What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Quantum Quack, Jul 23, 2019.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Feel free to be happy with relativity with singularities. That's possible, believers in Gods have no problems with infinities like the infinite abilities of their Gods, so why should you bother about some infinities in your beloved theories?

    I will continue to reject theories with infinities as obviously wrong (even if possibly useful as approximations, as is certainly the case with relativity.)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Most cosmologists/physicists today reject the BH singularities of infinite spacetime curvature and densities, and simply accept the singularity as defined by the limitations of our models. GR still stands as by far our most successful model of gravity.
    That's your prerogative and changes nothing in reality.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Until we have more data or someone comes up with a working alternative, it's impossible to say what relates to what. There doesn't appear to be a connection between dark matter which in most respects behaves like normal matter except for its tendency to avoid clumping up, and anomalies like dark energy which involve much more exotic behaviour, but if someone finds a way to kill both birds with one stone, great.

    If you can't provide a simple logical proof that our universe doesn't and can't contain any infinities, then you can't logically claim that it's "obvious". Considering how you compare mathematical infinities to church doctrine, it's ironic how much your reasoning mimics the latter.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I don't claim my theory does not have singularities. I know that for $\Upsilon>0$ the GR big bang and black hole singularities are prevented, and there is no evidence for singularities yet. That's all.

    By the way, my continuous ether theory does not even pretend to be the most fundamental true theory, because there will be at least one more fundamental atomic ether theory. And, as I said, approximate theories can have singularities, and this is not really a big problem.

    Those who like to see GR as fundamental are those misguided by the spacetime interpretation. "Spacetime" sounds of course very fundamental. A medium which distorts clocks and rulers not. For a theory about distortions of clocks and rulers, accepting that it is only an approximation without fundamental importance would be harmless and unproblematic, for a theory of "spacetime" not.
    A quite primitive personal attack without any base. My reasoning is more along the lines of enlightenment. I know, enlightenment is essentially dead, and we can now observe the creation of new religions.
  9. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    If your reasoning is based on the 18th century enlightenment movement, then you should be able to provide a simple logical deduction for anything you refer to as "obvious". Show us less enlightened folks why it's "obvious" that nature can't have any infinities or singularities.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    That my reasoning is more along the lines of enlightenment does not mean that it is based on it. The base remains Popperian scientific methodology. And it does not support your ideas about "simple logical deduction". This was a naive hope of logical positivists.

    Again, feel free to believe in infinities. You have billions of people on your side who believe in infinite abilities of their Gods.
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    He can't.
    All he can do is flame and troll this thread..by repeating his religious accusation baiting.
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I never claimed that I can give some logical proofs about reality. So, those who try to blame me for not being able to do things which I think are impossible in principle are those who flame and troll.

    Again, feel free to believe in infinities.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And again, what you "believe"changes nothing about any actual reality or current overwhelmingly accepted position.
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    What I claim does not even try to question what you wrote, except formulations:
    I would rewrite this in the following way:
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No one has ever said the current incumbent model, GR is 100% correct..it isn't and I don't believe any theory will ever be 100% correct. Plus as a scientist, you should know that "truth and/or reality" is not the goal of science. The goal is to ascribe theories such as GR that make outstanding predictions and align in general, to what we observe. It is a correct theory within its zone of applicability. So drop your "true" and replace it with "observationaly and experimentally verified" Also emit "acknowledged to be better" and I'll accept it. So then we have.......
    "Most cosmologists/physicists today reject the BH singularities of infinite spacetime curvature and densities, and simply accept the singularity as defined by the limitations of our models. GR still stands as the established theory of gravity. Not because it is considered to be observationaly and experimentally verified, but because there is no theory better than GR".
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Wrong. Of course, you can ask who decides what is the goal of science, and say that your own decision is this. Fine.

    One can reasonably argue in favor of instrumentalism. A scientific theory which works, thus, makes correct predictions, is useful to build useful things, to develop the technology. A lot of modern science simply has this aim - to create knowledge which could be used in technology. But this would restrict science to a subset of things which have some relevance for developing technology.

    But there are also large parts of science which have no technological applications. For these parts, the aim is simply to find the truth. And the correspondence between predictions and observations is nothing but a tool to reject false theories.
    Unfortunately, this is nonsense. Those scientists with a lack of education in scientific methodology (or which are simply sloppy if they talk to the public) which use "verified", use it in such a way that GR is named "verified". Then, the claim that there is no theory better than GR is based on nothing. In fact, it is well-known and well accepted that a quantum theory of relativistic gravity would be better than GR. There are alternative theories of gravity, and that they exist is also well-known. They have, simply, not (yet) accepted by the mainstream as being better than GR, and almost all of them never will be. But your claim is nonetheless simply wrong. As long as the alternative theories are viable, they are, in principle, on equal foot with GR, and in principle, every scientist is entitled to prefer any of them.

    So, both your suggestions are wrong.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No both my suggestions are correct and are not my suggestions anyway, but actual scientific methodological thinking, as held by the scientific community in general. You fail to realize that the evidence supports that position, and that it is you on the outside, looking in...no matter how you continually attempt to deny that position.
    GR is the accepted validated theory of gravity operating in its well know domain.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No I'm 100% correct, but I'll also accept 99.999% correct. Science is about building models, models that align with observational and experimental data, models that make correct predictions, models that can and are continually tested, verified, or even falsified if that happens. The "truth or reality" will never be really known, if it at all exists. How can we test successful theories like GR, in absolutely all conditions,in every possible case, in all the universe? We can't.
    Those unknowns and prohibitions though do not detract from how successful a theory like GR can be and is. Highlighted of course with the mounting discoveries of gravitational waves.
    Yep, so? Science has far reaching and all encompassing results that affect all our lives...knowledge of human induced global warming is an example.
    Wrong. In circumstances that you have described, science simply constructs models that align as close as possible with our observtional and experimental data. Any supposed truth or reality is most likely unobtainable, if it at all exists. And of course please check my reply above in this post.
    Yet most all scientists prefer GR. Why? because it is the most impressive theory about gravity that we have. It has been and continues to be verified and validated every day, as it is continually tested everyday, despite your claims confusing and excuses claiming otherwise. And in actual fact, your comment re scientists not properly educated in the scientific methodology, should prompt you into looking closer at home, considering a couple of basic errors [or sloppy talk] you have made.
    Again, not my suggestions, but the reasonable application of the information gained from all the scientific data, by the greater majority of scientists.
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Wrong. But feel free to support this with quotes from textbooks about scientific methodology. The scientific community follows the Popperian method. And it looks like you have not even read Popper. (Even if some string theorists don't like it and now openly try to attack it, because string theory fails to fit the criteria.)
    No. I'm a scientist who has published papers in peer-reviewed journals, you not. So, in this case you are outside, and I'm inside. Then, I accept GR in its well-known domain too (as well as Newtonian gravity and flat Earth theory - in their well-known domain).

    This claim already disqualifies you as a crank.
    So you don't even know the meaning of the word "verify"? It means "to prove that something exists or is true".
    No. Truth is obtainable. What is unobtainable is only certainty about the truth. Even the truths we have found are open to doubt and criticism, may be questioned.
    99% because they have simply never cared about alternative theories of gravity and simply don't know any such theory. This is the natural consequence of specialization.

    Then, there is simply tradition. As long as GR is not empirically falsified, while there is an alternative theory of gravity which is not, nobody will switch to an alternative theory. Which is also reasonable and unproblematic.
    I object only to your claims about "verified". Which means "proven that something is true".
    Sorry, it is you who is the layman, the one who is uneducated in scientific methodology, who uses sloppy talk all the time.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You're the one contradicting mainstream methodology every time you post, and as I see elsewhere, contradicting yourself.. The onus is on you to show evidence supporting your alternative.
    There we go again, trying to twist and turn. Yes, you are a scientist, and I have never questioned that. What I question is your holus bolus opposition to mainstream science. Which puts you on the outside looking in, particularly where cosmology is concerned.And while you accept GR in its well known domain, be frank enough to admit that it is the overwhelmingly supportive theory of gravity, because it has been so successful in matching data and making predictions and being validated every day. The Ether has been invalidated. Unless of course you are trying to establish spacetime as the ether, then all you are doing is submitting GR in another guise so to speak.
    I'm claiming nothing more then what mainstream is accepting. You are the one questioning incumbent models [nothing wrong with that] and then claiming your own is better and indulging in conspiracies of one sort or another.[plenty wrong with that] That puts the crank label, fair square on your shoulders, as it did for past crank scientists such as Arp and Lerner.
    While on face value that maybe true within a certain domain, it is not the truth or reality that you are referring to, and which as a scientist you should no better then to claim that is what science is looking for. It is not. Which leaves you wearing the crank label again.
    Twisting won't get you anywhere. The underlying truth or reality of the universe, is as I said, "probably"unobtainable, if at all it exists, and to claim that is the objective of science is crankish to say the least, for the reasons I have already given and which you ignored.
    Bullshit. 99% because GR is simply a better theory that has been validated many times and actually grows in certainty everyday. Whether that changes or not is would be just a guess.
    Yep, so? That's science and the scientific method, going with that which has proven itself to continually match and align with our data.
    No, wrong, at least not in the context of a scientific theory and its workable domain or zone of applicability.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yep, I'm the layman again something I have never denied. And yes I often use basic language as opposed to sloppy, which actually you have shown to be partial to at least twice.
    At least I will put it down to sloppiness rather then ignorance. [1] Gravity waves is wrong and the term is gravitational waves or radiation, and of course your most recent faux pas, about science seeking truth and/or reality. It isn't.
    The "truth or reality" will never be really known, if it at all exists. How can we test successful theories like GR, in absolutely all conditions,in every possible case, in all the universe? We can't.
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    A lie. In the domain of methodology, I simply follow the mainstream.
    Which exists only in your fantasy. I reject some research directions like string theory, but even these simply because they have not reached what they aimed to reach. In cosmology, I slightly favor Wilshire's timescape universe in comparison with the standard model, but this is a minor point - it is part of the mainstream too.
    If you mean "overwhelmingly supported", I have never questioned this.
    Which is what I do, see https://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether/. So, for me, the ether is simply another (and better) interpretation of relativistic gravity.
    There is nothing wrong with claiming my proposals are better than those actually preferred by the mainstream. This is how science works. Some scientists invent alternatives and give arguments about why these alternatives are better than the established theories. Most of them fail, such is life. But this is the job of theoretical scientists.
    LOL. This becomes funny. I identify a clear error in your use of "verify", and you name me a crank for this. I use the notion of "verify" which is used in philosophy of science. As it is used, for example, by Popper. Read Popper, this is standard, mainstream. And stop pretending to know something about scientific methodology until you have done this.
    Fine that you recognize that we cannot. (The question remains why you permanently use "verify" and "validate" as if we can. But, ok, your choice to use the wrong words, probably based on their popularity among bad science journalists. But you have to live with the fact that I will correct such misuse.)

    But this does not mean that we cannot find the truth. We cannot be completely sure that we have found the truth, cannot verify or validate that we have found it. But we can nonetheless find it. We know Flat Earth theory is wrong, not? Is this statement "Flat Earth theory is wrong" true or not? We know it is true. We cannot prove, or verify it, in the mathematical sense. So, the possibility to question this claim remains. But so what?

    We will know only some parts of the truth. And even those parts without complete certainty that they are really true. But so what? This does not make them false, and to know some part of the truth is something worth to aim for.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I'm not interested at this time arguing with the dishonest and contradictory methodology that is obvious with most of your posts that are in denial. Suffice to say that again the goal of science is not truth or reality [that's philosophy] its making workable models that match and predict as GR does in its outstanding record. That stands as correct despite your rhetoric to the contrary...
    As for truth, that depends on your definition. If you are just referring to reliable models, science certainly has demonstrated success at providing reliable models. However, if you are referring to reality, which is what is left after all illusion, delusion, and deception is removed, that is much more problematic. I don't know of any means of knowing that such impediments exist, much less how to remove them.
    Your other rather silly point is regarding my common sense claim that GR is verified within its zone of applicability....
    "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment."

    Now obviously with your incessant need to save face, you will argue against those two definitions and make even more conspiracy like excuses.

    Finally, I'll take your ignoring of the two examples by you of sloppy talk, as an admittance of guilt. Sloppy talk that you so hypocritically accuse me of.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    In other words, you are a freak who is too lazy to read standard scientific methodology (Popper), but prefers to link quora posts and wikipedia as the authority in scientific methodology.

    It remains to repeat: Read Popper, then come back. If that is too much for you, learn at least from wikipedia what you are implicitly supporting using "verify" and "validate" in a discussion about the scientific method, namely verificationism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism

    LOL. "Admittance of guilt" for writing once somewhere gravity waves instead of gravitational waves. You are really funny. And, BTW, such postings in a forum are a place where sloppy formulations are not a problem, and I admittedly also sometimes write in a sloppy way.
    Nonsense. The first who used the accusation "sloppy talk" were you, I have simply returned it. (in the first appearance, I have described only the use of sloppy talk by physicists in public forums, not used it as as accusation against you.) The problem with you is that you have somehow copypasted some sloppy talk about "verification" (which is, unfortunately, and misleadingly, indeed quite common) and now post this repeatedly and present it as if it would not be some misleading but more or less unproblematic sloppy talk but the established scientific methodology.

    If you catch me with some sloppy wording, I have no problem to clarify this and to explain what was sloppy, and what would be the correct description. In this form, sloppy wording is quite unproblematic. But if one repeats it and insists that this sloppy wording is correct science, this is problematic.

Share This Page