Strange

The waves are minute, barely detectable. And generated by orbiting black holes. I don't think communication based on that is very practical. It is very well understood. Hence the ability to (a) predict the existence of gravity waves, (b) build a detector and ( c) know precisely what generated the waves detected.

If you are going to use a stronger definition of "wrong", meaning totally incorrect then there are far fewer examples of that. There are a handful of theories in the history of science that have turned out the be wrong in that sense: phlogiston, steady state universe, and ... uhm ... you know ... errr ... the other examples....

There are some laws we believe are universal such as causality, various conservation laws, etc. And people constantly develop ever better tests to see if they do hold. But even those "universal" laws have limits; conservation of energy does not apply (in any simple form) in general relativity, for example. You probably get a Nobel Prize.

Of course: anomalous precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing, black holes, gravitational waves, an expanding and possibly finite universe, ... All laws or theories can be wrong, that is how we make advances in science. We already have (at least) one thread on this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93509-can-the-laws-of-physics-be-wrong/

No. You can start applying it as soon as you start developing a theory. It is obvious almost immediately if some entity is totally undetectable and make no practical difference, but is just introduced for its supposed "explanatory power". See the recently closed thread (and many like it) trying to present some underlying "mechanism" for relativity. As soon as someone says, "but the math is exactly the same" you know their "extras" are unnecessary entities.

But it is not (just) about simpler (which is subjective). Evolution can be explained by known and well understood mechanisms. Adding something that, therefore, is not needed and for which there is no evidence is unnecessary and thus fails Occam's test.

This is a strawman. It looks very similar to the tornado in a junkyard argument. New genes are not magically going to appear from nothing (assuming that is what you mean by de novo). But there is plenty of evidence of "new" genes (i.e. genes that weren't present in ancestors) being produced. These are typically created by copying a segment of DNA or an entire chromosome, therefore they are not created de novo. But by restricting your argument to only magical methods of creating new genes, you ensure that it is right but also irrelevant. What is the point of that?

I think that is exactly what we are saying. But that is true of every other theory in physics and always will be.

Isn't "unnecessary" the key word? For example, I think Lorentz Ether Theory is exactly equivalent to Special Relativity but adds a completely undetectable and unnecessary (because SR produces the same results without it) ether. You can have an infinite number of such theories: Lorentz Unicorn Theory which posits that invisible pink unicorns manipulate things to produce the same results as SR, and so on. So it seems natural to choose the one that doesn't rely on the Flying Spaghetti Monster intervening in a way we can never detect. If you can suggest that some so far unexplained effect might be explained by adding a new force or medium (and then demonstrate that is the case through experiment) then that new feature is no longer unnecessary and Occam lives to tell the tale.

I don't know much about Mesoamerican history, but I assume it would be because it took longer for organised agriculture, permanent settlements and other aspects of civilization to develop. Writing has generally grown out of the needs of agriculture and trade so if these are later developing, then so is writing. Presumably low population density and the (relative) ease of hunter-gather lifestyle delayed the development. Interesting to note that writing does not seem to be an "obvious" invention. It has only been invented three or four times (there is debate over whether writing in Egypt was a result of cultural diffusion from Sumeria).

I think many philosophers of science would say that we never have anything but "better epicycles". Science doesn't (and cannot) determine anything about reality. All it can do is make useful models. This is a fairly 20th century view, but it has much older origins. Very few philosophers of science now think that science is about discovering "truth". More scientists might do, but that is probably because they don't know anything about the philosophy of science! So, is space-time literally bending? Well, it certainly appears that way. It is a conceptually simple and very powerful model. We haven't, yet, found anything that contradicts it. It is the best description we have.

But however you measure it and whatever model you use to describe it, that doesn't tell you any more about what is "really" happening. It just tells you that you have a good (and hopefully better) model

Thank you!

It might all be a delusion. Or, as suggested in another thread, a computer simulation.

[math]\frac 1 2[/math]

You can have a static electric field, which does not require any (real) photons. Similarly a static gravitational field would not require (real) gravitons. A changing electromagnetic field is quantised as the photon. A changing gravitational field would (hypothetically) by quantised as the graviton. If there is a static electric field causing a force on a charged particle then that will be mediated by (modelled as) the exchange of virtual photons. If there is a static gravitational field causing a force on a massive particle then that would be mediated by (modelled as) the exchange of virtual gravitons.

My understanding is that they would be two different but equivalent descriptions of the same thing. In the same way you view light as photons or as classical electromagnetic waves. The challenge is producing a theory that includes both general relativity and gravitons. Just the same: gravity would be described as the exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way that electric and magnetic forces are described in terms of the exchange of virtual photons.

You haven't managed it after 5 pages. How much more do you need? Also, if your explanation does not involve mathematics then it is of no value.

If you don't show the maths there is no reason for anyone to believe you. You have no evidence for that. What "rule"? And what evidence is there to support that rule?

It is a model. How would you tell the difference between that and a what is happening physically? We have models that match observation and measurement. All we can know about what is "really" happening physically is our observations and measurements and so, indirectly, we try and make models that are consistent with "physical reality". Does the model describe that what is really happening? Who knows; it is impossible to answer that question. We can't even tell if there is such a thing as "reality", there is just what we measure. (Or, if you want to get away from realism completely, what we think we measure!)

I suppose accessing something that doesn't exist is quite difficult. And a waste of time.

As it has been implemented, I assume there are no insurmountable technical problems. I guess it is mainly a matter of cost, efficiency, etc.

No, I don't mean that. I was talking about the nature of gravitational waves in general, nothing specifically to do with the LIGO detector. (But the fact that the arms will be affected differently, however they are oriented with respect to the waves is an important part of the detection mechanism.) This presentation has some good diagrams showing how gravitational waves affect the space they are travelling through. https://www.aapt.org/doorway/tgrutalks/Saulson/SaulsonTalk-Teaching%20gravitational%20waves.pdf

As they gain speed, I assume they would gain kinetic energy. But I have no idea if concepts like that can be applied so simply in this context.

I thought it was very helpful: you have been told that it was invented by a 19th century nutter called Madame Blavatsky based on old myths and stuff she made up herself. Surely, at that point, any rational person files it away under "stuff to be ignored in future" not "gosh, I wonder if I can find out more about this". Unless you are interested in the history and psychology of cult leaders, I suppose.