![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello BB,
You know I cannot get very interested in semantics, especially when the main function seems to be to obscure issues that should be very transparent. Two of my favorite predictions concerned the discovery of galaxies, and the solar eclipse experiment of 1919. Galaxies: At one time there were two groups of astronomers who had very different interpretation of certain "nebulae". One group said they were what we now call galaxies (distant "island universes"), and the other group said they were local nebulae, or smudges on the telescope lens, etc. Well, a very nice prediction arose. In one case they were at huge distances and the other hypothesis predicted "short" distances. The rest is history. Solar eclipse of 1919: Everyone knows this, or should. Yes, there are various complications that are overlooked in the usual retelling, but the bottom line was that Newtonian gravitation predicted one value and General Relativity predicted another. The rest is history. Predictions like this are very special. When we talk about predictions we need emphasize actual historical examples, not engage in a lot of semantic arm-waving, unnecessary complexification and obfuscation. Yours in science Knecht www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reply to Bill | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 13 | September 2nd 08 12:30 PM |
This is NOT a reply, Tom. | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | February 6th 06 08:39 AM |
This is NOT a reply, Tom. | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 6th 06 08:39 AM |
a reply | rebel | Misc | 2 | September 8th 05 02:56 PM |