The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy

Newton's law of gravity does not predict any expansion for the universe. You're probably thinking of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Einstein originally introduced a cosmological constant in his theory to keep it from predicting a contracting universe, believing at the time that observation indicated a static universe. Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe caused an adjustment to this cosmological constant. It is a measured value and is not predicted by theory. If you're still thinking of the expansion of the universe then you should be referencing dark energy, which is the postulated explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe. Dark matter is the postulated explanation for the force keeping the outer reaches of rotating galaxies from flying off due to centrifugal force. Again, if you're talking about Newton's law of gravity as expressed by his famous equation and its derivatives, as an approximation for sub-relativistic velocities and masses it is unlikely to ever be overturned. Too many space probes have traveled too accurately too far for it to ever be overturned.If you're instead talking about Einstein's general theory of relativity, it has been verified nine ways from Sunday, but our deepening understanding of the universe could easily lead to modifications of Einstein's theory. Einstein's theory predicts the measured bending of light around the sun, and it predicts the precession in the orbit of Mercury, and the fact of these rigorous mathematical validations makes it unlikely for the theory to ever be completely tossed aside. The most that might happen is that it is found to be incomplete. For example, some cosmologists are investigating whether gravity works differently than Einstein's general theory predicts over cosmological distances. It is an odd question to ask if the theory of gravity has been falsified. You're again not clear about whether your talking about Newton or Einstein. Certainly Newton has been falsified for relativistic speeds and masses, but his gravitational equations work just fine in most circumstances. There are some cases where taking relativistic effects into account yields measurable increases in accuracy, for example slingshotting around Jupiter for a velocity boost, and there's Mercury's precession, but for the most part we use Newton inside the solar system.Einstein's general theory of relativity hasn't been falsified, either, and it is unlikely to be so. As mentioned above, it is more likely that it is incomplete. We already know that the gravitation of Einstein's general theory can't be unified with the other three forces or with the quantum level, so physicists expect that there is much new physics waiting to be discovered. But Einsteinian general relativity can never be completely falsified because of the astounding number of correct predictions it has already made. There's a current set of experiments confirming that spinning masses also have Einsteinian gravitational effects, so the steady stream of correct predictions over the years continues.In other words, the strength and endurance of a theory lies in its history of successful predictions. The more correct predictions a theory makes the stronger it becomes and the more difficult to falsify, not because it is more true the more it makes correct predictions, but because the more it makes correct predictions the more likely it is an accurate representation of reality.Correct predictions are unlikely to derive from an erroneous theory. For example, the theory of the luminiferous aether predicted that the speed of light would be less in the direction of motion than in an orthogonal direction. One of the great achievements of the late nineteenth century was the Michelson/Morley experiment falsifying the theory of the luminiferous aether. The weakness of this theory is represented by it's inability to make successful predictions.A strategy of developing theories that explain existing phenomena and that make predictions about future phenomena is what should be followed by all who hope to add to our scientific knowledge.--Percy

Ah, that one - well it was "falsified" and replaced 92 years ago. Of course it's still good enough for most applications, as long as you are aware of its status.

But your addition of (4) is in contraindication of the scientific method, where invalidated theories are supposed to be discarded, revised or amended.The example you give shows that this is the case with gravity, with the old theory being useful in limited cases, but superseded by the new one where necessary (I understand you can derive Newton's law within a special case of relativity, the special case that matches where we use it). Any new theory of gravity must also accomplish this trick, because we know that Newton's law does explain the motion of planetary objects at this scale, as will any new theory ... unless we are all deluded about gravity. Yet we know that the motion of the moon and mars and the behavior of spaceships can be calculated according to Newton with sufficient accuracy to land little cars on both.Any new law will explain gravity in a new way that will also explain this old evidence, because a new theory cannot be in contradiction of what has gone before.How does that violate falsification? The application of Newton's law is (now) limited to where it can be used, and it is invalid outside that area. No, creationists are just accused of being wrong and lying about it rather than dealing with the volumes of evidence that contradicts and invalidates their concepts.That does not compare with areas where current theory/ies are incomplete or areas where there are anomalies with no (current) explanation within the theory/ies. Let me try this:{A} is the evidence that is explained by Newton's "law" (a theory)
(B) is the evidence that is explained by Einstein's Relativity (a theory)Everything in {A} is explained with sufficient accuracy by Newton's law, and everything in {B} is explained with sufficient accuracy by Einstein's Relativity, including everything in {A}. Newton's law is valid within {A} but it has been invalidated outside {A} and is not used there. A new law of gravity must also explain {A} and {B} in ways that Newton will still be valid in {A} and Einstein's Relativity will still be valid in {B} (although {A} and {B} may need to be redefined), and we will have a new bounded set {C} that is explained by the new theory that includes areas where both Newton and Einstein are invalid, and redefined to be limited to {A'} and {B'} respectively.(4) on the other hand is what creationists and IDans do all the time. Accusing scientists of it is just an assertion that has yet to be substantiated.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thank you, Percy.What balances the centrifugal forces in the rotating galaxy? So it's not a law. Should it be taught as one?

No, how foolish would that be! We don't overturn a well supported theory based on a mystery. We have to dig into the mystery first.There are multiple competing explanations for the anomaly. If some turn out to be right gravity will be falsified. It will almost certainly be falsified in the same why the general relativity falsified Newtonian mechanics though. Even falsified as shadings. What world do you live in? We have not, by any means, falsified anything yet. We have some interesting observations that, if correct, will probably lead to some interesting science. It is waaaay premature to leap beyond the "mmmm that's interesting" (from Asimov) step yet.At the edge of the science at any given time there are lots of "interesting" things. Some have more potential to shake things up but all are what is fun about science. However not all will survive.Stay tuned to this channel.

At what level of education? Newtonian physics can be taught as "true" to one set of students. Then they get the WOW fun when they find out about relativity. They have moved the introduction of relativity down about 4 years in the educational system here since I was in high school (yes it had been discovered then ). But you can't teach it all at once.I am at a loss as to how you could operate in the real world thinking as you do. You take small steps to understanding. Is this like Jeopardy? You ask the question to the answer?

I added (4) because I believe it actually happens in practice. But both Newton's and Einsteins's laws give the wrong distribution of matter within the universe (expansion in this sense rather than expansion of space). What is the new theory?OK, so each "law" has a domain of applicability. Would you accept a spiritualist's argument that your laboratory lies outside the domain of applicability of their powers?

Hmmm, you seem to have a strange idea of "Einstein's laws", whatever they are! General Relativity takes a matter distribution as an input - it does not predict the distribution. What is it that you are trying to say?

That's where dark matter comes in. It usually exists in a halo around the galaxy, and not very much within the body of the galaxy itself, and this keeps the rotating matter in the galaxy's outer reaches from flying off. The existence of dark matter has been verified because we can detect the bending of light due to its gravitation field, but other than this we can only speculate about its nature. A law is just a theory, which itself is an interpretational framework for thinking about phenomena. Theories that lend themselves to strict mathematical expression have a tendency to receive the "law" label, but this isn't a strict rule. Like most language, which theories receive the "law" label defies any strict categorization. Relativity is very mathematical, but perhaps because the math and the concepts themselves are largely inaccessible to laypeople both the special and general versions receive the appellation of theory. On the other hand, something so loosely true as "Computer power will double every 18 months" receives the label of Moore's Law. Go figure. Language is fickle.Regarding your questions about the falsification of theories, thinking more about this I'm hard put to think of any theories that have been falsified. Theories only become theories after a lengthy and extended period of validation and replication. I think it is much more the case that hypotheses get falsified. Given their prior successful validation, theories are much more likely to be modified or extended rather than replaced.Science includes the ever-important property of tentativity, meaning that we never hold any knowledge as certain, but this does mean that science is just one revolution after another, each generation throwing out the theories of the previous. It just can't work that way, because science is tied through evidence to the real world, and the laws of the real world do not change from one scientific generation to the next. Science is an accumulative process, one of endless conceptual deepening and refinement.--Percy

You seem to be in some disagreement with cavediver, here. Message 32That's how creationists think, too. FAITH that their beliefs will hold out against contrary evidence.Regarding centrifugal forces, they don't exist in inertial frames. In this case it's a disguise for gravitational force.In an inertial frame, the description would be that the calculated gravitational forces do not balance the observed centriPETAL accelerations. F <> m x a.Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

Nope not at all. Read more s l o w l y. A difference being that they don't have any existing evidence based theory to work on. Instead of having to deal with a mystery they have to ignore a HUGE amount of very non-mysterious evidence.Physics 101 is not interesting here. Don't pretend.

Dark matter has not been verified. It has no validity beyond plugging the hole in gravitational theory. You are turning invalidity of one theory into evidence of itself + some total unknown called dark matter. Effectively, the theory gets "reinterpreted" as a special case of something else.Creationists use this tactic, too. When all is lost, "the holy book was right all along, but we should have interpreted it like this way, instead!".

I think it might be best if you tried thinking this one through on your own, but I'll provide a couple hints. First, Cavediver and NosyNed do not see their statements as being in disagreement. Second, two different people are most unlikely to ever express the same concept in identical language, or even from the same perspective. Yes, I'd agree that creationists have this problem, but doesn't really apply to the case of Newtonian physics versus Einsteinian general relativity. Both have an extremely lengthy pedigree of validated tests. We already know the ways in which Newtonian physics is incomplete because Einstein's theories cover those areas.We strongly suspect that Einstein's theories will prove to be incomplete, but given that the validations have already taken place it's impossible to imagine how Einstein's theories could actually be wrong about the precession of Mercury's orbit or the deflection of light by gravity or the relativistic effects of spinning masses to the accuracy available today.We hope we'll continue to add to our knowledge, but we can't say today whether that means that Einstein's theories will be extended, modified, or perhaps become embedded inside a future theory of greater explanatory power, the way Newtonian physics is now embedded within Einsteinian theory.--Percy

Given that Ned and I are referencing different theories, I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion! What is this, GCSE cosmology??? I think you can safely take it up a notch or three.

United front and all that, eh? You invalidate ALL their evidence based on the gaps you find. But you won't invalidate ALL scientific laws in the same way, when you find gaps. You react differently in each case.