ZuraiBarusk
Seriously, has all the work for basic physical properties of motion and aerodymics already been done?
sad Is there no future proof to help clear the air of known misconceptions?
Not in the least. Rather, the research turns increasingly more mathematical, but it is work nonetheless. Your own example of aerodynamics, or fluid dynamics in general, is quite illustrative of this. The Navier-Stokes equations have a long history, but certain behaviors of the systems they describe is still not understood to any significant degree, e.g., turbulence. This particular problem even has a million-dollar prize attached to it. In general, then, the point is that just because we have a physics that describes certain phenomena, it does not mean we have understanding of what it actually means.
ZuraiBarusk
Or is all that's left for the future of physics simply things that are just the opposite of that, complex conjecture.
Theoretical physics may dominate the public mind because they are the most sexy, but this doesn't mean that's all there is to physics. Where is optics? Where are the astrophysicists dealing with perfectly ordinary stars? We have a theory of quantum mechanics to explain nuclear fusion, but that doesn't mean we fully understand how to apply the results. Speaking of quantum mechanics research, no, it's not all string theory, and yes, experiments are still important.
ZuraiBarusk
It's quite distressing that even though the first physicist may have needed common sense and pratical experiments to gain further understanding of what happens around them, modern day physicist are incapable of doing so not because of technological short comings but short comings in the motivations and the questions themselves.
Perhaps, but this is far from as obvious as you make it sound. Looking back in the last few centuries, how many truly ground-breaking experiments were there? How does it compare with the total number of physicists? Normal scientific work is rather ordinary compared to that. It's still essential, but as an aggregate instead. (Then again, there are those that somehow managed to be groundbreaking and boring at the same time, e.g., Millikan's oil-drop.)
ZuraiBarusk
Why bother prooving Einstein correct in his theories on gravity and black holes? Why not proove him wrong?
That's exactly what scientists do. There have been plenty of tests of GTR, the more famous ones being GP-A and more recently GP-B. Their results may have confirmed Einstein, but it would be fair to say that a majority of gravity researchers would have been much more excited if the results deviated from GTR's predictions. After all, it would give a clearer indication as to what a quantum gravity theory should do.
ZuraiBarusk
Would it not seem more prudent to try and debunk such a bold claim as "condensed space time" instead of trying to proove its veracity by disprooving all others?
Oh, that again. If you figure out how to test that, you'll get a large grant.
ZuraiBarusk
That way, if Einstein can't be prooven wrong he is right, but if he can't be prooven right or wrong, he should be ignored, ...
GTR is eminently falsifiable. That's why it's such a good theory.
ZuraiBarusk
... for theories without basis should be the foundation for future theories.
Uh. Are you sure you said what you intended to say here?
Reply
