For the alternative theorists:

[Aqueous Id]

No. Einstein was not addressing the laws of mechanics explained by Newton. He was addressing the laws of electromagnetics explained by Maxwell, Gauss, Ampere, Faraday and Coulomb, et al, subject to relative motion, as in the work of Fitzeau, Michelson & Morley, et al, as partly explained by Lorentz & Poincare. Einstein completed the explanation they had not quite finished.

"A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:

(Inertial mass)*(Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) * (Gravitational mass).

It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body." -Albert Einstein

Zero for this. This cite does not tell us Einstein was addressing the laws of mechanics. It tells us he was describing the equivalence of the gravitational acceleration with a field, the realization of which he called "the happiest thought of my life":

Just as is the case with the electric field produced by electromagnetic induction, the gravitational field has similarly only a relative existence. For if one considers an observer in free fall, e.g. from the roof of a house, there exists for him during his fall no gravitational field---at least in his immediate vicinity.​

The point you missed by going there was Kepler's laws had nothing to do with relativity, therefore, Newton's explanation, Universal Gravitation, does not account for any relativistic observations.

The material you quoted had little to do with relativity being part of Newtons or Kepler's work.

Zero again. Relativity has nothing to do with Newton or Kepler who lived hundreds of years before the issue surfaced.

But the ideology of the reverse.

Ten points off for meaningless post.

I highly doubt Einstein would have made anything that accounted for Poincare and Lorentz yet left out Newton and Kepler as false theories.

Zero for this. Einstein was motivated to connect Poincare's and Lorentz's explanations of space and time contraction and dilation in regard to interferometry (the seach for aether) with the consequences of Maxwell's equations (the light in the interferometer) subject to motion (as implemented in moving-media tests). Newton's and Kepler's Laws have nothing to do with this. From this phase of his work (1905) Einstein was next confronted by the question of how relativity applies to gravity (1907-1915) at which point he had the happiest thought of his life given above. Throughout all of this, there was no question pending about orbital mechanics.

he point you missed here is that the work of Einstein rests on the shoulders of the people whose work he assembled into one integrated theory (two if you want to quibble), thus explaining completely the contraction and dilation of space and time which Lorentz and Poincare had only partially answered.

WRT newton's laws... is the end of that sentence.

Zero again. Lorentz and Poincare's research had nothing to do with Newton's. Nor was Einstein's. Newton set out to explain Kepler's Laws. Lorentz and Poincare set out to explain the results of interferometry experiments searching for ether (space and time contraction and dilation). Einstein set out to explain Lorentz's and Poincare's results in terms of Maxwell's equations (1905). Then, when Einstein had "the happiest thought of his life" he set out to explain the equivalence of gravity to the electric field, that is, that gravity is relative (1907). None of these other men was trying to explain orbital mechanics, which was the purpose of Newton's work leading to the discovery of the Unniversal Law of Gravitation.

So far the only ideology being expressed here is that the progress in physics, from Newton to Einstein, follows some imagined trajectory you have dreamed up, outside of the actual history of events which correctly explains what happened.

Ideology doesn't always follow factual "historical" information. Especially when ideology becomes a separate entity than history and someone screws up a timeline.

Zero points for that. The facts you are disputing relate to the trajectory of scientific research from Tycho to Einstein. The ideology you speak of is yours alone. The facts of history speak for themselves in the words of the their own authors on the dates they were published. You are pretending that none of these documents exist and fabricating excuses instead of simply familiarizing yourself with what they are, what the authors actually said.

No, my answer was a correction to your prior statement You can't derive the initial force from the acceleration without knowing the velocity.

If you know the acceleration the velocity is easy to find. Confused? Plug and chug my friend.

Zero points again. You can not solve for velocity merely from knowing the acceleration.

They became laws when the Universe was created out of the Big Bang. There is no idea created that has anything to do with the discovery of natural laws, other than the creative minds that invented new instruments and applied them to collect data. The fact that laws are revealed in data is purely objective.

This is by far your best objective critic.

Wrong answer. The data we are speaking of was the source information the above-medtioned scientists and mathematicans set out to explain. Those observations, and those explanations, are facts of history which you alone deny and which you alone are confronted by critics.

Einstein inherited all of the foregoing and completed the explanation Lorentz and Poincare had partly answered.

Then answered it in a Newtonian appeal before he furthered his objective research.

Wrong again. Einstein took the explanation which completed their work (1905), had "the happiest thought of his life" and applied it to explain the nature of gravity (1907-1915), which had nothing to with Newton's explanation of orbital mechanics. Ten points off for nonsensical use of the the word "appeal".

Otherwise you would just have to take my word that these things happened. Either way, that's the road to being convinced of the facts. Otherwise you're stuck being convinced of something else.

Ah yes. I do enjoy taking interpretations to many extremes.

Declaring that subjects you never studied, Physics & Math, are rescinded and replaced by your imagination is not a matter of taking interpretaions to extremes. It's a matter of pretending to know subject matter you never studied.

Seems more expansive and it leaves someone else the opportunity to fill in blanks.

If you want to know a fact of science or math, simply post your questions and people who took the courses will be happy to reply. Posting statements that purport to rewrite all of the history and results of science is counterproductive to that goal.

Yet it is still arguable truly objective studies rely only upon the properties of the material without interpretation.

Since you haven't read any of the studies in question, your opinions on them are worthless.

Though it is more philosophical than practical at the standing moment.

All of the subject matter here revolves around practical results, beginning with Tycho's quest to map the positions of the planets. That was over 400 years ago and you still haven't caught up with him. Yet you deny his role in the topic at hand.

No one said anything about disregarding anything. Mechanics and relativity are two different subjects. If I were you I would try to grasp what the scope of each of them is

So was Newton's laws and lorentz's abstractions before somebody decided to create their own subject.

Ten points off for meaningless post.

Responding to people's opinions about science is often a game, only one that wants to take the fun out of learning.

Hey! I didn't make this thread.

You are shaping the thread by posting false claims and nonsense. So far you have scored zero points on your math & physics quiz. And you're being penalized 30 points for nonsense/meaningless content.

 

[Beaconator]

Zero for this. This cite does not tell us Einstein was addressing the laws of mechanics. It tells us he was describing the equivalence of the gravitational acceleration with a field, the realization of which he called "the happiest thought of my life":

Really? I thought it solidified the basis of Einstein's "ideas" with the basics of Newton's as it clearly stated. If you want to say relativity and equivalence are two non tangential subjects you are entitled to that opinion and its respective argument. If I was wrong in believing relativity had something to do with the simplicity of Newton's "ideology" not being expressed accurately within Newton's works then I am wrong.

Really now this isn't an opinion, "Simplicity forgoes length of fact yet adds convolution". There is even a theorem for it.

Zero for this. Einstein was motivated to connect Poincare's and Lorentz's explanations of space and time contraction and dilation in regard to interferometry (the seach for aether) with the consequences of Maxwell's equations (the light in the interferometer) subject to motion (as implemented in moving-media tests). Newton's and Kepler's Laws have nothing to do with this. From this phase of his work (1905) Einstein was next confronted by the question of how relativity applies to gravity (1907-1915) at which point he had the happiest thought of his life given above. Throughout all of this, there was no question pending about orbital mechanics.

Zero again. Lorentz and Poincare's research had nothing to do with Newton's. Nor was Einstein's. Newton set out to explain Kepler's Laws. Lorentz and Poincare set out to explain the results of interferometry experiments searching for ether (space and time contraction and dilation). Einstein set out to explain Lorentz's and Poincare's results in terms of Maxwell's equations (1905). Then, when Einstein had "the happiest thought of his life" he set out to explain the equivalence of gravity to the electric field, that is, that gravity is relative (1907). None of these other men was trying to explain orbital mechanics, which was the purpose of Newton's work leading to the discovery of the Unniversal Law of Gravitation.

These two are nearly identical except for the facts presented within them. Not once have I ever disputed a fact, nor do I ever intend to unless it just so happens to not be a fact.

Please correct me If I am wrong in clear plain english before you go off on another name dropping tangent. All I am getting is the "equivalence of gravity" has absolutely nothing to do with " The law of gravity", which appears to me to be counterintuitive. Not to mention differs from the scope of my argument which only seeks to reconcile the "ideology" Einstein with the ideology of Newton, which from the facts presented appears to be similar. Mainly because both parties attempted to reconcile questions presented within another person's work with reality, a point you have made quite clear with the facts you have presented. Thanks.

Zero points for that. The facts you are disputing relate to the trajectory of scientific research from Tycho to Einstein. The ideology you speak of is yours alone. The facts of history speak for themselves in the words of the their own authors on the dates they were published. You are pretending that none of these documents exist and fabricating excuses instead of simply familiarizing yourself with what they are, what the authors actually said.

Knowing the information verbatim is possibly the worst way of making it all connect fluidly, But that's just my opinion.

Zero points again. You can not solve for velocity merely from knowing the acceleration.

What happened to the initial force? I thought that was what we were deriving originally. If I knew two out of three could I find the third?

Wrong answer. The data we are speaking of was the source information the above-medtioned scientists and mathematicans set out to explain. Those observations, and those explanations, are facts of history which you alone deny and which you alone are confronted by critics.

I might have skewed opinions, but I never deny facts.

Wrong again. Einstein took the explanation which completed their work (1905), had "the happiest thought of his life" and applied it to explain the nature of gravity (1907-1915), which had nothing to with Newton's explanation of orbital mechanics. Ten points off for nonsensical use of the the word "appeal".

We were talking about gravity. Not orbital mechanics.

Declaring that subjects you never studied, Physics & Math, are rescinded and replaced by your imagination is not a matter of taking interpretaions to extremes. It's a matter of pretending to know subject matter you never studied.

That or "having a happy thought" nobody ever studied. I am well studied and under massive scrutiny on multiple subjects, yet I don't go around poorly critiquing recent studies or opinions unless they are self convoluted or emotionally skewed. Thus explains my appearance here.

If you want to know a fact of science or math, simply post your questions and people who took the courses will be happy to reply. Posting statements that purport to rewrite all of the history and results of science is counterproductive to that goal.

I keep asking but I only find more questions.

Since you haven't read any of the studies in question, your opinions on them are worthless.

If I am unfamiliar how is it possible that I have an opinion. These are studies you have questioned a bunch, not studies I have questions for.

You know that dumb girl you had in class that always got better grades than you and you would always wonder how? I'm like that on Adderall! So while your staring at my tits and drooling a smile I act dumb, but I'm far from.

This whole thread is about a decently well written opinion and we might not ever get there if you keep convoluting fact and theory as opposed to alternatives.

 

[paddoboy]

This whole thread is about a decently well written opinion and we might not ever get there if you keep convoluting fact and theory as opposed to alternatives.

No, this whole thread is about how anyone with an alternative theory, should go about presenting it.
Please go back to the OP.
Claiming any alternative theory as a 100% faitre complei certainty is the first mortal mistake, and adequately reflects that delusions of grandeur problem some seem to have.
Claiming to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology is the second, especially coming from nowhere where our local alternative theorists come from. Remembering of course that they do not have access to the fantastic 'scopes, the HST, Kepler, Spitzer, Planck etc etc.
Any notable change to 20th/21st century cosmology, will almost certainly come from the mainstream.

Nothing wrong with people having ideas etc [I have my own speculative scenarios] but realization that they are just speculative hypothesis, is rather important.

Also of course, any incumbent theory is the default position, and at times, can be put with some certainty, at least until it is falsified.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Really? I thought it solidified the basis of Einstein's "ideas"

You thought wrong. The basis of Einstein's ideas had already been solidified before he completed the work started by others.

with the basics of Newton's as it clearly stated.

Still wrong. After publishing (1905) his completion of the ideas on Special Relativity solidified by Lorentz & Poincare, Einstein set out (1905-1907) to explain why an object in free fall becomes weightless, noticing that gravitation acted as a field. None of this had anything to do with Newton's derivation of the Law of Universal Gravitation, which stemmed from his intent to explain Kepler's Laws on Planetary Motion.

If you want to say relativity and equivalence are two non tangential subjects you are entitled to that opinion and its respective argument.

Wrong again. I want to correct your false posts.

If I was wrong in believing relativity had something to do with the simplicity of Newton's "ideology" not being expressed accurately within Newton's works then I am wrong.

Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong about why you are wrong. Your first mistake was failing to learn the material. Your second mistake was deciding to comment on the material you had not studied. Your third mistake was interpolating facts by imagining what happened, instead of trying first to find out what happened. Your fourth mistake was defending your false and incorrect posts, rather than trying to understand where you went wrong and correcting them, after several people who did not make that first mistake (failing to study the material) came forward and corrected you.

Really now this isn't an opinion, "Simplicity forgoes length of fact yet adds convolution". There is even a theorem for it.

Ten points off for meaningless post content. Your score is -40.

These two are nearly identical except for the facts presented within them. Not once have I ever disputed a fact, nor do I ever intend to unless it just so happens to not be a fact.

Incorrect. You have disputed the actual history of events from Tycho to Einstein as I explained several times.

Please correct me If I am wrong

I have corrected you. I am continuing to correct you. You are still wrong.

in clear plain english

Ten points off for meaningless post content. Your score is -50.

before you go off on another name dropping tangent.

False and incorrect. 10 points off for denying facts in evidence. Your score is -60. The phases of discovery, from Tycho to Einstein, which you claim never happened, require that a minimum set of the principal investigators be identified, for the sake of "clear plain English". Listing them by name is the most concise way to list each phase of discovery since it requires fewer words:

-Tycho (mapped the positions of the planets to about 3 digits of precision)
-Kepler (studied Tycho's charts and discovered that all planets followed elliptical orbits, and that the areas under any two arcs of a planet's orbit are swept out in equal time) (among other things)
-Newton (studied Kepler's laws and discovered that they followed another law, which he announced as the Universal Law of Gravitation)(also announced that light was corpuscular, traversing a medium)
-Fitzeau (searched for the effects of a moving medium--water--on light, but found none. Found that the speed of light was constant regardless of the velocity of the water and measured that speed to within about 80% of actual value.
-Maxwell (searched for the wave theory of light which comports with Fitzeau and others, combined similar work by Gauss, Ampere, Faraday and Coulomb concerning statics and wave dynamics of electromagnetic radiation, arriving at four basic equations which from which all electromagnetic phenomena can be derived.)
-Michelson & Morley (searched for a velocity component in light traveling into and away from Earth's orbital heading, and discovered that it does not exist.)
-Lorentz (with Poincare, searched for the explanations for experimental data from Fitzeau to Michelson-Morley, arriving at the explanation for contraction and dilation of space and time as the projection of a coordinate rotation onto the observation plane.)
-Einstein (applied the findings of Lorentz & Poincare to the electromagnetics of Maxwell, arriving at the theory of Special Relativity in 1905. Discovered that gravity behaved as a field [1905-1907]. Applied the principle of relativity to the gravitational field, arriving at the theory of General Relativity [1907-1915].)

All I am getting is the "equivalence of gravity" has absolutely nothing to do with " The law of gravity",

You are getting what you put into this: nothing. The Universal Law of Gravity explains Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. That work has nothing to do with the work done in discovering relativity.

which appears to me to be counterintuitive.

Incorrect. You are simply wrong and unwilling to learn.

Not to mention differs from the scope of my argument which only seeks to reconcile the "ideology" Einstein with the ideology of Newton, which from the facts presented appears to be similar.

False and incorrect. The work done by Einstein follows only from the need to explain the observations of Lorentz & Poincare in the context of the observations of Maxwell et al. 5 points off for repeat posting that this constitutes ideology. Your score is -65.

Mainly because both parties attempted to reconcile questions presented within another person's work with reality, a point you have made quite clear with the facts you have presented. Thanks.

False and incorrect. 5 points off for misquoting me. Your score in -70. Newton set out to explain Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion, arriving at the solution: the Universal Law of Gravitation. Einstein set out to explain the principle of space and time contraction and dilation explained by Poincare and Lorentz, but in the context of the explanation of electromagnetics given by Maxwell et al, arriving at the Theory of Special Relativity (1905) and then, upon discovering that gravitation acted as a field (1905-1907), embarked on a second quest, to explain the gravitational field in the context of the principles of relativity, arriving at the theory of General Relativity (1907-1915).

Knowing the information verbatim is possibly the worst way of making it all connect fluidly, But that's just my opinion.

False and incorrect. Knowing what happened when, why, how and by whom is the first step to understanding the topics you are pretending to have figured out by simply imaging how it seems to have happened. 10 points off for excusing ignorance of the subject matter based on some inherent flaw in "knowing information". Your score is -75.

What happened to the initial force?

Ask yourself. You made up the scenario.

I thought that was what we were deriving originally.

No I was merely correcting your false statement that force can be calculated from mass and velocity.

If I knew two out of three could I find the third?

The Law you mangled is F=ma, not F=mv. mv=p (momentum). a=dv/dt; F=dp/dt.

I might have skewed opinions, but I never deny facts.

False. At present you are in denial of the phases of discovery from Tycho to Einstein.

We were talking about gravity. Not orbital mechanics.

False. You were talking about orbital mechanics the minute you mentioned Newton in reference to gravity. As you see your layers of denial are stacking up.

That or "having a happy thought" nobody ever studied.

5 points off for equating yourself with Einstein. Your score is -80. Before you can congratulate yourself, you need to pass the college entrance exam.

I am well studied and under massive scrutiny on multiple subjects,

Inadmissible. 10 points off for nonsense phrase "under massive scrutiny". Your score is -90. You can not pass any test based on your own self-love. You need to state the facts correctly, within reason, to pass.

yet I don't go around poorly critiquing recent studies or opinions

10 points off for meaning post content. Your score is -100.

unless they are self convoluted or emotionally skewed.

10 points off for compounded meaningless post content. Your score is -110.

Thus explains my appearance here.

5 points off for grammar. Your score is -115. False and incorrect. Your appearance here is to assert claims in subject matter you never studied, in denial of facts available to you freely through online research, for purposes of inflating a damaged ego.

I keep asking but I only find more questions.

10 points off for lying. Your score is -125. You have not made any reasonable attempt to learn the correct answers to any of the facts controverted by the evidence other posters have provided you.

If I am unfamiliar how is it possible that I have an opinion.

10 points off for equivocating. Your score is -135. You know you have not read Prinicipia nor have you read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", nor "On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It", nor any related work of Einstein's, nor have your read a synopsis of either Einstein's or Newton's works, nor can you explain what any of these works propounds.

These are studies you have questioned a bunch, not studies I have questions for.

Your lack of questions invalidates your pretense of having answers. That is, you never had any questions, since you never studied any of this. You appear to have no interest in the subject matter at all. 10 points off for pretentiousness. Your score is -145.

You know that dumb girl you had in class that always got better grades than you and you would always wonder how? I'm like that on Adderall! So while your staring at my tits and drooling a smile I act dumb, but I'm far from.

50 points off for meaningless post content, aggravated by gratuitous sexualization. A curve will be applied upon consideration of your impairments.

This whole thread is about a decently well written opinion and we might not ever get there if you keep convoluting fact and theory as opposed to alternatives.

20 points off for blame-shifting and lack of remorse. Your score is -165.

When you're ready to learn physics, just ask.

 

[paddoboy]

Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:
.

So far since those points have been posted, I reckon each and everyone of them have been broken by each and everyone of our chief alternative theory pushers.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

So far since those points have been posted, I reckon each and everyone of them have been broken by each and everyone of our chief alternative theory pushers.

What do you expect from "alternative theory" pushers? And why does anyone call them alternative "theories" when they are in fact alternative hypotheses? A hypothesis becomes a theory only after it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the sloppy English of scientists who causally toss around terms like "string theory," which is nothing but a bunch of interesting math supported by a lot of arm waving.

Why isn't this entire thread in The Fringe section where it belongs?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

So far since those points have been posted, I reckon each and everyone of them have been broken by each and everyone of our chief alternative theory pushers.

What do you expect from "alternative theory" pushers? And why does anyone call them alternative "theories" when they are in fact alternative hypotheses? A hypothesis becomes a theory only after it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the sloppy English of scientists who causally toss around terms like "string theory," which is nothing but a bunch of interesting math supported by a lot of arm waving.

Why isn't this entire thread in The Fringe section where it belongs?

FR, at what point does either a hypothesis or a theory "become" a fact?

Would you consider what you "quoted", Post #105, as : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : or 3.) or a fact?

 

[Russ_Watters]

FR, at what point does either a hypothesis or a theory "become" a fact?

Some never, but if it makes a specific, testable prediction, a fact can be found that supports the theory.

 

[Aqueous Id]

FR, at what point does either a hypothesis or a theory "become" a fact?

He said "when proven true beyond a reasonable doubt". So, for example, you might ask "at what point did the round Earth theory become a fact"? Was it when the sails of one of Magellan's surviving ships was sighted off the coast of Spain? It probably doesn't matter too much, just as long as you conclude that the Earth is round.

Would you consider what you "quoted", Post #105, as : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : or 3.) or a fact?

What Fraggle was stating was closer to a definition than any of those. But you're asking about paddoboy at 105 which is an a qualitative summary of facts, namely, the content of posts. Fraggle wanted to clarify that crank ideas purporting to be alternative theories are not properly called theory since they are not generally held to be valid. Usually they are either unsupported by evidence, or, more often, controverted by evidence. They are usually the products of ignorant, superstitious and narcissistic minds, which takes only a cursory reading by any person with moderate intelligence and education to figure out.

Nor are they properly called alternative, because this term implies that they are actual theories, which have been reviewed by a majority of experts (at least once they are published) and found to be less true than the adopted theories. None of that applies to any of the ideas I have ever seen cranks posting.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

FR, at what point does either a hypothesis or a theory "become" a fact?

It's the other way round: a hypothesis is built on facts. A fact is an instance of empirical evidence, generally either an observation or a measurement of something that is observed. And as I already explained, a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.

While hypotheses are proven false every day, and even a theory can be falsified (although in practice this is unusual; it's more common for one to be simply elaborated to account for facts that were not observable when it was first formulated, such as Newton not having Einstein's technology for observing relativistic effects), it's exceedingly rare for a (scientific) fact to be disproven.

Neither a hypothesis nor a theory is a fact. Of course laymen use words differently from scientists. For example, what they call a "theory" is often nothing more than a hunch. And they often refer to canonical scientific theories such as evolution and plate tectonics as facts. I would e-mail the president of the International Laymen's Association and complain about this, were it not for the fact that scientists aren't very consistent in their use of terminology either.

Would you consider what you "quoted", Post #105, as : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : or 3.) or a fact?

Sorry, I don't understand what parts of Post #105 you're referring to.

But it's worth pointing out #10, "If you think you have accomplished a theory overriding Evolution, SR, GR, the BB, QM or Newton, you most certainly have not. 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts."

One of the wonderful aspects of the scientific method is that the peer review process, which is crucial in establishing a theory, does not require that the "peers" be of the same stature as the scientist who established the theory. If this were required, it could establish a cabal of eggheads who approve each other's work for nefarious purposes. Instead, the peers only have to be close in education and experience. In other words, you don't have to be as smart to review a hypothesis as you have to be to formulate it.

Nonetheless, my point is that you do indeed have to be almost at the same level as the scientist you're peer-reviewing, in order to understand his work! Because of this, it is indeed virtually impossible that any of the enthusiastic wannabee-scientists on SciForums will ever overturn a scientific theory. Let them come back in 20 years with their PhDs, apprenticeship, teaching positions and several well-received published papers--then we'll talk.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Sorry, I don't understand what parts of Post #105 you're referring to.

The part you "quoted" :

So far since those points have been posted, I reckon each and everyone of them have been broken by each and everyone of our chief alternative theory pushers.

Would you consider what you "quoted", ^^above^^, as : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : 3.) a fact? : or 4.) a what?

 

[paddoboy]

What do you expect from "alternative theory" pushers? And why does anyone call them alternative "theories" when they are in fact alternative hypotheses?

You are of course correct. My mistake.
Besides point 10, the obvious flaw in these hypothesis, [as put by our three or four chief hypothesis formulators] is of course, point 1......The 100% certainty and faitre complei nature of these hypothesis.
From there its a slippery slope all the way to a bottomless pit.

 

[paddoboy]

The part you "quoted" :

Would you consider what you "quoted", ^^above^^, as : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : 3.) a fact? : or 4.) a what?

Well if we look at the three main alternative hypothesis being discussed in recent times, they would be, [1] The speed of light is not constant, [2] Time is not real, nor does it exist within the realms of GR, and [3] the aether as presented by cav755 exists and the Universe is a polar jet......
All three break all 12 points as listed.

 

[river]

Time is not real , in the physical sense

A change in time , is preceded by a change in the physical dynamics of any object , whether it be macro , micro and sub- micro

Time comes from , is imagined from , born from , conceptualised from , physical dynamic behaviour of things ,

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The part you "quoted": "So far since those points have been posted, I reckon each and everyone of them have been broken by each and everyone of our chief alternative theory pushers." Would you consider what you "quoted", ^^above^^, as : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : 3.) a fact? : or 4.) a what?

It's obviously an opinion. A theory has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, and this has not. A fact is an observation or a measurement, and this is not: when a person "reckons" something, he's drawing a conclusion. I suppose it could be called a hypothesis, one that has not been tested yet.

 

[Grumpy]

river

Time is not real , in the physical sense

Yes, it does, it's an integral part of the spacetime that makes up the Universe. You are simply another ...poster who does not understand the difference between MEASURING time and time's existence.

A change in time , is preceded by a change in the physical dynamics of any object , whether it be macro , micro and sub- micro

Time comes from , is imagined from , born from , conceptualised from , physical dynamic behaviour of things ,

Actually, there can be no event or change without time in which to occur. Time is always there, whether there is change or not.

Grumpy

 

[river]

Time is not real , in the physical sense

Yes, it does, it's an integral part of the spacetime that makes up the Universe. You are simply another ...poster who does not understand the difference between MEASURING time and time's existence.

Okay

Whats the difference then , I see no difference between the two

 

[paddoboy]

Okay

Whats the difference then , I see no difference between the two

You see no difference between what two?

PS: This thread isn't about time anyway...It concerns those that have hypothesis that differ from accepted evidenced based mainstream theories, and the methodology they need to employ to have their hypothesis heard, leaving aside all anti mainstream bias, ridding themselves of delusions of grandeur, and the tall poppy syndrome.

 

[river]

You see no difference between what two?

PS: This thread isn't about time anyway...It concerns those that have hypothesis that differ from accepted evidenced based mainstream theories, and the methodology they need to employ to have their hypothesis heard, leaving aside all anti mainstream bias, ridding themselves of delusions of grandeur, and the tall poppy syndrome.

Yet to have any discussion about alternative theories means having a discussion on the points that you , yourself , brought up in your post #113

 

[Grumpy]

river

Whats the difference then , I see no difference between the two

So if you measure a board and write down that value on a piece of paper, that paper becomes an identical board? The measurement does not create the board, the board does not just come into existence by the act of your measuring it, it will be laying there whether or not you measure it and the measurement is a construct, a model of the board, not the board itself. It's the difference between a map(the measurement)and the territory(the time you are measuring). Spacetime, our 4 dimensional Universe.

Grumpy