740
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 111:
Line 111: + + + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order (view source)
Revision as of 05:36, November 15, 2009
, 05:36, November 15, 2009Response - we can't extrapolate; maybe this's the wrong tack
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
::::I've been quietly following this conversation today, but Kate beat me to the "Submit" button! Well, I'll just point out that scientists can and frequently do "intimidat[e] people against criticizing" pretty much any theory, because they think it's right and they don't want to waste time. It's quite likely close-mindedness, but it exists, and you can't take that as disproof of the theory. I don't think someone who rejected Mendel or Maxwell would get pretty far today, either. <small>(Yes, I know Mendel has been amended with epigenetic inheritance, but I think you get my picture)</small>. It's just a bothersome red herring.
::::I don't know anything about the Mercury data, but the most recent data I've seen here says general relativity might work; it's at the border of the range of error, and it's too precise for any of us to extrapolate. General relativity could be spot on. Or, a new theory being needed - if you're trying to construct a [[theory of everything]], a new theory definitely is needed to deal with [[quantum mechanics]]! But, general relativity does predict a lot of things better than Newton. Newton didn't explain everything, nor does general relativity - but I think you can find better stuff to attack it with than an extrapolation of Mercury orbital data.