The culmination of the Standard model was the discovery of the Higgs boson: earlier this decade at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.(The Higgs boson-CERN).What happens if genereal relativity really is not valid?
Aristotle is credited with the earliest study of formal logic, and his conception of it was the dominant form of Western logic until 19th century advances in mathematical logic.Kant stated in the Critique of Pure Reason (Preface to the Second Edition, 1787) that with Aristotle logic reached its completion.
Logic, from the Ancient Greek: λογική, originally meaning “the word” or “what is spoken”, but coming to mean “thought” or “reason”, is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.
Today, logic is extensively applied in the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science, and these fields provide a rich source of problems in formal and informal logic. Argumentation theory is one good example of how logic is being applied to artificial intelligence. (Wikipedia).
Why Is Gravity Such a Weakling?
You can see gravity’s relative weakness simply by using an ordinary bar magnet to pick up paper clips from a desk. Battling the gravitational pull of all of Earth, the tiny magnet wins! In fact, gravity is a staggering 1040 times weaker than electromagnetism. But why, among the fundamental forces, is gravity the runt of the litter? Explaining gravity’s relative feebleness is a profound challenge for physics, and an essential milestone on the road to a unified theory of all four forces. (pbs.org).
Is it true the tiny magnet wins?-Image of Pinterest.
It seems so logical. But, the problem though, is that it is a logical fallacy. There’s where the problem starting. Is it true the tiny magnet wins? No, that is not true. That is misleading, That is a logical fallacy.
Let’s try the tiny magnet with a small piece of paper weighing maybe one-hundredth of the weight of a paper clip. A small piece of paper is putting on the desk. Gravity holds a paper on desk. So, a paper does not floating in the air.
And it turns out; a paper can’t be lifted by the magnet.
The tiny magnet is not able to lift a small piece of paper at desk
So, what went wrong?
A force is a strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement. A force in physics is an action that can occur driven by the existing of gravity, electromagnet, or nuclear. But, each of these forces has different properties. For example, the properties of gravity are not part of the electromagnet and the properties of the electromagnet are not part of nuclear, and vice versa.By nature, each type of forces has different benefits; and the strength of each force measured according to their use.
Therefore, it can not be compared. In a sense, comparing gravity with other forces is useless. That is logical fallacies. That is also known as bad comparison, false comparison, or inconsistent comparison: comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.
Another examples of false comparison:
Example #1:
Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar!
Explanation: While both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to the false comparison.
Example #2:
Religion may have been wrong about a few things, but science has been wrong about many more things!
Explanation: We are comparing a method of knowledge (science) to a system of belief (faith), which is not known for revising itself based on new evidence. Even when it does, the “wrongs” are blamed on human interpretation.
Science is all about improving ideas to get closer to the truth, and, in some cases, completely throwing out theories that have been proven wrong. Furthermore, the claims of religion are virtually all unfalsifiable, thus cannot be proven wrong. Therefore, comparing religion and science on the basis of falsifiability is a faulty comparison.
This article is in response to the statement below:
“I think that all students should get a rudimentary education in logical fallacies, and cognitive and social biases, as well as means to prevent them” ( Sabine Hossenfelder)
A physics professor said that given Einstein’s status as a popular icon, there are countless people who wish to prove him wrong, even among scientists with degrees to their names. Does that mean that one can not reveal Einstein’s fault, although the evidence and fact had been found that his theory is invalid?
I think, it doesn’t matter people wish to prove him wrong with the goal to their reputation or not, because many people will test the findings. If the findings are incorrect, it will further enhance Einstein’s status as a popular icon. If the findings are correct, it has very important for the future generations of scientists.
