" 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."
:-)

Dear Albertito:

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.

David A. Smith

On Mar 6, 8:47 am, Albertito wrote:
[snip spew]

Now that you are reduced to posting **** like this, will you finally
realize you need to stop posting here?

On 6 mar, 17:58, dlzc wrote:
Dear Albertito:

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.

David A. Smith

Dear David A. Smith:

Who was speaking of science?
But, if you like, we can.
Can you provide a pretty extensive list
of all predictions SR and GR can do?
Through that list, we could analyse which
predictions have been experimentally tested,
and which ones are under suspicion of
being fictitious, unphysical.
I bet black holes and gravitational waves are
unphysical phenomena.
Or you would argue gambling is not allowed
in science? :-)

On 6 mar, 18:12, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:47 am, Albertito wrote:
[snip spew]

Now that you are reduced to posting **** like this, will you finally
realize you need to stop posting here?

Where is your humor, fella?
With hemorrhoids and aging faster than your twin?

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

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.

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."
* :-)

Are you kidding? From most of your posts, I think we can conclude
that you must have studied them for about five minutes apiece.

Dear Albertito:

On Mar 6, 12:10*pm, Albertito wrote:
On 6 mar, 18:58, dlzc wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:21 am, 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.

Ok, I'd win on the latter. Correct.

No, *I* think you'd win on the latter. I don't have a problem an
infinite "speed of gravity".

Uhmm, but I have understood that the existence
of black holes is inexorable linked to the
existence of gravitational waves!

No. Newton describes black holes also. The only difference is the
mass required.

It is required that black holes could emit
gravitational waves. That means I would
win on the former, too :-)

Nope. "Could emit" =/= "must emit".

If gravitational waves are unphysical, then
black holes must be unphysical, too.

Gravitational waves may or may not be "physical". If they propagate
at infinite speed, they cannot be detected by LIGO... one particular
instrument, one particular model. Pulsars do seem to be losing
angular momentum, and GR provides a mechanism to transfer that
momentum (allowing for conservation of momentum).

Seriously, your misunderstandings alone are no challenge to
Relativity. And I suspect you don't care.

David A. Smith

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
" After a time of doubt, now I can conclude that
Special and General Relativity theories are
absolutely correct.

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

Rather too much it seems.


--
Martin Hogbin