Disagreeing is bliss
Let’s disagree to disagree then.
1 Like
How does the EPR article - which is about quantum theory - invalidate general relativity, lol. He developed the latter by assuming that the laws of physics were governed by local fields 20+ years prior. And to this day there is no link between both… You should know that if you want to be credible as an honest debater.
I’ll agree with your ignorance, not your linking of what cannot be linked. Debates on the very fringes of knowledge and understanding are very different from ones trying to question established theories in their framework, and far more productive and less futile.
You did not talk about general relativity. You talked about locality, and the opinion of Einstein on locality was expressed in the EPR article, and is another example of laws of physics being debatable - and so far his opinion on the topic is proven wrong.
What do you then bring general relativity for ? The notion of locality has a specific meaning in physics, especially when talking laws. You should know that if you want to be credible as an honest debater.
And your personal attack is futile. As are your persistent references to a framework that you made up on the spot. Newton’s law is a universal law. It is good enough in the vast majority of usual cases, but was debated and proven wrong with Einstein. The revolution of Einstein was exactly to debate an established law - just as he did in his paper about the relativity of time.
This was wrong. The law of gravity was debated, and proven wrong.
Your pretense that “some laws” can’t be debated in science, is religion. Even worse, it is propaganda under the cover of science. It is the exact thing scientific method was created to avoid.
Which part of it was unclear to you ? The assumption of having the laws of physics being governed by local fields was the direct cause of his developing the general relativity. I thought you knew that. My bad.
Nope, you mentioned it first. I did include the word “locality” in my reply in a list demonstrating that you need to use the right tool for the right job. That went zoooooffff.
Do you equate ideas with personality ? There is a difference between stating, which I did, that you are ignorant of certain facts and establishing wrong relations and stating, which I did not, that you are a (pick any inappropriate adjective) person. I tend to keep the debate on the subject, not the person. For instance, I am ignorant of many things, but not about how science operates. See what I did there ?
Nah, if I remember correctly (it’s been a while), the first time that frames of reference were mentioned at uni was during the first course on mechanics (newtonian and the start of relativity) in our book 1, chapter 2. Mutatis mutandis that need for frame of reference applies to any theory, not just mechanics. Something discovered in the stone age may still hold true when applied to stone age problems.
Since those happy student days I’ve seen, even among scientists, quite a number of people trying to use the wrong theory for their reference frame of work. Are you now saying that even special relativity, that demonstrates decisively that frames of reference are important, is wrong too ? Have fun !
So you keep saying. Gravity is the law, gravitational force is real. Sometimes other formulations of that law need to be used, in certain, definable cases where better accuracy of the predictions are needed or indeed to understand a new phenomenon. You use the second order corrections (from Albert E.) on Newton’s law when you need them e.g., when you’re trying to comprehend perihelion precession or want to launch a satellite etc, having effectively expanded your reference frame and a broader need of applicability.
Here’s the difference you do not wish to follow: you talk in generalities, whereas I indicate precisely the limitations and boundaries, when they should be suspect and when discussing them is futile. Not conceding that point is amazing.
Nope. You don’t see that your argument makes the existence of a scientific method impossible ? Logically, from your statements it follows that there wouldn’t be any scientific theory valid because there is no ultimately correct theory covering everything, lol.
Now now, let’s not go into hyperbole mode and become insulting because we don’t establish a common ground. See just above, I state that any and all theories have limitations brought about by their frame of reference. You don’t agree with that, and that’s perfectly fine since I’m not here to convince you. But as I don’t have the patience of a Richard Dawkins we’ll leave it at that.
Nobody expects the EPR article…
1 Like
Your mistake is thinking you matter enough either way to make a difference.
You don’t friend.
2 Likes
When you talk about physics being local in such generalities, this means locality. I thought you knew that. My bad.
Who cares ?
You said that the framework of Newton’s law made it “not the correct theory” when “observing the movement of mercury”. That’s wrong, it’s exactly what it was build for.
The fact that it predicts the wrong results makes it wrong.
Yes I keep saying. Just like I said before that Newton’s law is accurate enough to be used in the usual case. Which is the essence of your following claim, except you pretend it’s the same law. It’s not.
That’s a lot of generalities.
It’s nice to say “logically” but it’s better when you actually have a logical structure between the premise and the conclusion.
However you are right, in that every scientific theory is invalid, in the sense of non absolute : you can’t prove the absence of an error. That’s exactly why they can all be debated.
No, I disagree that your sentence makes sense to start with. Had you not switched from “framework” to “frame of reference”, which are two different things, I would have agreed. But again that would be off topic : I do not claim that Newton’s law had no framework. I claimed, the one in which the interactions between the sun and mercury do not belong is one you made up.
I just spent 20 min to re read your messages and try to understand why you switch from “theoretical framework” to “frame of reference” without any explanation. I did not get an explanation.
Okay, that’s good to share. You didn’t understand one element and it becomes magnified under your undivided attention, unfortunately also impeding you from getting the overall meaning.
Don’t twist it around. I am right in concluding that that is your position. And I am not sharing your position, let that be very clear. Perhaps that is because I am more inclined towards the practical than the ideal, but certainly because a platonic ideal has delayed (scientific) progress by being introspective to the point of being hermetic. And just to clarify my position a little further, to exclude the usual “lost in translation”, I do not mean this in the sense of the usual, normal self-check and challenging that any scientist worthy of the name performs on the current validity of scientific understanding.
Heisenberg smiles. I won’t ask “which error”, because in the end, his will always be there, also when you use the theory where it does not play a role of significance in its reference frame - but that’s my penchant for the practical that comes into the picture: one doesn’t need the wavelength of a car to know its position with high precision. Yes, that error is there, but not the tools to demonstrate it in that framework/frame of reference. In which case you can safely, and accurately, use the old newtonian mechanics.
This still is the most amusing statement. But perhaps we don’t share that kind of humor.
seems to contradict
so which is it ?
Never mind, I don’t think we’ll agree on anything. And as far as goes for a demonstration of OP’s title, we’re not ignorant but still disagree, making his statement wrong, at least in the frame of reference of this part of the thread.
No. I understood the term. What I did not understand, is the reason you had to change the terms you used.
No that you claimed you are a troll, no misunderstanding remains.
And I’m not.
You claim you can set an arbitrary limit between the correct science and the wrong science : the wrong science is the one that accepts to be wrong, the correct science is the one which uses dogma.
You’re a zealot. Not a scientist.
That’s a lot of generalities. Just to doge the issue.
You can’t prove the absence of error (in a theory)
Yes, that’s the difference between an oxymoron and a contradiction.
Both. Seems your useless blabbering prevents you from reading the next sentence ?
Again, a lot of generalities that are not even of concern.
Sheesh…there’s a load of nonsense been spouted in this thread.
Locality is a direct result of special relativity and is incorporated into general relativity. It is the entire reason for the so-called ‘EPR paradox’ as Einstein believed quantum mechanics ( specifically quantum entanglement ) violated locality and that there must as a consequence be ‘hidden variables’ rather than what he called ‘spooky action at a distance’.
Einstein was not ‘wrong’ about locality, especially as it is the entire reason mass inside black holes is able to exert influence outside…in apparent defiance of nothing being able to escape a black hole. Rather, Bell’s inequalities show that no hidden variable theory of quantum mechanics can explain actual observation. Instead the topic has moved on from pure locality to what is called ‘local realism’.
That’s what I wrote here :
That’s what I wrote here :
I did not consider the repeat of my previous post as valuable.
Which demonstrates that, again, Locality as a principle can only be used in its proper reference frame, which does not include qt, in order to retain its reliability and validity as such !
Now, that is far removed from a situation with Newton’s law of gravity, which DOES predict perihelion precession on any planet in the solar system, just not accurately enough for Mercury.
No, it demonstrates that locality is debatable. Since it was debated. Which was precisely my point.
The fact that Newton’s law was proven wrong by Einstein is but a side note.
Nobody claimed Newton’s law did not predict perihelion precession. Begone, troll.
Who’s trolling here ? The law that is not a law ?! Guess you’ll have to file a ticket with the proper scientific authorities and have it struck off the records.
Yes, Newton’s law of gravity : a law that produces bad prediction is not a law.
The existence of observations that contradict a law’s prediction invalidate that law.
The exhibit of such observations, their demonstration, their interpretation, as well as the way to integrate those errors in the scientific knowledge, all that is debating the law.
You are the one calling that hermetic . In reality, that is the requirement of what is called science. Without that, a scientist becomes a zealot.
Yes, you are the one trolling. You are the one pretending there is no fundamental debate in science. You are the one claiming that science does not need introspection. That is fanaticism.
Your pathetic disdain for introspection and your proud arrogance is what makes people distrust science, because precisely it is only a tool for promoting your dogma.
Science without conscience is but ruin of your soul.
Newton assumed a universal time, and had no way of knowing that gravity slows down time…which is the actual cause of the observed precession of Mercury. In fact bizarrely…most popular science has it round the wrong way and it is not so much gravity that slows time but the slowing of time near a massive object that causes gravity.
Newton was not ‘wrong’, just incomplete. Likewise, many scientists consider that general relativity is incomplete…despite passing every predictive test so far.
Scientific theories are simply models of the world, and not ‘the’ world itself. No theory is ever 100% ‘proven right’, as the fundamental task of science is actually to prove theories wrong. Relativity and quantum mechanics are simply theories that have survived this process…so far.
4 Likes
@Stefnia_Freir So you keep saying. Like I said, you should try to get it struck as a Law, see how far you get. It’s obvious they overlooked it failed to some degree on the Mercury question and therefore keep calling it a Law. No ? Yes ? Or are they still debating whether or not it’s really a Law ? You seem to forget what that law really states. Feel free to go look it up, and then reflect on what the value of the mathematical interpretation is (which is insufficient for our first planet). You’ll see that the Law itself remains the Law, and that the original mathematics are incomplete (requiring corrections through general relativity). Law on the one hand, interpretation of how the values should be calculated on the other hand.
Clearly you did not understand the statement I made.
Science by its very nature of being publicly shared is anything but hermetic. By being public, down to the last detail, science continuously questions itself. That is not a debate, that simply the basis of modern science. You can call that introspection, but that is not how I used that word in that context. You really should get a book on Bacon’s views, as that will explain perfectly how the words “hermetic” and “introspective” are used and what they mean exactly in the context of science vs philosophy, especially in the platonic sense. It will be helpful to you, if you have the courage. When meanings of words change over time it’s quite important to use them in relation to person and time from which they are used - which you should have known as I explicitly mentioned Francis Bacon.
Warning to everyone else: strong language ahead, man lost his cool
ftfy, now it is more or less acceptable
I’m rather proud of the scientific method in general. Does that make a debater arrogant if he defends his views and interpretations ? Rather, do you have proof of the contrary viewpoint.
First off, science, and here I will go back to our friend Francis Bacon, should be independent of its agent, completely impartial and non-subjective. Since conscience is exclusively an element of the “subject” (the person doing the scientific work, the agent), it’s excluded from science as such. What is mandatory, however, is conscientiousness in adhering to the basic principles of how to do science, making the critical difference between good science and bad science. So there’s that. Does that address the need for ethical principles ? That is not part of the scientific methodology. However, as part and as servant of society and this planet as a whole, it would be a grave mistake not to question oneself about ethical aspects of certain parts of research and act accordingly and responsibly.
Second, soul is a religious element. As I said before, science does not take it upon itself to deal with religious matters. Since I keep religion and science separate, I trust my soul is the way it’s meant to be.
and number three, dogma lives in the realm of religion. A dogma can’t be challenged with proofs. Feel free to challenge my views with proofs. If the proofs are sound on a scientific basis (which means they will be challenged, turned inside out, dissected, tested by impartial agents, and either accepted or rejected) my view will change. That’s the method. Is a method arrogant ? Is a viewpoint a dogma if it is not successfully challenged ? Of course not.
Exactly that. And in an era when model building is extremely popular, at least in my activities, the limitations of models are very visible. The predictive value of those models is confined to their training set (the data used to create them) and usually a tiny bit outside those borders as well. And that is exactly what I’ve been trying to explain unsuccessfully to the other person.
which includes his ideas on gravity, the universal law of gravitation. Thank you for this refreshing statement after tons of posturing in this thread.
1 Like
Newton’s law of gravity was proven wrong when
- there was no object found that could explain the error in prediction
- another theory was able to make better predictions.
Scientific knowledge in general is incomplete. That’s why there is science…
And yes theories, and the laws they contain, can be debated and then proven wrong. That’s what I’m saying while he says that’s not possible.
sir Isaac Newton: Hahahahaha.
me: He forgot your third law, didn’t he ?
sir Isaac Newton: Indeed he did, indeed he did. Say, do you think he’s looking for the error ?
me: I hope so.
sir Isaac Newton: Hahahahaha. Good show, that’ll keep him out of our hair for a while. Would you like to see my latest telescope ? And I have some fresh applejuice for refreshment too.
me: I sure do, sir Isaac, I would be honored. By the way, sir Isaac, have you heard about that one time that a group of desperate scientists wanted to give up on the law of conservation of energy ? It goes like this…
exeunt
1 Like