Dr.Grass said:
|
Sorry, just butting in here. I agree that the theory of special relativity does seem implausible, like the story of Noah's ark is. However, the difference between them is how well they stand up when you make predictions about the observations you will make. You can make predictions for both ideas easily enough, and you can look at the evidence based on those predictions.
Special relativity makes predictions about space and time which sound far fetched to anyone reading about it for the first time. But what's important is that these predictions are measurable, and under experiments and observations they have held up well. For example the extended lifespan of muons travelling at speeds close to the speed of light are consistent with special relativity. This is extraordinary evidence that backs up an extraordinary claim.
We can make the similar predictions based on Noah's ark. For example, if the whole world flooded violently only a few thousand years ago then we should see evidence for this in the hydrogeology of the Earth. One example off the top of my head is the carving of water features. If the flood did happen then water features such as rivers carved by the flood should be straight as the water would have had a lot momentum and carved the river over a short period of time. However, pretty much every river on Earth meanders quite a lot with the natural features of the environment, and this is what would be seen if water was flowing with a low momentum over a long period of time. This is just one example, but you can see how Noah's flood crumbles when you make predictions and then look at the evidence.
I'm not saying that special relativity is the be all and end all, end of, maybe one day someone will come along with a better theory that can explain the observations more accurately. Who knows, maybe the new theory would tell us something new about mass and velocity that would destroy my example I used in the case of Noah's flood.
But the point I'm trying to make is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Regardless of how counterintuitive and implausible nature may seem, you can always attempt to make predictions and measurements. If evidence is found for an extraordinary claim, then it then it may still be an extraordinary claim, but it is one that can be backed up. But an extraordinary claim that can't backed up remains just that, and extraordinary claim.
In the case of special relativity and Noah's ark, both sound equally implausible, but one is consistent with our observations and the other isn't.
I agree, we should never dismiss an idea that sounds too fantastic to be true, we should always investigate it... Then we can decide whether we dismiss it or not.
