The Burden of Proof

[ChristineM]

As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, without any adjustments whatsoever, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct.​

Precession of the perihelion of Mercury

Abraham Pais notes that the discovery that General Relativity correctly predicted Mercury's precession was “by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein's scientific life, perhaps in all his life.”

The error is explained by the space time well around mercury being dragged by the sun. When this outside influence is taken into account your problem is not a problem.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All are entitled to their opinion, some base those opinions on faith, others base them on evidence. You can argue with einsteins mass energy equivalence equation all you want, to date it has never been proved wrong.

Rubbish. The laws of nature exist, are proven to exist, can be observed and measured, without them existence is not possible, no paradox involved. You are making up nonsense to justify your belief

Of course you Hebe no such restriction, nonsense and guesswork don't need to be restricted by facts.

What? That does not make sense... Wait a moment i am detecting a pattern here.

And there is nothing in science to prevent a sand dune spontaneously forming into an elaborate sand castle... Your point being?

I'll try to keep things simple then

If you see a sand castle, no evidence of anyone around, you conclude that the wind probably did it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I acknowledge my faith as such, do you?

if nothing is impossible we must allow that anything is possible. 'chance' can only become the best explanation where an intelligent agent is utterly forbidden, and we have no basis to make such restrictions- other than not feeling 'comfortable' with the idea

You have mis-read what I meant when I said "Nothing is impossible." I tried to be as clear as I could that I did not mean the what people traditionally -- as you do -- that "if nothing is impossible, then anything is possible." I mean it in quite another sense: "It is impossible for nothing to exist."

And for me, I also tried to be quite clear that I accept that there are things I don't know -- and might never know. That is not "faith." That is the humility to accept that fact that not all the answers are available -- at least to me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So how would you respond if one of these Christian fundamentalists who bother you so much were to use your strategy and simply assert that it is so very likely that the Gospels are true, therefore the God of the Bible probably exists?

Probably much the same as you would do if a devout Hindu said the same about the Vedas and the Upanishads, and that therefore Ganesha likely exists -- trunk and all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Newton's laws "adequately" describe the precession of Mercury's perihelion? Isn't that a word game?

No, because at was quite clear: "at non-relativistic levels." The Sun's gravitation is so large that Mercury's nearness to it begins to feel very small relativistic effects. Not surprising at all.

 

[ChristineM]

I'll try to keep things simple then

If you see a sand castle, no evidence of anyone around, you conclude that the wind probably did it?

You really are not following what i said are you? Perhaps too difficult for you to grasp, lets see if i can explain so you may understand. (See we can both do sarcasm (personally i think i do it better) ).

I gave enthalpy (as close to reverse of entropy as i know) as an example to show the inanity of your claim because as i said, there is no scientific law that says it cannot happen

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have mis-read what I meant when I said "Nothing is impossible." I tried to be as clear as I could that I did not mean the what people traditionally -- as you do -- that "if nothing is impossible, then anything is possible." I mean it in quite another sense: "It is impossible for nothing to exist."

And for me, I also tried to be quite clear that I accept that there are things I don't know -- and might never know. That is not "faith." That is the humility to accept that fact that not all the answers are available -- at least to me.

I got it, nothing... is itself impossible. It's a good question, and very strange things can happen in your thoughts, when you try to imagine literal nothing!

Faith is the humility to accept our beliefs as such. Blind faith is having beliefs and not recognizing them as such

 

[MonkeyFire]

Belief is proof in its self. Dis-belief is the burden of proof.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You really are not following what i said are you? Perhaps too difficult for you to grasp, lets see if i can explain so you may understand. (See we can both do sarcasm (personally i think i do it better) ).

I gave enthalpy (as close to reverse of entropy as i know) as an example to show the inanity of your claim because as i said, there is no scientific law that says it cannot happen

Exactly, and where there is no evidence of people, the only direct evidence, is for a naturalistic mechanism creating the sand castle by chance.
So would you say that the burden of proof lies with any other explanation than this?

why not?

 

[ChristineM]

No, because at was quite clear: "at non-relativistic levels." The Sun's gravitation is so large that Mercury's nearness to it begins to feel very small relativistic effects. Not surprising at all.

I told him pretty much the same but rather more basic language "the space time well around mercury being dragged by the sun"

I really don't know why nous expected newton to factor in space time in the 17th century

 

[ChristineM]

Exactly, and where there is no evidence of people, the only direct evidence, is for a naturalistic mechanism creating the sand castle by chance.
So would you say that the burden of proof lies with any other explanation than this?

why not?

What?

Who is taking of people? I thought we were discussing entropy?

And yes entropy is a natural phenomenon

 

[ChristineM]

Belief is proof in its self. Dis-belief is the burden of proof.

Wrong, proof is the establishment of a fact or the truth. Belief is personal opinion

 

[MonkeyFire]

Wrong, proof is the establishment of a fact or the truth. Belief is personal opinion

I believe factually.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe factually.

Prove it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Exactly, and where there is no evidence of people, the only direct evidence, is for a naturalistic mechanism creating the sand castle by chance.
So would you say that the burden of proof lies with any other explanation than this?

why not?

Or perhaps consider this, one quite natural structure (built by Australian termites) and one rather gawdy (oops, I mean Gaudi), clearly designed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe factually.

Perhaps you do, but who could know since you communicate meaninglessly?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Prove it.

Listen to mind telepathically as the nature comes as thought.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What?

Who is taking of people? I thought we were discussing entropy?

And yes entropy is a natural phenomenon

correct Christine!

So the sand castle is built by a person(intelligent agency).... and the wind (entropy/ nature) gradually knocks it back down..

I knew you were beginning to come around ..

 

[Nous]

The error is explained by the space time well around mercury being dragged by the sun. When this outside influence is taken into account your problem is not a problem.

"My problem"? I'm sticking with the experts: "This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism."

 

[ChristineM]

Listen to mind telepathically as the nature comes as thought.

If that's your idea of proof then you need to learn the definition