Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Do you actually know which is the first postulate?
Hint: it is the principle of general relativity, not the principle of equivalence.
And the principle of equivalence has been successfully tested, as you acknowledged and accepted.)
|
First Postulate as it relates to Special Relativity per Wikipedia.
Note the link to 'principle of relativity' which gives a fairly good description of General Relativity, where the 'equivalence principle' is described. No problem with that, nor with the second postulate on lightspeed v = c. My question is whether or not we can assume the first postulate is correct, that 'the nature of the universe must not change for an observer if their inertial state changes'. Another way to say it is: 'the laws of the universe are the same regardless of inertial frame of reference'. |
We were talking about
GENERAL Relativity:
the Principle of General Relativity is a bit different from the Principle of Special Relativity (that's why they have different names).
The principle of GR
includes the principle of SR.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
This is a key point, that IF all reference frames are NOT equally valid, for the observer or the observed, then though we may treat them mathematically as valid, they may not be.
|
And where is the
evidence that makes you question the principle of relativity?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
The default is then that relativity is what it always was, an observational study from the observer's reference frame. Observing relativistic events requires factoring in relativistic velocities and acceleration, without transposing those observations unto the universe, nor the observed. Once you change the inertial state, meaning you accelerate a frame, it is NO LONGER the same frame it was in its rest inertial state. The laws of the universe have not changed, of necessity, but calling the same frame in its rest phase or accelerated phase as if it remained the same is a conceptual error. That error, that there are no preferential reference frames, meaning that accelerated frames are equally valid in terms of the laws of the universe to the rest frame, will then carry throughout conceptual developments of any theory derived from it.
|
General Relativity has been successfully tested, but researchers know very well that it is not complete, hence they actually do research.
But, unlike you, they know what they are doing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Do you have any idea what that means? It means you can build a whole theoretical framework on a false basic premise. The math is beautiful, elegant, incredibly refined, but it leads to nonsense. That is the univese we've been given over the past hundred years, and it is time to stop it.
|
Why? Do you have actual experimental evidence that shows unambiguously that the theory gives wrong predictions?
No, you have not: the only thing you provided is your personal distaste and misconceptions, none of which has any relevance to the validity and success of the theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
But now I'm drifting 'relativistically' far off topic. Sorry. Has nothing to do with Huygens, variable G, nor variable c. Those will be discovered through observations dedicated to finding them, experiments designed to measure them, ...
|
You see? You still believe that you are right.
You are not interested in the truth as you claimed. You expect to be "vindicated" by new experiments, willfully ignoring all the explanations and referencse given to you that show that you are wrong.
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your dreams.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
...and not incidentally because the clamps released Huygens from Cassini without incident (or one reaction wheel failed, per Tassel's above, by spinning up to 300 rpm vs 50 rpm designed), and the probe got pulled into Titan's gravity successfully. I would think real science would like a somewhat more durable and dedicated proof, then settling for a whitewashed version of it.
|
Why don't you pull your head out of the sand and do some actual research?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Then you'll say "GR has had ample proof and that EP has been verified"... and I'll say "yes, EP has been verified at ~ 1AU, but GR only within the parameters of the mathematics of Relativity"... and you'll say "then you are ignoring the findings of professional scientists"... and I'll say "findings based on an erroneous premise"... and you'll say "a hundred years of research cannot be proven wrong by your saying it is wrong"... and I'll say "the research was good only within the context of unverifiable assumptions of the first postulate"... and you'll say... "verifying EP proves GR, which proves the first postulate"... and I'll say "wrong, it only verifies EP, not the first postulate"... and you'll say "we've been through this before, so you're refusing to accept you're wrong"... and I'll say "right." ... Been there, done that.  |
Yes, you refuse to accept that you are wrong.
This is plain obvious to everybody who followed the thread.
You dismiss evidence that does not fit your idea, because it does not fit your idea.
This is pseudo-science.