SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + + + + +
→Example of circularity in "proofs": No.
The argument in some "proofs" is that although overall energy, kinetic plus potential, is conserved, the potential energy can manifest itself as an increase in the resting mass -- an assumption that implicitly redefines mass to comport with the conclusion sought.
The argument in some "proofs" is that although overall energy, kinetic plus potential, is conserved, the potential energy can manifest itself as an increase in the resting mass -- an assumption that implicitly redefines mass to comport with the conclusion sought.
== Redefining mass to comport with the conclusion sought ==
Concepts and terms have undergone minor changes, to match new or more accurate observations, throughout the history of science. For example, the circular planetary orbits in Copernicus' heliocentric model became ellipses in Kepler's model, to match observations. Similarly, the long-held notion that atoms are indivisible and immutable was overthrown around 1900. Neither of these changes, nor the change in the definition of mass to be consistent with relativity and observation, involved circular reasoning.
Choosing a theory, or the parameters used in a theory, to match observation and thereby make the theory describe reality correctly, is a time-honored tradition in science. As an example of "tweaking" of parameters to comport with the conclusion sought, Kepler set all the orbital parameters of the planets to be what they had to be in order to match the observed behavior. The parameters of motion of the [[PSR B1913+16]] pulsar pair were of course set by Hulse and Taylor to match observation. Interestingly, nothing about [[General relativity]] had to be "tweaked" to predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
== False experimental claims ==
== False experimental claims ==