I have always been big on the nature of scientific experiment. If it works it is good, if it fails, well just abandon it!
Consider the case of Paul Richey. A British RAF Hawker Hurricane Pilot in 1940:
Obviously things had moved on since 1937:
Better R.R. Merlin engine allowed us to drop the top wing. But maintained the basic shape. An excellent and stable gun-platform.
Actually a better workhorse than the less numerous Glamour Boy Spitfire, which was a bird in the air, but a wretch to land:
Personally I hate heights. Prefer being Engineering Ground Crew.
My own opinion is that the greatest of more recent Engineers is Claude Shannon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Who dealt with the limits of what we can actually know, rather than more speculative theories. 🙂
Consider the case of Paul Richey. A British RAF Hawker Hurricane Pilot in 1940:
Obviously things had moved on since 1937:
Better R.R. Merlin engine allowed us to drop the top wing. But maintained the basic shape. An excellent and stable gun-platform.
Actually a better workhorse than the less numerous Glamour Boy Spitfire, which was a bird in the air, but a wretch to land:
Personally I hate heights. Prefer being Engineering Ground Crew.
My own opinion is that the greatest of more recent Engineers is Claude Shannon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Who dealt with the limits of what we can actually know, rather than more speculative theories. 🙂
Sai Krishna is talking about the "paradigms" (*) of HOW TO IMPLEMENT SCIENCE. An extremely different thing and, IMHO, not about the Philosophy of Science.
You have NOT read Kuhn. How about Ludwig Wittgenstein?
Kuhn's "paradigm" is about the gestalt and how perception can not be separated from interpretation ). This is different from Wittgenstein who postulated that there is a perception that we all see equally but our interpretation is based upon a priori bias.
IMHO, both of these guys defined the philosophy of science and are Giants in such thought.... Sai Krishna is just an observer of the performance of "normal" science... specifically the procedures of normal Western Empirical Science. Data analysis is just the application of numerical analysis, which in reality is an outgrowth of a mathematical discipline.. So is, in many ways, Articial Intelligence which is also, in many ways, a statistical analysis of data by the application of heuristics and some brute force calculations.
FUNDAMENTALLY Science is all about Theory... models.... data is just that... data. It is about the gestalt and the related paradigm.
Once again... read Kuhn. Don't just google the Internet for "key"words.
This goes for @system7. Don't confuse engineering with science. Seriously, you typed:
...the limits of what we can actually know, rather than more speculative theories...
But "science" is all about understanding that we really DON'T KNOW and ALL theories are speculation. Only an engineer or a layman or a politician would state that Science is "settled". Is is ALL speculation!
(*) Indeed I don' quite agree that Krishna is using the word "paradigm" correctly. In reality he is describing different disciplines. A "scientific paradigm" is a much different thing... A scientific paradigm is a model used to interpret our perception of natural events.
Last edited:
An extract only!
The supposedly "space-time"-"expansion"-theses-confirming redshift is only the observation of "redshift". The observation of redshift is NOT the observation of distance! It is, we want to make further circular reasoning;-) You want;-?!
Aside:
If "space-time" "expands", then also the "objects" "expand"? ... Or not?
If "space-time" "expands", does it "take" the "objects" with it? ... Or not?
If "space-time" "let" "objects" "back", then "space-time"-"holes" form? ... Or not?
If "spacetime" and "objects" are "interwoven", how is "expansion" to be "inferred"?
Is there "space-time" which "results" from the "position" of the "objects" and is there another, further "space-time" which is "unrelated" to "objects"?
If there can be no "outside", then how can be concluded on "extension"?
If there should be "outside" after all, wouldn't this then be part of "universe"?
Can "parallel universes" be to a "universe"?
...
Is "inside" "universe" "identical" "part" "of" "universe"-???
Or is "universe" just a rising donut after all;-?
Questions about questions;-)
Or: homework-s about homework-s;-?
If "space-time" "expands", then also the "objects" "expand"? ... Or not?
If "space-time" "expands", does it "take" the "objects" with it? ... Or not?
If "space-time" "let" "objects" "back", then "space-time"-"holes" form? ... Or not?
If "spacetime" and "objects" are "interwoven", how is "expansion" to be "inferred"?
Is there "space-time" which "results" from the "position" of the "objects" and is there another, further "space-time" which is "unrelated" to "objects"?
If there can be no "outside", then how can be concluded on "extension"?
If there should be "outside" after all, wouldn't this then be part of "universe"?
Can "parallel universes" be to a "universe"?
...
Is "inside" "universe" "identical" "part" "of" "universe"-???
Or is "universe" just a rising donut after all;-?
Questions about questions;-)
Or: homework-s about homework-s;-?
Last edited:
Photons do lose energy (and gain it) while travelling through space.
Photons gain energy when descending a gravitational potential, and lose energy when rising through a gravitational potential.
The fact that gravity can change light's frequency has been verified by experiment: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment
The measurement of gravitational redshift and blueshift by the above experiment validated the prediction of the equivalence principle that clocks should be measured as running at different rates in different places of a gravitational field.
The satellite-borne clocks of the GPS navigational system must be regularly corrected for changes induced by gravitational redshift.
By the way, this is a discussion thread so feel free to challenge the "science" to which I have referred.
It is easy to trot out ten questions in a post - a whole lot easier than supplying the answers! 😉
It is easy to trot out ten questions in a post - a whole lot easier than supplying the answers! 😉
That's the thing about peddling BS in a discussion or debate. It's easy to make a bunch of ridiculous claims sans evidence. It takes at least ten times as long to debunk every bogus claim as it does to make the claim.
In debate it's called the Gish Gallop. It's named after Duane Gish, a young earth creationist that was an expert in telling as many lies as humanly possible in his allotted debate time, then claiming victory when his opponent couldn't debunk every little lie he told.
In debate it's called the Gish Gallop. It's named after Duane Gish, a young earth creationist that was an expert in telling as many lies as humanly possible in his allotted debate time, then claiming victory when his opponent couldn't debunk every little lie he told.
A extract only:
False, again;-)
a) every clock is different: does different clock
b) there is no evidence for a gravitational redshift
c) ...
False, again! Not a fact!
Better: R. C. Grupta et al. Refraction based alternative explanation for: Bending of light near a star, gravitational red/blue shift and black hole. 2010.
...
I really hate JUNK SCIENCE! 😀
Doctor Ed Dowdye has a high level of Unscientific BS! Sorry, my Brother, but how it is...
You were misled.
My current obsession is Saturn's Moon Enceladus:
I consider this Saturnian Icy Moon worthy further of Study. It might surprise us.
Naturally, Titan is interesting too:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...ound-titan-looking-for-origins-signs-of-life/
But I know when to stop! 🙂
Doctor Ed Dowdye has a high level of Unscientific BS! Sorry, my Brother, but how it is...
You were misled.
My current obsession is Saturn's Moon Enceladus:
I consider this Saturnian Icy Moon worthy further of Study. It might surprise us.
Naturally, Titan is interesting too:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...ound-titan-looking-for-origins-signs-of-life/
But I know when to stop! 🙂
Clocks onboard GPS satellites are regularly corrected. They drift for two Einstein theory relativity reasons.
_Speed of the satellites.
_Gravity at the satellites that is lower than at the Earth surface.
These drifts must be accounted for, otherwise GPS would not be feasible.
These drifts perfectly agree with Einstein relativity theories; Another proof it is valid.
_Speed of the satellites.
_Gravity at the satellites that is lower than at the Earth surface.
These drifts must be accounted for, otherwise GPS would not be feasible.
These drifts perfectly agree with Einstein relativity theories; Another proof it is valid.
Last edited:
Grupta's hypothesis states that as a light ray passes through/near a star's "atmospheric medium" it slows down and bends due to refraction.
All physicists know that light entering/leaving an optically denser medium undergoes a corresponding change in velocity and wavelength, but the author actually offers this as an alternative mechanism to that of gravitational red/blueshift!
He then goes on to apply this hypothesis to black holes, suggesting that their formation is due to "total internal reflection" within their atmospheres!
Black holes - a safe environment in which to make all sorts of fanciful claims - who could possibly challenge them!
I wonder how many citations this paper has received?
Instead of coming back with yet another question, as you have just done with mchambin, please explain to me why Grupta's hypothesis is not rubbish.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0409124#:~:text=The new alternative-explanation is based on refraction-phenomenon of,bends while passing through a prism or water-drop.