On Mar 6, 1:58*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Albertito:

On Mar 6, 11:21*am, Albertito wrote:





On 6 mar, 17:58, dlzc wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:47 am, Albertito wrote:

snip a poke in imagined ribs

Science is not about faith, or belief, or even really
acceptance. *It is about testing the limits of theory,
to see what Nature does based on how she has behaved
in other circumstances. *The only "faith" we have is
that She will behave the same way during a well-
controlled experiment, no matter where perfomed, with
less specific equipment, or by whom.

No theory is "correct", they only serve to make
predictions as to how Nature will behave.

Hope you did better with your study of Micky Mouse.

Who was speaking of science?

"Special anbd General Relativity theories." *You were. *In Religion,
you do not get to test the limits of Sin... in Science you seek to
find where your theories break down.

But, if you like, we can.
Can you provide a pretty extensive list
of all predictions SR and GR can do?

Available on the web. *Pick you you feel the most strongly about.

Through that list, we could analyse which
predictions have been experimentally tested,
and which ones are under suspicion of
being fictitious, unphysical.

Problem is, it is the only theory (since GR is a superset of both
Special Relativity and Newton) that provides a single base to describe
*all* observations in its realm. *You can stretch Newton in some sense
to cover the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, but not the
bending of starlight as much as is measured.

I bet black holes and gravitational waves are
unphysical phenomena.

You'd lose the former. *I think you'd win on the latter.

Or you would argue gambling is not allowed
in science? :-)

Well, probability is a part of Science...

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Agreed on your analysis of that bet.

On Mar 6, 12:47*pm, Albertito wrote:
" After a time of doubt, now I can conclude that
* Special and General Relativity theories are
* absolutely correct. They are wonderful theories.
* It is very interesting to see that the more you
* study them, the more convinced you are they
* are wonderfully correct. I consider myself a very
* fortunate person. Now, I have a good job for
* teaching Relativity, a lot of friends, good relationships.
* Etc, etc. The life is wonderful under SR and GR.
* Gee guys, do not dare to attack SR and GR, now that
* I'm convinced they are true. Study them, and you will
* see how real they are. You'll love them.

* PS. I'd also studied a lot the life of Micky Mouse."
* :-)

xxein: It seems that your detractors would find a way to prove Mickey
Mouse if that is what they prefer to believe.

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 12:47 pm, Albertito wrote:
" After a time of doubt, now I can conclude that
Special and General Relativity theories are
absolutely correct. They are wonderful theories.
It is very interesting to see that the more you
study them, the more convinced you are they
are wonderfully correct. I consider myself a very
fortunate person. Now, I have a good job for
teaching Relativity, a lot of friends, good relationships.
Etc, etc. The life is wonderful under SR and GR.
Gee guys, do not dare to attack SR and GR, now that
I'm convinced they are true. Study them, and you will
see how real they are. You'll love them.

PS. I'd also studied a lot the life of Micky Mouse."
:-)

| xxein: It seems that your detractors would find a way to prove Mickey
| Mouse if that is what they prefer to believe.

Geez you stupid ****.

On Mar 7, 2:47*am, Albertito wrote:
" After a time of doubt, now I can conclude that
* Special and General Relativity theories are
* absolutely correct. They are wonderful theories.
* It is very interesting to see that the more you
* study them, the more convinced you are they
* are wonderfully correct. I consider myself a very
* fortunate person. Now, I have a good job for
* teaching Relativity, a lot of friends, good relationships.
* Etc, etc. The life is wonderful under SR and GR.
* Gee guys, do not dare to attack SR and GR, now that
* I'm convinced they are true. Study them, and you will
* see how real they are. You'll love them.

* PS. I'd also studied a lot the life of Micky Mouse."
* :-)

how depressing.

Albertito wrote:
Who was speaking of science?

On a 'sci' newsgroup, looking to science is appropriate even
when responding to a post where all notion of science is lost.


--
--Bryan

Albertito wrote:
dlzc wrote:
Albertito wrote:
I bet black holes and gravitational waves are
unphysical phenomena.

You'd lose the former. I think you'd win on the latter.

Or you would argue gambling is not allowed
in science? :-)

Well, probability is a part of Science...

Ok, I'd win on the latter. Correct.
Uhmm, but I have understood that the existence
of black holes is inexorable linked to the existence
of gravitational waves! It is required that black holes
could emit gravitational waves. That means I would
win on the former, too :-)

I'd take that action. Just let's be sure to get a qualified
and disinterested judge. "Disinterested" does not mean he
has no interest black holes; just that he or she has no
stake in the bet.

Unphysical black holes? That ain't gonna win. Nor place.
Nor show.


--
--Bryan

On Mar 6, 10:10 am, Albertito wrote:
On 6 mar, 18:58, dlzc wrote:



Dear Albertito:

On Mar 6, 11:21 am, Albertito wrote:

On 6 mar, 17:58, dlzc wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:47 am, Albertito wrote:

snip a poke in imagined ribs

Science is not about faith, or belief, or even really
acceptance. It is about testing the limits of theory,
to see what Nature does based on how she has behaved
in other circumstances. The only "faith" we have is
that She will behave the same way during a well-
controlled experiment, no matter where perfomed, with
less specific equipment, or by whom.

No theory is "correct", they only serve to make
predictions as to how Nature will behave.

Hope you did better with your study of Micky Mouse.

Who was speaking of science?

"Special anbd General Relativity theories." You were. In Religion,
you do not get to test the limits of Sin... in Science you seek to
find where your theories break down.

But, if you like, we can.
Can you provide a pretty extensive list
of all predictions SR and GR can do?

Available on the web. Pick you you feel the most strongly about.

Through that list, we could analyse which
predictions have been experimentally tested,
and which ones are under suspicion of
being fictitious, unphysical.

Problem is, it is the only theory (since GR is a superset of both
Special Relativity and Newton) that provides a single base to describe
*all* observations in its realm. You can stretch Newton in some sense
to cover the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, but not the
bending of starlight as much as is measured.

I bet black holes and gravitational waves are
unphysical phenomena.

You'd lose the former. I think you'd win on the latter.

Or you would argue gambling is not allowed
in science? :-)

Well, probability is a part of Science...

David A. Smith

Ok, I'd win on the latter. Correct.
Uhmm, but I have understood that the existence
of black holes is inexorable linked to the existence
of gravitational waves! It is required that black holes
could emit gravitational waves. That means I would
win on the former, too :-)
If gravitational waves are unphysical, then black holes
must be unphysical, too.

Someone who can't follow the math that derives gravitational waves has
no right to discuss gravitational waves.

On Mar 6, 11:47*am, Albertito wrote:
" After a time of doubt, now I can conclude that
* Special and General Relativity theories are
* absolutely correct. They are wonderful theories.
* It is very interesting to see that the more you
* study them, the more convinced you are they
* are wonderfully correct. I consider myself a very
* fortunate person. Now, I have a good job for
* teaching Relativity, a lot of friends, good relationships.
* Etc, etc. The life is wonderful under SR and GR.
* Gee guys, do not dare to attack SR and GR, now that
* I'm convinced they are true. Study them, and you will
* see how real they are. You'll love them.

It's fine to question them and to even attack them. But unless you're
properly armed, then the attack is generally viewed as being
ludicrous.

For example, if you choose to attack the teaching of evolution in
schools because evolution says that we should kill off the weakest,
then it is clear to everyone that you don't know what evolution says,
and that your attack is misguided, and that your opinion on the value
of the teaching of evolution in schools is a shallow and muddy mess
from the outset.

It's not wise to critique something based on something you read in
comic-books.


* PS. I'd also studied a lot the life of Micky Mouse."
* :-)