Back to Home

Blackholes2 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 II | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Prove GR

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Herb S. on March 5, 2000 02:46:03 UTC

: GR was developed from a combination of SR and principle of equivalent. Thus, if somebody can prove either SR or the equivalent false then GR false. Is this statement right?

I feel you have a fundamental misconception about physics in contrast to mathematics. In mathematics, theorems are proven. Much of theoretical physics is handled like mathematics in that theorems are also proven. However, the validity of any physical theory is ultimately based on experimental or observational data. To "prove" special relativity or equivalence wrong, one has to carry out a physical test to show that it breaks down. For example, the famous 1919 solar eclipse observation of starlight bending demonstated that GR is a better theory than Newton's gravity because the observed amount of bending was in agreement (within experimental error) with GR, which was double that predicted by Newton. In other words it was not a mathematical proof that led to acceptance of GR, but physical observations!

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 1994-2022 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