How exactly do you propose Einstein would have tested his theory of general relativity back in the early 1900s?

It wasn't until very recently, using atomic clocks on a plane and one on the ground was the general theory of relativity proven to be right.

The same invisible theory surrounds the existence of the Higgs particle.

>> ^EDD:
Might be just me, but last I heard all the quantum physicists had quite a bit of a problem with general relativity

Not so. It is true that physicists have not yet managed to unify gravity into the standard model of particle physics, but general relativity on its own works perfectly fine on large scales, which you can check for yourself every time you use a GPS unit.

Now, wether or not general relativity is still relevant has of course no bearing on the validity of the writings linked to here. To get back to topic:

>> ^imstellar28:
From a purely scientific standpoint, like physics, there is nothing human about economics.

Really? Unlike physics, economics is all about humans interacting with each other. The actions of the individuals in the economy are largely governed by human feelings, such as love, hope, happiness, sadness, optimism and (especially during crashes) panic. An indication of this is that all the major economic models work perfectly as long as the individuals behave according to plan, i.e. rational as defined by the economists. But as soon as the system comes out of equilibrium, people start acting much more emotional and the models become useless.

>> ^imstellar28:
The geometric theory of gravitation was published by Albert Einstein in 1916, do you have a problem with that as well?

Might be just me, but last I heard all the quantum physicists had quite a bit of a problem with general relativity

Furthermore, you didn't give a single answer to any of NetRunner's questions, you merely stated that you and your 'economic science' don't care about these answers, that 'science' doesn't care for bubbles or them bursting or for people losing or gaining jobs (unemployment). Funny then, because I was taught how unemployment, economy cycles and sector bubbles factor into macroeconomics (which for the most part is concerned with social economics) since the 10th grade.

I'll stop there. Unfortunately, while I possess some knowledge of economics and feel like I have a lot to say, I won't start debating it, because that way I'll never have the time to finish what I started. What I really meant to say (looking at the last paragraph of your last comment) was, please don't marginalize your presence on the Sift to aggressive antagonism. All that can come out of it is alienation and moodiness.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker
^ ^joedirt
Faith and scientific method are opposed to one another.

That is your opinion. It is not based on facts or evidence, and is not much different than bible thumping. What evidence do you have that faith is 'opposed' to scientific method?

It's more like the scientific method is opposed to faith (in the bible literalist sense, not the spiritual sense). That's an a priori fact; nobody's opinion. Faith seems to try to ignore science.

Within the scientific method, everyone should be willing to believe that it's possible their own theory is false, and a rival theory is true. Rival theorists should be able to agree on exactly what tests it would take to make them change their mind. This is the heart of the process.

Any theory whose proponents refuse to accept that their position may be incorrect or refuse to propose a test that would convince them, is excluded from the scientific process.

For example, let's say I believe that graphite is an electrical insulator. You believe that graphite is an electrical conductor. I tell you you're a lunatic, but if you can run an electric circuit through a graphite pencil, I'm willing to change my mind. And lo, the light comes on, and I thank you for teaching me something new, and pay for the next round.

For a real example, let's say there's this guy named Einstein who is spouting some crap like gravity is actually space curved by mass, and that nothing is exempt from this curvature, not even light. We all know he's nuts, but we talk about it, and agree on a test: before, after and during the next solar eclipse, we'll take pictures of the stars where the sun is going to be during the eclipse. If Einstein's theory is right, those stars will appear to shift towards the sun during the eclipse because of the sun's mass bending the path of their light, and then appear to shift back out again afterwards. Lo, the stars do appear to shift, and General Relativity is confirmed!

Now, ask a bible literalist what evidence it would take to make him accept that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, and no matter how scientifically educated he is, that answer will never come.

Note: None of this proves that anything in the bible is wrong, or that atheists are justified. It just demonstrates that faith (in the bible literalism sense) is not at all compatible with scientific method.

1. The Planets Move (2000 B.C. – 500 B.C.)
A thousand years of observations reveal that there are stars that move in the sky and follow patterns, showing that the Earth is part of a solar system of planets separate from the fixed stars.

2. The Earth Moves (1543)
Nicolaus Copernicus places the sun, not the Earth, at the center of the solar system.

3. Planetary Orbits Are Elliptical (1605 – 1609)
Johannes Kepler devises mathematical laws that successfully and accurately predict the motions of the planets in elliptical orbits.

4. Jupiter Has Moons (1609 – 1612)
Galileo Galilei discovers that Jupiter has moons like the Earth, proving that Copernicus, not Ptolemy, is right. Copernicus believes that Earth is not unique, but instead resembles the other planets, all of which orbit the sun.

5. Halley's Comet Has a Predictable Orbit (1705 – 1758)
Edmund Halley proves that comets orbit the sun like the planets and successfully predicts the return of Halley's Comet. He determines that comets seen in 1531 and 1607 are the same object following a 76-year orbit. Halley's prediction is proven in 1758 when the comet returns. Unfortunately, Halley had died in 1742, missing the momentous event.

6. The Milky Way Is a Gigantic Disk of Stars (1780 – 1834)
Telescope-maker William Herschel and his sister Carolyn map the entire sky and prove that our solar system resides in a gigantic disk of stars that bulges in the center called the Milky Way. Herschel's technique involves taking a sample count of stars in the field of view of his telescope. His final count shows more than 90,000 stars in 2,400 sample areas. Later studies confirm that our galaxy is disk-shaped, but find that the sun is not near the center and that the system is considerably larger than Herschel's estimation.

7. General Relativity (1915 – 1919)
Albert Einstein unveils his theory of general relativity in which he proposes that mass warps both time and space, therefore large masses can bend light. The theory is proven in 1919 by astronomers using a solar eclipse as a test.

8. The Universe Is Expanding (1924 – 1929)
Edwin Hubble determines the distance to many nearby galaxies and discovers that the farther they are from us, the faster they are flying away from us. His calculations prove that the universe is expanding.

9. The Center of the Milky Way Emits Radio Waves (1932)
Karl Jansky invents radio astronomy and discovers a strange radio-emitting object at the center of the Milky Way. Jansky was conducting experiments on radio wavelength interference for his employer, Bell Telephone Laboratories, when he detected three groups of static; local thunderstorms, distant thunderstorms and a steady hiss-type static. Jansky determines that the static is coming from an unknown source at the center of the Milky Way by its position in the sky.

10. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (1964)
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discover cosmic microwave background radiation, which they suspect is the afterglow of the big bang. Their measurements, combined with Edwin Hubble's earlier finding that the galaxies are rushing away, make a strong case for the big bang theory of the birth of the universe.

11. Gamma-Ray Bursts (1969 – 1997)
The two-decade-long mystery of gamma-ray bursts is solved by a host of sophisticated ground-based and orbiting telescopes. Gamma-ray bursts are short-lived bursts of gamma-ray photons, which are the most energetic form of light and are associated with nuclear blasts. At least some of the bursts have now been linked with distant supernovae — explosions marking the deaths of especially massive stars.

12. Planets Around Other Stars (1995 – 2004)
Astronomers find a host of extrasolar planets as a result of improved telescope technology and prove that other solar systems exist, although none as yet resembles our own. Astronomers are able to detect extrasolar planets by measuring gravitational influences on stars.

13. The Universe Is Accelerating (1998 – 2000)
Unexpectedly, astronomers find that instead of slowing down due to the pull of gravity, the expansion of the universe at great distances is accelerating. If these observations are correct and the trend continues, it will result in the inability to see other galaxies. A new theory of the end of the universe based on this finding has been called the "big rip."

>> ^omnistegan:
Then what is the reference point for speed in space? For speed on Earth we can use the surface of the Earth as a reference point for speed, and in our own solar system we can use the Sun, but at what speed is the Sun moving? And in reference to what? And what does that make of the speed and direction of motion of the Earth? And us? So are we really moving? or is everything moving around us in reference to our own perception?



That has 2 answers really, a metaphysical one and a physical one.

First, let us use the physical reality in which we experience. The most modern explanation of motion is the law of relativity. The law of relativity states that each observer has a valid claim in saying the they are moving and the object in reference is staying still. So in other words. The person on the train has just a valid assertion that the train is moving and the man is staying still, as the man on the ground saying he is moving and the train is standing still. In other words, it is your observation that is true for you, and it is their observation that is true to them. Both are valid claims. One is not righter than the other.

This realization was huge for science. To quote wikipidia on the matter:

“Special relativity overthrows Newtonian notions of absolute space and time by stating that time and space are perceived differently by observers in different states of motion. “

So, in essence, there is no such idea in relativity as what is “really” moving or not moving. Everything is happening as you experience it in your own frame of reference! Mind blowing I know. This is what is known as special relativity however, general relativity has to deal with gravity and acceleration which complicate matters greatly because of time dilation and space time curvature.

Now, metaphysically speaking space and time might not be real things in and of themselves. They might be complete fabrications of the mind. There is no necessity for time to exist, the universe could exist very much like a formula which is timeless and without space. In other words, the idea of time, space, motion, and all these fundamental things could really just be a subject of the mind and not of the universe itself. I personally believe that there is not objective time, space, or motion. These are all subjects of the mind and not of the universe itself. I think of the universe as a formula and those ideas of time and space and motion only occur inside the formula; that huge equation of everything we know.

So in essence, my metaphysical understanding of the universe actually gives way to special relativity. I would say the truth of what you observe is an unshakable experience. In other words, no one can say that you didn't experience something the way that you experience it. But that experiences in and of itself doesn't point to any underlying truth of how the universe actually works. In other words, your experience with the stuff of the universe is filtered through your mind and changed from the stuff it actually is to the stuff your brain understands; it is no longer the actual but the interpreted. We have no subjective way to show any of the stuff we experience actually maps onto the actual, it just isn't possible.

Wouldn't any stretching of space stretch the laser beam just as much, resulting in no observable interference? For a long time the meter was defined as a multiple of the wavelength of a certain emmission line from Krypton-86. How can spacial distances and light wavelengths be stretched differently when spacial distances are defined as multiples of wavelengths?

The fact that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, and the fact that the Big Bang ever happened at all, is proof enough that there is something seriously wrong or missing in General Relativity.

>> ^Kraz:
Not to sound cheeky, but can you kindly point out where the bible states that the Earth revolves around the Sun? I've heard this before and it piques my interest because I know of no such passage.

It doesn't say anything about it, which is why the first popes took the most recent and celebrated work on geography and cosmology at the time, that of Ptolemy, as the base of their temporal doctrine. Later some Aristotle was thrown in retroactively by Thomas Aquinas, on the epistemological level. To make an analogy, this means that if the Christ would have been born in the 17th century, the first popes would have used Newton's Laws of motion and gravitation. They would have then condemned Einstein as a Heretic for his special and general Relativity.

>> ^Dadeeo:
This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact.

Theories explain known facts and predict (as yet) unknown facts. Theories are not facts, but their predictions can be taken as such until proven otherwise by experiments.

Too bad the theory's are constantly changing, yet every new one gets embraced as the truth without ever acknowledging the error of accepting the now former "defunct" theory.

Accepted scientific theories are never "defunct": they are expanded, generalized, etc. For example, euclidean geometry still has good predictive value under certain circumstances, as when the surface you examine is sufficiently flat. So are Newton's Laws of motion a good appromixation when speeds are not near the speed of light. Pythagoras' theorem still holds and his divisions of the octave still divide the octave.

How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors?

Scientists admit their errors all the time. Einstein admitted that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life. When they're stubborn, death makes their outdated views irrelevant, as with Einstein vs. Quantum mechanics. In religions, being dead makes you a Saint, and your opinions that of God himself (or close enough).

The Bible speaks of them is "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Wow, postmodernism at its 1st century's best! It's true that ultimate, absolute knowledge by observation is now thought to be impossible, but careful observation over many centuries has shown that those who don't learn can't know and are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

Of course a baby's eye develops as it grows from egg to full term, but does that prove the theory of evolution? No! Do creatures with varying degrees of eye function prove evolution? No! Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

Maybe they don't prove anything, but they don't need to, since empirical science doesn't need and can't have "proofs" in the same sense as logic and mathematics. There are facts and theories that explain the particular facts. The theory that explains all of the particular facts and that is consistent with the greatest number of other accepted theories in other fields of knowledge, is said to be the most adequate. It is not impossible that new facts should reveal a hitherto less adequate theory to now be the most adequate &mdash it happens &mdash and sometimes two or more theories will seem equally adequate. But not all theories can fit the facts and be globally consistent. Of course, if you reject all of science or all of empirical science, then you may as well go live with the Amish, 'cause it's not God that gave anyone the knowledge required to build the computers we both used to transmit these electronic messages.

I had a southern dialect dictionary one time. It referred to okra as a "rot-slick vegetable" "Rat-cheer" as in, put that chair rat-cheer. etc. I wish I could locate it. It was great.

Is this instantaneous action stuff still a total hangup for theoreticians? I don't see a graviton as necessary if the local geometry of space is what it is due to concentrated mass in the vicinity. Because space/time is not an electromagnetic force, why does it have to be tied to the velocity of electromagnetic radiation? That's another one I've never really understood. But, as I've pointed out, to practice good medicine you just need a good memory and good common sense. Not many of us can solve a quadratic.
In reply to this comment by jonny:
No, I'm not a physicist either, though occasionally I pretend to be one. I do have some background in it and try to keep current, but I'm definitely no more than a layman when it comes to understanding stuff like quantum mechanics.

I might have misinterpreted your first comment to mycroft. I thought what you were saying is that while it might be mathematically interesting, it doesn't necessarily have any connection to reality. Afaik, the mathematical framework of String Theory is able to account for everything General Relativity and the Stanard Model predict. But GR is also a mathematical model. The comment about gumbo recipes was a philosophical one. The difference between a recipe for gumbo and a bowl of gumbo is that I can't actually eat the former. The recipe may be an accurate description, but it's not "real" in the sense of being able to fill my belly. So, if I have two recipes for gumbo, my only preference for one over the other is personal taste.

It's not the best analogy. And in some sense, String Theory would be like a recipe that you can't actually cook. String Theory predicts a number of things which apparently can't be tested (currently? or maybe ever?). So, I guess the question is, do you like okra in your gumbo?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Jonny,
I'm not a physicist and don't pretend to be one. I worked my ass off to get through introduction to calculus. Conceptually, as I interpreted what I've read about the strings, it seems like trying to squeeze a square peg thru a round hole. If we mathematically cut off the corners we can make it fit. Though, no doubt, theorists scored big last century. But, I'm just skeptical on this one. Are you in physics as well?

No, I'm not a physicist either, though occasionally I pretend to be one. I do have some background in it and try to keep current, but I'm definitely no more than a layman when it comes to understanding stuff like quantum mechanics.

I might have misinterpreted your first comment to mycroft. I thought what you were saying is that while it might be mathematically interesting, it doesn't necessarily have any connection to reality. Afaik, the mathematical framework of String Theory is able to account for everything General Relativity and the Stanard Model predict. But GR is also a mathematical model. The comment about gumbo recipes was a philosophical one. The difference between a recipe for gumbo and a bowl of gumbo is that I can't actually eat the former. The recipe may be an accurate description, but it's not "real" in the sense of being able to fill my belly. So, if I have two recipes for gumbo, my only preference for one over the other is personal taste.

It's not the best analogy. And in some sense, String Theory would be like a recipe that you can't actually cook. String Theory predicts a number of things which apparently can't be tested (currently? or maybe ever?). So, I guess the question is, do you like okra in your gumbo?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Jonny,
I'm not a physicist and don't pretend to be one. I worked my ass off to get through introduction to calculus. Conceptually, as I interpreted what I've read about the strings, it seems like trying to squeeze a square peg thru a round hole. If we mathematically cut off the corners we can make it fit. Though, no doubt, theorists scored big last century. But, I'm just skeptical on this one. Are you in physics as well?

Jonny,
I'm not a physicist and don't pretend to be one. I worked my ass off to get through introduction to calculus. Conceptually, as I interpreted what I've read about the strings, it seems like trying to squeeze a square peg thru a round hole. If we mathematically cut off the corners we can make it fit. Though, no doubt, theorists scored big last century. But, I'm just skeptical on this one. Are you in physics as well?
In reply to this comment by jonny:
Mind if I jump in here? I'm curious what it is that you don't buy. I mean, General Relativity is a mathematical model as well, right? To me, they are both like a recipe for gumbo, but they are not gumbo, if you get my meaning.

[edit] Just noticed mycroft's response. A specific testable prediction would be nice in the mathematical model, and I think it's being worked on, but afaik, it can't be tested with current tech? possibly with any tech? That would make it a bit of mental masturbation ultimately, unless it can be used to predict something.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Hey, this has little to do with the sift, but, as a physicist, what do you think of all this string theory business. Is it just mathematic manipulation? I recently read another book about it. So far, I'm not buying it.

Mind if I jump in here? I'm curious what it is that you don't buy. I mean, General Relativity is a mathematical model as well, right? To me, they are both like a recipe for gumbo, but they are not gumbo, if you get my meaning.

[edit] Just noticed mycroft's response. A specific testable prediction would be nice in the mathematical model, and I think it's being worked on, but afaik, it can't be tested with current tech? possibly with any tech? That would make it a bit of mental masturbation ultimately, unless it can be used to predict something.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Hey, this has little to do with the sift, but, as a physicist, what do you think of all this string theory business. Is it just mathematic manipulation? I recently read another book about it. So far, I'm not buying it.

I call Major Bullshit at 2 mins into this clip and I can back it up.

The first experiments done to measure the curvature of spacetime were performed in Africa in the 1940s. During a solar eclipse stars which were occluded by (behind) the sun were actually visible, as the light was bent around the sun by its gravity. There have been many verfications of this first experiment and nowadays astronomers use this bending of light as a tool.

It is a prediction by General Relativity that if space time is curved then light should be bent by gravity. This is what the equations predict should happen and is in fact what happens in reality.

The reason for this is that light has no mass (mass of a photon=0) - so you wouldn't expect gravity to affect light at all. It bends because the spacetime it is travelling through is curved by the presence of a massive object, in this case the sun.

Second part of their bullshit:
It is WRONG to say that a curved spacetime means that you would end up back where you started if you travelled in a straight line. General Relativity doesn't say that at all, and neither did Einstein or any other scientist. It just means that spacetime is curved and warped by matter.

Seriously guys - anyone calling 'flat universe' should be treated with the same contempt as 'flat earthers'.

These guys aren't scientists of any description whatsoever and I don't know what they're doing on any Science Channel. In fact I think they probably work for the production company that made this show.

What on earth TV programme is this? Who makes it? I feel like emailing them a ridiculously verbose WTF.

Actually, time travel is possible according to relativity. The faster you move through space the slower you move through time, so just move fast enough and you are effectively traveling to the future. To move backwards in time you need a wormhole with one end close to a black hole, the extreme gravity is equivilent to moving fast under general relativity, so that end of the wormhole lags in time behind the other end.

Dividing by 0 is also possible. The limit of k/n, where k is any constant, as n approaches 0 is infinity. Similarly, k/infinity = 0.

Rottenseed strikes out on all three counts.

they don't offer an explanation for why quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine - probably because nothing has been confirmed experimentally to allow for a working hypothesis. though 11-dimensional M-theory may be the real theory of everything.
an explanation for the uncertainty principle using extra dimensions seems plausible to me, if it's either just extra parameters within our universe or other real parallel universes - after all, this whole universe needs to have some kind of framework to exist in.

there's not that much anti-matter about in this part of the universe. it's being produced all the time though when cosmic rays hit our atmosphere (and in a few other natural reactions), but is annihilated almost instantly when it comes in contact with nearby matter.