Originally posted by longlostbrother
you are out of your mind..
Go google gravitational lensing...
Ohoh! Can I really?
Done! 522,000 results in 0.34 seconds.
Here, go read this:
I'm sure that's all just based on, "little more than a working hypothesis"...
Excellent, then we are in agreement, because I too am sure of this! I thought we were gonna argue or something for a minute there; you sure have a
weird way of tellin' a guy you agree with him.
That article about the Gravity Probe mission was interesting, thanks for the link!
I could not help but notice that the journalist who wrote it--who I am certain is an excellent reporter with top marks in such diverse subjects as
and The Tao of Embedding
and Wanking the Bollocks
; we know they hire only the Best of the Best of the
Best at General Electri.....sorry, I meant the Microsoft Cor.....no no, my apologies, I meant to say, the Microsoft National Broadcasting Company
--may not have had the strongest grasp of the concepts of theory
, or how the use and
definition of those terms in popular vernacular differs from their usage and definition within the field of Science, perhaps because Journalism is an
excellent career path for those who discover that the only thing they are able to do re: Science is spell it, provided they have access to
(popular)Spell Check software.
For instance, in paragraph 2...
The Gravity Probe B mission was launched in 2004 to study two aspects of Einstein's theory about gravity: the geodetic effect[...] and
Now, hopefully, you will see that you must agree, whether you like it or not, that there is nothing at all wrong here.
Everything checks out: grammar, syntax, "Einstein" spelled correctly, numbers denoting the year are all in their proper places and right-side-up.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world[...]repeatedly confirmed through observation and
experiment[...]This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or
Why is that the common form? Because a formal scientific theory is a proper noun...and the names are always structured in one of two ways:
- "Theory of (X)"
- "(X) Theory"
In contrast, common usage of the word theory means to have an idea about something. "Hey, I've got a theory about why I'm out of my mind..."
So the scientific form was expected, because we're talking about science, and Einstein, etc. But Einstein did not have a formal Theory of Gravity, or
Gravitational Theory...but he did have ideas about gravity that were implicit in his theories. So the common form is (technically)correct...Einstein's
theory about gravity. Nothing wrong here.
BUT...our intrepid reporter isn't done yet:
Gravity Probe B used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the two gravitational hypotheses.
The dissonance of those final words! O, Discordia!
Why the discord?
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation which gives rise to predictions that can be tested through observation and experiment. You don't
measure hypotheses. You don't even measure predictions of hypotheses. You measure real phenomena, through observation, then check that against what
was predicted by the framework of the hypotheses.
My turn to give you an article to read...you should check out The
The discrepancy[...]leaves open staggering possibilities that would force wholesale reprinting of all physics books:
- Invisible dark matter is tugging at the probes
- Other dimensions create small forces we don't understand
- Gravity works differently than we think
How can that last one be? Simple: because we don't know how gravity works
. We have ideas, i.e., hypotheses, but even when our hypotheses
provide accurate predictions of the results of gravity, they fall short in providing an explanation
for gravity, because we don't know where to
look to test the explanation. We're sorta stuck in between hypothesis and theory; a working hypothesis
A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be
produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails.
One last little bit of info, from some very credible people:
Source - American Association for the Advancement of Science
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly
confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of
biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory
of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the
phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Isn't it nice, how we're all in agreement with each other...it is a good day on the Internets..
edit on 13/2/1 by Tsurugi because: