Odd how this ‘measurement’ of the proton is very similar to our claims of the size, orbit, and viability of planets around other stars.
We can’t see the planets.
We only have light detectors that give us a reading of very minute dimming in the light, which we assume to be a planet.
Based on the length and extent of the dimming, we claim to know the planet’s size and orbit.
Amazing how continuously wrong we are about things we search for the truth.
Amazing how continuously wrong we are about things AS we search for the truth.
(that’s a sign I should go to bed. Goodnight all)
Yeah, I guess we'd better just give up and go back to living in caves.
Amazing how, as we search for the truth, our understanding of the Universe is continuously improved - as demonstrated by our continually advancing technology.
Today, the radius of the proton has been revised downwards, by 4%, from 0.88 femtometers. A hundred years ago, Ernest Rutherford had just discovered the atomic nucleus.
A hundred years hence? It boggles the imagination.
Regards,
There certainly is a lot of room for interpretation in the exoplanet data. Observational changes resulted in the Hubble Constant itself being off by about an order of magnitude. With in recent times it becoming possible to get peer reviewed papers published questioning if the Hubble constant is even correct, naturally a non majority view but apparently sane enough to be published.
We are always “improving” or “advancing” in knowledge but we often lack the humility to realize the implication of that is that we are just as wrong today as our ancestors were yesterday, just in different ways and with more precision.
And real cynic might observe, that the rephrase of “Always correcting our beliefs based on new data” is “We are reliable because we are constantly changing our minds”.
In the end.... Now that I have discovered how to make my own hooch.... I don’t care to much who wins this debate :-)
I can’t tell when you’re joking.