GR violates SR and Einstein rejected black holes

On Feb 19, 8:58 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Like any other physicist worth the name, I would be DELIGHTED to participate in
an experiment that displayed a violation of some modern physical theory, or that
resulted in an expanded new theory.

Well, you still don’t get it.

Say we have a classical conjecture named A that predicts all
experimental results handicapped by the current technological
advancement. Suddenly, an experiment comes along and necessarily
renders conjecture A to be modified into conjecture B. Later on,
another experiment comes along and necessarily renders conjecture B to
be modified into conjecture C. In this case, it looks like going from
A to B and then finally to C is a natural and valid evolution of
scientific development.

We are now at B, and that is exactly what you picture your situation
is. However, this is not the case. Our current situation mirrors the
follow scenario.

Starting with conjecture A (Newtonian physics), it was modified into
conjecture B (SR and GR) after a monumental experiment (the MMX)
through some embarrassingly stupid interpretations of the same
experimental results (the Poincare/Einstein/Hilbert fiasco). Thus,
the evolution of scientific devilment is total invalid, but
nevertheless, it was accepted due to the lack of intellectual might of
the self-styled physicists. Expecting another conjecture C to be a
better model of conjecture B, where conjecture B is self-inconsistent
and manifests illogical predictions, is therefor totally invalid that
fails at scientific methodology. In another words, any other
conjectures built on top of faulty conjectures are just bogus and
stupidity. If conjecture C satisfies all experimental results so far,
it must be of a direct evolution from conjecture A in which conjecture
C has nothing to do with conjecture B. shrug

On Feb 20, 2:25*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:58 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Like any other physicist worth the name, I would be DELIGHTED to participate in
an experiment that displayed a violation of some modern physical theory, or that
resulted in an expanded new theory.

Well, you still don’t get it.

Say we have a classical conjecture named A that predicts all
experimental results handicapped by the current technological
advancement. *Suddenly, an experiment comes along and necessarily
renders conjecture A to be modified into conjecture B. *Later on,
another experiment comes along and necessarily renders conjecture B to
be modified into conjecture C. *In this case, it looks like going from
A to B and then finally to C is a natural and valid evolution of
scientific development.

We are now at B, and that is exactly what you picture your situation
is. *However, this is not the case. *Our current situation mirrors the
follow scenario.

Starting with conjecture A (Newtonian physics), it was modified into
conjecture B (SR and GR) after a monumental experiment (the MMX)
through some embarrassingly stupid interpretations of the same
experimental results (the Poincare/Einstein/Hilbert fiasco). *Thus,
the evolution of scientific devilment is total invalid, but
nevertheless, it was accepted due to the lack of intellectual might of
the self-styled physicists. *Expecting another conjecture C to be a
better model of conjecture B, where conjecture B is self-inconsistent
and manifests illogical predictions, is therefor totally invalid that
fails at scientific methodology. *In another words, any other
conjectures built on top of faulty conjectures are just bogus and
stupidity. *If conjecture C satisfies all experimental results so far,
it must be of a direct evolution from conjecture A in which conjecture
C has nothing to do with conjecture B. *shrug

"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup.
They slither while they pass; they make their way across the Universe."

nobody in Einsteinmania ever heard of Alfven waves,
apparently.

On Feb 20, 2:25*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:58 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Like any other physicist worth the name, I would be DELIGHTED to participate in
an experiment that displayed a violation of some modern physical theory, or that
resulted in an expanded new theory.

Well, you still don’t get it.

Say we have a classical conjecture named A that predicts all
experimental results handicapped by the current technological
advancement. *Suddenly, an experiment comes along and necessarily
renders conjecture A to be modified into conjecture B. *Later on,
another experiment comes along and necessarily renders conjecture B to
be modified into conjecture C. *In this case, it looks like going from
A to B and then finally to C is a natural and valid evolution of
scientific development.

We are now at B, and that is exactly what you picture your situation
is. *However, this is not the case. *Our current situation mirrors the
follow scenario.

Starting with conjecture A (Newtonian physics), it was modified into
conjecture B (SR and GR) after a monumental experiment (the MMX)
through some embarrassingly stupid interpretations of the same
experimental results (the Poincare/Einstein/Hilbert fiasco). *Thus,
the evolution of scientific devilment is total invalid, but
nevertheless, it was accepted due to the lack of intellectual might of
the self-styled physicists. *Expecting another conjecture C to be a
better model of conjecture B, where conjecture B is self-inconsistent
and manifests illogical predictions, is therefor totally invalid that
fails at scientific methodology. *In another words, any other
conjectures built on top of faulty conjectures are just bogus and
stupidity. *If conjecture C satisfies all experimental results so far,
it must be of a direct evolution from conjecture A in which conjecture
C has nothing to do with conjecture B. *shrug

yes.