Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The God particle is a fabrication.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sfs" data-source="post: 58934726" data-attributes="member: 8727"><p>Because gravity already means "whatever makes lumps of matter attract one another". It's meant that since Newton first suggested that what makes stuff fall down on earth is the same thing that makes planets go around the sun. It's highly unlikely that that sense of gravity is going to be replaced. What you should be asking is, why aren't they trying to replace General Relativity, which is the current best theory of gravity. And of course the answer is, they are trying. There have been any number of proposed replacements for GR, in part inspired by the ugliness of postulating dark matter. </p><p></p><p></p><p>You are only learning now that no set of evidence is ever definitive? This fact isn't restricted to science: you can never be certain of anything, and new evidence may always force you to reconsider what you thought you knew. (Which is precisely why scientists usually avoid talking about "truth".) That's just part of life. What sets science apart is not that it somehow magically comes up with the permanently right explanation, but that it insists on testing ideas against empirical evidence whenever possible. The result is that science is much more reliable than any other way of understanding the natural world, even if it isn't perfectly reliable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sfs, post: 58934726, member: 8727"] Because gravity already means "whatever makes lumps of matter attract one another". It's meant that since Newton first suggested that what makes stuff fall down on earth is the same thing that makes planets go around the sun. It's highly unlikely that that sense of gravity is going to be replaced. What you should be asking is, why aren't they trying to replace General Relativity, which is the current best theory of gravity. And of course the answer is, they are trying. There have been any number of proposed replacements for GR, in part inspired by the ugliness of postulating dark matter. You are only learning now that no set of evidence is ever definitive? This fact isn't restricted to science: you can never be certain of anything, and new evidence may always force you to reconsider what you thought you knew. (Which is precisely why scientists usually avoid talking about "truth".) That's just part of life. What sets science apart is not that it somehow magically comes up with the permanently right explanation, but that it insists on testing ideas against empirical evidence whenever possible. The result is that science is much more reliable than any other way of understanding the natural world, even if it isn't perfectly reliable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The God particle is a fabrication.
Top
Bottom