What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

[paddoboy]

Can you show why the theory that Q-reeus has raised in nonsensical?

No, like most here, I'm a lay person. What is nonsensical, and what seems to always send the alternative cranks off the deep end, is examples as per the title in this thread and another, on a science forum such as this or any other, and in contrary to the apparent excellent methodology and contingencies of the aLIGO experiment itself.
q-reeus of course is also known for his anti GR stance along with the likes of others like chinglu, that have been rightly exposed as total cons on a forum such as this.

If so, go to it. If not, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions.

Jumping to conclusions?? What conclusions James? Conclusions that claim to invalidate GR type GW's and GR itself, all from the confines of a science forum?
I've watched you in conflict with others like MR and FF...I've watched the aggressive tactics of rpenner against the crazy claims of Danwarshen and Farsight. And you suggest I'm jumping to conclusions?
Again, if q-reeus believes he has anything of a concrete nature to show that the aLIGO experiment is wrong, or that GR is wrong, then let him via the scientific method present his case and undergo the proper professional peer review.

Please explain why it is not valid to discuss the theory that Q-reeus has referred to here. Don't forget to explain how you know that this is not part of "mainstream" science.

I did not say it was not valid to discuss. I say that the title of the thread is one gigantic lie and that if q-reeus had anything of substance, he would do as I suggested previously.
Discussing hypotheticals, and/or speculating on regions that current laws of physics and GR do not apply is imho reasonable discussion on a science forum.
Claiming that something is invalidating GR the BB or any other well supported theory of cosmology, and claiming that with arrogance and certainty as in this case, is pseudoscience material.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Paddoboy you have used bad language I reported another member for same may I suggest a edit.
Alex

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

Regarding the scientific method "falsification" process and requirements tacitly touched upon in your last post to James R above, as follows:

Hmmm, I disagree. Unless any new theory makes any further predictions, or matches any further observations above and beyond any incumbent theory, then the incumbent theory stands. I believe we do have examples of this.

It appears you have the wrong impression about what form the "falsification" may come in. It comes in, first and foremost, when objective scientific method is applied to scrutinize a hypothesis or incumbent theory (if it has got as far as the latter status) for self-inconsistencies according to logic and known physical possibilities. If that scrutiny does uncover self-inconsistencies, then there is no actual requirement for the "falsifier" to provide alternative equal to or better than the so falsified hypothesis or theory. The provision or postulation of an alternative hypothesis or theory is a separate step altogether. It depends entirely whether the falsification step had led to any further insights which might prompt the formulation and postulation of a replacement that is equal to or better than the falsified one.

Please do not keep placing onuses, or making demands, based on your conflating these two quite separate and distinct "falsification scenarios" allowed by objective scientific method scrutiny and falsification process and requirements. If you can separate the two steps it will save you and everyone much confused exchanges and animosities arising therefrom. Thankyou paddoboy.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If that scrutiny does uncover self-inconsistencies, then there is no actual requirement for the "falsifier" to provide alternative equal to or better than the so falsified hypothesis theory.

I must say that sounds reasonable do you have any material I could read on this?
I thought in terms of replacement of models but I guess if something is falsified that could be the end for the model.
We need someone to rule on this who is qualified.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:

Regarding the scientific method "falsification" process and requirements tacitly touched upon in your last post to James R above, as follows:



It appears you have the wrong impression about what form the "falsification" may come in.

No one mentioned falsification. Except you.
Again as I directed at James and I'm sure we have many examples, unless any new theory can predict, match observational data, above and beyond the incumbent theory, the incumbent theory remains the incumbent theory.

Please do not keep placing onuses, or making demands, based on your conflating these two quite separate and distinct "falsification scenarios" allowed by objective scientific method scrutiny and falsification process and requirements. If you can separate the two steps it will save you and everyone much confused exchanges and animosities arising therefrom. Thankyou paddoboy.

On not making anything my friend other than answering James thread directed at me.
I suggest whatever pseudoscience you have to let it go in the appropriate section, because, really, you are achieving nothing here, other than highlighting your amateurish status...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Nice to see you again so calm and placated, as distinct from the laughable efforts here......

Xelasnave.1947:
Your ignorance would make a lame parrot like paddoboy seem like a font of science and wisdom; while he repeats inane stuff that all know but he has no clue to the actual points being raised for discussion. Your unwavering "likes" of his inane repetitive posts prove you are no objective thinker; more like a friendless ignoramus wanting anyone to "like" him back; and attaching great importance to the object of your desperate need for "likes" back. You have no regard for real science, only what is linked by paddoboy that misses the mark altogether but he does not stop. Clutterbuck paddoboy and his desperate Sidekick Xelasnave.1947. That's what you present here. Nothing of any significance to science discussion at all. Just irrelevant spammed clutter crap which the site allows for whatever reason. No matter; the science discussion is elsewhere, not here on this site, that's for sure. Enjoy your "likes" from irrelevant clutterbucks.

paddoboy:
You're too thick for words. Hence my previous comment that just because others were too stupid to get what the OP was actually about didn't make it ok for you to follow suit without even understanding what it was all about. You just went along with the crowd who got it wrong. You like going along with the crowd, even though you have no clue about the crowd understandings or the alternatives being discussed.
What a fool is paddoboy; his only defense and excuse amounts to: 'Everyone else got it wrong so I just went along because everyone else is right even when they're wrong!'
What a case. How this paddoboy stupidity ever got past the moderators here is a question all its own. Terrible site.

Again, nice to see you calmed down some after that obviously insane episode of dummy spitting.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

No one mentioned falsification. Except you.

The whole raison detre' of this thread has to to with Q-reeus's OP directed at falsifying claims made for the GR gravitational waves in question. Did you forget that was the context?

As Q-reeus just explained, his later reference to another theory was incidental, and a separate thing altogether, from his above OP presenting his argument(s) for falsification of the claims that GR's gravitational waves were even possible, even in the GR maths construct; as some GR equations "solutions" may be unphysical, and hence already falsify any claims made that such can exist physically.

Your conflation of the OP with the later incidental alternative he mentions is probably the cause of your misunderstandings and attitude towards him so far in this thread.

Again as I directed at James and I'm sure we have many examples, unless any new theory can predict, match observational data, above and beyond the incumbent theory, the incumbent theory remains the incumbent theory.

That is all already understood by all serious scientific discussers here; you are not telling us anything we didn't already know and start from.

The point is that your demands for peer-reviewed alternatives as a 'precondition' for posing or discussing falsification arguments, is your own condition not one imposed by any part of the scientific method (as I just explained to you in my previous post).

Please therefore do not continue insisting on things based on your own conflations and misunderstandings of what the rules of this site or of the scientific method require.

On not making anything my friend other than answering James thread directed at me.
I suggest whatever pseudoscience you have to let it go in the appropriate section, because, really, you are achieving nothing here, other than highlighting your amateurish status...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Nice to see you again so calm and placated, as distinct from the laughable efforts here......

More insinuation and mischaracterizations from you, paddoboy. Do you ever stop to think that what you 'think' may be wrong or irrelevant when you attribute agendas and versions which are concocted in your own mind? Do stop and examine your own behavior and motives, paddoboy. That way you may avoid further transgressions against the principles of objectivity, fairness and the scientific method.

Again, nice to see you calmed down some after that obviously insane episode of dummy spitting.

As the old truism goes: "You reap what you sow".

It was in response to your and other trolls sabotaging and derailing with your conversations about the person while evading actually understanding and adressing the OP etc as posted and not as misconstrued into straw men; such as you have done to Q-reeus's OP in this thread (and to my OP in the distinguishing cosmological from SR redshift comparative thought experiments thread).

Put the past behind you paddoboy, and others will do likewise. But keep attacking based on your own unreasonable demands and conditions and straw men and mischaracterizations, and you only make trouble which the moderator/admin will have to waste valuable time sorting out. Stop and think about your own faults that may have incited and provoked the nasty responses to your own nasty attacks in the first instance, paddoboy. Thanks.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Seems I missed your insulting post eddy.
I presume you had second thoughts and removed it before I got to see the original.
Unlike you and your chest beating mates I am under no delusions as to my limitations in respect of science matters.
I admit I am a layman and don't pretend like you chaps.
Think what you like but I have you and your mates pegged. You may fool yourselves but you don't fool me.
When you present something other than bluster and chest beating it will be refreshing.
Miss my observation did we?
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:
The whole raison detre' of this thread has to to with Q-reeus's OP directed at falsifying claims made for the GR gravitational waves in question. Did you forget that was the context?

No, the whole point of this thread was q-reeus, imagining that somehow he had overthrown the concept of GR GW's as validated by aLIGO, and GR itself, which he has always had a bee in his bonnet about. He hasn't of course.

As Q-reeus just explained, his later reference to another theory was incidental, and a separate thing altogether, from his above OP presenting his argument(s) for falsification of the claims that GR's gravitational waves were even possible, even in the GR maths construct; as some GR equations "solutions" may be unphysical, and hence already falsify any claims made that such can exist physically.

Your conflation of the OP with the later incidental alternative he mentions is probably the cause of your misunderstandings and attitude towards him so far in this thread.

He, along with you, and the god, will never invalidate any theory, let alone the near certain, overwhelmingly supported GR, from the realms of a science forum.
When you, he and the god realise that, it may help you all to start being logical for a change.
There is the scientific method....there is proper peer review. That is what the scientific community has accepted, not with standing the conspiracy and pretentious based nonsense you are pretending to claim.

That is all already understood by all serious scientific discussers here; you are not telling us anything we didn't already know and start from.

And yet obviously this q-reeus claim, does not even climb to that standard, or else we would have a paper in already and proper professional peer review....not the amateurish discussions between you and I at this stage, and of course the god when he returns.

The point is that your demands for peer-reviewed alternatives as a 'precondition' for posing or discussing falsification arguments, is your own condition not one imposed by any part of the scientific method (as I just explained to you in my previous post).

Did you? It must have been drowned out in the other stuff you were ranting about.
Again, let me reiterate, any scientific theory to be accepted as such, must be via the scientific methodology, able to undergo appropriate, professional peer review. That leaves out you and me and most others, including q-reeus obviously, OK?

Please therefore do not continue insisting on things based on your own conflations and misunderstandings of what the rules of this site or of the scientific method require.

Obviously failing to understand the scientific methodology and professional peer review, you really need to stop standing in front of that mirror. It's causing you to undergo delusions.


The rest of your off topic preaching and ranting is treated with the contempt it deserves.

Again, q-reeus so far has SFA. If he did have anything of substance that invalidated what aLIGO has confirmed, and invalidated GR, which has also again been confirmed to even higher levels of certainty, he would not be here.
Similary if you had anything, or anyone else had anything that they claim over turn accepted models, you would not be preaching it from the bowels of a science forum such as this.
And actually doing so, with such fervor and certainty, just shows that it can be reasonably considered that some sort of agenda or god of the gaps is behind it all. That is a reasonable assumption to make, despite any denials to the contrary.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I'm not a physicist James: Like the god, expletive deleted, dmoe, and others, I'm a lay person.

I respectfully ask, paddoboy, that you please speak only for yourself. Regardless of what you refuse to accept, or choose to constantly repeat...I earned my first Degree and began my career in Science in the late 1970's.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy you have used bad language I reported another member for same may I suggest a edit.
Alex

As one who does have some principal and is obviously genuine, my apologies. I do sometimes let the "magic word" slip.
Actually even rpenner has used it. I think as far as rules go, as long as one does not incessently used in every sentence, then some leeway is given.

 

[paddoboy]

I respectfully ask, paddoboy, that you please speak only for yourself. Regardless of what you refuse to accept, or choose to constantly repeat...I earned my first Degree and began my career in Science in the late 1970's.

You sound genuine. In that case I withdraw my remark concerning yourself.
Obviously though others are not who they pretend to be. Too late to edit.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

As one who does have some principal and is obviously genuine, my apologies. I do sometimes let the "magic word" slip.
Actually even rpenner has used it. I think as far as rules go, as long as one does not incessently used in every sentence, then some leeway is given.

You are a gentleman Paddoboy.
It is unfortunate that others don't follow your good example of how to argue with force, reason and using an authority reference when making a point.
I felt compelled to report you because I do not like hypocracy and could not not pull you up simply because your general behaviour is way above the chest beating pretenders.Having called out another member I could not overlook your case because it was not in an insulting context.
Further it takes s man of high character to recognise a mistake and admit to that mistake. And to admit one is wrong is something that is well beyond the chest beaters of this world.
I am still unable to work out the op, at first I thought maybe it is just me but given that a real scientist has said there is no argument presented I think my confusion stems from a poorly laid out argument.
I sometimes think these anti mainstream posts are presented merely to get people to bite so they can then be insulted.I get insulted for being humble and not pretending to be a scientist by those who pretend to be scientists.I don't even know their professions but I doubt any scientist tries to prove his point by bullying.
I am still at a lost to understand if not GWs from merging black holes what does to op suggest.
Again very decent of you to address my concerns re your unfortunate choice of words. It was not an insult and you have apologised I think we can move on, that is on the assumption others have something to expand upon the op which I would welcome.
Alex

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I must say that sounds reasonable do you have any material I could read on this?
Alex

You may start with, and a great read, by the way! : " Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations series) " by Peter Godfrey-Smith

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You may start with, and a great read, by the way! : " Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations series) " by Peter Godfrey-Smith

Thank you dmoe.
I have been doing some reading since my post and it seems if falsified that may be the end of things. But would you say if the op author can present his argument forcefully we would see the collapse of GR.
Would it go that far.
Alex

 

[expletives deleted]

Xelasnave:

I must say that sounds reasonable do you have any material I could read on this?
I thought in terms of replacement of models but I guess if something is falsified that could be the end for the model.
We need someone to rule on this who is qualified.
Alex

The scientific method and its detailed origins and justifications for being were first formally inculcated in me in the later years of high school when doing my Higher School Certificate and Matriculated to University. The same early inculcation was reinforced in my first year of the BSc course. All the details and history can be found in any good textbook or source explaining the various requirements of objectivity, falsification processes and instances in the evolution of both mainstream and alternative hypothesis and theory. I was impressed by the usefulness and rigor of the scientific method properly applied early on, and have never failed to apply it since.

The falsification act or argument is something that may stand on its own merits as arguments and observations which physically and logically can be shown to contradict the claims being tested and scrutinized with the aim of falsifying same (which is what science process is all about in the first imperative, to weed out falsified hypotheses and theories as soon as possible).

The totally separate step of postulating alternative hypotheses and theory is the right of any and all comers; however, once the postulation, hypothesis or theory has been made, the falsification process is automatically triggered and executed by any and all dissenters with scientific and logical counter arguments to put based on self-inconsistency or counter-observational grounds, regardless of whether the challengers so falsifying offer any equal or better alternative hypothesis or theory.

Seems I missed your insulting post eddy.
I presume you had second thoughts and removed it before I got to see the original.
Unlike you and your chest beating mates I am under no delusions as to my limitations in respect of science matters.
I admit I am a layman and don't pretend like you chaps.
Think what you like but I have you and your mates pegged. You may fool yourselves but you don't fool me.
When you present something other than bluster and chest beating it will be refreshing.
Miss my observation did we?
Alex

Those posts of mine quoted by paddoboy above were from days ago, and reflected my own dissatisfaction with the troll and mischaracterization 'treatment' of a prior thread which, if it had been allowed to proceed without such sabotage, could have already settled the issue raised in the relevant thread by the Farsight-Einstein quote regarding the photon etc. Those posts were removed by James R when he explained in open forum the reasons for doing so. You must have missed that.

Since then I have tried to point out paddoboy's own failures, unfounded straw men and casual conflation and confusion leading to his attacks which cause such trouble to arise in the first place and all too often. You must have missed that too.

I trust you now have the correct picture that dispels any lingering misunderstandings on your part regarding the background and reasons for all these otherwise avoidable kerfuffles. Thanks, Xelasnave.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

You sound genuine. In that case I withdraw my remark concerning yourself.

Thank you.

Obviously though others are not who they pretend to be. Too late to edit.

No comment...

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I trust you now have the correct picture that dispels any lingering misunderstandings of your part regarding the background and reasons for all these otherwise avoidable kerfuffles

Thank you for taking the time to clear things up.
I did well in high school in science (98.5% in trial leaving cert.) but failed to get into uni. So being good at science went into law... so always unhappy about not making it but in reflection glad I did not become a scientist.
Alex

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

No, the whole point of this thread was q-reeus, imagining that somehow he had overthrown the concept of GR GW's as validated by aLIGO, and GR itself, which he has always had a bee in his bonnet about. He hasn't of course.

Q-reeus posted an OP with falsifying argument(s) along with his claims to be falsifying the claimed possibility of GR gravitational waves as described in the GR gravitational wave claims.

Anything else is your own mischaracterization and straw man based personal accusations and unfair comment. Do you still not understand what you have done there and before is wrong; and something only a troll would still insist on doing even after it has been explained where and why you were wrong to mischaracterize and attack as you have done?

He, along with you, and the god, will never invalidate any theory, let alone the near certain, overwhelmingly supported GR, from the realms of a science forum.
When you, he and the god realise that, it may help you all to start being logical for a change.
There is the scientific method....there is proper peer review. That is what the scientific community has accepted, not with standing the conspiracy and pretentious based nonsense you are pretending to claim.

Whether or not I or anyone here can or will ever falsify anything is only determined by the arguments put and the discussion outcome. Your unreasonable and unwarranted insistence on a "precondition" of peer review and equal/better alternative, is irrelevant and not part of the scientific method or discussion process unless Q-reeus had put such an alternative himself. He has NOT done so; merely incidentally alluded to one such being worked on by some other person. He posted an OP of falsification arguments which you have still to address properly instead of making all these unreasonable attacks and trying to shut down discussion of his OP's allegedly falsifying arguments PROPERLY and validly put by him for testing by all-comers without you haranguing and attacking without basis or relevant on-topic counter arguments.

And yet obviously this q-reeus claim, does not even climb to that standard, or else we would have a paper in already and proper professional peer review....not the amateurish discussions between you and I at this stage, and of course the god when he returns.

Did you? It must have been drowned out in the other stuff you were ranting about.
Again, let me reiterate, any scientific theory to be accepted as such, must be via the scientific methodology, able to undergo appropriate, professional peer review. That leaves out you and me and most others, including q-reeus obviously, OK?

Obviously failing to understand the scientific methodology and professional peer review, you really need to stop standing in front of that mirror. It's causing you to undergo delusions.


The rest of your off topic preaching and ranting is treated with the contempt it deserves.

Again, q-reeus so far has SFA. If he did have anything of substance that invalidated what aLIGO has confirmed, and invalidated GR, which has also again been confirmed to even higher levels of certainty, he would not be here.
Similary if you had anything, or anyone else had anything that they claim over turn accepted models, you would not be preaching it from the bowels of a science forum such as this.
And actually doing so, with such fervor and certainty, just shows that it can be reasonably considered that some sort of agenda or god of the gaps is behind it all. That is a reasonable assumption to make, despite any denials to the contrary.

Again, your own opinions are irrelevant and wrong if you cannot make valid on-topic counterarguments against the falsifying arguments in Q-reeus's OP. Do you understand? Just because you view something according to your own misconstrued lights, it does not mean that Q-reeus or his OP arguments are ipso facto at fault here; it is your own miscontruings and baseless attacks with appeals to authority and your own opinions that is at fault. Do you understand?

I trust you will now take some time to reconsider your own behavior and incitements etc before again attacking without any cause or reason in science or logic that which you have obviously failed to comprehend objectively or fairly. Thanks paddoboy.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Thank you dmoe.
I have been doing some reading since my post and it seems if falsified that may be the end of things. But would you say if the op author can present his argument forcefully we would see the collapse of GR.
Would it go that far.
Alex

"Present(ing)" an "argument forcefully", Xelasnave.1947, would seem to me to be implementing The Sweet Science.

As far as "the collapse of GR", I would heartily recommend that if you have the opportunity, you might try to monitor any Classes that are available on that subject at Local Universities.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

"Present(ing)" an "argument forcefully", Xelasnave.1947, would seem to me to be implementing The Sweet Science.

As far as "the collapse of GR", I would heartily recommend that if you have the opportunity, you might try to monitor any Classes that are available on that subject at Local Universities.

Thanks for your advice but I am unable to do that.
Coming here and similar sites is about as close as I will get to learning about the subject.
I am however content and realise at my age I will not be able to contribute in any meaningful way.
I never planned to post on this forum but somehow the god got me to bite.
Again thank you for your help and I must say I don't know why you chose your handle you seem relatively intelligent and a nice person.
Best wishes
Alex