#291
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Fwd: Top Secret Earth Station Message-Five Star-*****] | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 169 | January 7th 05 09:08 PM |
The Year in Space: 2004 | Mark R. Whittington | Policy | 16 | December 29th 04 02:53 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Lunar base and space manufacturing books for sale | Martin Bayer | Space Shuttle | 0 | May 1st 04 04:57 PM |
DDRDE model of 4D space (curved 3D space w/ invertibility) | Scandere | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 15th 04 12:57 AM |