Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #556459
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? |
| Date | 2016-02-25 20:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj7uunFn59aU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <04c5cef7-bfb3-418e-ae76-089514426105@googlegroups.com> <d2be2e8c-74ae-443d-a0c0-e8455ceff8d2@googlegroups.com> <DuGdnQ4jK96vUVDLnZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <754f188e-ab10-4fc5-85f5-8153aaaa05ba@googlegroups.com> |
On 25/02/2016 6:57 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Sam.. >> Nope, just the opposite. General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. > >> Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in agreement. > > GR makes no predictions that can also not be made with by a > classical model. For instance take preccession of mercury. GR > takes the newtonian prediction, adds in the extra observed > preccession , and claims this is a successful prediction. > One could make the same successful "prediction" for classical. > Take the Newtonian prediction, add in the extra preccession > and call that a successful prediction for a classical model. The difficulty with that approach is that it's ad-hoc. For each situation you have to include special terms to get from the Newtonian prediction to the observed reality. You don't end up with one theory, but with as many theories as you have scenarios. By contrast, general relativity is a single theory that addresses both the orbit of Mercury, the behaviour of clocks in orbit, the bending of light in a gravitational field, and indeed every other situation it's been tested against. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Just As Einstein Predicted? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-23 23:02 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-23 23:56 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 09:28 -0600
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 23:57 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-25 20:13 +1100
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 06:44 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 08:57 -0600
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:55 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:34 -0600
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:41 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 08:21 -0600
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 08:25 -0600
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 06:48 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 08:50 -0600
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 23:15 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 14:49 -0800
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 16:52 -0600
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 17:20 -0600
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 21:19 -0500
Re: Just As Einstein Predicted? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:17 -0800
csiph-web