Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The amount the light from stars whose light pass close to the sun bent was the same as Einstein had predicted. There simply is no better explanation for that effect, nor is there an alternative theory which predicts that effect.You're clearly convinced anyway. Is that what makes it so or can you elaborate upon your reasoning? Why can't the light bend due to something else? When hair bends toward a comb do you feel obliged to attribute it to space or time or spacetime?
Newton was devoutly religious.Sorry, Newton was not an atomist and proved himself a brilliant experimenter among other things. Tell you what, build the equivalent of the first telescope or create something like the calculus with religious dogma.. then get back to us.
Your lack of awareness of alternative theories provides no evidence for there being none.The amount the light from stars whose light pass close to the sun bent was the same as Einstein had predicted. There simply is no better explanation for that effect, nor is there an alternative theory which predicts that effect.
No kidding.Newton was devoutly religious.
Newton believed the planetary orbits were so unstable that they and the sun would interfere with each others' orbits so much that they would collide or be thrown out of the solar system. He was puzzled as to why this did not happen.
You know what answer he came up with to explain what was stopping these things from happening?
God.
So there's some religious dogma for you!
It was Einstein's theory about the curvature of space which finally solved the problem.
Until we see the the compelling published research, we can correctly call them hypotheses only.Your lack of awareness of alternative theories provides no evidence for there being none.
I am aware of them. I am also aware they have been obliterated.Your lack of awareness of alternative theories provides no evidence for there being none.
www.quantamagazine.org
About Newton, even though I seriously doubt you'll understand it:Sorry I don’t know how to react to this in any way, because it’s just utter nonsense. Newton is a pure atomist and Newtonianism is pure dogmatism, literate people know this.
Hint: not a "pure" atomist by any stretch.Newton explicitly rejected the idea that gravitation, or any other force, be essential to matter. But the major point of mechanical atomism had been to admit as properties of atoms only those that they must, essentially, have as pieces of matter. It was in this way that they had endeavoured to avoid introducing Aristotelian forms and qualities, which they regarded as incomprehensible from an ontological point of view. The introduction of forces as irreducible entities flew in the face of the major aim of the mechanical philosophers for clarity and intelligibility on ontological matters. Newton was unable to fashion an unambiguous view on the ontological status of gravity, a force manifest at the level of observation and experiment, let alone forces operative at the atomic level. It is true that, in the case of gravity, Newton had a plausible pragmatic response. He argued that, whatever the underlying status of the force of gravity might be, he had given a precise specification of that force with his law of gravitation and had employed the force to explain a range of phenomena at the astronomical and terrestrial level, explanations that had been confirmed by observation and experiment. But not even a pragmatic justification such as this could be offered for forces at the atomic level.
Likewise. Bubbye!I'm not going to argue with you, because you have no idea what you are trying to reason about, it's not interesting
Seriously,.. Quanta magazine? Give it up.I am aware of them. I am also aware they have been obliterated.
Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity | Quanta Magazine
New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
Where such confidence?
Modern physics does not bother itself with any proofs at all, it just makes unfounded statements.
For example, they declared the observed centrifugal force a fiction, and they consider the real force to be a centripetal force that no one saw. But the concept of fiction does not prevent them from using fictitious forces in their calculations.
According to the Science Asylum, Time Dilation causes the warpingI get the concept, but I don't get the cause of the warping. The warping causes the gravity, but what exactly is causing the warping?
It's the mass of the planet. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces and it's considered the weakest one, but has great range and is an attractive force. No question it's a mystery using science. The Bible says it's Jesus as to why. Electromagnetic force is better understood, can be very strong, also long range, and can attract objects but it's can also repel.Why creates it in direct proportions to the size of the planet for instance?
We still don't know.
The same can be said about the churchmen.
