A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A quasar, too heavy to be true



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #24  
Old January 19th 18, 06:19 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default scientific proof and disproof

On 1/10/18 3:15 PM, Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] wrote:
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Of course, technically, one can never prove the
non-existence of something;


On the contrary, one can indeed prove the non-existence of some things.
For example, I am currently in a room which is approximately 2.5 meters
by 5 meters by 2.5 meters in size. Given the known size of adult elephants,
I can prove the non-existence of adult elephants in this room by looking
around and not seeing any adult elephants.

Abstracting a bit, for propositions X and Y,
(a) if X implies Y, and
(b) we observe not-Y, then
(c) we have proven not-X.

In the above example, X = "there is an adult elephant in this room"
and Y = "I can see an adult elephant when I look around in this room".

In the same way, one can prove the non-existence of (for example)
hitherto-unknown Jupiter-mass planets orbiting within 10 astronomical
units of the Sun: if such a planet or planets existed, they would cause
substantial gravitational perturbations to the orbits of other planets.
But we observe that there are no (unexplained) substantial gravitational
perturbations to the orbits of the known planets in our solar system.

Here we are taking X = "there is a hitherto-unknown Jupiter-mass planet
orbiting within 10 astronomical units of the Sun" and Y = "there are
substantial unexplained gravitational perturbations to the orbits of
other (known) planets in our solar system".

All of the above logic must consider Goedel's incompleteness theorem

First Incompleteness Theorem from Wiki:
"Any consistent formal system F
within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic
can be carried out is incomplete;
i.e., there are statements of the language of F
which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)

or perhaps another statement:

all hypotheses cannot be considered true or untrue
within any axiomatic structure defining the hypotheses.

So, it is impossible to prove or disprove
the complete universe structure
based on any axiomatic structure

Richard D Saam

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could Delta IV Heavy use the same technique as Falcon Heavy Alan Erskine[_3_] Space Shuttle 1 May 20th 11 07:56 AM
Whoa, it can't be true, it can't be true, William Shatner knows,he'll protect us LIBERATOR[_3_] History 2 March 24th 09 05:28 PM
Heavy H = Lots of Heavy Compounds G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 3 November 12th 05 06:12 PM
Since Boeing and LM are partnering 50/50 and Boeing already has Delta IV Heavy does that mean we'll never see the Atlas V Heavy? D. Scott Ferrin History 5 May 6th 05 05:34 PM
Delta IV Heavy: Heavy Enough for Mars Damon Hill Policy 1 December 22nd 04 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.