|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
At Cambridge, analysis is covered in a Part IA course (1st year) and is very thorough. Diplomatically put, cavediver. Chiroptera clearly doesn't know what mathematical analysis and mathematical proof entails. Now, I don't hide behind jargon. If there is a simple way of describing something I use that. I'm not here to prove I am some sort of clever clogs. I am not a physicist, but I know that existing laws of physics predict an incorrect distribution and behaviour of matter in the universe. 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. I'm getting off-topic comments (Chiroptera - personal gripe about what happened in another thread), cronyism (pretending you're all on the same page), nit-picking (complaining about semantics when the problem is well-known), and defensive responses (groundless accusations that I am "defending" creationism). If the politics of this thread is anything to go by, scientific "logic" is prone to all manner of fallacy. A quick google reveals this as a summary - http://space.newscientist.com/...enses-with-dark-matter.html Looks like there were problems a little closer to home, too, with the Pioneer spacecraft.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Dark Matter has received some strong, independent confirmation with observations of the Bullet Cluster.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608407v1.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.3572v2.pdf The first paper is very readable. Here's the wiki page Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia. Which is very accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
sinequanon writes: I am not a physicist, but I know that existing laws of physics predict an incorrect distribution... The distribution of matter in the universe is measured, not derived from theory. Are you perhaps thinking of efforts to match variations in the CMBR to the distribution of matter?
...and behaviour of matter in the universe. Anomalies such as Pioneer 10 and the structure of rotating galaxies are being studied. Science wouldn't be very interesting if we'd already figured everything out. Scientists are delighted to have problems like these. Reputations are made not by adding decimal places to existing knowledge but by discovering new science. You seem to see anomalies as indicative of something rotten at the core of scientific practice, but there has never been a time when there were not scientific anomalies. There's never been a period in science when all known phenomena were explained by existing theory. Wouldn't throwing out GR be grossly premature? It seems strange that anyone would push for discarding so successful a theory while options consistent with GR exist and while research is still ongoing. Discarding GR would put you in a somewhat awkward position if, as is one of the likely possibilities, GR is eventually found consistent with the anomalies, or perhaps requires modest modification. GR currently makes the most accurate predictions, such as with slingshotting around Jupiter and with the precession in the orbit of Mercury. As a practical matter you cannot discard GR because naturally astrophysicists would continue to use it, as there is at present no alternative and it explains the vast majority of phenomena. What sense would it make to designate GR falsified and discarded while it was still predominate and making successful predictions.
I'm getting off-topic comments (Chiroptera - personal gripe about what happened in another thread), cronyism (pretending you're all on the same page), nit-picking (complaining about semantics when the problem is well-known), and defensive responses (groundless accusations that I am "defending" creationism). I think we'd all like you to stay focused on the topic.
If the politics of this thread is anything to go by, scientific "logic" is prone to all manner of fallacy. Again, I think we'd all like you to stay focused on the topic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Son Goku
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? Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I mentioned this back in Message 59, thanks for providing the references.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I wouldn't like to think either, so please clarify this for me. It's clear enough. I'll leave the politics to you. I have no wish to engage in a public relations exercise regarding inadequacies in your field of study. For any neutral person reading this, the issue is summarised in the link at Message 61.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
sinequanon
I have no wish to engage in a public relations exercise regarding inadequacies in your field of study That sounds vaguely like the admittance of defeat. Cavediver offers valid criticisms of your position and the best you can do is this?When challenged by an expert in the field to which you are making claims it is hard to see your response as anything other than a running away. It is a shame for you not to at least enter the ring to show us what you have to offer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Cavediver? Would you be willing to have a Great Debate with this
person? If so, let me know here. Thanks! ~~AdminPhat Edited by AdminPhat, : oops Edited by AdminPhat, : oops again
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024