Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368395
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics |
| Subject | Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) |
| Followup-To | sci.physics.relativity |
| Date | 2015-10-28 22:08 +0100 |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Message-ID | <4467213.30Msqfnnay@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| References | <n0qlcm$cie$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Followups directed to: sci.physics.relativity
Günther Huldiberaht wrote: > Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in > Cosmology, […] The usual “not even wrong”-kind of nonsense from the ’nym-shifting troll. General relativity (GR) works *especially* at large scales, *especially* in cosmology. Modern cosmology would not be the way it is without GR: The current, well- confirmed standard (ΛCDM – Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model of cosmology is based on the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, an application of GR. Using it, one can calculate the expansion of the universe and obtain the observed redshifts of distant galaxies. [1] GR is consistent with observations of gravitational lensing: applying GR equations to images received from distant galaxies flattens the images received as they are focused by massive accumulations of matter in front of them and allows those galaxies to be seen. [2] Closer, GR equations precisely describe the observed fast motion of stars around the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (ca. 27'000 light-years away from Terra). [3] Closest, GR explains the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and GR equations allow it to be calculated precisely in advance. And so on. [4] Instead, GR does not work so well on small, subatomic scales, which is why there are theories of quantum gravity to fill the gap. [5] By comparison, “Divergent Matter” is a crackpot’s fantasy. IOW: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk> :) PointedEars ___________ [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model> pp. [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens> [3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center> [4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity> pp. [5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity> pp. -- Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe. (from: WolframAlpha)
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Relativity in big trouble Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-28 14:16 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 08:50 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:22 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:21 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:32 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:25 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 19:07 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 22:59 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 20:24 -0700
Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 22:08 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Willie Stovall <wstov23@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 21:54 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 23:22 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:53 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:15 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:30 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 22:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 02:38 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:20 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:34 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:58 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:12 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 19:51 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 19:19 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:07 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:27 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-31 03:46 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:54 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:38 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:36 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 19:35 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:13 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:37 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:40 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 20:57 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 20:09 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 04:33 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:18 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 09:23 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 07:17 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:42 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:11 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 12:12 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 16:17 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:58 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:21 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 00:20 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 10:38 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 02:26 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:16 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:26 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:08 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:27 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:35 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 00:35 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:30 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 18:37 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:50 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 20:53 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:32 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-31 01:34 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 17:46 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:09 -0400
csiph-web