Re: Dark Age of Cosmology

On Aug 4, 2:37 pm, Strich 9 <Strich.9.2dd3...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
1905 will be the year marked as the beginning of the Dark Age of
Cosmology, wherein the Theory of Special Relativity, strung science
along a path of never ending dead ends, from the quest for Dark Matter
to Gravitational Waves.  It is a tale of how minor computational errors

Oooh, really? There's a MATH error? Where?

in the observations of the bending of light and the precession of the
planets led to a never ending vicious cycle of one layer of theoretical
bureaucracy on top of another.  Any potential contravening opinion is
sentenced to go through layers upon layers of bewildering claims.

What bewildering claims? I don't see a single bewildering claim. What
are you bewildered about?

Oh, I see. You belong to the "If It Is Right, Then It Should Be
Immediately Obvious to Anyone" school.

 Yet,
its very foundation was shaky, propped up over the century by an
illusion of strength and consistency.

And experimental evidence. Whoops. Forget that. Kind of important in
science, you know.

 Proponents of the science will
be looked by history as practitioners of pseudoscience and mythology,
almost like a modern day alchemy.

Current loopholes in Relativity include:

1) The unresolvable twin paradox.

What's unresolvable about it? It makes PERFECT sense.

2) The incorrect predictions of precession for the planets.

What's incorrect about them. Oh, this is that MATH error you found?
What happened? Someone forgot to carry the one? Extra minus sign?

3) The incorrect interpretation of red shift.

Ah, so it's a matter of *interpretation*, is it? Theories are judged
by how well they predict experimental measurement, not by what the
"interpretation" is. You knew that, right?

4) The incorrect interpretation of so-called bending of light.
5) The inability to find dark matter, gravitational waves, and other
relativity spin-offs.

Aha, so if a theory isn't complete, all unresolved questions answered,
then it isn't right? What's your attitude about the germ theory of
disease, then? What about evolution? What about genetics? What about
tribology, the study of friction -- we know precious little about
that.

6) Intrinsic incompatibility with quantum dynamics.

Gee, I don't think so. Special relativity is completely compatible
with "quantum dynamics". That's what relativistic quantum mechanics
IS. Discovered 80 years ago by Paul Dirac, now dead. Perhaps you've
heard of him.


--
Strich 9

If you have a problem with science in general because you believe it
treads on God's Holy Ground, then say so directly, and stop mincing
words.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... General relativity, ... > science is stuck in a quagmire instead of admiring it for the amazing ... Science isn't making progress unless we're redefining our notions ... > could say dark matter and dark energy don't exist, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... no further progress had been made. ... The beginning of the 20th century saw relativity and quantum mechanics. ... Of course science has changed since then! ... could say dark matter and dark energy don't exist, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dark Age of Cosmology
    ... Cosmology, wherein the Theory of Special Relativity, strung science ... along a path of never ending dead ends, from the quest for Dark Matter ... The inability to find dark matter, gravitational waves, and other ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: after 100 years of relativity
    ... top sciencists still dont know what light is, EM is, gravity is, ... black hole is and dark matter is ... This 'relativity' group is the most contentious, ... Since science is supposed to be an objective activity of the human ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics)