Re: groupthink and cranks (the trouble with physics)


"Albertito" <albertito1992@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:194593d5-6eee-4210-8607-a6ce50a6f938@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 3, 10:13 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Albertito wrote on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:27:56 -0700:

On Jun 2, 5:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 2, 6:39 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(...)



If you replace "string theory" by "Einstein's relativity" (both SR &
GR) you attain a very good equivalent set of believers, where most of
the objections and concerns put on the former can be very well
applied to the latter.

No, on the contrary, there is considerable difference.

String theory is not even really a theory, it's more than a hunch. It
has yet to produce a unique prediction that sets it apart from other
theories. (And in fact, the only predictions that it's been able to
make are also made by non-string theories.) Naturally, there has been
no experimental test of any unique prediction from string theory.

On the other hand, SR and GR have made a whole lot of unique
predictions that set them apart from other theories. And a good number
of them have been put to experimental test, with the results being in
agreement with SR and GR.

This, you see, is how science is done.

PD

Yes, I already know about SR & GR predictions:

1. SR predicts the twin paradox, which means that
SR kills itself.

This is plain wrong. You were given references correcting you.

2. GR predicts black holes, which means that
GR kills itself, because of its equations break down in the BH's
singularity.

Yes, GR break down at singularities, as is well-known (and explained in
textbooks).

But this does not mean GR was wrong, merely it does not work *here*
because need a correction *here*. Outside that, GR will continue to work
as well as today. The kind of correction I wait are corrections from
gravitons. Far from the singularity the correction term vanishes and one
recovers GR.

You do not understand science.

3. GR predicts dark matter, which means that
GR kills itself, because dark matter will never be found.

Some authors think that GR applies to galactic scale and then need to
modify the mass to fit observations. Others think that GR does not apply
there and then explain observations without dark matter.

There is not still well-acepted theory but attempts as TeVeS, of course,
reduce to GR in an appropiate limit (reproducing all solar system tests
for instance).

You do not understand science.

4. GR predicts gravitational waves, which means that
GR kills itself, because gravitational waves will never be found.

Nobody know future. Today, we have indirect support of existence of
gravitational waves (e.g. from binary pulsars) and I have no reason to
doubt of the existence.

Of course, a direct test is still needed.

You do not understand science.

5. GR predicts dark energy, which means that
GR kills itself, because dark energy is nonsense.

"GR needs epicycles in order to survive"

Is that how science is done?

Some authors think that GR applies to cosmological scale without
restrictions and then need to add a cosmological term to fit
observations. The problem is on the interpretation and computation of
that term.

Some people (e.g. string theorists) search a modification of the Standard
Model. Other people search a modification of GR.

It is possible to do a modification of GR and obtain the cosmological
term from first principles (string theory continues being off). Diferent
authors are working different modifications

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencereports/20083.html

But again, for small scale problems the cosmological term vanishes and
one recovers standard GR equations.

Again, you do not understand science.

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

Usenet
Guidelines:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html

It is irrelevant the claim "you do not understand science"
because I'm still learning. BTW, who understand science?
If you are very proud of your current scientific knowledge,
then you are an ignoramus. Only ignorant ones are capable
of claiming they understand anything. :-D

Need examples? I'll give them in decreasing order of worth,
Steve Carlip -> Tom Roberts -> Eric Gisse -> Dono

The latter is the greatest ignoramus of the universe
:-)
==========================================
You have that wrong.
Dono -> Eric Gisse -> Tom Roberts -> Steve Carlip -> Albert Einstein.
The latter is the greatest ignoramus of the universe.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: groupthink and cranks (the trouble with physics)
    ... GR kills itself, because of its equations break down in the BH's ... The kind of correction I wait are corrections ... You do not understand science. ... restrictions and then need to add a cosmological term to fit ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: groupthink and cranks (the trouble with physics)
    ... no experimental test of any unique prediction from string theory. ... GR kills itself, because of its equations break down in the BH's ... The kind of correction I wait are corrections from ... The latter is the greatest ignoramus of the universe ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: groupthink and cranks (the trouble with physics)
    ... no experimental test of any unique prediction from string theory. ... GR kills itself, because of its equations break down in the BH's ... The kind of correction I wait are corrections from ... The latter is the greatest ignoramus of the universe ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: groupthink and cranks (the trouble with physics)
    ... predictions that set them apart from other theories. ... This, you see, is how science is done. ... GR kills itself, because of its equations break down in the BH's ... The kind of correction I wait are corrections from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: groupthink and cranks (the trouble with physics)
    ... GR kills itself, because of its equations break down in the BH's ... The kind of correction I wait are corrections from ... You do not understand science. ... restrictions and then need to add a cosmological term to fit ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)