What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?

[paddoboy]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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......
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-the-goal-of-science-to-discover-the-truth

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.
No.
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.

 

[James R]

QQ:

There are two points I wanted to make in response to your post. The following is the easiest so I will stick to this one about the postulates and see how we go...
For example:
Let's take a look at the first postulate:
Commonly worded as :
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
Based on the wording there appears no problem, certainly not for me, however, let's adjust it a little so that my point can be made clearer.

The laws of Physics, as we know them, are the same in all inertial reference frames.

You will note that the meaning or implication is very different.

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.

The second version implies that while the laws of physics may indeed be universal in application, the laws as we know them may not be so universal in application.

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.

This is because the laws as we know them MAY be not be entirely correct and / or complete (inclusive).

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

However the laws if true and sound and fully inclusive, would indeed have universal application in all inertial reference frames
Evidence to suggest this is not the case:

• Dark Flow phenomena,
  
• CBR cold spot - Eridanus super void,
  
• The Great Attractor anomaly near universal center.
• The need for an unknown matter ( 84% of the known universe) to explain gravitational and other anomalies.

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?

 

[James R]

There is another hypothesis that fits the data and that is that the theoretics that leads to such an extraordinary result of 84% mass missing is actually flawed, incomplete and or non- inclusive.
To consider this though one has to accept the notion that science may have it wrong.

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.

 

[Schmelzer]

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:

The moment of enlightenment is pure joy.
The steps to reaching it have now been simplified and are very clearly shown in this short book for all seekers.
People around the world are experiencing a shift in consciousness and are opening to the teachings of enlightenment, and this book is the perfect way to learn what the great masters through history have taught: at your essence, you are one with the Self of all.
This book will take you on your final journey to knowing your self.
The essential steps needed to knowing yourself are each explored, and you are given meditations that will take you to the experience of each step.

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:

ALL knowledge is acquired thru faith.
Without believing there is NO knowing.

That is what the Bible teaches, that is what Jesus taught, and He proved His authority by conquering death.

Neither Helio nor Geo-centrism are theories. They are ways of looking at the motions of planets. Neither is outdated, neither is useless, neither is wrong.

To be able to know God, man must have the ability or potential to know Truth. Truth is knowledge of God.

All humans are guilty of the sin of rebellion. No one is immune from eternal damnation, which is the just punishment for such a serious sin.

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.)

 

[paddoboy]

(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.)

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.

 

[paddoboy]

Another from
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-the-goal-of-science-to-discover-the-truth
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.

 

[Schmelzer]

Schmelzy baby

EOD

 

[paddoboy]

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.

 

[James R]

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.

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?

 

[paddoboy]

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

Obviously the thread got side-tracked.

Unless you're claiming that it's impossible that Einstein could ever be wrong. Is that what you're saying?

Do you believe that is what I'm saying James?
But here James, these following earlier posts show that two great minds think alike..,
[highlights by me]

Theories such as Einstein's GR need not be shown to be wrong, rather just that that they have limitations in their applicability.
We use Newtonian for most everything Earth based, as well as most space endeavours. If GR had truly shown Newtonian to be wrong, we wouldn't be using it.

And of course as we all know Einstein's GR is constantly being tested every day by professionals, using state of the art scientific equipment, with the goal of trying to falsify GR, and so far its passing all tests with flying colours. That is science and what it does...testing, retesting and retesting again.

You're right. You wouldn't need to provide an alternative.

Einstein's theories are eminently falsifiable, just like all good science.

For example, any experiment testing time dilation that didn't produce results in accordance with the predictions of relativity (within experimental error) would do the trick. And in the past hundred years, such experiments have been carried out over and over again. That's one reason we're so confident Einstein was right (at least within the limits of experimental error).

There are countless experiments that could potentially falsify Einstein's theories. So, if he was wrong - especially in an "obvious" way - it wouldn't be hard to show.

 

[arfa brane]

"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]

"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.

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.

https://www.thejournal.ie/cern-admi...dont-travel-faster-than-light-478849-Jun2012/

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

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.

 

[Seattle]

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.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

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.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I think a valid question is how often are particle accelerators used, like decaying pions, to test relativity?

 

[James R]

Quantum Quack:

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?

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

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.

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.

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

What error?

Google : Is dark matter a fudge?
and you get over 5.4 million results.

And so?

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.

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.

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.

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

I am sure the top scientists have every good reason to seriously consider Dark Matter.

That makes two of us.

 

[river]

To the OP .

That space and time , or space-time , matters to the objects anywhere in the Universe .

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

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...