Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 29 of 70 (443521)
12-25-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Tossing out Gravity
Do you agree that its current status is "falsified".
Should the "universal" law of gravity be taught in the science class?
Would you mind explaining what you mean by the "universal" law of gravity? I've never heard of it. Is this something you were taught in Part II? And if so, by whom?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 1:47 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 3:06 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 32 of 70 (443529)
12-25-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 3:06 PM


Re: Tossing out Gravity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 3:06 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 38 of 70 (443541)
12-25-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Gravity in crisis?
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).
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 3:37 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 70 (443550)
12-25-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 3:48 PM


Re: Fasified
You seem to be in some disagreement with cavediver
Given that Ned and I are referencing different theories, I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion!
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.
What is this, GCSE cosmology??? I think you can safely take it up a notch or three.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 3:48 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 4:18 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 49 of 70 (443556)
12-25-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 4:18 PM


Re: Fasified
And which theory was do you think Ned was referencing, here
Have you been at the sherry? You're obviously operating well below capacity...
Ned was obviously referencing GR/modern cosmology, evidenced by his statement:
quote:
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.
  —NosyNed
I was obviously referencing Newtonian gravity, evidenced by my statement:
quote:
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.
  —cavediver
I'd make it an early night, if I were you...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 4:18 PM sinequanon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 12-25-2007 6:37 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 60 of 70 (443578)
12-25-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chiroptera
12-25-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Question about UK maths:
Hey, cavediver, I have a question about the teaching of college level mathematics in the UK.
As you can imagine, it took a major nose-dive once I left
At Cambridge, analysis is covered in a Part IA course (1st year) and is very thorough. I can't give you specifics because, as I've mentioned before, I despise analysis. What disturbs me is Sinequanon's lack of even basic cosmological terminology. Sadly, it is possible these days to complete the entire Tripos without encountering a single 'physics' course. In my early days, Mathematics of EM was a compulsory 16 lecture Part IB course. I was on the review board for this course, and strongly suggested making it a compulsory 24 lecture course, given the depth and content (about double that of a standard university's 20-24 lecture course!) and the fact that many struggled and were being put off physics-based mathematics. The result was that it became an optional 24 lecture course and we can see the outcome in Sinequanon's posts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 12-25-2007 6:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 6:10 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 62 of 70 (443629)
12-26-2007 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by sinequanon
12-26-2007 6:10 AM


Re: Dark matter a logical conclusion?
Chiroptera clearly doesn't know what mathematical analysis and mathematical proof entails.
Given all of our conversations, I think Chiroptera is more than well-aquainted with mathematical analysis and mathematical proof.
Now, I don't hide behind jargon. If there is a simple way of describing something I use that.
The word is "terminology", not jargon, and it is essential in order to be able to converse meaningfully in this subject.
I am not a physicist, but I know that existing laws of physics predict an incorrect distribution and behaviour of matter in the universe.
Simply parrotting what you have read from weak popular science press is not "knowing". Typically, we do not "predict" the distribution of matter in the Universe, we take that as an observation. The one major exception would have been the prediction of the CMBR, which of course is one of the greatest success stories in Cosmology. And in terms of behaviour, the Lambda-CDM model is phenomenally successful. If you wish to discuss it, I suggest some reading, or going back and taking Part III.
I used the appropriate term "expansion" with regards spacial distribution as matter is seen to be moving away from the origin. Someone then decided expansion meant something else despite the obvious context.
There is only one meaning of expansion in the context of Cosmology (without extensive caveat.)
cronyism (pretending you're all on the same page)
You wouldn't be refering here to your blatently obvious mistake of thinking that Ned and I were disagreeing, would you? I hope not, because if you are then it strongly suggests that you are hopelessly incompetent or exceptionally dishonest. I wouldn't like to think either, so please clarify this for me.
nit-picking (complaining about semantics when the problem is well-known)
As yet, you have singularly failed to point to any problem. You have waved your arms wildly, lashing out at cosmology and even the entirety of science, but have yet to produce anything of coherence that can be discussed in a meaningful and productive manner. Given the presence of myself and another professional comsologist, not to mention a host of exceptionally well-informed scientists/professionals from other disciplines, I suggest you treat your background reading with far more seriousness and diligence.
Of course there are a few issues and problems with the Standard Model of cosmology; that is why cosmologists don't work on the Standard Model, but on expanding and refining it. Moffatt is simply playing his part in expanding and extending our knowledge of gravitational physics. This is nothing new - it's what I used to do - and the whole field is looking for the next step, whether that is in String Theory, LQG, Moffat's STV, or any of the other approaches.
But if you think for a second that something like the "Pioneer Anomaly" means that the whole of GR and Cosmology is falsified, in the sense of being consigned to the bin, then I'm afraid you will appear as an incompetent fool. I'm sure that you would rather avoid that, and personally I'd rather like to salvage some credibility for my academic home.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : more typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 6:10 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 8:24 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 69 of 70 (443658)
12-26-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by sidelined
12-26-2007 8:20 AM


Re: Dark Matter
Having just written this, I've reread your question and realised you didn't say Dark Energy, but vacuum energy. Although arguably the same thing, it changes the direction of the question. Let me know if you were asking something different.
I have a stupid question to ask concerning the missing mass problem. How much contribution to mass in the universe is presented by vacuum energy?
Hopefully SG won't mind me butting in on a pet hate of mine. You always see these stupid pie-charts showing the relative contributions of visible mass, dark matter, and dark energy... contributions to what exactly???
"Energy" supposedly. But the "energy" of dark energy is effectively negative, so it doesn't really work.
The ratio of matter to dark matter is a very sensible ratio, and does indeed reflect a sense of known to unknown, as we don't know yet what constitutes the dark matter; but it is a tangible, clumpliable (tm), something that seriously outweighs the visible matter.
Dark energy on the other hand is best seen as a modification to the physical laws (Lagrangian) as in the addition of an all-pervading cosmological constant and/or new (effectively scalar) field. It's just not sensibly comparable with the matter content in this naive way.
My answer to your question would be that it contributes nothing to the mass in the Universe, but it contributes to the geometry of the Universe in its own way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 8:20 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AdminPhat, posted 12-26-2007 11:13 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024