Solid Detractor Arguments

[ydoaPs]

No I am not saying the most accurately and extensively tested theories are full of uncertainty. Relativity, QM and host of others though include enough uncertainty to allow for detractors with solid arguments.

Let's see these mythical arguments of which you speak. Be forewarned, I've been here for ages and seen attacks from all sides of crackpottery; thus far, none have been with any merit.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Are you excluding the known edge cases, such as singularities?

[swansont]

Are you excluding the known edge cases, such as singularities?

 

I would imagine so. Theories can have limits of applicability, but this does not make them wrong within these limits. At worst it makes them incomplete, and all scientific theories suffer from this.

[cypress]

Uncertainty can be due to error or incompleteness. I see no reason to specify exclusions.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Certain edge cases -- singularities, whatever -- are acknowledged by physicists as areas where relativity does not apply. There are a few similar cases with QM. What you promised was the arguments of detractors, not already-acknowledged incompletions in the theories.

[ydoaPs]

Where is it, cypress?

[swansont]

Example of relativity detractor, based on religious ideology

 

http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

 

The "counterexamples" (as far as I've had time to check) generally fall into two categories: non sequiturs or out-and-out falsehoods. Neither of which could be mistaken for solid arguments.

 

partial rebuttal on my blog http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6225