What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

Yes 'GC' is galctic Center.
There is no doubt that the Sun is moving around the GC, but does it have a companion ? Does the sun have any other smaller closed orbit before the bigger one around GC. For example the Earth has a smaller closed orbit around the Sun before a very large around GC. Another example the moon has a small closed orbit around Earth, then Sun and finally GC.

Hope its clear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The God:

I assume that is a typo in the opening part of your post. If I'm not mistaken in reading you in context, I think it should it read "There is no doubt that the Sun is moving around the GC",...

I only brought it up just in case anyone else saw it and uses that as an excuse for...whatever. Best.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks, corrected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

No.

As far as all our myriads of probes and such like WISE can tell us, the Sun is not a part of any other stellar system.
It's orbit around the galactic center is certainly perturbed, moving upwards and downwards below the galactic plane, on smaller scales, but it orbits the galactic center and we can be sure of that within any definition of reasonable doubt.

 

All you need to do is present such Information! If it really exists!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How many times do you need to be asked that!

 

Better late then never I suppose.
And while you are at it, I have also had suspicions re the god and expletive deleted as being one and the same, and again, I'm sure many agree with me.
Latest evidence supporting that is the recent exchange as follows..........
post 171:
What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

POST 173:

POST 174:

and then lo and behold!

 

paddoboy:

PhysBang:

@ Both of you.

I have posted a reply to you both in the relevant thread because I have been advised that this is not on topic for this thread. Here is the link to it:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in...me-up-empty-handed.157224/page-5#post-3394913


Thanks.

 

Perhaps you are misinterpreting that advice.
In fact I'm sure you are in error.

 

paddoboy:

No. I checked before I posted to you above. I was advised the same. Hence my posting the other reply in the other thread. Thanks.

 

what is needed is access to state of the art tech. by the theories that question the accepted theories , as the accepted have access to.

to begin with.

the have access to the information that the accepted theories have but is not open information that should be open to anyone .

we can handle the truth . we can handle the truth .

in any field of ology.

 

Children discuss gravity...

To say whether they "saw"" GW, at first we must answer following questions:
1) What is internal structure of gravitational fields?
2) Why we still cannot unify GR and QP/SM?
3) Why gravity is non-linear whereas QP is linear?
4) Why gravity is so weak in comparison with the SM interactions?
5) Can gravitons be non-gravitating or superluminal (in GR, there is no limit for speed and GR is non-local; the speed c of GW is assumed i.e. does not follow from theory)?

And so on...

In my opinion, they "saw" flows in the part of spacetime associated with the electromagnetic fields, not with gravitational fields.

Notice that the fall of the superstring theory is highly instructive.

To disprove an accepted theory, we must show that such theory is incoherent. GR is incomplete so there appear as well solutions that cannot be realized by Nature.

 

That's not how science works. There are millions of similar questions, and none of them will be finally answered simply by thinking about these questions.

Scientists develop theories. These theories are quite complex things, and do not depend on some answers to such questions. They are, essentially, hypotheses, guesses. But based on such hypothetical theories, one can already answer many questions - even if only in a very special form, namely "if this theory is true, then ...". This is how such questions are answered.

 

In part you’re right. Why partially only?

When we take into account the leading mainstream theories then we can see that today ToE does not exist. It means that speculation is not threatened. But why the peer-review scientific journals do not specify speculation treated as a religion by the elders in the particle physics and cosmology? It is obvious that such a method stupid young scientists because they assume that elders must be right - see

http://m.thenational.ae/uae/science-at-a-crossroads-as-supersymmetry-theory-falls-flat

Some people claim that they detected GW. But they did not write that the GR black hole is a speculation because physical singularities cannot be in existence. Notice that I do not claim that some non-GR black holes are not in existence. They did not write that the luminal speed of GW is a speculation because the c in the d’Alembertian in the theory of GW is a speculation - d’Alembertian can be used in electromagnetism because there is the experimental result for speed of electromagnetic waves whereas there is not an experimental analog for speed of GW.

Do you see that speculation very frequently lead to abuse? And the falling supersymmetry theory is a good example. I claim that the GW will end as the supersymmetry theory because of the big inconsistency of the GR concerning the GW.

The peer-review scientific journals should not tolerate theories containing infinities, singularities, mathematical indeterminate forms or flexibility that leads to invariants because such theories are physically incoherent. Can they do it or corruption is too strong?

 

The example of the elders has always been an existing but not decisive problem in science. The aim of the scientist - to make some own contribution to scientific progress - is strong enough.

Much more problematic is that the jobs of scientists in the modern organization of science are the most insecure jobs imaginable. They have a job for some time of a grant, one or two years, and after this have to look for a new job. To get one, one has essentially only one choice - to publish as much as possible in some mainstream fashion. The exact opposite to what one would need for freedom of science.

Freedom of science would be much higher if scientists would, say after PhD, given a possibly low paid but safe job. Same principle as for judges or so, they can be considered as independent only if they have safe jobs.

Of course, at least near singularities GR has to be replaced by a better theory. But GWs are not even close to singularities, so there is no reason to doubt much about GW predictions. And there is already a lot of observational evidence for objects quite similar to GR BHs. Or, more accurate, objects which, for far away observers, look like GR BHs. So, these things are not really problematic, and there is nothing to object with how these observations have been handled.

The problem is not speculation - all scientific theories are the result of speculations. Even the successful theories differ from speculations only by the point that they have allowed to make (speculative) predictions which were testable, and the tests have supported the predictions of these speculations. But even the best imaginable success of such type of "confirmation" is unable to show that the speculation is more than partially right, or that it is more than just a close but wrong approximation of the truth.

I cannot see any such inconsistency.

In this case, nor Newtonian theory, nor GR should have been published. Because above contain infinities. I doubt this would have been a good idea.

 

Generally you are right.

But notice that some theories or some parts of theories lead astray because they are mathematically or/and physically incoherent. It is obvious that solutions to incoherent equations cannot be realized by Nature. Such theories or parts of theories are useless. They stupid scientific community. The theory of GR black holes is nonsensical because Nature cannot behave in such a way. The peer-review journals should not publish this part of GR. Of course, I do not claim that GR as a whole is incorrect - this theory is incomplete. It is obvious for me that during gravitational collapse of very massive star, there must appear some additional phase transitions that do not lead to physical singularity.

In my opinion, all incoherent parts of mainstream theories will be replaced for coherent, very different theories. So we should not stupid scientific community publishing nonsensical theories or incoherent parts of incomplete theories.

If peer-review journals will publish nonsensical theories or nonsensical parts of incomplete theories then corruption will win the day.

 

No. As classical gravity, as Maxwell theory have been incoherent, with their point sources where the force becomes infinite like $r^{-2}$. So, there are clearly solutions of these theories which cannot be realized by Nature.

But does this make above theories useless? Of course, not. Only those solutions where these infinities play a role.

Don't worry - once a theory has infinities, and GR has, then it is incorrect as a whole. But this does not make it worthless. It may be, like Newtonian gravity and Maxwell theory, a reasonable approximation, valid under a wide range of circumstances.

Of course, they will be replaced by coherent theories. Probably very different ones. The differences may be as great as between Newtonian gravity and GR. Or as between GR and my ether theory of gravity.

But don't forget that these differences, even if very big in the metaphysical, philosophical concept of the world, of what exists in reality and so on, appear almost indistinguishable in most of the experiments.

So, publishing the incoherent theories gives a lot: One can compare them with observations, and test them. So one can find out where their equations give good approximations of reality and where not. This essentially simplifies the job of those who search for the coherent theories. All I had to care developing my ether theory was that I can obtain, in some limit, the equations of Einstein's GR. This was sufficient for me to be sure that almost all the observational and experimental evidence about gravity found between 1915 and now is compatible with my ether theory too. And Einstein profited in the same way from Newtonian gravity. All he had to do was to check if there is some Newtonian limit for the equations of his theory. After this, he has been sure that his GR is able to make the correct predictions about everything where Newtonian gravity worked nicely. And he, then, could focus on that part where Newtonian gravity failed.

As long as nobody claims that a theory with infinities is a true theory, no problem arises with using incorrect, even in part incoherent, theories.

 

Assume that someone claims that bare fermions are the sizeless mathematical points. All know that such assumption is nonsensical. Such "theory" can be published in, for example, arxiv, not in scientific journals because then they validate completely wrong "theory". In such "theories" must appear next mathematical indeterminate forms and additional free parameters to obtain results consistent with experimental data. After formulation of such "theory", there appears criticism but due to the validation by scientific journals, today almost whole scientific community assumes that such "theories" are correct.

It is the big problem. Such "theories" or the superstring theory never should be published by scientific journals.

Such "theories" can be published in arxiv but there should be listed all weak points.

The validation of incoherent theories by scientific journals causes that the present-day physics is very messy - it is because of the infinities, singularities, approximations, tricks as the mathematical indeterminate forms, and tens of free parameters. It causes that we are able to prove each nonsensical idea.

We must change it. Scientific journals should not validate incoherent, nonsensical ideas. You know, incoherent ideas of elders are published in scientific journals whereas others assume that if they will support such nonsensical ideas then scientific journals will publish their papers as well.

 

No. Usually all these point particles are assumed to be approximations. BTW, in quantum field theory the issue is more subtle, because one does not even need to have point particles there, fields themselves are much more natural.

The problem with superstrings is not that it has been published - that was fine. Theoretical speculations have to be published, that is the standard way to develop them - others learn about such ideas and, possibly, find them interesting and have own ideas to add.

The problem is that a few such speculations become fashionable, their proponents get control over the distribution of grants, and then even those who find these ideas stupid have to develop them, given that they have no other chance to get grants.

No. One cannot prove scientific theories, and even string theorists are not that stupid that they start to claim such results.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!