Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430727
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox |
| Date | 2017-09-01 14:54 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <oocdst$tl5$3@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <6f898a65-b5a0-4331-941e-04b8a4413e02@googlegroups.com> <oo9n4k$10r5$2@gioia.aioe.org> <slrnoqgr0u.mhg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <oo9qnm$16v9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <slrnoqh01e.ogl.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
On 8/31/17 4:31 PM, Ned Latham wrote: >> until such time as a better candidate with a better set of agreement >> with data appears. > And that is flawed reasoning.*Any* alternative model will do if > the data are consistent with it. > The reason why physicist call a theory "accepted" is that numerous alternative theories have been considered SO FAR, and SO FAR none of the alternative theories give predictions that match all the extant experimental data as the accepted one. If you complain to the physicist that this doesn't PROVE the accepted theory is the right one, and that there may well be other theories that will be raised IN THE FUTURE that are better than the accepted one, then the physicist will almost always tell you that statement is true and obvious. But to say, "it could be this other explanation I call Mambo Theory" will result in the response by the physicist, "What does Mambo Theory predict for this measurement?" This means doing a calculation with the theory to produce that theory's NUMBER. It does NOT mean a qualitative explanation that sounds plausible. It means a calculation. If Mambo Theory doesn't have any calculations and therefore no quantitative PREDICTIONS, then it isn't viable as a physical theory. The acceptance of the accepted theory is the result of a competition in PRESENT STATE of the field of viable physical theories, where those theories do make firm quantitative predictions. The outliers that don't yet make those quantitative predictions are not even in the running. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-28 09:48 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-29 12:46 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 14:40 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-29 14:49 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 08:21 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 15:05 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:14 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 16:31 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:58 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 19:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:53 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:54 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-01 05:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:48 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 19:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-03 23:49 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 05:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 05:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-04 07:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 08:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-04 08:20 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 11:01 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:21 -0700
Cretin Ken Sito at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-05 06:29 -0700
Re: Cretin Ken Sito at work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 06:50 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:05 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:39 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-05 14:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 07:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 13:10 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-06 11:10 -0700
csiph-web