Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
In Order To Disprove General And Special Relativity....

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Nicholas on November 4, 2002 23:44:05 UTC

One must construct a conceptual AND mathematical explanation for the following phenomena:

-Precession of mercury
-gravitational lensing (verified mathematically with sun)
-orbital decay of neutron star binaries (exact equation)
-the very existence of neutron stars
-pulsars
-presence of muons in lower atmosphere (they have short decay times)
-Chandrasekhar limit
-superluminal motion in jets
-particle accelerators
-difference in time rates at different heights on earth
-cosmological redshift
-MM experiment
-atomic bombs
-fusion bombs
-everything else in nuclear physics

I'm sure there are many more, but those are the first that come to mind. You can't convince anybody with imprecise language and made-up words. You have to have solid mathematical proof if you're going to get anybody to believe you. Your "I'm not constrained by mathematics" shpiel sounds like a sort of religious claim to higher knowledge. The fact is, even if you think you're beyond mathematics, you have to use it to refute the existing evidence.

To my knowledge, there are no major unsolved paradoxes in relativity. Many of the ones that came up with special relativity (like the Twin paradox) were easily explained with general relativity. Other ones were simply misinterpretations. Einstein did complain about the production of singularities in black holes, but black holes are not causally connected to the rest of the universe, so it may not matter whether relativity is valid inside of them. I don't know if you intend to refute quantum mechanics as well, but I could give you another list for that, if you like.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins