Expanding Space

I will trim a lot of extraneous stuff. You say near
the end that I "have not made my case" but it's not
clear to me where you think the disconnect lies so
I'd like to focus on that. However your comments on
Splat Rays suggest you are unclear what constitutes
a prediction so I'll keep that in too.

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
news

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

No, you missed my point. We invented a concept to *explain* how the
energy got carried
away. I've repeated this twice now.

You have said it many times but it remains a
purely philosophical statement until you provide
an experiment or observation to back it up.

It's not for me to provide an experiment to show that you've made an
assertion that you
can't back up. I'm challenging your assertion, and you're wilting like
a
daisy in late
fall. What carries away the energy? Tell me.

I have already told you several times, the
observations match what is predicted for
gravitational radiation:

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...GravWaves.html

".. gravitational waves are disturbances in the
curvature of spacetime caused by the motions
of matter. Propagating at (or near) the speed
of light, gravitational waves do not travel
'through' spacetime as such -- the fabric of
spacetime itself is oscillating."

There are many more places you can find out about
gravitational radiation, just use Google.


You still haven't addressed the issue. You've given a definition, but
you've not backed
it up. You predict a loss of energy, observe a loss of energy, and assert
something of
spacetime.

I wonder if the key here is how the prediction
is made. The equations of GR say how spacetime
is affected by the presence of mass. Those
equations are used to calculate how spacetime
would be affected by the binary pulsar system
and the results say that a certain amount of
energy will be carried away as gravitational
radiation. You seem to be suggesting that I
am only aserting that gravitational energy is
a distortion of spacetime but this is a given
since the method of making the prediction is
to determine how much energy is removed by the
calculated distortion.

Wrong, just like any other theory, GR has been
justified by its correspondence to observation,
the scientific method. You used the term "reliable
theory" yourself and GR has been in use since
1915 without any errors whatsoever being found.

Again, you're so, so confused. I have a theory that splat rays from
Mars
will cause this
rock I'm holding to hit the ground when I release it.

In which peer-reviewed publication can I find
the equations of this theory?

Changing subjects again.

No, you did. You said "I have a theory that
splat rays from Mars ...". I am challenging
that claim. Where can I find these equations?

Have you or anyone
shown that they reduce to Newtonian theory in
the weak-field, low-speed limit.

Not required.

What angle do
they predict for the gravitational bending of
starlight, the Newtonian value, that of GR or
something different.

Not relevant.

Does your theory predict
the correct precession for Mercury and who peer
reviewed that calculation?

Not relevant.

Can you show that it
predicts the correct gravitational and speed
influences on atomic clocks in the GPS system?

Not required.


If your theory is to be considered "reliable",
I expect it to meet all of those as a minimum.

Then your expectations are misguided.

They are the basic requirements for a scientific
theory, it must be self-consistent, provide
unambiguous quantitative predictions within a
defined area of applicability, and have been
shown not to be falsified by existing observations.
The easy way to do that is to show that under
most conditions, it reduces to another theory
which has already been tested. Lots of people are
working on String Theory, but nobody yet HAS a
reliable String Theory, just as you don't yet have
a Splat Ray Theory.

My rock will fall to the Earth consistent with all
of the predictions of SR, GR, and any other relevant theories.

Good for them, but all that matters is whether it
falls consistent with the equations of Splat Ray
Theory. No equations - no theory.

I'm simply asserting that
splat rays from Mars caused it. Prediction=observation. According to
you, this is enough
to validate the cause.

It would be if you could demonstrate that your
calculated prediction had been peer reviewed.
Your maths might be too complex for me but by
definition it cannot be too complex for a peer.
(If it was, he wouldn't be your peer.)

I release it. It hits the ground.

I'm not trying to show that the prediction is inconsistent with the
observation. I'm only
challenging the asserted cause. The fact that it's accepted for 9, 90 or
900 years is
irrelevant. either the challenge can be met on it's own terms, or it
cannot. I accept
that "GR predicts that energy could be removed from a binary star system
in the form of
gravitational radiation and a matching loss of energy _is_observed_." But
I reject that
you've made any case, other than *it can't be anything else, so it must
be* when you
blindly assert that "To carry energy as gravitational radiation which is
only a distortion
of spacetime, spacetime must be physical. "

That comment is what I don't understand, the
prediction is of course the calculated effect of the
postulated cause so what is there to challenge. I
could understand if you were saying that something
other than gravitational radiation were removing the
energy but then the onus is on you to explain both
what the alternative mechanism is and why it isn't
additional to the gravitational radiation which
should be occurring based on extrapolation from the
observations which validate GR.

And using the same standard, I've got a reliable theory as to how splat
rays from Mars
work.

Far from being "reliable" I don't think you even
have a theory, where do I find the published
equations of "Splat Theory"?

Right here.

Then show 'right here' the calculation that
produced the prediction that:

They will casue the rock to fall at a rate of g.

If the maths is too advanced, I may not understand
them, but I'm not the only one reading this.

George