You mean you are ok with ETHER.And both admirably show your conspiracy theory to be nonsense.
What is the use of General Relativity
- Thread starter The God
- Start date
No, certainly not...The fact that both are conducting research outside of accepted mainstream cosmology/physics show your conspiracy claim to be nonsense.
As you seem to be having a hard time understanding the gist of what Boris posted, young physicists/cosmologists/astronomers today and even the not so young, would love to discover evidence that shows GR to be in error, and that essentially is what the search for a valid QGT is all about.
They would be in line for a Nobel.
No, certainly not...The fact that both are conducting research outside of accepted mainstream cosmology/physics show your conspiracy claim to be nonsense.
As you seem to be having a hard time understanding the gist of what Boris posted, young physicists/cosmologists/astronomers today and even the not so young, would love to discover evidence that shows GR to be in error, and that essentially is what the search for a valid QGT is all about.
They would be in line for a Nobel.
Quite a step down from your 'near certainty' for GR.
How many times have you raised that old furphy?
The fact is we have no reason to doubt that GR would work with multiple body systems: The time and effort to go through those incredibly difficult and complicated calculations are tremendous though.
GR is the overwhelming accepted and evidenced theory of gravity that we have.
It is constantly being tested, [just as it should be and as the scientific method dictates] as many reputable links and articles that are posted on this forum shows, plus of course with regards to other aspects that most on this forum are probably unaware of.
Of course GR has limitations, and while this constant testing is being undertaken, scientists are also trying to formulate a validated QGT that may extend beyond those paraemters of GR.
It is constantly being tested, [just as it should be and as the scientific method dictates] as many reputable links and articles that are posted on this forum shows, plus of course with regards to other aspects that most on this forum are probably unaware of.
Of course GR has limitations, and while this constant testing is being undertaken, scientists are also trying to formulate a validated QGT that may extend beyond those paraemters of GR.
You have been singing this useless poem since ages..
GR fails on the first instance, when it cannot prescribe the mechanism for curvature, and curvature of what. GR fails when it predicts singularity.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I am sorry I don't understand what you mean...support of those who matters???
I support an "it" (being scientific method and scientific philosophy) rather than "those" who ever "those" may be in your view.
I think I have said on other occasions that there are many theories that I personally do not particularly like because they do not sit well with how I "see" things.
I find it difficult to accept inflation for example, I have mentioned that in these forums...I do not like the concept of dark matter, I have said that in these forums...I have even casually presented an opinion on how dark matter may not be needed...yet I recognise there are personal opinions, which all are entitled to hold, and there are the prevailing scientific models.
These are separate and I don't confuse the two...so for example I can personally think dark matter is not needed to explain the unexpected observations in galaxy rotation curves but I know the current model deals with the matter by introducing dark matter.
Some insist it is there because the observations suggest that view based upon our science.
I think one can only go along with that until we either determine our interpretation is wrong such that dark matter is not required or investigation provides more evidence and determines, for example, a particle or energy which is in effect our dark matter.
No matter how strongly I feel either for or against dark matter has nothing to do with where science is today...
That is my approach which given I am not a professional scientist I believe is reasonable.
I have faith that as time passes the scientific method has the greatest chance of letting us glimpse reality.
I see no point in claiming GR is wrong, how would I know...but if observations present and a scientist offers a better theory and gets support of most of the other scientists (mainstream if we call call the majority that) then I will respect that new theory.
I really have no difficulty with your personal opinions and over a coffee you may find we sortta agree but I simply try to be some what scientific, although not a scientist, in my approach.
I told you I built my own theory of everything and even though mainstream would think it is a crank approach, can see it fitting with GR, and from limited personal experience think GR does a great job to express "space" how it "works" and how it interacts with matter.
Think of things this way..say you hold various views on health holding such views should not blind you to how a trained doctor will know more about your body than you think you do.
Same with cosmology, I have my ideas but really one should respect those who have been trained and work at it day in day out... It is a hobby against a profession.
You may be able to drive your car fast but on a race track the professional driver will leave you well behind.
You may have natural ability but that is only the start.
Alex
Yes, but I'm singing accepted scientific working models, while all you are doing is repeating the same old refuted nonsense.
The mechanism by which spacetime is curved or warped while unknown, among other exact how's and why's in the discipline of cosmology, is just the same old "god of the gaps" excuse that you have used in the past, and obviously of course that used by many others.
There is difference between unknown and cannot be known.
Under GR this mechanism cannot be known because GR works on abstract spacetime.
The question was does GR deserve the kind of adulation it gets. My answer is/was no. If you differed, you should have stated that. Transferring a thread here and there is in your scope, who cares.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Although GR does not require a aether I personally think empty space has a physical aspect. It may not be an ether but I suspect it has a physical aspect.
Briefly think what may be in empty space..
There are reasons why GR can not admit an aether however if only for a moment think of empty space as containing something..packets of information, particles, energies whatever (there are enough nutrinos to make it physical surely) all travelling along an almost infinite number of trajectories and you can imagine how this space is more than nothing and perhaps it could looked at like a stretchy sponge maybe compressing when it encounters mass event bent around stuff.
But this sponge is going in every direction at once.
My description of reality may be incomplete but I certainly can imagine how difficult it would be to describe how our "sponge" may act and suspect GR although seemingly abstract may well be describing my mythical sponge.
Now you have the opportunity to call me a crank but remember all I offer is a personal opinion somewhat an anology to suggest how although abstract GR may be describing something physical.
Alex
Yes in part...then you questioned accepted evidenced aspects of it...They were explained to you...You then rejected the explanations......same old, same old.......
And of course it does not get any adulation as you put it; It is simply accepted for its power of explanation and prediction.
Spacetime of course is real as has also been explained to you many times.
It does not though change the fact that the gaps in knowledge is often used by cranks of all denominations to insinuate a god of the gaps.
As a phenomenally successful scientific theory, that has let to innumerable topics of active research? As a piece of quite beautiful mathematics, that has led to areas of active research in mathematics? As the product of the brilliant mind of a celebrated scientist?
Yeah, I think it deserves some level of appreciation.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
There is precession of the other planets too. But it is smaller in comparison with Mercury, and has not been observed with sufficient accuracy at a time when it was already quite clear that the Newtonian prediction for Mercury is wrong.
There are so many pictures of clearly distorted galaxies. And near the place where the cause of the distortion should be localized, there are also quite large masses. Ok, there is some disagreement between the visible masses there and the distortion - so that one has to assume additional dark matter there. But the failure of Kepler's laws for galaxy rotation curves gives anyway independent evidence for dark matter. Whatever, if you consider some far away galaxies, the effect is clearly important.
The first would be a really strange conspiracy theory. Because all the formulas for computing the GR corrections can be taken from a standard GR textbook, then one has to combine this with the data (height and velocity of satellites) which are also not top secret. And then one needs information about the required accuracy of GPS. Given that the error would become greater with time, it is even without these numbers quite plausible that after some time it would matter.
What could be the use of an alternative theory for GR computations? It could be used as some approximation, like the Newtonian approximation in GR, but would be unable to give anything exact for GR. And, anyway, there is no problem with computing GR predictions.
The "truth about GR" is already known, it is a quite accurate approximation, not more. One problem is clear - incompatibility with quantum theory. If there is one such big fatal error, one does not need more. Another problem is clear too - singularities. The true theory will not have singularities. A third problem are solutions with closed time-like loops, which makes it incompatible with causality. This could be, in principle, blamed on causality too, but this is quite implausible. Whatever, already the first two problems, where singularities cannot be blamed on anything else except GR, and the first one only at quantum theory, are serious enough to know that GR is not the fundamental true theory.
Instead, "dark matter" can be easily blamed on dark matter. "Dark energy" can be blamed on the cosmological constant, which is a free parameter of the theory, and not even a problem. And black holes in itself are not a problem too.
Perhaps any "true" theory as you imply is unobtainable...perhaps even a validated QGT may not be a fundamental theory...and of course I don't believe anyone has ever claimed GR is a fundamental true theory.
Thats precisely is the point of OP.
1. Einstein added a freaky constant in his equations. So let's add a freaky term in Newtonian, if we do that we can solve deflection of light around massive object, precession of mercury and of course GPS.
At least this way, we do not need to worry about singularities.
Aren't you thinking about Maxwell's 'freaky constant'?