Re: New knock to geometrical view of gravity

Igor wrote on Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:24:35 -0800:

On Nov 22, 12:16 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Igor wrote on Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:46:05 -0800:

On Nov 21, 7:12 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I want perturb the existence of uncritical GR students and
geometrically oriented guys with this provocative post :-)

The analysis on the geometrical formulation of gravity done in
recent years by several groups in the world has demonstrated that
General Relativity lacks a Newtonian limit,

This is clearly wrong, since it is easily demonstrated in just about
any GR textbook.

This is clearly wrong, since it is easily demonstrated that about any
GR textbook gives the wrong limit. I only found a relativistic textbook
gives the correct limit and it is not about GR.

You have a strange tendency to tell tales without providing references.

Posters as you have a strange tendency to arrogantly critize stuff never
read.

If you had written something as "I doubt because I read this textbook."
I had replied different. But you were arrogant enough to say "this is
clearly wrong..." and I simply noticed how wrong you are :-)

For your information, the work analizes the mistakes done in three main
GR textboks: Carroll, Weinberg, and Wald.

But Newtonian mechanics itself has never yielded a comprehensive
many- body theory.  So this judgement may be a bit premature.

Contrary to your misconceptions Newtonian mechanics gives a
(non-relativistic) many-body theory.

Where is it? We need references.

Give a reference on why, according to you, Newtonian mechanics lacks
many body solution. This will be funny because I start to understand
what will be your misunderstanding :-)

and cannot explain many experimental and observational
data.

Yet, within its applicable domain, which includes astrophysical and
cosmological phenomena, GR has been a very successful theory.

Not more sucessful than others.

What others? Again, you need to provide references.

DPI, AAAD, FTG... the list is large.

And part of the successfulness of GR is based in tricks, as /ad hoc/
modification of parameters for binary pulsars, the selection of
unphysical cosmological boundaries for solutions of the "field
equations", and so on.

Apparently, you don't understand GR as much as you think you do. You
need to understand that the stress energy momentum tensor is based
entirely upon our understanding of the system. The more we know about a
system, the more terms we might need to add to it.

It is clear you did not understand, and replied something unrelated.


GR wave theory predicts waves never observed and even then the
spin-2 waves cannot explain 3% excess energy lost in binary pulsars
revealed in recent high precision tests.

As cliche as it may seem, the absence of evidence cannot be construed
as evidence of absence.

So scientific as it may seem, if your model only can explain coarse
grained data and it is based in never observed stuff, the model has
been not proved - period.

Nothing is ever PROVED in science. Do you even understand how science
works?

I always find interesting how more IGNORANT the folk is the more
arrogant he presents.

First learn what a scientific theory is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

(\blockquote
In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing
a model derived from experimental evidence and is *provable* (or
*disprovable*
)

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

(\blockquote
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events
based upon *proven* hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached
groups of researchers.
)

Then learn that a "scientific proof" is and how the concept is used by
scientists as myself.

There is fine webpage where many layman misconceptions about the concept
of *proof* on science are corrected.

http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

Some few stuff you need to know before being so arrogant:

(\blockquote
Just as in court, *proof* in science does not equal truth.
)

(\blockquote
Actually of course, every single theory there is in science has been
*proven*.
)

And this is my favorite phrase. "Do not use the word *proof* in science
because ignorants as Igor will be confused" :-)

(\blockquote
Notice that we didn't even use the word *proof* once in the last
paragraph? That's most likely a good idea. When talking about
scientific laws and theories, you probably should never use the word.
Even if you understand it's *correct meaning*, someone you are speaking
to will *not*. Maybe you know that scientific theories are *proven* to
be supported by observations, but most people *won't*. So don't use the
word proof when talking about science. It's just too confusing. Use
words like "convince", or "support", or "agrees with" and you won't run
into trouble.
)

But I used the word because I was sure that one arrogant fool as you
could not resist the temptaption to reply.

Say me, why are all of you *so* predictable?


--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: scientists are ok
    ... When the orthodox Islam opinion that evolution is ... some of my favourite writers are scientists. ... responding in kind to what I saw as inexplicably hostile and arrogant ... So far you haven't shown much actual knowledge of science, ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Being falsifiable not required to be valid theory
    ... >>> a speculative hypothesis. ... The science books can mention that. ... the textbook may be a good place to point out the flaws ... >> Too many scientists seem to focus on alleged problems of giving a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheist China says "No Way!" to Atheist Darwins silly theory of
    ... and far less arrogant then western ... What a pity that I cannot believe the scientists in my own ... worth of Chinese culture. ... It is all about eXposing the Hijacking of real Science by an ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheist China says "No Way!" to Atheist Darwins silly theory of
    ... and far less arrogant then western ... scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin ... of years worth of Chinese culture. ... It is all about eXposing the Hijacking of real Science by an ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheist China says "No Way!" to Atheist Darwins silly theory of
    ... and far less arrogant then western ... What a pity that I cannot believe the scientists in my own ... years worth of Chinese culture. ... It is all about eXposing the Hijacking of real Science by an ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast