Is Relatively "Settled Science"?

[Dick Foster]

I thought it was settled science once the fact that light bends around a mass was proved by observations made during a total solar eclipse. For this reason we could not run sight lines in close proximity to massive structures or other large masses for precise 1st order geodetic surveys.

I'm not disputing that you were told not to do that, but it must have been for some other reason. Gravitational bending is insignificant for a mass smaller than a star. As an example, light skimming past the surface of the earth would be gravitationally bent by a total of 0.0006 arc-seconds. That would correspond to 3 inches deflection over 10,000 miles. Such gravitational bending is insignificant compared to distortion from the atmosphere, which may have been what you were trying to avoid.

I know that and you know that but try and tell that to a PHd geodesist sometime.
Atmospheric distortion is why most of our observations were done in the wee hours sometimes when it was as cold as a witches titty and a ballpoint pen would even freeze up. Yeah we had to do everything in ink, no cheating. We had to do a lot of crazy stuff.

 

[Newtonian]

Practically nothing about physics is settled until a workable grand unified theory that ties together classical physics and quantum physics is formulated. Maybe in a few hundred more years?

Personally I don't believe science can/could ever be settled. Science is an everlasting search for what's next before the next arrives
just my view
-

Science is a process and it continues on indefinitely. What we 'know' today will be very different from what we 'know' tomorrow.

Indeed the study of the "things made" will continue forever (Romans 1:20). And we will never know it all:

In Ecclesiastes 3:11 the Hebrew word "olam " actually means hidden or concealed time but is usually translated "everlasting" (or "eternity,' etc.).

See:

Questions From Readers — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

The context shows that revealing hidden things *by scientific study" will continue forever:

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful* in its time.+ He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

That's one of the reasons I love science - we will always have the joy of discovery! Eternal life on a paradise earth (Psalms 37:29; Isaiah 11:7-9) will never be boring!

Concerning relativity (Einstein's theory):

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpts:

"Einstein’s special theory of relativity, published in June 1905, disagreed with a fundamental belief of scientists such as Isaac Newton—that the measurement of time is a constant throughout the universe....

However, when approaching the speed of light, not only does time slow down significantly but objects also become smaller and their mass increases. Einstein’s theory maintained that the speed of light, not time, is constant across the universe.....

Clocks aboard satellites of the Global Positioning System (GPS) do not tick at the same speed as clocks on earth. Without correcting for this effect of relativity, the GPS signal would be rendered useless."

Rainbow — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Carl B. Boyer observes: “Within a raindrop the interaction of light energy with matter is so intimate that one is led directly to quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. . . . Although much is known about the production of the rainbow, little has been learned about its perception.”—The Rainbow, From Myth to Mathematics, 1959, pp. 320, 321."

Concerning the cosmological constant and relativity and expansion of the universe (Isaiah 40:22):

Did It Really Have a Beginning? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, published in 1916, implied that the universe is either expanding or contracting. Yet, the idea was totally contrary to the then accepted view that the universe is static, which Einstein also believed at the time. So he introduced into his calculations what he called a “cosmological constant.” This adjustment was made to try to harmonize his theory with the accepted belief that the universe is static and unchanging.

However, evidence that accumulated in the 1920’s caused Einstein to call the adjustment he had made to the relativity theory his ‘greatest blunder.’ The installation of the huge 100-inch [254 cm] telescope on Mount Wilson in California made possible the acquisition of such evidence. The observations made with the use of that telescope during the 1920’s proved that the universe is expanding!"

The Miracles—Did They Really Happen? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"The truth is, educated people today are less prepared than was David Hume to insist that the familiar laws of nature hold true everywhere and at all times. Scientists are willing to speculate on whether, instead of the familiar three dimensions of length, breadth, and height, there may be many additional dimensions in the universe.2 They theorize on the existence of black holes, huge stars that collapse in on themselves until their density is virtually infinite. In their vicinity the fabric of space is said to be so distorted that time itself stands still.3 Scientists have even debated whether, under certain conditions, time would run backward instead of forward!4

8 Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, when discussing how the universe began, said: “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down.”5"

references 2-5 -

2. Discover, November 1986, p. 34.

3. Einstein’s Universe, by Nigel Calder, 1979, p. 40.

4. Discover, February 1987, p. 67.

5. Discover, February 1987, p. 70.

 

[Newtonian]

i mean Jeez Louise! It's over 100 fricking years old! Why are we bothering to test the orbit of a star around the Supermassive Black Hole in Sag A? It's a waste of money, time, effort and electrons.

We have Consensus!

Science = Settled

For a long time Newton's theory was accurate enough to predict everything about the orbits of planets .... except for a tiny discrepancy in Mercury's orbit. (The very slight rotation of it's perihelion.) Relativity explained that.

The star around the black hole in Sag A is very similar. With that increasingly accurate test of relativity will there be a small discrepancy in orbit? If the orbit around Sag A does not follow relativity, there will be a profound change in the science of gravity.
.

Star’s orbit around black hole more proof Einstein was right – Astronomy Now

astronomynow.com

An artist’s "impression of how the orbit of a star going around the Milky Way’s central black hole precesses exactly as predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity, tracing a rosette pattern. The effect has been exaggerated for this visualisation. Image: ESO/L. Calçada

Astronomers monitoring the motion of a star whizzing around the Milky Way’s central black hole say its orbit is precessing as predicted by relativity theory, orbiting in rosette-like loops as the star’s point of closest approach changes with each trip around the hole.
The effect, known as Schwarzschild precession, was first detected with Mercury’s orbit, providing early evidence to support general relativity. But it has never before been measured for a star orbiting a supermassive black hole.

Einstein’s theory “predicts that bound orbits of one object around another are not closed, as in Newtonian gravity, but precess forwards in the plane of motion,” said Reinhard Genzel, director at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (MPE) and the leader of a team monitoring the star’s motion.

A century after Schwarzschild precession was observed in Mercury’s orbit, “we have now detected the same effect in the motion of a star orbiting the compact radio source Sagittarius A* at the centre of the Milky Way,” Genzel said. “This observational breakthrough strengthens the evidence that Sagittarius A* must be a supermassive black hole of four million times the mass of the Sun.”

The star in question, known as S2, passes within about 20 billion kilometres (12.4 billion miles) of Sgr A* and completes one orbit every 16 years. At closest approach, the star is moving at nearly 3 percent the speed of light.

“After following the star in its orbit for over two and a half decades, our exquisite measurements robustly detect S2’s Schwarzschild precession in its path around Sagittarius A*,” said Stefan Gillessen of the MPE, who led the analysis of the measurements published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics."

See the article for more, for example concerning the light of this star being stretched to longer wavelengths in 2018 as the star passed close to the supermassive black hole. And by ESO's Exremely Large Telescope a change in mass may be confirmed for much fainter stars orbiting closer to Sgr A.

 

[ReinyDays]

"For very very large things, General Relativity works wonderfully ... for very very small things, Quantum Mechanics is spot on correct ... for human sized things, Sir Issac Newton rules supreme ..." -- someone smarter than me

Perhaps someone can explain why GR and QM are mutually exclusive of each other ... something about a singularity and it's wave function? ...

 

[Wuwei]

"For very very large things, General Relativity works wonderfully ... for very very small things, Quantum Mechanics is spot on correct ... for human sized things, Sir Issac Newton rules supreme ..." -- someone smarter than me

Perhaps someone can explain why GR and QM are mutually exclusive of each other ... something about a singularity and it's wave function? ...

From what I understand, the problem is that Heisenberg's energy-time uncertainty gives rise to a "vacuum foam" of virtual particles. Time and energy is sort of chaotic at the smallest distances of space-time. Look up "vacuum energy" for more detail.
.

 

[ReinyDays]

From what I understand, the problem is that Heisenberg's energy-time uncertainty gives rise to a "vacuum foam" of virtual particles. Time and energy is sort of chaotic at the smallest distances of space-time. Look up "vacuum energy" for more detail.

The name-plate "vacuum energy" for my Electrolux is 660 W ... or roughly 10^108 years of operation per cubic meter ... I don't think we have that much time to work with ... ha ha ha ... just joking ...

"Here's the deal. We have two fundamental theories of physics: quantum field theory and general relativity. Quantum field theory takes quantum mechanics and special relativity into account, and it's a great theory of all the forces and particles except gravity, but it ignores gravity. General relativity is a great theory of gravity, but it ignores quantum mechanics. Nobody knows how to reconcile these theories yet. That's what people working on "quantum gravity" are trying to do." -- John Baez -- Jun 10th, 2011 -- "What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?" ... seems a very readable explanation, and he concludes this value is somewhere between zero and infinity inclusive ... sounds like "settled science" to me ...

 

[OldBiologist]

Practically nothing about physics is settled until a workable grand unified theory that ties together classical physics and quantum physics is formulated. Maybe in a few hundred more years?

Not only physics. Almost nothing in science is settled. Theories are constantly being retested as new tools are developed that permit more accurate measurements, measurement or detection of phenomena previously unknown, even just whether an experiment can be successfully replicated. Anybody that says science is settled, doesn’t understand science, IMHO.

I mentioned elsewhere that Abbe’s Law of Diffraction stood unchallenged for almost 150 years until it was reformulated to reflect the capabilities of new technologies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not only physics. Almost nothing in science is settled.

True, but this is in reference to scientific theories that are explanations of observations. The facts they rely on are, often, "settled".

For example, laws of planetary motion. These were very accurate when discovered, but have since been modified as we come to understand more about gravity. But the fact that the planets revolve about the sun is "settled fact".

Another example: evolution. The theory of evolution explains HOW we got the diversity of species from a single, common ancestor. The theory is constantly being updated to reflect new findings in genetics , paleontology, taxonomy, etc. But evolution as the origin of species is a "settled fact".

 

[OldBiologist]

Oh, I agree that some things are almost at the point of testing them being a waste of time. My favorite 800 lb. gorilla of science is the second law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, we don’t know what it is we don’t know. So, having a new look at even the most fundamental of theories with new tools and knowledge might reveal new insights, even if it doesn’t overturn the theory in question. So much of science is serendipitous that it’s simply a healthy practice to keep questioning things.

Even in something as established as evolution, continuing to look at how evolution worked with the new tools of molecular biology shed light on the impact of DNA methylation in species survival. Darwin is still intact but more is known about evolution as a whole.

 

[Newtonian]

Not only physics. Almost nothing in science is settled.

True, but this is in reference to scientific theories that are explanations of observations. The facts they rely on are, often, "settled".

For example, laws of planetary motion. These were very accurate when discovered, but have since been modified as we come to understand more about gravity. But the fact that the planets revolve about the sun is "settled fact".

Another example: evolution. The theory of evolution explains HOW we got the diversity of species from a single, common ancestor. The theory is constantly being updated to reflect new findings in genetics , paleontology, taxonomy, etc. But evolution as the origin of species is a "settled fact".

No it is not. Macro-evolution has never been observed and is speculation.

Micro-evolution is observed - it is fact - but we continue to discover new things about it. For example, epigenetic coding. Not just the methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin which previously was thought to be the inert backbone of chromosomes.

Evolutionists, because of their beliefs, assumed much of DNA was junk. We now know that much of what was considered junk is also involved with micro-evolution - i.e. Tandem Repeat Sequences.

And then there are methyl links to the actual DNA - only partly epigenetic.

But all these forms of epigentic coding do not actually change the DNA so the evolution involved is limited to within species - provided one accepts that dogs like the Bull Terrier with elongated snouts are of the same species (define species).

On the other hand, we believe many new species did evolve from relatively few kinds on Noah's ark - e.g multiple cat species.

On the laws of motion - Einstein's theory of relativity tweaked Newton's laws of motion. Will there be more tweaking? Or is it settled completely?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it is not. Macro-evolution has never been observed and is speculation

Shameless lie and a madeup, creationist buzzword. Yes we have observed speciation. No, macro evolution is not a valid term outside of the circle of religious idiot evolution deniers.


Better check the scoreboard...you guys lost over 100 years ago. Go peddle your crap to unsuspecting children, as is your custom.

 

[Newtonian]

Oh, I agree that some things are almost at the point of testing them being a waste of time. My favorite 800 lb. gorilla of science is the second law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, we don’t know what it is we don’t know. So, having a new look at even the most fundamental of theories with new tools and knowledge might reveal new insights, even if it doesn’t overturn the theory in question. So much of science is serendipitous that it’s simply a healthy practice to keep questioning things.

Even in something as established as evolution, continuing to look at how evolution worked with the new tools of molecular biology shed light on the impact of DNA methylation in species survival. Darwin is still intact but more is known about evolution as a whole.

So true! Sometimes we know enough to ask the questions but not fully to answer them. In other cases the questions haven't been asked - or the questions were either not noticed, ignored, or simply forgotten!

Thinking 'outside the box' (e.g. not approved by peer review) sometimes has led to great discoveries!

Galileo dared to question Aristotle's rigid universe and the Churches earth-centered model but he, like Newton, believed in both the Bible and science. Many current scientists ignore the questions and answers in the Bible - likely Newton noticed Job 26:7 for example.

 

[Newtonian]

No it is not. Macro-evolution has never been observed and is speculation

Shameless lie and a madeup, creationist buzzword. Yes we have observed speciation. No, macro evolution is not a valid term outside of the circle of religious idiot evolution deniers.


Better check the scoreboard...you guys lost over 100 years ago. Go peddle your crap to unsuspecting children, as is your custom.

You might want to read my post more carefully - we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution.

And it was Gould in his Punctuated Equilibrium evolution model who popularized the term "macro-evolution to explain the gaps in the fossil record. You might want to research that as well.

OK, are all cats of the same species or are they multiple species of the same kind? Be careful of semantics btw - one must first define species and also 'kind.'

Genesis chapter 1 states plants and animals reproduce "after their own kind" (see the Hebrew and Greek definitions).

Thus if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a maple tree. Nor do cats give birth to dogs.

The details involve both scientific and Biblical research - but that is clearly observed fact.

I should have mentioned that if you plant a tomato seed you will not get ragweed - though at first you might think so!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You might want to read my post more carefully - we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution

Which is a completely idiotic, nonsensical statement.

No, i will not be reading any of your overwrought, hilarious lies. Again, go peddle your crap to unsuspecting children, as those are the only people who won't laugh you out of the room.

 

[Hollie]

Oh, I agree that some things are almost at the point of testing them being a waste of time. My favorite 800 lb. gorilla of science is the second law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, we don’t know what it is we don’t know. So, having a new look at even the most fundamental of theories with new tools and knowledge might reveal new insights, even if it doesn’t overturn the theory in question. So much of science is serendipitous that it’s simply a healthy practice to keep questioning things.

Even in something as established as evolution, continuing to look at how evolution worked with the new tools of molecular biology shed light on the impact of DNA methylation in species survival. Darwin is still intact but more is known about evolution as a whole.

So true! Sometimes we know enough to ask the questions but not fully to answer them. In other cases the questions haven't been asked - or the questions were either not noticed, ignored, or simply forgotten!

Thinking 'outside the box' (e.g. not approved by peer review) sometimes has led to great discoveries!

Galileo dared to question Aristotle's rigid universe and the Churches earth-centered model but he, like Newton, believed in both the Bible and science. Many current scientists ignore the questions and answers in the Bible - likely Newton noticed Job 26:7 for example.

Christianity knew enough to ask about the really angry gods of the OT so when they stole Hebrew theology, they invented somewhat less angry, vindictive gods.

 

[Hollie]

No it is not. Macro-evolution has never been observed and is speculation

Shameless lie and a madeup, creationist buzzword. Yes we have observed speciation. No, macro evolution is not a valid term outside of the circle of religious idiot evolution deniers.


Better check the scoreboard...you guys lost over 100 years ago. Go peddle your crap to unsuspecting children, as is your custom.

You might want to read my post more carefully - we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution.

And it was Gould in his Punctuated Equilibrium evolution model who popularized the term "macro-evolution to explain the gaps in the fossil record. You might want to research that as well.

OK, are all cats of the same species or are they multiple species of the same kind? Be careful of semantics btw - one must first define species and also 'kind.'

Genesis chapter 1 states plants and animals reproduce "after their own kind" (see the Hebrew and Greek definitions).

Thus if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a maple tree. Nor do cats give birth to dogs.

The details involve both scientific and Biblical research - but that is clearly observed fact.

I should have mentioned that if you plant a tomato seed you will not get ragweed - though at first you might think so!

You continue to be confused by terms you apparently don’t understand. “Macroevolution” is an unfortunate label used by the creationist ministries to denigrate the science of biological evolution.

You have been given many links to documented instances of speciation.

 

[Newtonian]

From what I understand, the problem is that Heisenberg's energy-time uncertainty gives rise to a "vacuum foam" of virtual particles. Time and energy is sort of chaotic at the smallest distances of space-time. Look up "vacuum energy" for more detail.

The name-plate "vacuum energy" for my Electrolux is 660 W ... or roughly 10^108 years of operation per cubic meter ... I don't think we have that much time to work with ... ha ha ha ... just joking ...

"Here's the deal. We have two fundamental theories of physics: quantum field theory and general relativity. Quantum field theory takes quantum mechanics and special relativity into account, and it's a great theory of all the forces and particles except gravity, but it ignores gravity. General relativity is a great theory of gravity, but it ignores quantum mechanics. Nobody knows how to reconcile these theories yet. That's what people working on "quantum gravity" are trying to do." -- John Baez -- Jun 10th, 2011 -- "What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?" ... seems a very readable explanation, and he concludes this value is somewhere between zero and infinity inclusive ... sounds like "settled science" to me ...

You stole my thunder! I also have a sense of humor! So, researching vacuum energy as Wuwei suggested:

Vacuum energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpt:

"The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10−^9 joules (10−^2 ergs) per cubic meter.[2] However, in both quantum electrodynamics (QED) and stochastic electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggest a much larger value of 10^113 joules per cubic meter.[3][4] This huge discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem."

Fascinating research - I love math! I wonder if dark energy is involved with this discrepancy?

So, vacuum energy involves Einstein's cosmological constant which he considered was his 'biggest blunder." A couple of basics from our literature:

Did It Really Have a Beginning? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, published in 1916, implied that the universe is either expanding or contracting. Yet, the idea was totally contrary to the then accepted view that the universe is static, which Einstein also believed at the time. So he introduced into his calculations what he called a “cosmological constant.” This adjustment was made to try to harmonize his theory with the accepted belief that the universe is static and unchanging.

However, evidence that accumulated in the 1920’s caused Einstein to call the adjustment he had made to the relativity theory his ‘greatest blunder.’ The installation of the huge 100-inch [254 cm] telescope on Mount Wilson in California made possible the acquisition of such evidence. The observations made with the use of that telescope during the 1920’s proved that the universe is expanding!"

Please note that dark energy is involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Wikipedia notes the connection:

The cosmological constant ( Λ {\displaystyle \Lambda }

, or also indicated by λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917 as an addition to his theory of general relativity to achieve a static universe. The cosmological constant is the simplest possible form of dark energy, since it is constant in both space and time. This leads to the current standard model of cosmology known as the Lambda-CDM model parametrization of the Big Bang. The cosmological constant Λ {\displaystyle \Lambda }

appears in the Einstein field equations in the form of R μ ν − 1 2 R g μ ν + Λ g μ ν = 8 π G c 4 T μ ν {\displaystyle R_{\mu \nu }-{\frac {1}{2}}R\,g_{\mu \nu }+\Lambda \,g_{\mu \nu }={8\pi G \over c^{4}}T_{\mu \nu }}

See the link for correct formatting.

 

[Newtonian]

No it is not. Macro-evolution has never been observed and is speculation

Shameless lie and a madeup, creationist buzzword. Yes we have observed speciation. No, macro evolution is not a valid term outside of the circle of religious idiot evolution deniers.


Better check the scoreboard...you guys lost over 100 years ago. Go peddle your crap to unsuspecting children, as is your custom.

You might want to read my post more carefully - we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution.

And it was Gould in his Punctuated Equilibrium evolution model who popularized the term "macro-evolution to explain the gaps in the fossil record. You might want to research that as well.

OK, are all cats of the same species or are they multiple species of the same kind? Be careful of semantics btw - one must first define species and also 'kind.'

Genesis chapter 1 states plants and animals reproduce "after their own kind" (see the Hebrew and Greek definitions).

Thus if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a maple tree. Nor do cats give birth to dogs.

The details involve both scientific and Biblical research - but that is clearly observed fact.

I should have mentioned that if you plant a tomato seed you will not get ragweed - though at first you might think so!

You continue to be confused by terms you apparently don’t understand. “Macroevolution” is an unfortunate label used by the creationist ministries to denigrate the science of biological evolution.

You have been given many links to documented instances of speciation.

Hollie - you also have failed to read my posts - or for some other reason are ignoring what I posted. We believe in speciation. We are not creationists - we do not accept all of their doctrines.

And you also did not check out what I posted as to the origin of the term "macro evolution" in evolutionist Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium model to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

www.talkorigins.org

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it,...

In Dobzhansky's founding work of the Modern Synthesis, Genetics and the Origin of Species, he began by saying that "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" (1937: 12), thereby introducing the terms into the English-speaking biological community (Alexandrov 1994). Dobzhansky had been Filipchenko's student and regarded him as his mentor....

[Filipchenko originated the term macroevolution]

The term was revived by a number of mainly paleontological authors such as Steven Stanley (1979), Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge 1995), who argued that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the view that evolution is progressive."

Please note that in Dobshansky's extensive research into radiation induced mutations on Drosophila (fruit fly) he observed the phenomenon of "Equilibrium" (variation about a mean/average). Of course, he only got different varieties of fruit flies - not mosquitos!

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory with no observational evidence.

Equilibrium is a fact with plenty of observational evidence.

 

[Wuwei]

But the fact that the planets revolve about the sun is "settled fact".

That sounds like a trivial comparison, but not when you consider that a few hundred years ago it was thought that planets were on celestial spheres moving in epicycles.
.

 

[ReinyDays]

But the fact that the planets revolve about the sun is "settled fact".

That sounds like a trivial comparison, but not when you consider that a few hundred years ago it was thought that planets were on celestial spheres moving in epicycles.

Wait a second ... I thought planets moved in straight lines ... it's just that these lines are curved around the sun ... gravity is a pseudo-force ... (Yeah, there's always one in every thread) ...