What is the use of General Relativity

Yes, along with about every other accepted aspect of cosmology, those facts are also denied and then subsequent accusations re fraud etc made against such momentous experiments such as GP-B and aLIGO.
I believe that speaks for itself, as to where these deniers are coming from.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hm. If they distort the scientific results they write about, this is irrelevant??????
In other words, the truth is irrelevant for you? If journalists distort the truth, this does not matter, because it won't affect anything?

Thanks for clarifying this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In further response to the nonsense insinuated by the god re GR and spacetime curvature, as some mysterious metaphysical nonsense, it is totally rebuked when one considers that the phrase spacetime curvature, [having been confirmed many times including the lense-Thirring effect with GP-B] is simply the equivalent to “Gravitational Acceleration”. And of course we all know that If there is no spacetime curvature, there is no gravitational acceleration and alternatively, if there is no gravitational acceleration, there is no space-time curvature.
So does the god deny gravity exists?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure you are not that naive Schmelzer....It is your opinion and claims that are irrelevant.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0176 gives results of GR computations and references to observations for Venus and Earth. With nice agreement.

Nonsense. The cosmological constant is a natural free parameter in GR. It is not "some" cosmological constant, but the cosmological constant of GR. And this parameter has clearly physical significance.

 

You think that helps you?

If they are irrelevant, that means, it does not matter at all if they are correct or not. Not? If it matters if they are correct, they are not irrelevant.

If my claims are correct, they lie. So, it follows, it does not matter for you if they lie or not.

 

I'm not interested nor asking for help from you ol son.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I simply said that your peers will be the best judge of what you claim about your model, and I stand firm on that.
That's all.

 

Nobody cares about this. Up to now your judges simply remain silent. If they tell something, I will listen what they say. If they have good arguments, this matters. If not, not.

And we remember, nonetheless, that there was also a little bit more, namely that you do not care at all if journalists lie. So that you reject claims that they lie as irrelevant for your decision to praise them.

 

Whatever Schemlezer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...Your usual tit for tat, cop out Libertarian outlook on science and life is well known.....You have fun, OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Where is nonsense? I am taking a disputing stand that GR does not deserve the kind of adulation given. You are taking a politically correct view that GR deserves.

GR has problems but on the other hand GR has given explanation for many observations and given certain predictions. I am focusing on problem part, that keeps me awake for further development, you are a mindless supporter. You apparently have no ability for creative thinking, infact you lack the required temperament for critical thinking. If everyone becomes like you then there is no check and no growth, only status quo.

 

In fact you are well known for your anti GR nonsense: the accusation that GP-B was fraudulent, the denial of the evidence for gravitational lensing, accusations again that GW and aLIGO were also fraudulent and many other fabricated aspects you have dreamed up over your period here.
I'm simply going with the evidence that shows that GR has stood all tests thrown at it.
And of course obviously you are again handling the truth rather lightly, in your claim re this thread discussing the pros and cons of whether GR deserves the adulation it gets, when in actual fact, it is simply an excuse for another of your anti GR/Cosmology rants.

Whatever my ability is for creative thinking, it still pales into insignificance to your ability to fabricate nonsensical scenarios as listed.

 

I must say I do find it curious why the work of Tesla is not rated higher.
I won't go on about his contribution to the modern era but rather would say the world would be very different without his inventions.
Still most folk do not realise he is credited with the radio.
Maybe his name has been associated with the electric universe crowd but it is still a mystery why he is not regarded much more highly than most other contributes to the modern era.
Alex

 

A scientist worthy of acclaim certainly, but so to was Fred Hoyle an otherwise great astronomer, despite his derision of the BB and support for Steady State.
On Tesla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American[3][4][5][6]inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.[7]

Tesla gained experience in telephony and electrical engineering before emigrating to the United States in 1884 to work for Thomas Edison in New York City. He soon struck out on his own with financial backers, setting up laboratories and companies to develop a range of electrical devices. His patented AC induction motor and transformer were licensed by George Westinghouse, who also hired Tesla for a short time as a consultant. His work in the formative years of electric-power development was involved in a corporate alternating current/direct current "War of Currents" as well as various patent battles. He became a naturalized US citizen in 1891.[8]

Tesla went on to pursue his ideas of wireless lighting and electricity distribution in his high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments in New York and Colorado Springs and made early (1893) pronouncements on the possibility of wireless communication with his devices. He tried to put these ideas to practical use in an ill-fated attempt at intercontinental wireless transmission, his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project.[9] In his lab, he also conducted a range of experiments with mechanical oscillators/generators, electrical discharge tubes, and early X-ray imaging. He also built a wireless controlled boat, one of the first ever exhibited.

Tesla was renowned for his achievements and showmanship, eventually earning him a reputation in popular culture as an archetypal "mad scientist".[10] His patents earned him a considerable amount of money, much of which was used to finance his own projects with varying degrees of success.[11] He lived most of his life in a series of New York hotels through his retirement. Tesla died on 7 January 1943 in New York City.[12] His work fell into relative obscurity after his death, but in 1960, the General Conference on Weights and Measures named the SI unit of magnetic flux density the tesla in his honor.[13]There has been a resurgence in popular interest in Tesla since the 1990s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Even Einstein was said to be eccentric at times: According to most reportss, for some reason he did not wear sox.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

People [nuts of all assortments

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] seem to focus on Einstein and relativity for criticism, because he is, as his theories are, held in the highest regards and the pinnacle of science, just as they should be by the way, but obviously cause and reason to attract the aforementioned assorted nuts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes so do we go with...."birds of a feather flock together " or "opposites attract".
I expected a certain flurry of support for Tesla but maybe the electric universe folk have left the building.
So many great men (few really) and so many critics and as has been said, by whom I don't know," there has been no statue for a critic".
I do think Newton was a great man because he invented the Hubble telescope and found his optic nerve with a knitting needle, that is either very very smart or very very stupid.
Thanks for all the gear on Tesla.
Alex

 

See, how you dishonestly mis represent...

1. I never said there is no evidence of gravitational lensing. I said explanation under curved spacetime concept is bad.

2. GP-B is bad IMO for that curved spacetime based explanation.

3. aLIGO needs more verification. It is reverse engineering. From some noisy data, we derived Black Holes, Binary Black Holes, Black Holes Merging, Black Hole Masses, Black Holes distance.....first the premises should have been established, like existence and possibility of binary BHs. That's why I said aLiGO conclusion is bad. Absolutely bad.

 

Please note: Your amateurish unqualified opinion, as well as your brothers in arms, mean nothing in the greater scheme of things and of course absolutely no dishonesty or misrepresentation by me, at any time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All aspects mentioned stand as well accepted and validated.
You need to accept that and live with it Oh divine one!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To care a lot about personalities is typical for bad science journalism as well as for cranks, who like to attack the heroes of that bad science journalism and are also in need of own heroes. Scientists usually don't care that much about these media figures. So, Einstein was important 1905 for a lot of things, 1915 for GR, 1945 for EPR, and after this played no role at all. And Tesla was a good technician. Why one would care about them today?

That means, you have nothing at all to object against gravitational lensing and GP-B. Nor the experiments, nor the prosaic fact that the observations fit GR predictions. If you only reject the spacetime interpretation of GR, no problem, the GR equations also allow an ether interpretation.

Science is always some sort of reverse engineering. We observe something and have to find an explanation. We make guesses, and try to find out - using some models - what would follow, and then compare this with the data. This is how it works, always.

If the idea that merging black holes could explain what aLIGO has observed works, fine. If not, one has to think about other guesses and reverse-engineer them.

Of course, "black holes" are established only as a sort of sloppy speaking for "very compact very heavy objects which, in GR, would have to be black holes". Of course, alternative theories of gravity often have other descriptions for these objects. But so what?

 

No, first we have to establish existence of binary BHs, which is not done. what I am saying is that our premises is bad. I have no problem with reverse engineering if all the backward steps are known and established. In this case they are not.

 

I do not have to live with it, I grant others to live, oh earthly mortal.