So how come you missed the part in the abstract that stated "conflict with special relativity' - which when I pointed that out you asked where did it do that?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What's required for a theory to become a law?
- Thread starter David Jerome
- Start date
Evidently you missed the term APPARENT before the term "conflict" and then you never bothered to read the rest of the paper where he explains why it's NOT!
Upvote
0
There is no conflict or apparent conflict. I cannot see why he would bother putting that line in there. One of his later papers even admits that the comoving volume of space is globally expanding.
Upvote
0
It's a single LINE from the abstract! Holy smokes! You called the guy and IDIOT and never even read the paper!
So now is he still an idiot? Honestly the verbal abuse that astronomers resort to in debate is astounding. It's like their first line of emotional and intellectual defense.
Upvote
0
FYI, the "superluminal velocity" aspect of Lambda-CDM theory *IS* in "apparent" conflict with SR, hence the use of GR in explaining such observations (usually). He then explains why it's NOT actually in conflict with SR, but then you'd have to actually read the paper to understand why. I wouldn't want to spoil the ending for you.
Upvote
0
In the interests of fairness I retract the idiot comment. I have just about read all of his papers on this topic. I do think he should take out the apparent conflict comment - it is only apparent conflict if you are taking a Physics 201 class. He does contradict himself in later papers.FYI, the "superluminal velocity" aspect of Lambda-CDM theory *IS* in "apparent" conflict with SR, hence the use of GR in explaining such observations (usually). He then explains why it's NOT actually in conflict with SR, but then you'd have to actually read the paper to understand why. I wouldn't want to spoil the ending for you.
And stop saying Lambda-CDM when you mean GR (specifically FRW spacetimes in GR).
Upvote
0
Theories are based on evidence. Scientists are just humble enough to admit that what seems right has the possibility of being wrong...unlike Christians that once fought tooth and nail to keep geocentrism.I see.
So theories that have not been proven wrong are considered right until proven wrong.
Got it.
Upvote
0
NailsII
Life-long student of biological science
Laws are mathematical proofs, undisputed models, facts.
Theories are explanations of laws, proofs and models, are falsifiable and can be used to make predictions.
It is this predictive power that can often demonstrate whether a theory works or not.
But yes, it is with much greater certainty that you can disprove than prove; a working theory is usually only considered a provisional arrangement pending further research.
But in reality, when large amounts of data have been collated and the theory is still in place, it can be considered as a good theory, and you can place a high level of confidence in it.
Theories are explanations of laws, proofs and models, are falsifiable and can be used to make predictions.
It is this predictive power that can often demonstrate whether a theory works or not.
It is a long hard road to be accepted in the first place, don't assume that it is a given.
But yes, it is with much greater certainty that you can disprove than prove; a working theory is usually only considered a provisional arrangement pending further research.
But in reality, when large amounts of data have been collated and the theory is still in place, it can be considered as a good theory, and you can place a high level of confidence in it.
Only in the same way that you are innocent until proven guilty, but again being considered right is not the first step, it is a long way off from a hypothesis that has just been proposed.
Upvote
0
You seem to have misunderstood.
A law is a part of a theory. Laws do not get promoted to theories. Theories are made up of laws in the saem way that a house is made of bricks. You can't promote a brick to a house, but you can use it as one of many components to build a house.
No, but you seem to misunderstand how theories and laws fit together.
Once again, you don't promote laws into theories.
Upvote
0
No theory every becomes a law. Theories and laws are two different things.
In science a theory is as good as it gets. Nothing in science is ever considered 100%.
Nothing. Theories never become laws and laws never become theories.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
