|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 13, 2016 17:39:18 GMT 1
Astounding to hear scientists swooning like star-struck groupies at the news of the latest discovery
Hyperbollocs such as:
'It is as if a door has opened and the interior is illuminated showing us things that we did not know existed'
'The most important discovery in science since ........ (take your pick)'
'This will change science forever'
'It will change the way we see the universe'....
Absolutely non of these hyperbollocs are true of course(that is why they are hperbollocs)
Einstein made this prediction nearly a hundred years ago, so we have had nearly 100 years to consider the implications of his prediction
The mere confirmation of his prediction tells us bugger all that we do not know already. Theoretical physicists will have already have thought out the type if universe that has gravity waves
The door is not opened to show us things that we did not already know
It will not change the way we think about the universe
It simply conforms what we already know - tha Einstein is a very clever man
I even doubt whteher it will change predictions about the future (and past) of the universe
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Feb 14, 2016 10:55:50 GMT 1
Agreed
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 14, 2016 19:07:42 GMT 1
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Unlike priests, politicians and philosophers, we humble scientists know nothing until we have seen experimental evidence. All else is hypothesis, however plausible, and no more valuable than superstition, political theory or philosophy.
When the pilot says "our expected time of arrival is 4 pm", do you jump out of the plane at 1600 hrs, or do you wait until it has stopped moving?
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Feb 14, 2016 20:36:55 GMT 1
What I find astounding is that someone can be so parochial about what is clearly an amazing achievement. Just detecting these waves was incredibly difficult. The fact that scientists were also able to calculate exactly what these waves would look like is also a testament to human ingenuity.
It makes me wonder what you have against science and scientists?
This is the one correct statement that you made in your post. However Einstein did get some things wrong and until gravity waves were detected we couldn't be sure that this wasn't another error.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 14, 2016 21:17:58 GMT 1
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Unlike priests, politicians and philosophers, we humble scientists know nothing until we have seen experimental evidence. And then you know little All else is hypothesis, however plausible, and no more valuable than superstition, political theory or philosophy. The whole bases of science are hypotheses - they are more valuable than 'evidence', that simply focuses an hypothesis without changing it - unless, that is the 'evidence' refutes the hypothesis and creates another Hypothesis; hypotheses are the very essence of science , unlike pedestrian evidence that simply reinforces hypotheses |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 14, 2016 21:23:56 GMT 1
What I find astounding is that someone can be so parochial about what is clearly an amazing achievement. What on earth are you blathering about? It is certainly a great achievement - I have not indicated otherwise- I simply refute the attendent hyperbollics Just detecting these waves was incredibly difficult. The fact that scientists were also able to calculate exactly what these waves would look like is also a testament to human ingenuity. True but irrelevant to my points It makes me wonder what you have against science and scientists? Nothing - it is the gushing hyperbollics that is not science that I object to |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 15, 2016 11:48:42 GMT 1
The whole bases of science are hypotheses - they are more valuable than 'evidence', that simply focuses an hypothesis without changing it - unless, that is the 'evidence' refutes the hypothesis and creates another Hypothesis; hypotheses are the very essence of science , unlike pedestrian evidence that simply reinforces hypotheses No. That is the definition of religion, philosophy and associated bullshit. Science differs in requiring observation and demanding experimental tests with the capability of contradicting the hypothesis. Religious hypothesis: god will grant us a good harvest if we sacrifice a virgin. Scientific test: don't. Religious observation: we sacrifice virgins every year but don't always get a good harvest, so we must be doing something wrong. Scientific observation: no sacrifice, good harvest, no sacrifice, bad harvest....it's probably nothing to do with virgins, or god. LIGO is only part of the process. We have a remarkably successful hypothesis in general relativity, but one interesting prediction that is very difficult to test but rather fundamental to our understanding of how astronomy in particular and gravitation in general works, so the first part of the test is to look for the phenomenon, then see if the measured effect is consistent with other observations - the critical test of the hypothesis. The present excitement derives from detecting, with a high degree of certainty, what turned out to be a very subtle effect - a major success for experimental physics and engineering. The fun will start if it isn't consistent with other observations, at which point theoretical physics will come alive again. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 15, 2016 14:35:16 GMT 1
The whole bases of science are hypotheses - they are more valuable than 'evidence', that simply focuses an hypothesis without changing it - unless, that is the 'evidence' refutes the hypothesis and creates another Hypothesis; hypotheses are the very essence of science , unlike pedestrian evidence that simply reinforces hypotheses No. That is the definition of religion, philosophy and associated bullshit. Science differs in requiring observation and demanding experimental tests with the capability of contradicting the hypothesis. Yes, but nevertheless science would not exist without hypotheses Th only difference between hypotheses, religious, Philosphical and science is that science attempts to contradict hypotheses as you say, but nevertheless , science is riddled with hypotheses that cannot , in principle, be refuted or confirmed, so there is a very fuzzy overlap between science and religion (the christian religion that is) LIGO is only part of the process. We have a remarkably successful hypothesis in general relativity, but one interesting prediction that is very difficult to test but rather fundamental to our understanding of how astronomy in particular and gravitation in general works, so the first part of the test is to look for the phenomenon, then see if the measured effect is consistent with other observations - the critical test of the hypothesis. The present excitement derives from detecting, with a high degree of certainty, what turned out to be a very subtle effect - a major success for experimental physics and engineering. The fun will start if it isn't consistent with other observations, at which point theoretical physics will come alive again. How could I possibly demur at such a reasonable statement? |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 16, 2016 1:10:43 GMT 1
science is riddled with hypotheses that cannot , in principle, be refuted or confirmed, Outside of the bizarre machinations of String Theory, I can't think of one. As every scientific hypothesis derives from an observation, any counterobservation will refute it. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 16, 2016 16:59:14 GMT 1
science is riddled with hypotheses that cannot , in principle, be refuted or confirmed, Outside of the bizarre machinations of String Theory, I can't think of one. Try these. Time started with the creation of the universe The universe was created from nothing A singularity has infinite density Space is expanding faster than light which means galaxies are separating at a speed faster than light As every scientific hypothesis derives from an observation, any counter observation will refute it. Yes but some hypotheses are made on the flimsiest of evidential observation and others cannot be refuted by counter-observation - those are the ones that cannot in principle be tested |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 16, 2016 22:05:15 GMT 1
Try these. Time started with the creation of the universe More of an axiom than a hypothesis. Since time is the dimension that separates sequential events,you can't have time if there are no events, and you can't have events if there is no universe. Obviously, if it was created. Definition of creation as distinct from rearrangement. The obvious property of a singularity with nonzero mass. That's what happens when you divide by zero. More of an observation than a hypothesis. |
|
