What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?

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

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Freak? Gee Schmelzy you appear to be slightly miffed! Take it easy matey. Again while I havn't read Popper and don't intend to, I have a reasonable knowledge of what the scientific methodology is and how it is applied.
    As others have told you in other threads, you most certainly do approach a subject dishonestly, and are "expert" in twisting words and such to suit your own bias. While its sad that your pet ether theory will be lost in oblivion, that is not my fault nor any concern of mine. I'm just informing you, as a lay person to a supposed scientist, that GR is our overwhelmingly accepted theory of gravity and is verified, and validated everyday, within its zones of applicability.
    Playing semantics and pedant doesn;t work with me my old friend. Again whether you like it or not, GR is verified and validated everyday, within its zones of applicability. You will be a better scientist when you accept that.
    Í don't believe it is at all funny to have a lay person pick you [a supposed scientist] up on a rather silly misuse of one of the greatest predictions of GR.
    And yet being the hypocrite that you are, and as you have shown elsewhere, you try and attempt to argue and use semantics against the fact that GR is validated and verified everyday, within it's domain of applicability.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Was it? I don't believe that to be true, but then like many of your questionable unsupported accusations and claims, they are just that...questionable and unsupported.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oh brother!!! I'll modify my claim then. Yes you have actually only made one rather sloppy posting..that being referring to the greatest prediction of GR as gravity waves. The other point re denying that GR is validated and verified everyday within its zones of applicability, is nothing more then a dishonest ignorant attempt to save some face. So sloppiness and dishonesty, thanks for the correction.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Actually there is a third faux pas on your part Schmelzer...I almost forgot. Your claim that science is after truth and that this is the goal of science. Again, it is not and you are 100% wrong, but I'll accept that I am 99.999% correct.
    As I said previously, the goal of science is constructing models that align with what we observe and as an explanation of our experimental results. Truth and reality is not the primary goal, but of course if the model constructed just happens to reveal that truth or reality, all well and good.
    In summing then, 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.
    But here is a more professional explanation as to why once again you seem to have the Bull by the wrong end......

    Berj Manoushagian, Philosopher, Epistemology, Alethiology (1981-present)
    Answered Jul 17, 2018
    Q: As an eighteen-year old freshman at MIT, I believed discovering the truth was the goal of science.

    We would first have to know what “truth” is. And since science does not know what is truth, scientists would not know if they ever encountered it.

    Furthermore, we should not expect to find truth (“unchanging laws”) in a universe where everything is in a constant state of mutation.

    The purpose of science is not to discover truth. The purpose of science is to make inductions based upon our experiences. From these inductions, science creates models about how we believe the world operates. And with these models as our guides, we can try and predict effects from previous causes, and help us to deal with the physical world around us.

    Science calls these models “laws.” But “laws” of science are not prescriptive, they are only descriptive. A descriptive law, unlike a prescriptive law, cannot force nature to behave a certain way. It is called descriptive because it is a description of how we believe nature works. And since we are not omniscient, we will never be able to find out the real laws that govern the universe.

    Science is a method of trying to predict the future. It is the modern form of the ancient oracles. It has been more successful than those prognosticators, but God has not given the gift of prophecy to modern scientists.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I don't think it's any different. That "as we know them" would be automatically assumed by all scientists from the start. These postulates take what is known already (i.e. in the absence of the postulates) for granted, then push the science forward by seeing what the implications are of adding these extra postulates.

    All new hypotheses start with what is already known. You don't toss the baby out with the bathwater and start from scratch every time you want to put forward a tentative theory.

    If your claim is that the laws of physics apply differently in different frames, it is up to you to support your claim.

    It is certainly possible, in principle, that the laws of physics could be different in different regions of the universe, say, or at different times in the universe's history, or whatever. But if that's the claim you want to make, you need to test that claim. You can't just assert it. Science is based on evidence.

    That's always a risk in science. We do the best we can with what we've got. It goes with the territory.

    If you think that these things create problems for relativity, it is up to you to make your case for why they are problems. The assumption on your part appears to be that you think you can address these issues either without relativity, or by making some modification to relativity. But you have done nothing to show that you can do this.

    In other words, your objection to relativity, as far as I can tell, is that there are some puzzles that we haven't solved. Your assumption is that these puzzles exist due to some flaw in relativity, but that's just an assumption you're making, as far as I can tell.

    Do you have anything more than a vague wish that relativity ought to be wrong?
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The hypothesis that "current theories might be wrong" is a given in science. But that hypothesis, on its own, explains nothing and suggests no research program for advancing our knowledge. It is merely a trite truism.

    If you think you have an explanation that obviates the need for dark matter, by all means tell us all what it is, and we'll look into it. But saying "I don't like dark matter, so I'm just going to assume that relativity is probably wrong" takes us nowhere.
    Seattle and Schmelzer like this.
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Paddoboy has completely freaked out, it seems meaningless to continue such a discussion.

    He is obviously uneducable, has now said explicitly refused to read the relevant literature about scientific methodology and instead quotes, as "professional explanation", in red, a quora posting of the "Author of Three Easy Steps to Enlightenment at Transcendentwritings.com", a nice book about which we can read on that website:
    Then paddoboy continues with a long quote of some Berj Manoushagian, who describes himself as "Principal: Institute on the Nature of Truth", who gives us on quora deep insights about Truth of the following type:
    That's "professional explanation" as preferred by paddoboy. In comparison with such professionals, it is, of course, not worth the time to read Popper. (Yes, sometimes I use ad hominem too. I know that ad hominem is weak, but sometimes it is simply fun to use it, as in this case.)
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    yes and sometimes he who sees himself as a professional, and then makes basic fundamental errors such as [1] calling gravitational waves, gravity waves, [2] Refusing to recognise that truth and/or reality is not the goal of science, and [3] claiming that GR has not been validated and verified within its zones of applicability and continues to this day to be further validated within said zones, must be at desperation times, and needs to save face and resort to meaningless rhetoric, and of course adhoms. As I said earlier Schmelzy baby, I'm the one quoting mainstream and aligning with the accepted scientific methodology, you are the freak, trying to save face, and using every pedantic means in that attempt.
    Let me conclude once again, that despite your obviously anguish, GR is our current theory of gravity, that has been validated and verified within its zones of applicability many times, and continues to do so, passing tests every day as we speak.
    Whether it represents the underlying truth or reality, is not known and maybe never known, but as most reputable scientists do know, truth and/or reality is not the goal of science, creating models that align with experimental results and our observational data is the goal of science. If by chance we happen to hit upon that, all well and good.
    Now Schmelzer, my advice to you despite being caught out by a lay person, is to sit back relax, suck it up and admit that on now three occasions your opinions and claims have been found wanting.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Another from
    Science is:

    • Processes for creating reliable models of the natural world;
    • Models that result from the application of those processes; and
    • Application of those models.
    This definition outlines the purpose of science, but note that science does not have goals--people do. People can choose to apply science with particular goals in mind.

    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.
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The facts stand. GR theory is by far the most outstanding theory of gravity that we have, and has been validated and verified many times within its zones of applicability, and as a classical theory.
    The object of science is to construct models that explain our experimental results and align with our observational data. It is not out seeking truth and /or reality, if such truth and reality exists. Of course if such a theory happens to discover such truth and/or reality, then all well and good.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    So what? The question of the thread was "What would it take to prove Einstein wrong?" Remember?

    Unless you're claiming that it's impossible that Einstein could ever be wrong. Is that what you're saying?
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Obviously the thread got side-tracked.
    Do you believe that is what I'm saying James?
    But here James, these following earlier posts show that two great minds think alike..,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [highlights by me]
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  15. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    "any experiment" that didn't produce results in accordance with GR would most likely be doubted. There would need to be many experiments.

    That is to say, experiments are statistical tests. One experiment isn't a statistic; you need, these days, a statistical result with a 5-sigma accuracy, like the experiments at the LHC, say. So that's what it would take.
    paddoboy likes this.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Well said...two things come immediately to mind. The first was an obviously false reading that showed neutrinos travelling FTL...In Italy somewhere from memory. It turned out to be a faulty wiring problem or similar. The second was what was called the Pioneer anomaly.

  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    It has nothing to do with what I like or do not like...

    Missing mass - Dark matter:
    How can someone dislike an imaginary substance used to fudge an error?
    A mistake that involves 84% is one hell of a massive mistake don't you think?
    A 16 % success rate is pretty damning IMO.
    Remembering that the the missing matter equals missing gravity... based on a theory of gravity that is so obviously flawed due to being instrumental in predicting that 84% of the universe is literally missing.

    Perhaps you can explain why science is prepared to fudge an 84% error?

    If it was 90% would that be any different?

    Google : Is dark matter a fudge?
    and you get over 5.4 million results.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Of course it is a "fudge" but you are overlooking that the theory explains pretty much 99 percent of what we observe in our everyday life. Just because space is vast and dark matter makes up 27 percent of it doesn't negate everywhere else that it does explain.

    Dark energy may be 73 percent but that doesn't mean when we look out the window we don't know what most of what we are looking at is. Sure it makes an eye catching headline to say "Scientists don't know what 96 percent of the Universe is made of but it's pretty misleading in most contexts.
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I am not disputing the value of a theory even if it is proven incorrect in such a dramatic fashion ...
    I am not overlooking the efficacy of GR.
    The need for Dark matter, on it's own, proves that GR has definitive limitations especially when considering that other gravitational anomalies such as dark flow and the Great Attractor also have a missing mass issue.

    I also understand how the issue of missing mass can make Physicists feel insecure and feel the need to defend something that requires no defense. (certainly not from me)

    I am sure the top scientists have every good reason to seriously consider Dark Matter.
  20. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    I think a valid question is how often are particle accelerators used, like decaying pions, to test relativity?
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Quantum Quack:

    What mistake? If you have identified a mistake of some kind, please post your correction. Better yet, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.

    It is not obvious that the theory of gravity is flawed. That's just your opinion, as far as I can tell. If you've got more than a hunch, you know what to do.

    What error?

    And so?

    It proves no such thing, unless you know that dark matter isn't real, but rather is an artifact of a failed theory. If you have something solid to present, you know what to do.

    Nothing's under any serious attack. Not from you, anyway. Not yet. You only have an unevidenced opinion, as far as I can tell.

    That makes two of us.
  22. river

    To the OP .

    That space and time , or space-time , matters to the objects anywhere in the Universe .
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    it's not me that's making that claim of missing mass. I didn't do the math needed to arrive at such a conclusion.
    Perhaps you missed my earlier post.. (I'll re-post it here)
    The missing mass problem.

    [159] Most of the mass in the universe is missing. Or is it merely hidden in some exotic, as yet undetectable form? No one is sure which. One thing is sure, though. The problem of the missing mass has gotten to the point where it is more than just a problem. It is an embarrassment, an obstacle to understanding such things as the structure of galaxies, the evolution of clusters of galaxies, and the ultimate fate of the universe.

    A simple analogy illustrates the problem. Suppose the rockets inserting a spacecraft into an orbit around Earth were to burn too long, providing too much thrust. Then the gravitational pull of Earth would be overcome, and the spacecraft would shoot out of orbit into interplanetary space. Fortunately for astronauts, scientists can calculate quite accurately how much thrust is needed for a given orbit, so this does not happen. But suppose, through a computer error, the rockets burned too long and the spacecraft was accelerated to a speed twice as fast as the proper orbital speed-yet the spacecraft stayed in orbit! You would be forced to conclude that either Earth had more mass than you had supposed and hence a stronger gravitational pull, or that the theory you had used to make the calculation was in error.(**)

    This is about the situation astrophysicists find themselves in today. Not in trying to understand the motion of planets around the Sun-the theory works fine there-but in trying to understand the motions of stars and gas in the outer regions of galaxies, or of galaxies and gas in clusters of galaxies.
    src: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-466/ch22.htm

    The article by NASA is actually a good read... and shows just how "lost in space" we are...embarrassingly so...

    I would add, (**)"or the laws of physics that support the theories, as you understood them, were incomplete or incorrect."

    It follows, then, that the speed of rotation of the stars and gas should decline as one moves from the inner to the outer regions of galaxies.
    Much to the surprise and consternation of astronomers, this is not what is observed. As radio and optical observations have extended the velocity measurements for the stars and gas to the outer regions of spiral galaxies, they have found that the stars and gas clouds are moving at the same speed as the ones closer in!

    so they are observing outer stars orbiting galactic center at the same speed as inner ones!

    How does current physical law explain that?

    "A twirling, spinning figure skater would loose her arms over this"

    Personally I think it makes for a great discussion if only posters are not so defensive about Einstein's brilliant work. Certainly NASA appears to be objective about it all...
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2019

Share This Page