What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

Yazata said:
Does 'GC' mean 'galactic center'?

I guess that I'd say that the stars in our galaxy appear to orbit the center of mass of the galaxy. I'm not sure that any object physically occupies that point, the way that the Sun does in our solar system. Maybe there's a single supermassive black hole at that point, or maybe there are several massive black holes and very dense star clusters near the galactic center that orbit their common center of mass.



What alternative? That the stars in the galaxy aren't orbiting or that they are orbiting, but orbiting something other than the center? I don't understand what your thesis is.
Click to expand...

Yes 'GC' is galctic Center.
There is no doubt that the Sun is moving around the GC, but does it have a companion ? Does the sun have any other smaller closed orbit before the bigger one around GC. For example the Earth has a smaller closed orbit around the Sun before a very large around GC. Another example the moon has a small closed orbit around Earth, then Sun and finally GC.

Hope its clear.
 
Last edited:
The God:

I assume that is a typo in the opening part of your post. If I'm not mistaken in reading you in context, I think it should it read "There is no doubt that the Sun is moving around the GC",...

I only brought it up just in case anyone else saw it and uses that as an excuse for...whatever. Best.
 
expletives deleted said:
The God:

I assume that is a typo in the opening part of your post. If I'm not mistaken in reading you in context, I think it should it read "There is no doubt that the Sun is moving around the GC",...

I only brought it up just in case anyone else saw it and uses that as an excuse for...whatever. Best.
Click to expand...


Thanks, corrected.
 
The God said:
but does it have a companion ?
Click to expand...
No.
The God said:
Does the sun have any other smaller closed orbit before the bigger one around GC.
Click to expand...
No.

The God said:
Hope its clear.
Click to expand...
As far as all our myriads of probes and such like WISE can tell us, the Sun is not a part of any other stellar system.
It's orbit around the galactic center is certainly perturbed, moving upwards and downwards below the galactic plane, on smaller scales, but it orbits the galactic center and we can be sure of that within any definition of reasonable doubt.
 
expletives deleted said:
I hope this will help avoid further misunderstandings about who is claiming what and who is merely making observations which bring those claims into question due to new information. Thankyou for understanding. Best.
Click to expand...

All you need to do is present such Information! If it really exists! :rolleyes:
How many times do you need to be asked that!
 
James R said:
I will investigate.
Click to expand...
Better late then never I suppose.
And while you are at it, I have also had suspicions re the god and expletive deleted as being one and the same, and again, I'm sure many agree with me.
Latest evidence supporting that is the recent exchange as follows..........
post 171:
What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?
expletives deleted said:
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:
Click to expand...
POST 173:
paddoboy said:
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.
:D Wanna try again?
Click to expand...
POST 174:
expletives deleted said:
paddoboy:
Obviously mistaken impression. Thanks for the heads up re his hidden logged in/out status.
Click to expand...
and then lo and behold!
expletives deleted said:
I'll 'see you' tomorrow (hopefully), paddoboy. Best.
Click to expand...
 
what is needed is access to state of the art tech. by the theories that question the accepted theories , as the accepted have access to.

to begin with.

the have access to the information that the accepted theories have but is not open information that should be open to anyone .

we can handle the truth . we can handle the truth .

in any field of ology.
 
Last edited:
Children discuss gravity...

To say whether they "saw"" GW, at first we must answer following questions:
1) What is internal structure of gravitational fields?
2) Why we still cannot unify GR and QP/SM?
3) Why gravity is non-linear whereas QP is linear?
4) Why gravity is so weak in comparison with the SM interactions?
5) Can gravitons be non-gravitating or superluminal (in GR, there is no limit for speed and GR is non-local; the speed c of GW is assumed i.e. does not follow from theory)?

And so on...

In my opinion, they "saw" flows in the part of spacetime associated with the electromagnetic fields, not with gravitational fields.

Notice that the fall of the superstring theory is highly instructive.

To disprove an accepted theory, we must show that such theory is incoherent. GR is incomplete so there appear as well solutions that cannot be realized by Nature.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
To say whether they "saw"" GW, at first we must answer following questions:
1) What is internal structure of gravitational fields?
2) Why we still cannot unify GR and QP/SM?
3) Why gravity is non-linear whereas QP is linear?
4) Why gravity is so weak in comparison with the SM interactions?
5) Can gravitons be non-gravitating or superluminal (in GR, there is no limit for speed and GR is non-local; the speed c of GW is assumed i.e. does not follow from theory)?
And so on...
Click to expand...
That's not how science works. There are millions of similar questions, and none of them will be finally answered simply by thinking about these questions.

Scientists develop theories. These theories are quite complex things, and do not depend on some answers to such questions. They are, essentially, hypotheses, guesses. But based on such hypothetical theories, one can already answer many questions - even if only in a very special form, namely "if this theory is true, then ...". This is how such questions are answered.
 
Schmelzer said:
That's not how science works. There are millions of similar questions, and none of them will be finally answered simply by thinking about these questions.

Scientists develop theories. These theories are quite complex things, and do not depend on some answers to such questions. They are, essentially, hypotheses, guesses. But based on such hypothetical theories, one can already answer many questions - even if only in a very special form, namely "if this theory is true, then ...". This is how such questions are answered.
Click to expand...


In part you’re right. Why partially only?

When we take into account the leading mainstream theories then we can see that today ToE does not exist. It means that speculation is not threatened. But why the peer-review scientific journals do not specify speculation treated as a religion by the elders in the particle physics and cosmology? It is obvious that such a method stupid young scientists because they assume that elders must be right - see

http://m.thenational.ae/uae/science-at-a-crossroads-as-supersymmetry-theory-falls-flat

Some people claim that they detected GW. But they did not write that the GR black hole is a speculation because physical singularities cannot be in existence. Notice that I do not claim that some non-GR black holes are not in existence. They did not write that the luminal speed of GW is a speculation because the c in the d’Alembertian in the theory of GW is a speculation - d’Alembertian can be used in electromagnetism because there is the experimental result for speed of electromagnetic waves whereas there is not an experimental analog for speed of GW.

Do you see that speculation very frequently lead to abuse? And the falling supersymmetry theory is a good example. I claim that the GW will end as the supersymmetry theory because of the big inconsistency of the GR concerning the GW.

The peer-review scientific journals should not tolerate theories containing infinities, singularities, mathematical indeterminate forms or flexibility that leads to invariants because such theories are physically incoherent. Can they do it or corruption is too strong?
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
But why the peer-review scientific journals do not specify speculation treated as a religion by the elders in the particle physics and cosmology? It is obvious that such a method stupid young scientists because they assume that elders must be right
Click to expand...
The example of the elders has always been an existing but not decisive problem in science. The aim of the scientist - to make some own contribution to scientific progress - is strong enough.

Much more problematic is that the jobs of scientists in the modern organization of science are the most insecure jobs imaginable. They have a job for some time of a grant, one or two years, and after this have to look for a new job. To get one, one has essentially only one choice - to publish as much as possible in some mainstream fashion. The exact opposite to what one would need for freedom of science.

Freedom of science would be much higher if scientists would, say after PhD, given a possibly low paid but safe job. Same principle as for judges or so, they can be considered as independent only if they have safe jobs.
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Some people claim that they detected GW. But they did not write that the GR black hole is a speculation because physical singularities cannot be in existence.
Click to expand...
Of course, at least near singularities GR has to be replaced by a better theory. But GWs are not even close to singularities, so there is no reason to doubt much about GW predictions. And there is already a lot of observational evidence for objects quite similar to GR BHs. Or, more accurate, objects which, for far away observers, look like GR BHs. So, these things are not really problematic, and there is nothing to object with how these observations have been handled.
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Do you see that speculation very frequently lead to abuse? And the falling supersymmetry theory is a good example.
Click to expand...
The problem is not speculation - all scientific theories are the result of speculations. Even the successful theories differ from speculations only by the point that they have allowed to make (speculative) predictions which were testable, and the tests have supported the predictions of these speculations. But even the best imaginable success of such type of "confirmation" is unable to show that the speculation is more than partially right, or that it is more than just a close but wrong approximation of the truth.
Sylwester Kornowski said:
I claim that the GW will end as the supersymmetry theory because of the big inconsistency of the GR concerning the GW.
Click to expand...
I cannot see any such inconsistency.
Sylwester Kornowski said:
The peer-review scientific journals should not tolerate theories containing infinities, singularities, mathematical indeterminate forms or flexibility that leads to invariants because such theories are physically incoherent. Can they do it or corruption is too strong?
Click to expand...
In this case, nor Newtonian theory, nor GR should have been published. Because above contain infinities. I doubt this would have been a good idea.
 
Schmelzer said:
The example of the elders has always been an existing but not decisive problem in science. The aim of the scientist - to make some own contribution to scientific progress - is strong enough.

Much more problematic is that the jobs of scientists in the modern organization of science are the most insecure jobs imaginable. They have a job for some time of a grant, one or two years, and after this have to look for a new job. To get one, one has essentially only one choice - to publish as much as possible in some mainstream fashion. The exact opposite to what one would need for freedom of science.

Freedom of science would be much higher if scientists would, say after PhD, given a possibly low paid but safe job. Same principle as for judges or so, they can be considered as independent only if they have safe jobs.

Of course, at least near singularities GR has to be replaced by a better theory. But GWs are not even close to singularities, so there is no reason to doubt much about GW predictions. And there is already a lot of observational evidence for objects quite similar to GR BHs. Or, more accurate, objects which, for far away observers, look like GR BHs. So, these things are not really problematic, and there is nothing to object with how these observations have been handled.

The problem is not speculation - all scientific theories are the result of speculations. Even the successful theories differ from speculations only by the point that they have allowed to make (speculative) predictions which were testable, and the tests have supported the predictions of these speculations. But even the best imaginable success of such type of "confirmation" is unable to show that the speculation is more than partially right, or that it is more than just a close but wrong approximation of the truth.

I cannot see any such inconsistency.

In this case, nor Newtonian theory, nor GR should have been published. Because above contain infinities. I doubt this would have been a good idea.
Click to expand...

Generally you are right.

But notice that some theories or some parts of theories lead astray because they are mathematically or/and physically incoherent. It is obvious that solutions to incoherent equations cannot be realized by Nature. Such theories or parts of theories are useless. They stupid scientific community. The theory of GR black holes is nonsensical because Nature cannot behave in such a way. The peer-review journals should not publish this part of GR. Of course, I do not claim that GR as a whole is incorrect - this theory is incomplete. It is obvious for me that during gravitational collapse of very massive star, there must appear some additional phase transitions that do not lead to physical singularity.

In my opinion, all incoherent parts of mainstream theories will be replaced for coherent, very different theories. So we should not stupid scientific community publishing nonsensical theories or incoherent parts of incomplete theories.

If peer-review journals will publish nonsensical theories or nonsensical parts of incomplete theories then corruption will win the day.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
But notice that some theories or some parts of theories lead astray because they are mathematically or/and physically incoherent. It is obvious that solutions to incoherent equations cannot be realized by Nature. Such theories or parts of theories are useless.
Click to expand...
No. As classical gravity, as Maxwell theory have been incoherent, with their point sources where the force becomes infinite like $r^{-2}$. So, there are clearly solutions of these theories which cannot be realized by Nature.

But does this make above theories useless? Of course, not. Only those solutions where these infinities play a role.
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Of course, I do not claim that GR as a whole is incorrect - this theory is incomplete.
Click to expand...
Don't worry - once a theory has infinities, and GR has, then it is incorrect as a whole. But this does not make it worthless. It may be, like Newtonian gravity and Maxwell theory, a reasonable approximation, valid under a wide range of circumstances.
Sylwester Kornowski said:
In my opinion, all incoherent parts of mainstream theories will be replaced for coherent, very different theories. So we should not stupid scientific community publishing nonsensical theories or incoherent parts of incomplete theories.
Click to expand...
Of course, they will be replaced by coherent theories. Probably very different ones. The differences may be as great as between Newtonian gravity and GR. Or as between GR and my ether theory of gravity.

But don't forget that these differences, even if very big in the metaphysical, philosophical concept of the world, of what exists in reality and so on, appear almost indistinguishable in most of the experiments.

So, publishing the incoherent theories gives a lot: One can compare them with observations, and test them. So one can find out where their equations give good approximations of reality and where not. This essentially simplifies the job of those who search for the coherent theories. All I had to care developing my ether theory was that I can obtain, in some limit, the equations of Einstein's GR. This was sufficient for me to be sure that almost all the observational and experimental evidence about gravity found between 1915 and now is compatible with my ether theory too. And Einstein profited in the same way from Newtonian gravity. All he had to do was to check if there is some Newtonian limit for the equations of his theory. After this, he has been sure that his GR is able to make the correct predictions about everything where Newtonian gravity worked nicely. And he, then, could focus on that part where Newtonian gravity failed.

As long as nobody claims that a theory with infinities is a true theory, no problem arises with using incorrect, even in part incoherent, theories.
 
Schmelzer said:
No. As classical gravity, as Maxwell theory have been incoherent, with their point sources where the force becomes infinite like $r^{-2}$. So, there are clearly solutions of these theories which cannot be realized by Nature.

But does this make above theories useless? Of course, not. Only those solutions where these infinities play a role.

Don't worry - once a theory has infinities, and GR has, then it is incorrect as a whole. But this does not make it worthless. It may be, like Newtonian gravity and Maxwell theory, a reasonable approximation, valid under a wide range of circumstances.

Of course, they will be replaced by coherent theories. Probably very different ones. The differences may be as great as between Newtonian gravity and GR. Or as between GR and my ether theory of gravity.

But don't forget that these differences, even if very big in the metaphysical, philosophical concept of the world, of what exists in reality and so on, appear almost indistinguishable in most of the experiments.

So, publishing the incoherent theories gives a lot: One can compare them with observations, and test them. So one can find out where their equations give good approximations of reality and where not. This essentially simplifies the job of those who search for the coherent theories. All I had to care developing my ether theory was that I can obtain, in some limit, the equations of Einstein's GR. This was sufficient for me to be sure that almost all the observational and experimental evidence about gravity found between 1915 and now is compatible with my ether theory too. And Einstein profited in the same way from Newtonian gravity. All he had to do was to check if there is some Newtonian limit for the equations of his theory. After this, he has been sure that his GR is able to make the correct predictions about everything where Newtonian gravity worked nicely. And he, then, could focus on that part where Newtonian gravity failed.

As long as nobody claims that a theory with infinities is a true theory, no problem arises with using incorrect, even in part incoherent, theories.
Click to expand...

Assume that someone claims that bare fermions are the sizeless mathematical points. All know that such assumption is nonsensical. Such "theory" can be published in, for example, arxiv, not in scientific journals because then they validate completely wrong "theory". In such "theories" must appear next mathematical indeterminate forms and additional free parameters to obtain results consistent with experimental data. After formulation of such "theory", there appears criticism but due to the validation by scientific journals, today almost whole scientific community assumes that such "theories" are correct.

It is the big problem. Such "theories" or the superstring theory never should be published by scientific journals.

Such "theories" can be published in arxiv but there should be listed all weak points.

The validation of incoherent theories by scientific journals causes that the present-day physics is very messy - it is because of the infinities, singularities, approximations, tricks as the mathematical indeterminate forms, and tens of free parameters. It causes that we are able to prove each nonsensical idea.

We must change it. Scientific journals should not validate incoherent, nonsensical ideas. You know, incoherent ideas of elders are published in scientific journals whereas others assume that if they will support such nonsensical ideas then scientific journals will publish their papers as well.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Assume that someone claims that bare fermions are the sizeless mathematical points. All know that such assumption is nonsensical. Such "theory" can be published in, for example, arxiv, not in scientific journals because then they validate completely wrong "theory". In such "theories" must appear next mathematical indeterminate forms and additional free parameters to obtain results consistent with experimental data. After formulation of such "theory", there appears criticism but due to the validation by scientific journals, today almost whole scientific community assumes that such "theories" are correct.
Click to expand...
No. Usually all these point particles are assumed to be approximations. BTW, in quantum field theory the issue is more subtle, because one does not even need to have point particles there, fields themselves are much more natural.
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Such "theories" or the superstring theory never should be published by scientific journals.
Click to expand...
The problem with superstrings is not that it has been published - that was fine. Theoretical speculations have to be published, that is the standard way to develop them - others learn about such ideas and, possibly, find them interesting and have own ideas to add.

The problem is that a few such speculations become fashionable, their proponents get control over the distribution of grants, and then even those who find these ideas stupid have to develop them, given that they have no other chance to get grants.
Sylwester Kornowski said:
It causes that we are able to prove each nonsensical idea.
Click to expand...
No. One cannot prove scientific theories, and even string theorists are not that stupid that they start to claim such results.
 
Outlier.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top