Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
The Purpose Of A Physical Theory..

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Bruce on January 8, 2004 20:46:56 UTC

Is a creation of the human mind for modeling natural phenomena. A physical theory must be internally consistent, make empirically verifiable predictions within the theories domain of applicability [predictions that agree with measurement], while remaining isomorphic with previously established theory to some appropriate limit.

Some other comments pertaining to purpose of theory.

"Physical theories are free creations of the human mind, and are not demonstrable TRUTHS about the universe. Physical theories either work well
or they don't [make predictions wrt natural phenomena which can be empirically verified]. And that is really all that science needs to say about them, particularly in physics. Judgments about whether theories are true or not lie outside of science proper and lie within the realm of Natural Philosophy."

Patrick Reany
[] me.

Stafford obviously doesn't understand the purpose of physical theory when he denies Einstein [physics in general] the right to model time any way he [it] chooses. The blatant claim that Einstein made a mistake, a high school physics student wouldn't make, for modeling time as something that can be measured using an ideal clock is ridiculous. Stafford can model time anyway he chooses as can any author of a physical theory. Stafford's claim is that his theory bridges the gap between QM and GR. This is a bogus claim which anybody who has competantly looked at his theory must conclude. He doesn't derive an exact solution to Einstein's equations [he gets a Newtonian approximation]. Stafford told me that we would come to realize that Newton's prediction that elliptical orbits don't precess is correct. Stafford avoids any empirical data which conflicts with the way he wants things to be. Folks who understand something about the purpose of physical theory realize this is a bunch of mularkey.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 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