10 ms·
The observation is consistent with the theory of relativity.
by andrewgleave 5y ago
The observation is consistent with the theory of relativity.
- xadhominemx 5y agoLike I said, in proves general relativity predicts the trajectory of objects in the presence of a rotating supermassive object
- nautilius 5y agoThat's not how science (or logic) works.
- xadhominemx 5y agoYou are wrong on both counts
- nautilius 5y agoYour comment proves my theorem that xadhominemx only ever posts in this particular thread.
- xadhominemx 5y agoNot logically equivalent scenarios
- nautilius 5y agoqed!
- xadhominemx 5y agoNo, your scenario is different than the headline. Closer, but still not the same, would be “xadhominemx posts in this thread”
- nautilius 5y agoIt seems you missed the whole 'a single observation proves a theorem' part in the headline, which you conveniently omit in your attempt here.
- xadhominemx 5y agoThere was not a single observation. The star followed a complex trajectory.
- lmkg 5y agoThere is a difference between "proving," vs "supporting" or "confirming." This observation still leaves the possibility that Einstein's prediction is wrong but within the margin of experimental error, or that the model will fail to accurately predict motion near a different rotating supermassive object due to variables which aren't present for this one.
- xadhominemx 5y agoAny analytical formula describing a physical property will have dropped higher order terms (implicit or explicitly) the entire way through the derivation. This experiment proves Einstein’s equations are predictive within the precision implied by order of terms within the equation. That is implied by the form of the equation itself. You are trying to logic yourself to a witty conclusion but lack the context to understand the words that are being used.
- lmkg 5y agoThe experiment confirms the specific prediction made by the equation for this particular set of circumstances. That's good, that's useful, but it doesn't prove that the predictions made by the equations under other circumstances will be confirmed, nor does it prove the equations that made the prediction, nor does it prove the model that generated the equations. Those are generalizations that require additional assumptions not tested by the experiment. That's just a limitation of empirical methods. People (including myself) get in a bugabear about the use of the word "prove" because it implies a finality of knowledge which is not true of the experiment, and in fact counter to the spirit of the scientific method. The equations are supported by the experiment, but that support still admits the possibility of better equations later ("better" having many possibilities). The ideas confirmed by this experiment as still subject to revision and review and modification and improvement, hence the disagreement with calling them "proven."
- xadhominemx 5y agoYou strike me as a non-scientist who never formally studied a science outside of general educational requirements. Am I correct?