Is Belief Necessary for Scientific Discovery?

[scott_sieger]

Hi guys,

I am exploring the notion that at the centre of all mass or intensities is a centre of absolute nothing. I won't go into why I am exploring this but the question that is of interests is :

How can "nothing " be proved either in theory or by evidence except by default?

And If "nothing" can not be proven then I believe a theory of gravity will never be achieved using current methods.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by scott_sieger
And If "nothing" can not be proven then I believe a theory of gravity will never be achieved using current methods.

There are TWO theories of gravity which together explain quite adequately how gravity works. I recommend learning them.

 

[Jonathan]

Sure they work, but are they right?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Sure they work, but are they right?

They are right within the limits of their respective scopes.

 

[Anton A. Ermolenko]

Originally posted by russ_watters
They are right within the limits of their respective scopes.

More precisely, they are most close to the real model of gravity, but of course they are not right theories (just a sets of rules, which whether well or bad work). However, today we have nothing better than they are.

 

[clicky]

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by russ_watters
They are right within the limits of their respective scopes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes they right within the scope of observation mixed with some
believes.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by clicky
Yes they right within the scope of observation mixed with some
believes.

Beliefs? Beliefs have nothing to do with them. Observation is how we know they are right and how we know the scope of their utility.