Re:Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting
by gnaritas on Sunday August 27, 2017 @04:07AM
(#15109678)
> and putting one particular model above all others as the 'correct' is actually discouraging the reader from getting towards the deeper truth.
No one is putting a particular model above all others, one model is simply being used to explain the relationship between C and time, it's not incorrect just because other models are also valid as long as they all explain the same relationship between C and time.
Re:Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting
by cyphar on Saturday August 26, 2017 @10:23PM
(#15108745)
> the existence of many valid models and simple mappings between them implies a 'deeper model' at play
Not necessarily. You can have completely different formulations of the same physics. Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, and Newtonian dynamics are different models of classical motion. Does that imply there's a "deeper model" of classical motion? I wouldn't say so.
It certainly does though -- the existence of many valid models and simple mappings between them implies a 'deeper model' at play, and putting one particular model above all others as the 'correct' is actually discouraging the reader from getting towards the deeper truth.
If you say 'the sun is stationary and the planets revolve around it' is the only valid description of the solar system, you would be wrong, and you're also making it harder for a person to understand relativity down the line.