Should we believe what scientists say? (Page 4)
justabigjoke: I'm time-challenged, can't be bothered re-reading your stuff, can you just say if you think einsteins theories are valid physics or not? and why? (briefly)
AchillesSinatra: Now, before the science jihadists rip me apart...
This is not to say that the theories are not of prodigious instrumental value.
I do not think a realist interpretation can be supported. I'm more sympathetic to Bas van Fraassen's "constructive empiricism".
And James Cagney.
justabigjoke: he is half right
right when he said einsteins theories are incorrect
wrong when he said they somehow can be useful
Peanut Brittle: @Justabigjoke
NOPE I only have Einsteins Biography that's the extent of my knowledge of science lol and the book is sitll on the bookshelf unread LOL BUT I know alot about Tesla Nikola
I'm younger than you just and Jesus
justabigjoke: not ALL science is rubbish, much of it is bang on.
But without a doubt, everything Einstein came up with is totally false. And as it's based on General Relativity, much of cosmology is also wrong, in a big way. So there is no truth in time dilation, mass increase, length contraction, no spacetime, no curved spacetime, no bending of light by gravity, no Big Bang, no expanding universe, no black holes, dark energy or dark matter, no wormholes, no parallel universes, no gravity waves, no cosmic microwave background hanging around from 14 billion years ago....... its all fantasy, or better yet, its all fraudulent pseudoscience.
(Edited by justabigjoke)
justabigjoke: you should trust scientists like you trust politicians or used car salesmen.
If what they say sounds fantastic, or "unintuitive" its probably wrong.
AchillesSinatra: I'm not quite sure how serious -- or deranged -- the poster above is. There is point to be made, though.
Taking the theory of evolution (ToE) as an example, you may have heard boasts around these parts -- and everywhere else -- to the effect, "The theory fits all the facts, no exceptions" and "The theory has passed every test with flying colors".
The claims are manifestly absurd, for reasons I've explained in other places, but let's imagine for a moment that they are true.
They are true (the play-acting continues) only because in each and every case where the facts and the theory are (prima facie) at odds with one another, the facts will be MADE to fit the theory. Everything possible will be done to shove a square peg through a round hole.
Altruism doesn't sit well with your theory? Well, let's conjure up group selection and kin selection.
The peacock's tail doesn't sit well with your theory? Well, let's conjure up sexual selection.
Species (sharks, horseshoe crabs, and countless others) that don't seem to evolve through the millennia don't sit well with your theory? Well, let's conjure up "unrecognized forces" at play.
Etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I trust the pattern is clear. If it is indeed the case (the drama continues) that your theory has "passed every test with flying colors", it is only because you will not ALLOW it to fail. A driving test where the examinee is guaranteed to pass is no test at all.
Getting back to the above poster's comments, we see a similar phenomenon with general relativity (GR), and probably any other scientific theory you can think of:
Galaxies aren't behaving remotely as GR would lead us to expect? Well, let's conjure up dark matter and dark energy.
AchillesSinatra: Related to the above...
Philosopher of science, Imre Lakatos, constructs the follows scenario in his "Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge" (1970). I emphasize that what follows is fiction. As with all parables, the purpose is to help the listener grasp a concept.
"The story is about an imaginary case of planetary misbehavior. A physicist of the pre-Einsteinian era takes Newton's mechanics and his law of gravitation, (N), the accepted initial conditions, I, and calculates, with their help, the path of a newly discovered small planet, p. But the planet deviates from the calculated path. Does our Newtonian physicist consider that the deviation was forbidden by Newton's theory and therefore that, once established, it refutes the theory N? No. He suggests that there must be a hitherto unknown planet q which perturbs the path of p. He calculates the mass, orbit, etc., of this hypothetical planet and then asks an experimental astronomer to test his hypothesis. The planet q is so small that even the biggest available telescopes cannot possible observe it: the experimental astronomer applies for a research grant to build yet a bigger one. In three years' time the new telescope is ready. Were the unknown planet q to be discovered, it would be hailed as a new victory of Newtonian science. But it is not. Does our scientist abandon Newton's theory and his idea of the perturbing planet? No. He suggests that a cloud of cosmic dust hides the planet from us. He calculates the location and properties of this cloud and asks for a research grant to send up a satellite to test his calculations. Were the satellite's instruments (possibly new ones, based on a little-tested theory) to record the existence of the conjectural cloud, the result would be hailed as an outstanding victory for Newtonian science. But the cloud is not found. Does our scientist abandon Newton's theory, together with the idea of the perturbing planet and the idea of the cloud, which hides it? No. He suggests that there is some magnetic field in that region of the universe, which disturbed the instruments of the satellite. A new satellite is sent up. Were the magnetic field to be found, Newtonians would celebrate a sensational victory. But it is not. Is this regarded as a refutation of Newtonian science? No. Either yet another ingenious auxiliary hypothesis is proposed or . . . the whole story is buried in the dusty volumes of periodicals and the story never mentioned again."
justabigjoke: Achilles942, you seem Ok.
I'm very serious about challenging anyone, ANYONE (bring on Kip Thorn the sole "expert" in Relativity) over the errors abundant in any of Einstein's theories. The theories are so bad, they are "not even wrong". Its as you say, they invent excuses to overcome any objection is the same way a Mormon can find a way around any criticism of his religion. The theories of einstein must be accepted by faith alone, as the math and observational evidence, and indeed the rationale behind the theories is lacking. and the logic is flawed at every turn.
That's why it's called the religion of scientism.
justabigjoke: Well, about Newton and his theory that gravitational forces alone can describe the motions of the stars and planets. His math seemed to work generally, apart from a few peculiar examples, at least for the planets in this solar system. But what to do about the examples where the results were not in accord to the predictions? Now this is where they say that Einstein's theories are the ONLY solution to fix the lack of accuracy of Newton's work.
The fact is that Newton jumped to the conclusion that ONLY gravity is the force that drives the motions of the planets.
There is no explanation as to how he came to this conclusion, and if it's not correct, then all of his work will be wrong. (perhaps approximately correct, but not totally accurate)
Turns out that he was incorrect, there are other forces acting across the entire universe, that are more powerful than gravity alone.
Most of the universe has plasma present, as observed every day by astronomers, yet do they revise their calculations in light of this fact? NOPE, they still claim that gravity ALONE is responsible for every motion out there. And therefore we MUST have Einstein's fixes to Newton's equations, in the form of Special and General Relativity.
Plasma is a form of electromagnetic activity and has been easily reproduced in Labs worldwide, even found in those amusing plasma lamps that create lightning inside a spherical glass container.
SO every one of the "observed pieces of evidence" that are supposed to prove that Einstein was correct, can be more simply explained by simple Newtonian principals if you allow for ALL the forces and not just gravity.
Anyway, consider the bending of starlight as it passed the sun during an eclipse, this was supposed to be the main evidence that proved Einstein was correct, But its a fraud.
The light bends around the sun as it passes through the suns corona, exactly the same way that it bends on earth when we observe a mirage due to the hot layer of air. Its called refraction.
Don't believe me? Well then you may want to explain why its only the starlight that is practically on the edge of the sun that shows the bending, but the theory says that the "curved spacetime effect" continues outwards much farther than that, yet stars just a little bit away from the edge of the sun are showing NO change in their positions! Also its seems a little strange that we also never observe any bending of starlight around other planets that do NOT have any atmosphere, but we should!
The observational evidence points directly to diffraction as the sole cause of stars seeming to be where that should not, but the claim of curved spacetime is the cause, fails for any observations that involve massive planets that have no atmosphere or corona.
(Edited by justabigjoke)
AchillesSinatra: Interested to hear your thoughts, Just, though I lack the competence to appraise the more scientifically technical aspects of your post. My own interest lies mainly in the philosophy of science as opposed to the nuts and bolts of any particular theory. I see now that you're serious.
Re: your comments regarding Newtonian vs Einsteinian theory. In my fourth post on page 1, I wrote the following:
"My main reasons for defending a position of antirealism are the so-called "argument from underdetermination of theories by evidence" and the "argument from pessimistic induction"."
The thesis of "underdetermination of theories by evidence" comes in various forms, weaker and stronger, but claims roughly that any body of evidence/data is compatible with a plurality of theories. If the thesis is true, then to commit to a belief in the literal truth of any of the candidate theories (even if no one has thought of them) would be an act of irrationality.
One example often cited is that which you just alluded to. To defend her theory against relativistic depredations, all the Newtonian has to do -- we are told -- is posit the existence of unknown forces (sound familiar, Kitty?) which stretch/contract meter sticks, cause clocks to run faster or slower, and so on and so forth.
Readers may make up their own minds.
AchillesSinatra: "That's why it's called the religion of scientism." - Justabigjoke
I couldn't agree more
justabigjoke: what worries me is that considering that it's quite easy to demonstrate multiple places where the Physics of Einstein is wrong, the Universities are pushing Einstein along claiming that he is a genius. They can't be that stupid, they must know every one of the errors, but they dance around them on purpose, knowing its a fraud the whole time. It's like they plan to keep students ignorant, and chasing fantasy when they could be trying to sort out what nature is really doing.
Maybe they already know more than they let on, and this fraudulent crap of the mainstream is a cover while they use real knowledge as a political weapon.
I really can see how so many smart professors could be acting so stupid, unless there is some agenda behind it all.
The BS covers not only Relativity, most of cosmology, History, Geology, Evolution theory, Physics. I'm not up on Biology or medicine, but maybe BS is there as well.
So who benefits if all these branches of science have been subjected to some sort of corruption?
Knowledge is power, so its in a powerful person's interest to get knowledge and to prevent others from access......how better to do this and to make money in the process than to sell fake knowledge to students while they think they are being educated...
Bundle part truth part lies together and people will believe its all truth.
Sell them heros like EInstein, Born, Heinsberg, Schrodinger, while you belittle the real geniuses such as Tesla..... you can't doubt what the professor says, or you will not get your qualifications.. and you cant be "correctly" educated unless you go to one of their "approved" institutions..
There is a rat in behind most things, you only have to look behind the curtain.
Enkidu2017: Passionate rationality .... is simply adorable . They sure don't make believable truths like they used to .
justabigjoke: yet no one has anything of substance to say? commenters here must be Generation x, y or z, otherwise known as zombies. (those who cant think due to brain rot.)