- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 5,544
- Reaction score
- 1,061
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I hope you realize that scientists STILL believe in the theory of gravity. Every single student still learns it in class. The theory of gravity is correct that there is an attractive force between matter than explains the motion of objects on earth an in the heavens. The problem is that there was more to it, but the basic theory was correct. And it still works in a large scope of phenomena.
This is not true, there were several indications that Newton was wrong, before 1905.
This is not how science works - wrong means that observations are not consistent with empirical expectations, we don't pretend wrong is right until a "better" theory is proposed.
Falsification of a theory does not hinge the existence of alternative theories.
You atheist's love to spout off about how educated you are, how much better you understand science than the theist, what a sham.
This is not true, there were several indications that Newton was wrong, before 1905.
This is not how science works - wrong means that observations are not consistent with empirical expectations, we don't pretend wrong is right until a "better" theory is proposed.
Falsification of a theory does not hinge the existence of alternative theories.
You atheist's love to spout off about how educated you are, how much better you understand science than the theist, what a sham.
Try using Newtonian mechanics to design GPS systems and see how well that goes. It's wrong, but it's a sufficient approximation in many cases to calculate how moving (and static) bodies behave on Earth, which is why people still learn about Newtonian mechanics at university (especially engineers).
Dunno wasn't arguing against you just pointing out how Newton's theory is categorically wrong. If EEs used Newtonian mechanics for signal transmission we wouldn't be having this conversation (probably).Indeed, I have never disputed the utility of Newton, nor should we fail to appreciate his incredible achievements (calculus etc).
The point I was striving to make here is that despite some theory appearing to describe reality, its expectations closely aligning with reality, it can nevertheless turn out to be absolutely wrong - not in the sense that calculated values deviate very slightly from measured values, but in the sense the principles, assumptions and mechanisms it assumes are at work are fundamentally wrong.
Newton's theory is very wrong about time, about simultaneity, it is very wrong about the speed at which gravitation changes can be propagated, it is very wrong about the nature of space, the nature of the interaction between masses and very wrong about what light does in a gravitational field.
Yes, calculations done using GR and NG for the most part are so close it doesn't matter, but a theory is far more than a way to calculate values, it is a model, a description of what is believed to constitute nature, it is in this sense that my doubts about evolution should be understood.
(It's very interesting too that one of the solutions of the "field equations" of GR simplifies down to Newton's inverse square law, this is explain why NG was so successful, its a special case of a more complex general scenario).
Just because many observations seem to align with the expectations of evolution, it could nevertheless be hugely wrong and I think it is.
Indeed, I have never disputed the utility of Newton, nor should we fail to appreciate his incredible achievements (calculus etc).
The point I was striving to make here is that despite some theory appearing to describe reality, its expectations closely aligning with reality, it can nevertheless turn out to be absolutely wrong - not in the sense that calculated values deviate very slightly from measured values, but in the sense the principles, assumptions and mechanisms it assumes are at work are fundamentally wrong.
Newton's theory is very wrong about time, about simultaneity, it is very wrong about the speed at which gravitation changes can be propagated, it is very wrong about the nature of space, the nature of the interaction between masses and very wrong about what light does in a gravitational field.
Yes, calculations done using GR and NG for the most part are so close it doesn't matter, but a theory is far more than a way to calculate values, it is a model, a description of what is believed to constitute nature, it is in this sense that my doubts about evolution should be understood.
(It's very interesting too that one of the solutions of the "field equations" of GR simplifies down to Newton's inverse square law, this is explain why NG was so successful, its a special case of a more complex general scenario).
Just because many observations seem to align with the expectations of evolution, it could nevertheless be hugely wrong and I think it is.
Think about that real hard.
I have not claimed to be an atheist, and I'll thank you not to make asinine assumptions about me. What I am is a lover of paleontology.This is not true, there were several indications that Newton was wrong, before 1905.
This is not how science works - wrong means that observations are not consistent with empirical expectations, we don't pretend wrong is right until a "better" theory is proposed.
Falsification of a theory does not hinge the existence of alternative theories.
You atheist's love to spout off about how educated you are, how much better you understand science than the theist, what a sham.
Do you really want to debate me about theories of gravitation? I'm happy to do so but be warned, I do know my subject.
The existence of gravity is not a theory, it is a readily verified fact.
There is a growing tendency to refer to the theory of evolution as not a theory at all, but a fact.
Looks like you were not telling the truth David, no surprises there since you don't believe in truth.
The existence of gravity is not a theory, it is a readily verified fact.
The existence of life is likewise a fact,
I know, they are in fact different things. An atom is not a theory, a falling object is not a theory, a mutated gene is not a theory - I never argue with facts nor do I conflate them with theories.
If it was a fact it happened why would you call it a theory? you are confused.
The fossil record reveals no "step by step" - what is a "step" here anyway? a single gene mutation? a single retrodictive generation?
The fossil record is hugely discontinuous, the antithesis of gradualism, of "step by step" change.
More deranged and unhinged waffle David, surely you can see why you remind me of Trump so much, you just make stuff up as you go, your world is the real world everybody else is just wrong.
Ok then. If the theory of gravity is false then why is it an integral part of physics courses?
You are dead wrong about what was actually included in Newton's theory, despite your cherry picked crap from Wikipedia about things that Newton might have said or not.
But it is wrong, absolutely, emphatically wrong - there is no "action at a distance" there is no "aether" there is no "universal time" there is no "instantaneous propagation" of changes in gravitational field potential - Newton's theory was absolutely wrong as an explanation for what we observe.
Einstein said:Einstein argued that Newton's absolute space, in which acceleration is absolute, is the "Aether of Mechanics"
More useless ad hominem from you and misunderstanding of science.
You think scientific theories can exist without facts.
There are no theories without facts. There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories.
National Center for Science Education said:In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts.
Because it is very instructive to learn how the universe has been perceived and modelled over the centuries.
Newtonian gravitation is never taught as being without problems, it is openly acknowledged to be an approximation that suffices except for untypical scenarios.
Furthermore GR rests upon some very involved math, what's termed non-Euclidean geometry and tensor calculus, usually too advanced to dump on students that are not preparing to work at that level.
Personally I think we should teach relativity at a lower grade/age the roots of relativity are very foundational to physics (origins of inertia, speed of light being constant etc).
It's wrong. Fundamentally. Call it simplified all you want. The ideal gas law is also a simplified explanation of how gasses really work. But ultimately wrong.If Newton's theory was simply taught because its how the universe was percieved in the past, then courses would simply mention it in passing. Instead they devote whole chapters, tests, and exersizes to it. It would be like teaching every astronomy student the old geocentric model of the solar system in several chapters and tests. N
ewton's theory is taught because it is a simplified version of the truth that suffices except for untypical cases. Teaching students the simple version first helps them ease into physics, before relativity and quantum mechanics are thrown at them. Newton's theory isn't wrong, it just isn't the full story. The same goes for the theory of evolution. There will always be room to improve and details we haven't figured out yet.
It's wrong. Fundamentally. Call it simplified all you want. The ideal gas law is also a simplified explanation of how gasses really work. But ultimately wrong.
All models are wrong, but some models are less wrong than others.Many things aren't 100% wrong or 100% right. Many ideas are in the middle. For example supply and demand is basically correct but isn't perfect at predicting prices. That doesn't mean its wrong, but only that it isn't 100% correct and is only a simplification.
Please read:
I trust this closes this matter?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?