Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
A Problem

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Nicholas on November 6, 2002 23:50:27 UTC

"And demands are made of outsiders with new ideas, that they immediately supply math proof, when all mathematicians know that a very high percentage of math calculations is based upon empirically-derived constants and curves. Which is to say; the mechanics are observed and measured
prior to generating mathematical models. "

You don't seem to understand the scientific method. There are observations and there are theories. An example of an observation would be measuring the position of a ball as a function of time after you drop it from a building. You would get the following, x = H - (1/2)gt^2. This is not a theory, this is just a mathematical description of an observation. (x is height, H is initial height, g is acceleration, and t is time)

But let's say you want to formulate a theory to explain why the ball fell by that equation. You can come with almost any old thing (let's say invisible gophers are carrying the ball) and you could even contrive an equation to describe this random theory, but the best theories are the ones that can describe not only balls falling, but a whole bunch of other things as well. Newton postulated some fundamental ideas (that is, he guessed based on observations), and both explained and predicted a tremendous number of other observations as a result of these fundamental ideas. Those fundamental ideas were his three laws and the law of gravitation (there may have been a few others, both mathematical and philosophical, but those are the main ones). Using these ideas, he could derive the equation I gave above, along with many other important equations as well. Einstein did something similar.

Here's my problem with your theories: you can't derive anything. You can come up with a wordy explanation for why mercury precesses, but you can't predict where it will be at a given time. Without this predictive power, theories are useless. Einstein's theory can predict not only the orbit of mercury, but many other things that he had no idea about when he formulated his theory.

So I guess this is an important question: What does your theory predict? What will observations reveal in the future if your theory is true?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins