and I would also guess that each of those reports are from 3 or 4 people.
Perhaps you need to check out the last 15 or so posts on this thread and notice the trolling/evangelising/goading/preaching and general pretentious nonsense from one in particular.
Sure I could take your past advice and the advice of the latest professional E-Mail reply and ignore this person. But I'm also a stubborn old bastard, albeit reasonable I hope.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure you may have noticed...and equally, I'm sure you have noticed I have not reported it. You be the judge.

 

That highlighted is obviously true and applies to that other thread. I made my position, in response to your own earlier mistaken judgement, perfectly clear WAY BACK in Summary part of what is now, still, #58 that other thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/si...gws-are-impossible.157012/page-3#post-3392761
Can you spot anywhere, before or since, that I have deviated from that? That others may wish to pursue such diversions is not my responsibility!
Of course, given the claim GR has it wrong re GW's, it was entirely responsible to anticipate ahead of time certain inevitable accusations by pointing to one alternate theory consistent with aLIGO detections. All done without ever promoting such as THE TRUE gravity theory.