Gravitons... a discussion.

Quote from: Username on September 04, 2007, 03:01:35 PM

For one, what of the Pioneer anomaly?

To see other reasons why general relativity isn't "proven" look up Quintessence, dark matter, and "magical faeries that move stuff around simply to justify GR".

Also, there seems to be alot of study in alternatives to GR ( rel. MOND, etc) due to its "issues".

Course I guess we can ignore that, and call it "proven."

Can I look up gravitational lensing?   Can I look up the other relativity, Special Relativity? 

No, but you can look up irrelevant.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 04, 2007, 03:15:06 PM

Quote from: Username on September 04, 2007, 03:01:35 PM

For one, what of the Pioneer anomaly?

To see other reasons why general relativity isn't "proven" look up Quintessence, dark matter, and "magical faeries that move stuff around simply to justify GR".

Also, there seems to be alot of study in alternatives to GR ( rel. MOND, etc) due to its "issues".

Course I guess we can ignore that, and call it "proven."

For one, what about it?

For two, you may need a refresher in how science works. GR has proven its worth. It's one of the most successfully tested theories ever. Yes, science still faces challenges, but I hope that you realize that we'll always have more to explain. I also hope that you'll realize that just because we can't explain sometime now, doesn't mean that GR is wrong. I suspect that you're confusing incomplete with wrong.

I think you are confusing "incomplete" with "proven".

Edit: speaking of refreshers on how science works, things can be proven wrong - not right.

Nope.

On your edit: That's wrong, but you're welcome to try a third time.

That's wrong,

No.

I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance

I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance

I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.

Quote from: General Gadget Penis on September 05, 2007, 01:20:45 AM

I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance

I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.

I almost made it through that, I stopped at, "giant penis."

Quote from: General Gadget Penis on September 05, 2007, 01:20:45 AM

I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance

I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.

Basically your quote says science is not designed to prove things right, but if you are a moron and insist on using the word "proven" then "I suppose" thats ok.

Quite a resounding voice of support. 

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

It's not a university, it is "the home page of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada."

Quote from: Username on September 05, 2007, 12:28:02 PM

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

It's not a university, it is "the home page of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada."

Domains don't give credibility. edu vs com vs org is just a different checkbox when purchasing a domain.

Quote from: Username on September 05, 2007, 12:28:02 PM

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

It's not a university, it is "the home page of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada."

I meant the root.  still my other statement stands.

Quote from: divito on September 05, 2007, 12:32:39 PM

Quote from: Username on September 05, 2007, 12:28:02 PM

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

It's not a university, it is "the home page of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada."

Domains don't give credibility. edu vs com vs org is just a different checkbox when purchasing a domain.

I was under the impression you could not buy an edu without meeting certain measures?

Edit; yes, the must be accredited.  However, I was unaware of the practice of Non-US schools to not use .edu

Edit; yes, the must be accredited.  However, I was unaware of the practice of Non-US schools to not use .edu

Yea, there aren't very many non-US sites that are permitted with .edu. Most just use their own country code with .edu if at all.

All Canadian universities as far as I know simply use .ca, for instance, www.yorku.ca

Quote from: Gulliver on September 05, 2007, 12:15:52 PM

Quote from: General Gadget Penis on September 05, 2007, 01:20:45 AM

I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance

I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.

Basically your quote says science is not designed to prove things right, but if you are a moron and insist on using the word "proven" then "I suppose" thats ok.

Quite a resounding voice of support. 

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

I don't hide from quotes that don't fully support me. I thought his work was well explained and balanced. I even sometimes post quotes that don't support my position. It's about respect. It's called fairness. I suppose that you don't understand the concept.

Of course, that wasn't my only point. But your reading comprehension is already suspect. Just like your reasoning is suspect, you ridiculously impugn a Canadian University choosing a ".ca" HLQ. You are sad.

Quote from: Username on September 05, 2007, 12:28:02 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 05, 2007, 12:15:52 PM

Quote from: General Gadget Penis on September 05, 2007, 01:20:45 AM

I'm pretty sure Username is right in this instance

I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in this instance. You can prove all sorts of things in science--but you often must start with, and explicitly state, assumptions. Even theories are considered proven if they repeatedly survive all attempts to disprove it.

Parenthetically, one might also observe here that at attention to falsification helps to clarify the nature of a scientific proof.  Science does not prove things in the sense most people mean, especially when they talk about proving evolution.  Science as falsification is designed to prove things wrong, to discredit theories, to locate weaknesses or anomalies in explanations.  A scientific theory is established or confirmed or, I suppose, proven, if it repeatedly survives all the attempts to disprove it.

Reference: Malaspina University-Ian Johnston.

Basically your quote says science is not designed to prove things right, but if you are a moron and insist on using the word "proven" then "I suppose" thats ok.

Quite a resounding voice of support. 

Also, that source isn't very credible.  A university without an edu?

I don't hide from quotes that don't fully support me. I thought his work was well explained and balanced. I even sometimes post quotes that don't support my position. It's about respect. It's called fairness. I suppose that you don't understand the concept.

Of course, that wasn't my only point. But your reading comprehension is already suspect. Just like your reasoning is suspect, you ridiculously impugn a Canadian University choosing a ".ca" HLQ. You are sad.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Quote from: Username on September 04, 2007, 02:44:02 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 04, 2007, 12:23:45 PM

Strange, there are problems in it yet Relativity has been proven. 

Show me.

Have you heard of Wikipedia?

Gulliver, remember when you claimed wikipedia proves the Theory of Relativity? Yeah, that was awsome.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 04, 2007, 02:53:53 PM

Quote from: Username on September 04, 2007, 02:44:02 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 04, 2007, 12:23:45 PM

Strange, there are problems in it yet Relativity has been proven. 

Show me.

Have you heard of Wikipedia?

Gulliver, remember when you claimed wikipedia proves the Theory of Relativity? Yeah, that was awsome.

Wikipedia is indeed awesome, but I think you really need a dictionary. Oh and no, I don't remember any such claim--but thanks for demonstrating yet again how delusional you are.

If I claim to have levitated and mindwash you, the only witness that I have levitated, who can say that I can't levitate?

Oh and no, I don't remember any such claim--but thanks for demonstrating yet again how delusional you are.

Gulliver displaying glimpses of TE right here. Although, it is a factual statement.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 05, 2007, 04:39:34 PM

Oh and no, I don't remember any such claim--but thanks for demonstrating yet again how delusional you are.

Gulliver displaying glimpses of TE right here. Although, it is a factual statement.

Okay, I challenge you to show dingleberry's claim is correct, or perhaps you're just that pathetic little child we've all come to know you as.

Um, your statement is to which I was referring as factual, not narc's.

If I claim to have levitated and mindwash you, the only witness that I have levitated, who can say that I can't levitate?

eh?

Once you think about it, the graviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

Quote from: The Kommunist on September 06, 2007, 06:19:24 AM

Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.

Quote from: The Kommunist on September 06, 2007, 06:19:24 AM

Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

The potential energy (gravitons) is converted to friction and kinetic energy.  But since you are accerlarting to the earth, your mass slightly increases thus producing albeit negligible gravitons.

Quote from: narcberry on September 06, 2007, 09:39:00 AM

Quote from: The Kommunist on September 06, 2007, 06:19:24 AM

Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.

No, FE doesn't belive in gravity, hence in gravitrons... So you have to prove their existence with experiments

Quote from: Gulliver on September 06, 2007, 02:05:51 PM

Quote from: narcberry on September 06, 2007, 09:39:00 AM

Quote from: The Kommunist on September 06, 2007, 06:19:24 AM

Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.

No, FE doesn't belive in gravity, hence in gravitrons... So you have to prove their existence with experiments

If we prove the effects, does that constitute proof of existance?

Quote from: Gulliver on September 06, 2007, 02:05:51 PM

Quote from: narcberry on September 06, 2007, 09:39:00 AM

Quote from: The Kommunist on September 06, 2007, 06:19:24 AM

Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.

No, FE doesn't belive in gravity, hence in gravitrons... So you have to prove their existence with experiments

Wrong, FE does believe in gravity. Wrong, RE does not believe in gravitons. Wrong, I don't have to prove anything that dingleberry claims. Three strikes, you're outta here.

Quote from: SoNic on September 06, 2007, 05:15:24 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 06, 2007, 02:05:51 PM

Quote from: narcberry on September 06, 2007, 09:39:00 AM

Quote from: The Kommunist on September 06, 2007, 06:19:24 AM

Once you think about it, the grafviton is energy...potential energy supplied to an object that has not yet reaches the center of a mass system.

Than why don't objects lose energy generating gravitons?

Tell us about your experimental evidence that they don't.

No, FE doesn't belive in gravity, hence in gravitrons... So you have to prove their existence with experiments

Wrong, FE does believe in gravity. Wrong, RE does not believe in gravitons. Wrong, I don't have to prove anything that dingleberry claims. Three strikes, you're outta here.

And WE'RE the guys that cannot read?

Wrong, RE does not believe in gravitons.

Since when? Forces without elementary particles? What happen with the wave-particle duality? de Broglie is turning in the grave