Originally Posted By: Orac


At the moment you are basically surviving by trying to guide your theory thru the cracks. You aren't putting up testifiable or falsifiable results of your theory and anything I show you there is "doubt" about the result.

In science there is always "doubt" we never close the lid on anything and accept them as absolute facts.

So you are asking us to prove your theory wrong you are not trying to prove your theory right. There are no undisputed "facts" in science so I will never be able to disprove your theory nor would I even bother trying.

Above I showed you scientific observations that showed Absolute Space was inconsistant with observation. So you turned the argument around and basically argue since I don't have a proven structure of space therefore I haven't disproven Absolute Space. You are simply ignoring the observations until I can prove some other structure.


The existing theories have some 'cracks', and that is the main reason that alternate explanations have justifications (otherwise, there will not be any need for any change).The main point of your argument was that a fictional force introduced in the classical Newtonian mechanics shows that the space is absolute. My reply was that the use of fictional was eliminated in my model. I have not ignored any observation. I have not even said that any observation that you pointed out is wrong. I have only tried to explain 'the observations' in an alternate way.

Originally Posted By: Orac
As per above science doesn't work that way Absolute Space is dead to beyond accepted scientific certainty. You want to revive it you have to provide a testifiable or falsifiable result for us to reopen the case ... that is how science works. We will never close the case but at this stage Absolute Space is dead and buried.

This is sort of how you are dealing with all observations that disagree with your theory.

QM for example kills your theory dead as you have no mechanism to explain the results. So what do you do you deny QM "it's a mistake and hasn't been proven" according to you. Sorry QM will never be proven science doesn't work that way but all the crazy observations are real so if you want to put forward a theory of the universe it has to cover those observations you can't just ignore those observations.

I agree that 'what you have said' is correct: we will never close a case. At the present stage, the scientific community has discarded the concept of absolute space. There is no denying of that fact. I propose an alternate theory in which the space is absolute, and which can explain the observations in an alternate way. You have to distinguish between 'observations' and 'inferences based on those observations'. In this posting, I have so far not questioned the validity of 'any observations'; I have not said that such and such observation is due to the fault in the measurement or any other thing. I have questioned only the inferences; ie, the observation can be explained in another way, and so the inference might be wrong.

I agree that so many observations (for example the 'casimir effect') can be explained on the basis of QM. If I deny that, then 'whatever I say' will not belong to science. My argument is that such observations can be explained in an alternate way, and so QM is not required.


Originally Posted By: Orac
I don't want to discourage you or try and stop you questioning science and cosmology tenants but within science we have rules the same as maths or any other discipline because without them it all breaks down and there is confusion about what is scientifically accepted and what isn't.


Science has certain rules, I agree. But the accepted rules have changed many times (from 'flat earth' to 'round earth' from 'space and time' to 'space-time' etc). A change will always cause some confusion. So what I say is that 'the fact that my theory goes against the existing rules' cannot be regarded as a disqualification for my theory.