Theories being right or wrong (split from Do you think this is true in science or not?)

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, et pet said:

speaking of Respect, John,  I refuse to Denigrate, Belittle, Berate or Accuse Albert Einstein of being Wrong , and one of the reasons is simply because he is deceased and cannot defend himself!

Interestingly, one of the most important things Einstein did was show that Newton was wrong.
Should  Einstein not have done that because  Newton was dead?

It's amusing to note that I didn't say Einstein was wrong. I said he was right, and that's how you could tell that Beecee hadn't quoted him.

Did you actually read what I said?

[Sensei]

People claiming that Einstein was wrong, or scientists are wrong etc., often even don't know and understand Newtonian classical physics..

 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Sensei said:

People claiming that Einstein was wrong, or scientists are wrong etc., often even don't know and understand Newtonian classical physics..

 

[koti]

37 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Interestingly, one of the most important things Einstein did was show that Newton was wrong.

Sory John but I feel I need to correct you on this one. Einstein didn’t show that Newton „was wrong” per se. What Einstein did is he broadened Newton’s view by a large margin but SR and GR did not render Newton wrong by any means. If we ever come up with a theory that will broaden GR which we already know is incomplete, that theory will not render GR wrong.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, et pet said:

   Oh, and speaking of Respect, John,  I refuse to Denigrate, Belittle, Berate or Accuse Albert Einstein of being Wrong , and one of the reasons is simply because he is deceased and cannot defend himself! 

Your idea of respect is greatly misconstrued. Einstein was wrong on occasion...that is a simple fact, and something the great man was humble enough to accept and admit. Also ideas have moved on since 1955  when he died, and more observations have been made, that have modified some of his opinions and further validated other predictions and GR. He does not need to defend himself, as I believe he was and is man enough, and humble enough to admit when and how he was at times wrong. A quality sometimes lacking in many "would be's if they could be's", participants on science forums.

[beecee]

48 minutes ago, koti said:

Sory John but I feel I need to correct you on this one. Einstein didn’t show that Newton „was wrong” per se. What Einstein did is he broadened Newton’s view by a large margin but SR and GR did not render Newton wrong by any means. If we ever come up with a theory that will broaden GR which we already know is incomplete, that theory will not render GR wrong.

Exactly! GR was simply a more precise, more accurate theory of gravity, that explained anomalies like the precession of Mercury, that Newtonian could not. Newtonian though is still accurate enough to be used  in all means of physics on Earth, and and far as I know, in near all, if not all, space endeavours that have been undertaken.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

People claiming that Einstein was wrong,

Did anyone here do that?

1 hour ago, koti said:

Einstein didn’t show that Newton „was wrong”

OK, strictly, it makes more sense to say that the precession of mercury (for example) shows that Newton was wrong.

Einstein came up with a better option.
 

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

Exactly! GR was simply a more precise, more accurate theory of gravity, that explained anomalies like the precession of Mercury, that Newtonian could not. Newtonian though is still accurate enough to be used  in all means of physics on Earth, and and far as I know, in near all, if not all, space endeavours that have been undertaken.

No

GPS

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, strictly, it makes more sense to say that the precession of mercury (for example) shows that Newton was wrong.

Einstein came up with a better option.

Einstein came up with a more accurate model that accounted for that anomaly.

Quote

 

No

GPS

 

Yep, OK agreed...an example of Newtonian lacking the accuracy/precision along with the precession of Mercury,  But again, still [as far as I know] used in most all space endeavours.

[John Cuthber]

Just now, beecee said:

Einstein came up with a more accurate model that accounted for that anomaly.

In physics, if there's an "anomaly" in your results, something is wrong.

I'm beginning to see the point of the folk who post that scientists are just as stubborn as the God squad.

Newton was not right.

He was close, but not right.

We don't have to "hero worship" him into being "sort of right".

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

In physics, if there's an "anomaly" in your results, something is wrong.

Newton was not right.

He was close, but not right.

In practical mechanics a carpenter will find a rule accurate enough to fit a door or window frame, and need not use a Vernier caliper which a Tool maker would require to hone a piston or cylinder.

Quote

I'm beginning to see the point of the folk who post that scientists are just as stubborn as the God squad.

I'm beginning to see the point in Laurence Krauss' criticism against philosophy.

Quote

We don't have to "hero worship" him into being "sort of right".

Who is hero worshiping? We simply have a difference of opinion...and that same difference of opinion, on the same issue,  is seen among professional scientists. Please don't let my past criticism of philosophy and philosophers, influence that difference of opinion.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Newton was not right.

He was close, but not right.

I think there is a difference between "not right" and "wrong", though.

For example, the phlogiston theory was definitely wrong. On the other hand, while Newtonian gravity is not "right" it is still a good enough approximation for many uses. And that is also probably true of GR; we are pretty sure that the infinities in black holes are not physically realistic. 

 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Strange said:

I think there is a difference between "not right" and "wrong", though.

I think this is correct. "right" and "wrong" are not the correct way to assess the validity of a theory. It's not a binary condition. It's a little more subtle than that.