Einstein's "mistakes"

[skwinty (Steve)]

Yes Circumpolar, the math is not simple, but then we are not Einstein's either.
Einstein was very modest as you can see from these quotations.

Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

[edwardsdj (Doug)]

Yes, all great quotations from a very humble man Steve

[avandonk]

I have worked with some and met many great scientists over the years and they all had one thing in common they were all humble and all also had the belief that if you are not making mistakes then you are not trying hard enough!

The other thing they all encouraged was for younger people to carry on the work as they were unencumbered with fixed ideas as we all tend to do with time!

Bert

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I like so many of Dr A's quotes.
Although this one is a worry..........
If the facts dont fit the theory get new facts.... or something like that.......

alex

Thats the trouble with science these days - too many scientists (and amateurs) with this attitude.

Personally I find Cosmology a crock. It's a nice philosophical debate - but nothing more. Einstein made the mistake of 'fitting' his theory to the dogma of the time. At the time of Hubble (and even now) the theory of an expanding universe is just theory. There is no direct evidence for it other than measuring light and the light indicates that more distant objects are moving away from us faster than nearer objects. BUT - we have based this premise on an assumption that the nature of light is unchanged over such vast differences without any means of actually proving it!

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Thats the trouble with science these days - too many scientists (and amateurs) with this attitude.

Personally I find Cosmology a crock. It's a nice philosophical debate - but nothing more. Einstein made the mistake of 'fitting' his theory to the dogma of the time. At the time of Hubble (and even now) the theory of an expanding universe is just theory. There is no direct evidence for it other than measuring light and the light indicates that more distant objects are moving away from us faster than nearer objects. BUT - we have based this premise on an assumption that the nature of light is unchanged over such vast differences without any means of actually proving it!

Cheers

What do you mean by the "nature of light" in this context.

Regards

Steven

[higginsdj]

Anything to do with light - it's speed, it's spectrum (redshift/blueshift) etc.

We have interpreted what we observe to fit a theory for something else ie in order for the BB to be true, the universe must expand, if it is to expand then more distant objects must be accelerating faster the nearer ones etc etc etc. So we have meagre observations supporting a single theory because assumptions are made about light. Yes we can prove certain things about light over small distances but what about cosmological distances?

Lets face it pre Relativity, Newtonian physics was the be all and end all and matched all out observations. Turns out that it does - on the small scale (solar System) but fails on the large scale - but does it? Maybe our assumptions about how light behaves is wrong. Perhaps the speed of light is not fixed. Perhaps red and blue shift are the results of dark matter impacting on the light and so on and so forth.

At this stage nothing can be proven so the arguments surrounding anything on the cosmological scale are simply philosophical.....

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Anything to do with light - it's speed, it's spectrum (redshift/blueshift) etc.

We have interpreted what we observe to fit a theory for something else ie in order for the BB to be true, the universe must expand, if it is to expand then more distant objects must be accelerating faster the nearer ones etc etc etc. So we have meagre observations supporting a single theory because assumptions are made about light. Yes we can prove certain things about light over small distances but what about cosmological distances?

Lets face it pre Relativity, Newtonian physics was the be all and end all and matched all out observations. Turns out that it does - on the small scale (solar System) but fails on the large scale - but does it? Maybe our assumptions about how light behaves is wrong. Perhaps the speed of light is not fixed. Perhaps red and blue shift are the results of dark matter impacting on the light and so on and so forth.

At this stage nothing can be proven so the arguments surrounding anything on the cosmological scale are simply philosophical.....

Cheers

The Scientific Method initially involves the development of a theory based on available data, not around the other way. If new data is not supportive the theory is either modified or scrapped. Newtonian physics is a good example.

To say that there is only meagre evidence to support the BB is simply not true. The cosmic microwave background is a case in point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

Photons are the fundamental particles of interaction for the electromagnetic force. They don't change for subatomic distances let alone any other distance.

Regards

Steven

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The Scientific Method initially involves the development of a theory based on available data, not around the other way. If new data is not supportive the theory is either modified or scrapped. Newtonian physics is a good example.

What evidence/proof is there that Newtonian physics should be scrapped in place of Relativity? There is the theory itself and assumptions made about light and it's behaviours and it appears to fit so I do not argue that it is a valid theory but people tend to ignore all else because we have a 'valid theory'

Originally Posted by sjastro

To say that there is only meagre evidence to support the BB is simply not true. The cosmic microwave background is a case in point.

The CMB is a theory - what evidence is there? What actually supports the theory behind the interpretation of the CMB? The nature of light. Now we have made assumptions about the behaviour of light over time and distance. Again it is a valid theory but nothing more.

Originally Posted by sjastro

The Scientific Method initially involves the
Photons are the fundamental particles of interaction for the electromagnetic force. They don't change for subatomic distances let alone any other distance.

What proof is there of this? As you have said, it holds only as long as there is no evidence to refute it. So the theory holds based on the assumption that it doesn't change with distance.

My whole point is that cosmology is nothing but theory. There is no direct evidence, no proofs just data that supports a theory based on a theory supported by other data. The whole thing stands on so much theory and theory of theory's that it really is not much more than a philosophical debate at present. I am not saying it is wrong and that we haven't found the correct path - but like Newtonian Physics - we might not be playing the in the right ballpark!

Cheers

[AGarvin]

Originally Posted by higginsdj
What evidence/proof is there that Newtonian physics should be scrapped in place of Relativity?

The fact that Newtonian physics can't accurately explain the advance of Mercurys perihelion where as general relativity does just to name one. At any rate, no one is saying Newtonian physics needs to be abandoned, just that it is not accurate enough at certain levels.

Originally Posted by higginsdj
The CMB is a theory - what evidence is there? What actually supports the theory behind the interpretation of the CMB? The nature of light. Now we have made assumptions about the behaviour of light over time and distance. Again it is a valid theory but nothing more.

Let's just throw out everything from Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz, Lorentz and Einstein onwards. It is a valid theory supported by well over 100 years of experiment, observation and development. There is not even a sniff of evidence that I'm aware of that suggests that light "ages" and changes with time and/or distance.

If you are going to suggest that it does, then you need to provide a theory or experimental/observational evidence that it does, not just tell us that in your opinion you think it might.

Andrew.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

What evidence/proof is there that Newtonian physics should be scrapped in place of Relativity? There is the theory itself and assumptions made about light and it's behaviours and it appears to fit so I do not argue that it is a valid theory but people tend to ignore all else because we have a 'valid theory'

Where did I explicitly state that Newtonian physics should be scrapped? I also mentioned the term modified. General relativity is an extension of Newtonian physics.
There are no assumptions made in the Scientific Method.

Originally Posted by higginsdj

The CMB is a theory - what evidence is there? What actually supports the theory behind the interpretation of the CMB? The nature of light. Now we have made assumptions about the behaviour of light over time and distance. Again it is a valid theory but nothing more.

Did you actually bother to read the link? The most compelling data is the black body temperature of the microwave background which was as predicted by the BB theory. If the behavior of light changes, the distance and age of the cosmic background would change as would the black body temperature.

Originally Posted by higginsdj

What proof is there of this? As you have said, it holds only as long as there is no evidence to refute it. So the theory holds based on the assumption that it doesn't change with distance.

If light does change over distance and time, the chemical spectrum of hydrogen 1 billion light years away would be very different to that of hydrogen in the laboratory. The only difference is a displacement in the spectral lines due to Doppler shift which of course gets back to the expansion of the Universe.

Originally Posted by higginsdj

My whole point is that cosmology is nothing but theory. There is no direct evidence, no proofs just data that supports a theory based on a theory supported by other data. The whole thing stands on so much theory and theory of theory's that it really is not much more than a philosophical debate at present. I am not saying it is wrong and that we haven't found the correct path - but like Newtonian Physics - we might not be playing the in the right ballpark!

The fact that you paint Cosmology as Crock suggests a very different picture. The facts are there to take Cosmology beyond a philosophical debate.

Regards

Steven

[skwinty (Steve)]

Herewith an interesting article by Dennis Overbye published in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html

[xelasnave]

Steve I like the photo...
Of course he is right about it.. the constant comes from the pressure of the "flow" of all particles ...
The article was a good overview

alex

[circumpolar (Matt)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

What evidence/proof is there that Newtonian physics should be scrapped in place of Relativity? There is the theory itself and assumptions made about light and it's behaviours and it appears to fit so I do not argue that it is a valid theory but people tend to ignore all else because we have a 'valid theory'


The CMB is a theory - what evidence is there? What actually supports the theory behind the interpretation of the CMB? The nature of light. Now we have made assumptions about the behaviour of light over time and distance. Again it is a valid theory but nothing more.



What proof is there of this? As you have said, it holds only as long as there is no evidence to refute it. So the theory holds based on the assumption that it doesn't change with distance.

My whole point is that cosmology is nothing but theory. There is no direct evidence, no proofs just data that supports a theory based on a theory supported by other data. The whole thing stands on so much theory and theory of theory's that it really is not much more than a philosophical debate at present. I am not saying it is wrong and that we haven't found the correct path - but like Newtonian Physics - we might not be playing the in the right ballpark!

Cheers

David, I'm curious as to why you have a problem with the term 'Theory'?
as I'm sure you know when the scientific community says 'Theory', they are refering to the best explanation of an observable or experimental phenomena that they can give at present time. It seems as you are interperating the word 'theory' to mean 'Hypothesus' (unproved/provisional idea).

I've noticed that you seem to take 'Ockhams Razor' to the n'th degree. I realise that the conclusion with the least assumuptions is prefered but your view is boardering on denialism.

I would like it if you could please clearly state your affirmative views/position on the on the nature of cosmos? That is, what you think is actually going on?

[xelasnave]

David said.......My whole point is that cosmology is nothing but theory. There is no direct evidence, no proofs just data that supports a theory based on a theory supported by other data..

I can only speak of my impressions but I agree in the context that much cosmology seems to be built upon theories first and then they look for the support.

Notwithstanding the stated conclusiveness of CBRadiation and it being a reasonable view there is no way one could really eliminate the alternatives I suggested (for example)

I do feel that so much is stated as fact that can tolerate no alternative that there could be a danger fresh ideas will always be forced aside..

There is an alternative cosmology site and many folk with real degrees and wall papers that tell us they are not unqualified to hold view on scientific data.

alex

[circumpolar (Matt)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

David said.......My whole point is that cosmology is nothing but theory. There is no direct evidence, no proofs just data that supports a theory based on a theory supported by other data..

I can only speak of my impressions but I agree in the context that much cosmology seems to be built upon theories first and then they look for the support.

OK, I see your point.
Cosmology is almost entirely philosphical.....almost. And so are other scientific fields like Quatum Physics, but I feel all cosmologists have a background in practical astronomy and most of cosmology has it's routes there as well. I feel it's a little tenuous to criticize theorists for theorising when we are awere of the shoulders and foundations on which they stand.

[circumpolar (Matt)]

Originally Posted by skwinty

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

That's an awsome quote!
(But only if your notion of god is parallel to Einstein!).

[Karls48 (Karl)]

I also have to agree with David’s views on current mainstream cosmology theories. The history just keeps repeating itself. So many times in our past there were theories about the world around us that were supported by the observations by scientists of that time. Establishing new point of view on fundamentals of the nature of things was always fiercely resisted.

[skwinty (Steve)]

Originally Posted by Karls48

I also have to agree with David’s views on current mainstream cosmology theories. The history just keeps repeating itself. So many times in our past there were theories about the world around us that were supported by the observations by scientists of that time. Establishing new point of view on fundamentals of the nature of things was always fiercely resisted.

I think that every one accepts that Einsteins theories are not complete theories, however for a new theory to supersede Einsteins theories, they have to pass the same rigorous testing and peer reviews other wise they remain pure conjecture. Then this quote applies "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Mark Twain"

http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime3.html

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by skwinty

I think that every one accepts that Einsteins theories are not complete theories, however for a new theory to supersede Einsteins theories, they have to pass the same rigorous testing and peer reviews other wise they remain pure conjecture. Then this quote applies "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Mark Twain"

http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime3.html

Exactly

You know, I would like to still be around in 50-100 years times (or maybe 100-200) and see what the physicists say and think. I have a feeling that Einstein wouldn't recognise his theories, they'll have changed that much.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by circumpolar

OK, I see your point.
Cosmology is almost entirely philosphical.....almost. And so are other scientific fields like Quatum Physics, but I feel all cosmologists have a background in practical astronomy and most of cosmology has it's routes there as well. I feel it's a little tenuous to criticize theorists for theorising when we are awere of the shoulders and foundations on which they stand.

I would not say Cosmology is almost entirely philosphical even almost...my point was simply cosmology is not something set in cement..even set in dark matter ...but it is set in Grey Matter...it is brain power that works out possibilities based on the data...and I think one can reasonably be suspiciious of any proposition really.. and with Dr A's words ringing in my ears..."if the facts dont fit the theory change the facts" is one not entited to remain uncarried away by even the best presented arguement..

But any theory will stand or fall not on ones scepticism but finally on the basis of supporting evidence or lack thereof.

I am not anti this or that..which I know is not the impression I may give... I do keep an open mind on the big bang and dark matter black holes etc but will never accept this things as fact beyond dispute in the absence of first hand eye witness evidence of all these things..as sound as the science may be..these things spoken of by believers as fact beyond dispute yet they can only remain abstract... there is no other word ..we can think of stuff and provide evidence which suggests a black hole for example but we really know nothing about a black hole..for it is all speculation based upon our current accumulated knowledge.

Even eye witness evidence needs to be regarded as suspect...
I had a fight with a chap who fell and split his head... I did not hit him but there were 5 eye witnesses who not only said I hit him but did so with unrelenting cruelty ... if he had ided I would have got charged with murder and almost certainly convicted given the eye witness accounts.... I did not lapse into a killer state in which I could not recall what happened..nothing happened other in the minds of those wishing to see my opponent beaten to a pulp...he was not well liked.

Evidence do we always know what our data is evidence of???

One misinterpretation of fact or premise can also have major consequences in cosmology... adjust any of the "constants" which are relied upon within the norm (Hubble, Omega, even the cosmological constant I expect) and one can get major swings within the "norm" ... and no doubt one incorrect interpretation at any point can see the Universe instantly larger or smaller..

I acccepted every thing once but most folk have an axe to grind so that makes one alwyas suspicious...

I seized upon some "science" from University of Alabama re shadowing of background radiation by some galaxies but not others ..the idea was to establish a flaw in the big bang... and their case was reasonable... but after I did wonder...University of Alabama??? bible belt influence maybe...

I mean big bang to creationists is something to destroy... could one not be suspicious that the scientists there did not set out to find what they did...or if not how did they find something they were not looking for... anyways their research seemed to get them to where one could suspiciously believe they had determined to arrive at....

I am all for theorising, free thought, accumulated knowledge etc etc.... humanity moves forward u[pon such stuff... but cosmology will always have an air similar to that that surrounds politics or religion...there will always be competition for the correct version

alex