Theories in science will be almost constantly changing. Earlier, atoms were considered as indivisible in Dalton’s atomic model. As new theories emerge, old theories will be modified or rejected. But if an experiment is done in hurry and wrong results are announced without analyzing, then it leads to creating a hurdle in progress of science. Some examples:
1] A galaxy having no dark matter was claimed to have been ‘found’ making big news. But now it is debunked.
2] In an experiment, it was concluded that neutrinos will travel faster than speed of light in vacuum. Later it was termed as experimental error.
In my view, experiments must be conducted several times in different methods and results should be announced after complete analysis to avoid confusion. What is your view?
Dear Jayaram!
I think we have to differ between wrong theories and wrong experiments.
If an experiment leads constantly to the same results this experiment can not be wrong. If the results are in contradiction to the theory than the theory is wrong.
In my opinion only wrong theories drailing the progress of science and only experiments leading to new insights and they can be repeated flawless.
But if an experiment is very complex and very expensive nobody can repeat it and examine the results. In this case some scientists hold a monopol of faulty science resp. incorrect knowledge and we have to belive them.
Some predictions in science founded on theories which are unproven. You should be cautious to follow certain theories like "dark matter" etc.
My Regards! Hans
Dear Jayaram!
I think we have to differ between wrong theories and wrong experiments.
If an experiment leads constantly to the same results this experiment can not be wrong. If the results are in contradiction to the theory than the theory is wrong.
In my opinion only wrong theories drailing the progress of science and only experiments leading to new insights and they can be repeated flawless.
But if an experiment is very complex and very expensive nobody can repeat it and examine the results. In this case some scientists hold a monopol of faulty science resp. incorrect knowledge and we have to belive them.
Some predictions in science founded on theories which are unproven. You should be cautious to follow certain theories like "dark matter" etc.
My Regards! Hans
Dear Hans,
My understanding of this argue is that if the experiments are not done in different directions then the lack of adequate experiments may bring us to a wrong understanding of the reality, and I believe that it is true.
A part of the question is: What is a wrong experiment? An experiment can be erroneous but never false from the outset like a theory can be. But the greatest problem is that the evaluation of experiments can be determined by theoretical expectations and biases.
Jayram referred to the OPERA-experiment. Have the experimenters made a blank test? A measurement without any proton interactions at CERN? It was to be expeted at least that the frequency of 'neutrino-events' within Grand Sasso correlate with the proton beams. This unproven correlation is possibly the source of the supposed superluminal speed of 'neutrinos' and not a loose plug.
'Neutrinos' are until today a inexplicable amount of energy which caused unexpected decays and interactions of particles and nuclei. We know from thermodynamics that molecules/atoms have a wide spectre of energy. The smaller the particles the greater the energy spectre. This leads to all the unexpected events which are in theory caused by mysterious 'neutrinos'.
Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956
Since I am an experimental guy, I would say that I like this topic and I would like it gets more definition.
The problem is not the experiments, the problem is the biased and stubborn mainstream interpretations with very wrong theories.
The neutrino result was never accepted, the people involved threw the question open because they had trouble finding the cause. It was later found to be a problem in a fibre optic connection, something that is not unusual but very hard to find in such a large system.
The dark matter question is a little different, the lensing observations taken were correct but they were combined with a distance measurement that was historical. That's quite common in astronomy because the method of measuring one parameter may not be suitable for measuring others. You are always reliant on the "body of knowledge". In this case, they did indeed revisit the distance measurement and found it was wrong.
Independent repetition as you say clarified the situation and consequently neither result will have any lasting effect.
Results are never wrong
It is their interpretation and presentation which may be proved wrong later on
So every theory gets updated as we find out new
Dear Jayaram as. , "Dark matter" is anyway a scam. The truth about "In this case, they did indeed revisit the distance measurement and found it was wrong." is that they made it fit again with the theory.
There is no direct proof of distance, no direct measurement of distance.
The "dark matter" scam is generated by a sciencesters (controlled by the banksters) who want science be locked up in ignorance, in order to make more and more very expensive "experiments" against dissident findings, hence more business, hence more money.
The stability of disc galaxies is well defined by the Gravity Probe B experiment, which has proven that gyroscopes in satellites get altered rotation axes due to the influence of the Earth's motion and spin.
The results of that experiment is fully described by pre-1905 gravitomagnetism, as introduced by the great Oliver Heaviside.
The gravitational angular momentum in the disc galaxy's bulge is providing a gravitational dipole on an initially spherical galaxy, in such way, that the orbits will swivel until they arrive in the plane that is perpendicular to the angular momentum.
This is the same process than would occur in electromagnetism, when electric coils are put in a magnetic field: they all rotate and align.
The alignment is caused by a Lorentz-like force, that holds the disk flattened.
The reason that allegedly Dark Matter is needed, is caused by two wrong mainstream beliefs:
1) that Kepler would be valid in disc galaxies.
2) that disc galaxies are unstable without it.
The second issue has been explained above.
That Kepler would be valid in disc galaxies is patently false, because Kepler is only valid for one large mass and one tiny orbiting mass. LeVerrier has proven that a Newtonian precession occurs when a second orbiting mass is added. Even for our solar system, with very few and distant planets, an important precession correction has to be used for Mercury.
A similar correction is needed for every planet.
For a disc galaxy with billions of stars with a high overall density, billions of corrections need to be done.
The easy way is to use an integration of infinitesimal mass over the disc for a given orbit location. When doing that, one comes to the observed velocity curves without the need of Dark Matter.
Research Deduction of orbital velocities in disk galaxies. “Dark Matt...
Research Swivelling time of spherical galaxies towards disk galaxies
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
George Dishman: It would be contradictory to all observations if the β-electrons would not show an energetical spectre like other small particles par example gas molecules, α-particles etc. Paulis invention of an additional particle to declare the β-spectre was absolute self-defeating. It shows how little the understanding is of the particles and atomic nuclei.
The wide energetical spectre of particles results at last but not least in such unexpected and opposite transformations as the 'neutrino physicists' observe and think to declare this with the presence resp. energy of 'neutrinos'.
'Neutrinos' are nothing than an amount of energy which is inexplicable for the followers of the doctrine like you.
Also the first 'proof of neutrinos' was a good experimental job but a tragedy of theory.
Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956
- Badges
- Science topic