Re: Are you a robert heinlein Fan
- From: PR <paul.raulerson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:18:34 -0800 (PST)
On Oct 9, 12:59 am, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David DeLaney) wrote:
PR <paul.rauler...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
thro...@xxxxxxxxx (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: In the early 20's there *was no proof* Einstein was *right*. None
: whatsoever.
The relativity FAQ lists multiple experiments going back to 1881.
Some of them pretty unambiguous. Possibly you mean they didn't rule
out a strict lorentzian ether theory, but then, technically, that *can't*
be ruled out, since the whole point of lorentzian ether theory is to
obtain a kludge so that observed lorentz invariance is gotten to; it's
indistinguishable from einsteinian relativity. But it's a kludge,
so einsteinan relativity displaced it.
So, no, there were quite a few experiments, which were fairly unambiguous.
Either there was pretty good proof then, or we still don't have "proof" now.
Uh - Albert was not born until 1879, and I doubt seriously that any of
"his" theories
were published in 1881. Indeed, if memory serves me correct, he
published Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 -
in German. I am not sure it was translated into English until 1920 or
thereabout. And General Theory of Relativity was sometime just before
the outbreak of WWI - perhaps 1917 or very close thereabouts.
Yes. So? It's not like he invented the mathematical basis for them out of
whole cloth, or anything, and it was unrelated to any other math anywhere..
Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and Michelson and Morley were from 1889/1892
and 1887, respectively; Michelson had made earlier experiments in 1881 and
found that he didn't see the expected-at-the-time fringe shift from the
aether wind. L-F contraction provided a +mechanism+ for why this might be
undetectable after all, but not an _explanation_. SR, and later GR, provided
an explanation, incorporating earlier results, math, and theories.
And even today, it is still a theory - though with lots of evidence to
support it.
... and there you reveal you're not really aware of how science works. a),
_gravity_ is "still a theory" today, as is the theory of chemical bonds, the
theory of genetic inheritance, and quite a lot of other stuff that I'm sure
you would take as 'established fact, surely?'. b) Evidence can't -support-
a theory. Evidence can _disprove_ a theory, or can agree with the theory's
_predictions_, or can be built in as part of the data the theory's original
hypothesis used. The theory can agree with _evidence_, but not the other way
round.
Well, it's your right to have your own opinions of course, same as me.
But neither of us has the right to his own facts.
You claim to know a lot about science, then you also know that
"science" as such bases the validity of a theory on how
well that theory can predict the phenomena it attempts to describe.
And what you restated is just another way, a less exact way, of saying
what I said. GR and SR are still theories, albeit with a lot of
evidence to support them. If you think that GR and SR are the last
word on the fundamental theory of the universe, then you don't know
quite as much about science as you think you do. Theories are very
subject to being replaced by competing theories that give even better
predictions, even if only slightly better. For a pretty good
treatment of GR and Quantum Field Theory, focusing on a Quantum theory
of gravity, look into Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, by
Thomas Thieman.
There is a difference between a theory and a fact, even a
theory that can be used to produce very accurate predictions of reality.
So. What is that difference, in technical terms that are appropriate to this
discussion about SR & GR, exactly? I'll give you some time to think about it.
(Since yes, there is a difference, but no, it's not at all what you seem to
think it is.)
Other than GR defining gravity in terms of Geometry? Probably not that
much that can be discussed without mathematics I don't know how to
type. :)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@xxxxxxx "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>http://www.vic.com/~dbd/- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Lost cities of the future
- Next by Date: Re: Are you a robert heinlein Fan
- Previous by thread: Re: The Old-Fashioned Mix
- Next by thread: Re: Are you a robert heinlein Fan
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
