Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
You have already assumed you know the answers to what measuring for gravitational anomalies or inertial mass anomalies in the distant solar system will yield before we got there. Bad science.  |
It is obvious that you are not paying attention when you read.
It has been explained in clear terms why the experimental results show that the inertial masses have not changed and why the equivalence principle is not violated.
Why don't you start backing up your claims? |
(bold mine)
Ask ESA. Or ask Nieto and Turyshev. Or ask the engineers and scientists who will be working on the probe sent out into the outer solar system to measure for these anomalous effects. |
Really? The ESA is going to be testing for changes in inertial mass now? Do you have a reference for this experiment, or are you just making things up?
Again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Does anybody else out there agree with me, that we need to measure theory in the actual universe?
|
Yes, that's why general relativity is one of the most tested (and successful) theories of all time. I don't think anyone here is against testing anything. I'd love to see the ESA launch is probe to test gravity.
Furthermore, I believe everyone would agree that GR is incomplete. One day (hopefully), we'll have a new theory of gravity, or an improved version of GR. Experiments need to be performed to hunt this new theory down.
What you can't seem to separate is the concept of testing gravity versus the concept that your "hypothesis" may be correct. The two are not the same thing. We already know enough to know that your "hypothesis" is wrong. Just because you're wrong, doesn't mean anyone is arguing that we stop testing.
Your flawed "hypothesis" does not somehow represent all continued research towards understanding gravity.
You've even acknowledged in other posts a list of (very basic) observations your "hypothesis" can't explain. The fact that it can't explain basic observations means your "hypothesis", in its current state, is wrong. The fact that you won't revise your "hypothesis" in response to observation and continue to present it as if it could be correct, is just one indicator that you are a pseudoscientist.
And I stand by my "editorial" comment:
"...pseudoscientists never revise"
"...pseudoscientists rarely revise"
And you won't revise your "hypothesis". You
say "back to the drawing board", but you won't actually do it. Actions speak louder than words.