4 ms·

Proves Einstein right in what way? If I say that below the surface of earth there are green goblins who suck down objects from the air and then an apple drops

by TekMol 5y ago

Proves Einstein right in what way? If I say that below the surface of earth there are green goblins who suck down objects from the air and then an apple drops from a tree - that does not prove me right. It just does not prove me wrong.

gliptic 5y ago
What's the prediction on your green goblins hypothesis. Specifically, how does it differ from Newton's?
- Jyaif 5y ago
  It predicts that if you dig down, you'll find green goblins.
  - gliptic 5y ago
    No, the green goblins are invisible and incorporeal.
hungryforcodes 5y ago
What?
- OneTimePetes 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm Modern scientific authority derives from a inheritance of proofen right, which people who hang around in online communities usually do not know about. Add to that the "progressive" tendencies to smash the "old" - now taken over by the alt-right and you get a ahistoric bunch of fool, who would throw dirt at everyone no matter how right or wrong his hypothesis was.
  - aetherspawn 5y ago
    Could you please explain the link reference. I don't get it.
    - OneTimePetes 5y ago
      There is a history of anti-history, as in revolutionary movements that tried to erase pre-existing culture. When napoleon conquered europe, the secularisation swept Europe and secularized monastrys, destroyed churches etc. Ironically like the catholic church, a thousand years prior. Old books were thrown into fire or used to pave muddy roads. And it was always for "progress" as in, the catholic church did it for progress, the protestant threw part of it out for "progress", the secularization threw the rest of it out for you guessed it. While it has its moments (the catholic church owned half of europe and its lands ripped away created a fresh start) those "Picture-storms" always created a wave of destruction too. When all the old is gone and nothing but the "horror" stories about the "before" times remain, you loose alot of knowledge too. Including the knowledge that all of this has been done a thousand times, for a thousand good and bad reasons and that even the "erasing" the past, has a long, bad history.
jack_riminton 5y ago
That’s not how anything works
eloisius 5y ago
I couldn't not read this comment in Charlie Kelly's voice.
317070 5y ago
Since Einstein did not observe this extreme situation of a star around a black hole prior to formulating his theory, it does proof him right. It was a falsification observation, and it verified the theory. Apples and goblins should produce predictions that differ from existing theory, and predict a new type of observation that could confirm its correctness versus existing work.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >it does proof him right. It was a falsification observation, and it verified the theory. It provides evidence that his theory is correct, it does not prove it because they still could find evidence that does not fit general relativity. The posters example made it sound crazy, but "proof" is the wrong word to use. I much prefer the paper's opener of >The theory of General Relativity (GR) continues to pass all experimental tests with flying colours
  - andrewgleave 5y ago
    Another way to phrase it is that relativity hasn’t been refuted by this observation.
quickthrower2 5y ago
They had different equations for gravity so only one could be right.
- WJW 5y ago
  At most one, I think. It's also possible (likely, even) that they are both wrong.
polymatter 5y ago
In a fundamental sort of way you're quite correct. Science can never _prove_ things correct in the same way mathematicians do. In fact, science constantly revises over time. It is not "done". And as a reminder, the way something is proved is when recognised scientific minds perform peer review and conclude it is proved. And they often get it "wrong" as most published science is later proven incorrect. This is science working. However, this doesn't open the floodgates to any old theory because a simpler theory that explains the data is preferrable to a more complex one. Your green goblin theory might fit the data, but then leaves open questions like what do green goblins eat, why were they not detected previously, what else might they affect etc etc.
IAmNotAFix 5y ago
Yes, the title is not quite scientific.

by TekMol 5y ago

gliptic 5y ago

What's the prediction on your green goblins hypothesis. Specifically, how does it differ from Newton's?

Jyaif 5y ago
It predicts that if you dig down, you'll find green goblins.
- gliptic 5y ago
  No, the green goblins are invisible and incorporeal.

hungryforcodes 5y ago

What?

OneTimePetes 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm Modern scientific authority derives from a inheritance of proofen right, which people who hang around in online communities usually do not know about. Add to that the "progressive" tendencies to smash the "old" - now taken over by the alt-right and you get a ahistoric bunch of fool, who would throw dirt at everyone no matter how right or wrong his hypothesis was.
- aetherspawn 5y ago
  Could you please explain the link reference. I don't get it.
  - OneTimePetes 5y ago
    There is a history of anti-history, as in revolutionary movements that tried to erase pre-existing culture. When napoleon conquered europe, the secularisation swept Europe and secularized monastrys, destroyed churches etc. Ironically like the catholic church, a thousand years prior. Old books were thrown into fire or used to pave muddy roads. And it was always for "progress" as in, the catholic church did it for progress, the protestant threw part of it out for "progress", the secularization threw the rest of it out for you guessed it. While it has its moments (the catholic church owned half of europe and its lands ripped away created a fresh start) those "Picture-storms" always created a wave of destruction too. When all the old is gone and nothing but the "horror" stories about the "before" times remain, you loose alot of knowledge too. Including the knowledge that all of this has been done a thousand times, for a thousand good and bad reasons and that even the "erasing" the past, has a long, bad history.

jack_riminton 5y ago

That’s not how anything works

eloisius 5y ago

I couldn't not read this comment in Charlie Kelly's voice.

317070 5y ago

Since Einstein did not observe this extreme situation of a star around a black hole prior to formulating his theory, it does proof him right. It was a falsification observation, and it verified the theory. Apples and goblins should produce predictions that differ from existing theory, and predict a new type of observation that could confirm its correctness versus existing work.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>it does proof him right. It was a falsification observation, and it verified the theory. It provides evidence that his theory is correct, it does not prove it because they still could find evidence that does not fit general relativity. The posters example made it sound crazy, but "proof" is the wrong word to use. I much prefer the paper's opener of >The theory of General Relativity (GR) continues to pass all experimental tests with flying colours
- andrewgleave 5y ago
  Another way to phrase it is that relativity hasn’t been refuted by this observation.

quickthrower2 5y ago

They had different equations for gravity so only one could be right.

WJW 5y ago
At most one, I think. It's also possible (likely, even) that they are both wrong.

polymatter 5y ago

In a fundamental sort of way you're quite correct. Science can never _prove_ things correct in the same way mathematicians do. In fact, science constantly revises over time. It is not "done". And as a reminder, the way something is proved is when recognised scientific minds perform peer review and conclude it is proved. And they often get it "wrong" as most published science is later proven incorrect. This is science working. However, this doesn't open the floodgates to any old theory because a simpler theory that explains the data is preferrable to a more complex one. Your green goblin theory might fit the data, but then leaves open questions like what do green goblins eat, why were they not detected previously, what else might they affect etc etc.

IAmNotAFix 5y ago

Yes, the title is not quite scientific.