Some thots on "falsification" (Was: An Attractive Proposition...)

I been really objectively pondering as to just how "falsification" would
apply to the Flowing-Space model of gravity, and how to go about doing
it. Painius sed,

...at this point. I am setting forth some
ideas that obviously require falsification.

OK, the FS model states that the cause of gravitation is *self-evident*
as the pressure-driven, accelerating flow of the
sub-Planckian-wavelength spatial medium into mass with mass synonymous
with flow sink, or pressure drain.. and that the flow is impelled by the
*pressure gradient* between the ambient pressure of the Plenum of space
and the 'ground state' at the core of every atomic nucleus.. and that
the long-sought unification of gravity with the SNF comes as a
serendipitous 'spinoff' of this.
So, to falsify this premise, what exactly is
necessary? As i see it, the existing theories of gravity would have to
explain causation OR, a better theory must be presented.
The existing theories have gravity caused by :

1.) Equations

2.) Geometry.

3.) '4-D fields'

4.) 'Curvature' of "space-time" ("space-time" being Einstein's
mathematical abstraction replacing the "aether").

5.) Fictitious force (something-or-other "moving on a space-time
geodesic").

6.) 'Exchange/transfer particles' (gravitons) that magically "reach up
and pull stuff down".

7.) La Sage "shadowing" principle.

All these face the 'Litmus Test' of explaining the mechanism powering
super/ hypernovae and quasars. So far, only the FS model offers such a
mechanism by dint of its key fearure, the 'supra-cosmic overpressure',
or SCO.
So to "falsify" the FS model, it seems like a *better*
model explaining _causation_ is necessary. And the floor is always open
to hear it. Just "fill in the blank"__________ .

In article , oldcoot
wrote:

I been really objectively pondering as to just how "falsification" would
apply to the Flowing-Space model of gravity, and how to go about doing
it. Painius sed,

...at this point. I am setting forth some
ideas that obviously require falsification.

OK, the FS model states that the cause of gravitation is *self-evident*
as the pressure-driven, accelerating flow of the
sub-Planckian-wavelength spatial medium into mass with mass synonymous
with flow sink, or pressure drain.. and that the flow is impelled by the
*pressure gradient* between the ambient pressure of the Plenum of space
and the 'ground state' at the core of every atomic nucleus.. and that
the long-sought unification of gravity with the SNF comes as a
serendipitous 'spinoff' of this.
So, to falsify this premise, what exactly is
necessary? As i see it, the existing theories of gravity would have to
explain causation OR, a better theory must be presented.

This is not falsification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

The existing theories have gravity caused by :

This statement is incorrect -- General Relativity makes no such claims
about causality.


1.) Equations

2.) Geometry.

3.) '4-D fields'

4.) 'Curvature' of "space-time" ("space-time" being Einstein's
mathematical abstraction replacing the "aether").

5.) Fictitious force (something-or-other "moving on a space-time
geodesic").

6.) 'Exchange/transfer particles' (gravitons) that magically "reach up
and pull stuff down".

7.) La Sage "shadowing" principle.

All these face the 'Litmus Test' of explaining the mechanism powering
super/ hypernovae and quasars. So far, only the FS model offers such a
mechanism by dint of its key fearure, the 'supra-cosmic overpressure',
or SCO.

You have way over-simplified these events, and assumed that energy
flowing into a star is the only way they can hold themselves together.

So to "falsify" the FS model, it seems like a *better*
model explaining _causation_ is necessary. And the floor is always open
to hear it. Just "fill in the blank"__________ .

No, this is not falsification. To falsify your ideas, you need to:

* Identify a hypothesis that explains experimental observations.
* Try to identify a test that can be performed, the results of which
would indicate that the hypothesis is false.
* Perform the test, and report the results.
* Modify the hypothesis as needed.

If a test can't be identified, the hypothesis is termed "unfalsifiable".

A famous falsification test for General Relativity was the bending of
starlight near the Sun during an eclipse. If the light's path had not
been modified, GR would have been in serious trouble.

String theory, on the other hand, is held as non-scientific by many
people because of falsification -- it could be true, or it could be
false -- but there is no way to test it.

Because GR makes no claims about the ultimate cause of gravity, you
cannot that it is incorrect on this basis.

As the proposer of this flowing space model, it is your responsibility
to propose possible tests that could show it to be wrong. Otherwise it
is no better than string theory.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...

I been really objectively pondering as to just how "falsification" would
apply to the Flowing-Space model of gravity, and how to go about doing
it. Painius sed,

...at this point. I am setting forth some
ideas that obviously require falsification.

OK, the FS model states that the cause of gravitation is *self-evident*
as the pressure-driven, accelerating flow of the
sub-Planckian-wavelength spatial medium into mass with mass synonymous
with flow sink, or pressure drain.. and that the flow is impelled by the
*pressure gradient* between the ambient pressure of the Plenum of space
and the 'ground state' at the core of every atomic nucleus.. and that
the long-sought unification of gravity with the SNF comes as a
serendipitous 'spinoff' of this.
So, to falsify this premise, what exactly is
necessary? As i see it, the existing theories of gravity would have to
explain causation OR, a better theory must be presented.
The existing theories have gravity caused by :

1.) Equations

2.) Geometry.

3.) '4-D fields'

4.) 'Curvature' of "space-time" ("space-time" being Einstein's
mathematical abstraction replacing the "aether").

5.) Fictitious force (something-or-other "moving on a space-time
geodesic").

6.) 'Exchange/transfer particles' (gravitons) that magically "reach up
and pull stuff down".

7.) La Sage "shadowing" principle.

All these face the 'Litmus Test' of explaining the mechanism powering
super/ hypernovae and quasars. So far, only the FS model offers such a
mechanism by dint of its key fearure, the 'supra-cosmic overpressure',
or SCO.
So to "falsify" the FS model, it seems like a *better*
model explaining _causation_ is necessary. And the floor is always open
to hear it. Just "fill in the blank"__________ .

We've been friends for a good while, oc, and yet my
response to all this would have to be identical to
Carson's with one small exception. His second star
was...

* Try to identify a test that can be performed, the
results of which would indicate that the hypothesis
is false.

This is not "falsifiability". It *should* read...

* Try to identify a test that can be performed, the
results of which would indicate "whether or not"
the hypothesis is false.

Other than that, Carson is pretty much right on. And
while it is also true that the onus of falsifiability falls
to the proposer/hypothesizer, if enough people begin
to see the idea as having merit, help is often given, as
shown by the many scientists who helped Einstein with
relativity theory. This includes the very first falsifiability
performed during Eddington's excursion in 1919.

I agree with you that the FSP is the only feasible idea
"out there" that has any chance in heck of being a road
to the TOE. But frankly, it's going to be a "rough" road.

"Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy ride."
Bette Davis slightly paraphrased

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a
bumpy night." Bette Davis in "All About Eve"

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

Painius wrote,

I agree with you that the FSP is the only
feasible idea "out there" that has any
chance in heck of being a road to the
TOE. But frankly, it's going to be a
"rough" road.

Well just for the hell of it, let's pick something that the Flowing
Space Paradigm predicts, and see if it might be subject to an empirical
test.
The FSP predicts that in a gravity well, the
accelerating flow of space is stretched in the direction of the
gravitator while narrowing girth-wise, as if in a funnel. At the same
time, at the outer fringes of the gravity well where acceleration is
minimal, space is *compacted* in the direction of the gravitator. Let's
let the gravitator be the Sun, and propose a test.
Launch a couple of space probes 'waaaay out beyond the
orbit of Pluto, past perturbation noise from the various planets'
gravity fields. Out in that unperturbed space at the fringes of the
Sun's gravity well, the FS model predicts that space will be *compacted*
in the Sun-ward direction moreso than down here at Earth deeper in the
Sun's gravity well. The space probes, as they enter the more-compacted
space, will appear to have traveled a shorter distance than they
'should' under a "no medium" model.
Well, such a test has been, and IS being done. The
Pioneer spacecraft are indeed lagging behind where they "should be" just
as the FSP predicts.
One may argue, "you're just making this up 'after the
fact'."
So what? The FSP's prediction of compacted space at the fringes of a
gravity well would stand in any case, whether the Pioneer spacecraft
exised or not. The fact that their "anomalous" acceleration
(de-celeration actually) agrees with the FSP is neither here nor there.