Re: World’s smartest man debunks secular archaeology and history
Good scientific theories aren't replaced, but expanded upon.
Newton's theory of gravity had problems, namely:
1) It couldn't predict irregularities in the orbit of Mercury
2) It couldn't explain how the force of gravity was transmitted
When Einstein came along and introduced relativity, the first problem was resolved. Newtonian mechanics still worked wonderfully, but only at non-relativistic velocities. But Relativity still had trouble because it didn't explain how gravity was transmitted and with the discovery of quantum mechanics, there was an instant problem because it was impossible to describe relativity on a quantum scale
Now we're entering into quantum gravity and the discovery of the Higgs boson. Our understanding of gravity is getting better which allows us to further refine and complete the theory.
Scientific theories are based on facts - old theories are discarded when new ones are formulated but no theory is ever considered proved - they are all incomplete and grow as our knowledge increases yet the facts and proved hypotheses within theories remain facts.
Einstein's theory of general relativity is our current theory of gravity - it posits that gravity bends 4-dimensional space - this is supported by facts, yet it's incomplete. We also have several quantum theories of gravity that require the exchange of gravitons between massive objects - these are also supported by facts (yet incomplete). All theories of gravity include Newton's law of gravity which simply measures the force of attraction not the reason why it's there - also this law has been modified after Einstein proved it was not entirely universal in scope (it fails for objects moving at relativistic speeds).
It's unfortunate that modern physics cannot combine Relativity with quantum theory - both theories are wildly accurate at predicting physical events but we know they are both incomplete, so what gravity actually is and how it manifests and propagates, are still open questions - of course there's no doubt it exists, so gravity IS a fact.
To reinforce what I said, you really need to take some time to understand what scientists mean by hypothesis, fact, and theory
A fact is something quantifiable. It is a fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458 meters per second. You can test it and verify it.
A hypothesis is a testable question. You ask a question about a subject, make a prediction, and test it. A hypothesis, by definition, must be possible to refute (there has to be some way that the prediction can be tested and found wrong), but the hypothesis itself is only a thought until it is tested.
A theory is a collection of confirmed hypotheses and facts that describe the nature of something. A theory must be testable, verifiable, and falsifiable. It must be able to make predictions and it must include all relevant information about its subject. This is why creationists sound like mormons when they say things like, "The Theory of evolution can't explain how life started or how the universe began." The theory of evolution doesn't address those things at all. The theory on how life started is called the Theory of Abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't deal with how life started, instead it deals with what life is doing once it exists. Similarly, The biological theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of the cosmos, because that would be astronomy and cosmology. That's like saying that the theory of gravity is pure crap because it can't explain a nuclear explosion.
So all I can tell you is that you need to educate yourself.
Because in very many other situations the theory gives answers which are more accurate than any other explanation. The fact that Newtonian gravity works pretty well for flying to the moon and general planetary motion in our solar system indicates it is more or less a good model. The fact that General Relativity explains the shortcomings of Newton's model, and that we have verified varies forms of time dilation, indicates that GR is an even more complete model.
Even if the GR model is incomplete, the next model will still have to simplify to GR and Newton in the cases we commonly use.
Dark matter, or whatever it turns out to be, is unlikely to be a systematic error in modelling gravity, the effects we see have too much local variation. You can't really hope to explain an isolated case of gravitational lensing around a non shining centre, as being due to a new theory of gravity which happens to cause lensing in that specific place.
You've been tricked into thinking the Bible is evidence for God. 
I can say the same for you. Believing the Earth is Flat, other planets don't exist, there's a firmament around the Earth, the Sun is 500 miles away - all this is foolish because you deny the evidence that is easily available.
If you put your own interpretation on the Bible like all Christians do, how do you know what it actually means?
How do you know it's true?
We change based on evidence.
Originally posted by Alphonse Alban
View Post
Newton's theory of gravity had problems, namely:
1) It couldn't predict irregularities in the orbit of Mercury
2) It couldn't explain how the force of gravity was transmitted
When Einstein came along and introduced relativity, the first problem was resolved. Newtonian mechanics still worked wonderfully, but only at non-relativistic velocities. But Relativity still had trouble because it didn't explain how gravity was transmitted and with the discovery of quantum mechanics, there was an instant problem because it was impossible to describe relativity on a quantum scale
Now we're entering into quantum gravity and the discovery of the Higgs boson. Our understanding of gravity is getting better which allows us to further refine and complete the theory.
Scientific theories are based on facts - old theories are discarded when new ones are formulated but no theory is ever considered proved - they are all incomplete and grow as our knowledge increases yet the facts and proved hypotheses within theories remain facts.
Einstein's theory of general relativity is our current theory of gravity - it posits that gravity bends 4-dimensional space - this is supported by facts, yet it's incomplete. We also have several quantum theories of gravity that require the exchange of gravitons between massive objects - these are also supported by facts (yet incomplete). All theories of gravity include Newton's law of gravity which simply measures the force of attraction not the reason why it's there - also this law has been modified after Einstein proved it was not entirely universal in scope (it fails for objects moving at relativistic speeds).
It's unfortunate that modern physics cannot combine Relativity with quantum theory - both theories are wildly accurate at predicting physical events but we know they are both incomplete, so what gravity actually is and how it manifests and propagates, are still open questions - of course there's no doubt it exists, so gravity IS a fact.
To reinforce what I said, you really need to take some time to understand what scientists mean by hypothesis, fact, and theory
A fact is something quantifiable. It is a fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458 meters per second. You can test it and verify it.
A hypothesis is a testable question. You ask a question about a subject, make a prediction, and test it. A hypothesis, by definition, must be possible to refute (there has to be some way that the prediction can be tested and found wrong), but the hypothesis itself is only a thought until it is tested.
A theory is a collection of confirmed hypotheses and facts that describe the nature of something. A theory must be testable, verifiable, and falsifiable. It must be able to make predictions and it must include all relevant information about its subject. This is why creationists sound like mormons when they say things like, "The Theory of evolution can't explain how life started or how the universe began." The theory of evolution doesn't address those things at all. The theory on how life started is called the Theory of Abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't deal with how life started, instead it deals with what life is doing once it exists. Similarly, The biological theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of the cosmos, because that would be astronomy and cosmology. That's like saying that the theory of gravity is pure crap because it can't explain a nuclear explosion.
So all I can tell you is that you need to educate yourself.
Originally posted by Alphonse Alban
View Post
Even if the GR model is incomplete, the next model will still have to simplify to GR and Newton in the cases we commonly use.
Dark matter, or whatever it turns out to be, is unlikely to be a systematic error in modelling gravity, the effects we see have too much local variation. You can't really hope to explain an isolated case of gravitational lensing around a non shining centre, as being due to a new theory of gravity which happens to cause lensing in that specific place.
Originally posted by Mary Etheldreda
View Post

Originally posted by Mary Etheldreda
View Post
Originally posted by Mary Etheldreda
View Post
Originally posted by Mary Etheldreda
View Post
Originally posted by Mary Etheldreda
View Post
Comment