Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
"They aren't the only "correct" definition -- the ones I proffered are also correct; but, considering the way the English language evolves through usage, I'll concede that they are correct. I shouldn't have called the "wrong" -- that's too absolute a judgment to make about evolving language."

The definitions are singular, unique and they are THE only correct ones. There are no other definitions of those words allowed. Scientist are very insistent that what is, is.

"...ToE. Some people dismiss it as "only a theory". Others say that a theory is the next thing to a proven fact -- therefore the ToE (being a theory) must be the next best thing to a proven fact. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". "

You'll have to work on your logic. Taking claims from 2 groups in conflict and forming a logical construct from their contradictory claims, as if they were one person is not an example of "begging the question". The act is irrational though.

"So far, the ToE seems to have held up despite many attempts to prove it false. That gives it a high truth value -- but it does not give it infallibility."

At this point in the history of the theory, the Correspondence principle applies. That says that any new theory must contain the old as a limiting example. Tossing out "fallible" is pointless. Evolution ain't going down.

"It may shock you to learn that, if you have been out of school for several years, several of the scientific theories you were taught have since been falsified. If not outright falsified, then modified significantly. It happens all the time -- it's what we call progress."

Oh, what theories are those?

"When I was in high school, I was taught about several earlier theories of gravitation, along with the most current theory. I was also taught how the scientific method was used to disprove the earlier theories."

Well, here's one you're claiming. For your information the Newtonian theory of gravity is correct. It is a limiting case of the more general theory in the limit of small local energy density. The General Theory of Relativity, of which Newtonian theory exists in the limit, is founded on the Equivalence Principle. It says, "The laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, regardless of motion." In order to for that to be true, it was realized that the gravitational field was in fact due to the curvature of space. That principle and the Principle of Relativity(fixed, constant speed of light) meant that all local frames are Lorentzian and local was now defined by the difference of curvature between adjacent world lines. Here on Earth and around most of the Solar System, Newton's law apply, because our local world is sufficiently flat.

749 posted on 02/01/2006 11:19:35 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies ]


To: spunkets
"You'll have to work on your logic. Taking claims from 2 groups in conflict and forming a logical construct from their contradictory claims, as if they were one person is not an example of "begging the question". The act is irrational though."

Respectfully, that's actually not what I said. Please see my post 950 to clear this up.

"At this point in the history of the theory, the Correspondence principle applies. That says that any new theory must contain the old as a limiting example. Tossing out "fallible" is pointless. Evolution ain't going down."

Please refer to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for an opposing viewpoint.

"Well, here's one you're claiming. For your information the Newtonian theory of gravity is correct. It is a limiting case of the more general theory in the limit of small local energy density.".

Please refer to my post #483; wherein I said:

"Newton's law obviously wasn't actually proven -- just as no theory can actually be proven. It was, however, disproven. (Actually, many argue that it is still valid as a special case -- it is still useful for ordinary purposes here on earth.)"

It's not that we don't have relativistic effects on Earth -- it's just that for most practical purposes (e.g. calculating the trajectory of a bullet), Newton's formulae work just fine, and are much easier to work with. However, if took the trouble to measure things very, very carefully, you would see that there is a discrepancy.

BTW -- it seems that newer theories of gravitation are emerging. See:

"http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html"

(I'm not claiming to understand this -- It's pretty far out -- but, then again so was Newton's stuff in his day.)
958 posted on 02/02/2006 9:45:33 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies ]

To: spunkets
"{I said} It may shock you to learn that, if you have been out of school for several years, several of the scientific theories you were taught have since been falsified. If not outright falsified, then modified significantly. It happens all the time -- it's what we call progress."

(You said) "Oh, what theories are those?"

Contraction theory (to explain mountains) for one. Since replaced by the Theory of Plate Tectonics.

The Kelvin Helmholtz's Contraction Theory to expain the sun's energy for two -- since replaced by the theory of nuclear fusion.
(Well, O.K. -- maybe I'm not quite old enough for that one -- although some FReepers could be -- I just liked the fact that two different "contraction theories" have been falsified.)
962 posted on 02/02/2006 10:06:43 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson