Re: Is Astronomy bull***?

On 6 oct, 15:55, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pmb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eZPNi.138201$Fc.57925@xxxxxxxxxxxx
uri wrote:
We don't know the cause of gravity yet, so yes astronomy and
astrodynamics are pretty much incomplete.
Uri doesn't know that gravity is a result of the curvature
of spacetime.

I disagree. We describe gravity in terms of geodesics as observed from
non-inertial coordinates. That is merely a discription. It does not tell you
the mechanism for it. As Eddington said
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of Einstein's new theory has often been misunderstood, and it is
criticized as a attempt to explain gravity. The theory does not offer any
explanation of gravitation; that lies outside its scope, and does not even
hint at a possible mechanism. It is true that we have introduced a definite
hypothesis as to the relation between gravity and a distortion in space; but
if that explains anything, it explains not gravitation, but space, i.e. the
scaffolding constructed from our measures. - A.S. Eddington, Nature, March
14, 1918, page 36
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Petee

Well we don't really understand anything!
However GTR models gravitation really well!

Except that it can't account for the inertial trajectories of the two
Pioneer 10 and 11 crafts, nor of their axis spin slow down.

GTR is really perfect. Who cares about a slight limp.

André Michaud

.

Quantcast