Re: Flat Spacetime Theories that are Empirically Indistinguishable from General Relativity

Han de Bruijn wrote :

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Aug 7, 11:41 pm, "Juan R."
<juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
[...]

An elementary proof of how relativists spreaded
myths: just count how
many diagrams where a 'space' is drawn curved
around Sun appears in
laymen books about relativity or history or
strings, and count how
many torsion diagrams or AAAD diagrams.

"laymen books". Imagine that.

You discredited your own idiocy. Handy.

Or just count how many times you read "Gravity is
curvature not a
force" in academic textbooks (e.g. Wald).

Fortunately those myths will be corrected during
next decade.

Fortunately your spew will be confined to your
worthless blogging and
USENET postings while real physicists get stuff
done. Enjoy a life of
being not noticed.

Uhm. Is it true that gravity is a force which causes
space to be curved?
Or is it true that gravity is curvature of space
which appears to us as
a force? Or none of both?

Han de Bruijn


the second...

under the assumption of truth of relativity ...

which is debateble since on small scale and large scale other laws seem to rule ...

like quantum effects , evaporation , accelerated expansion of the universe etc...
( also under the assumptions that these counterforces/models/arguments are valid )

most notable is the big questions remain :

1) why

2) how

3) E -> M ?

4) M -> E ?

5) wave or particle ?

6) what 'is' light

7) what happens in a black hole

etc...

and most frustrating about physics is i often feel like we can explain bondaries , rather then to cross them ...

which kind a feels like math model and philosofy

rather than power , understanding and mastering of the surrounding universe ...

the limit of light speed and the non-existance of perp mobile are splended examples of an (apparant)
" powerless science "

tommy1729
.

Relevant Pages
Loading