Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is a reason that I kept bringing up light because light follow both rules of QM and GR. As completely separate objects, light dilates space time, and extreme mass also dilates time. Light is not going to slow down as if it is in some dilation of time too an observer, it is already there. So color me less than impressed that light would act like it ignores physics, it certainly doesn't, light shows the foundation of GR.
I agree we can't just throw out a theory it must incorporate with the rest of science, especially for something proven time and time again through experimentation. All those experiments were plenty of opportunity to debunk GR instead of validating it because GR is falsifiable just like any theory which is the beauty of experimentation and verification.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Light does not dilate space time.
GR is supposed to explain how gravity and relativistic motion affect things.
Why not extend your reasoning to other things? Since parts of the Bible have been proven time and time again through archaeological research, Pi must equal 3.
I gave reference that it does
And light it moving at the speed of well...light....relative to us.
Thats not at all the same thing. GR is falsifiable yet hasn't been. GR and QM are both foundational to physics, you cannot get rid of either one very easily at all, except through experimentation and falsification which anyone has yet to show for GR. I think GR is the very reason QM does the wacky stuff we find.
I have already provided you with falsification experiments. You don't accept them. What is the point?
Tis because visible light is obscured by the copious gases & stars surrounding it.
Really, while ignoring the fact that light already bends spacetime while still appearing to be light.
Gravitational attraction is due to bending spacetime.
First of all, asking whether someone has a better explanation is a logical fallacy.
This goes back to the same logical fallacy we previously discussed. A theory that successfully predicts some things but not others cannot rely on its successes for claims of accuracy. It must also confront its failures.
Speculation.
No that is how gravity works once we got passed Newtons ideas of gravity.
If the All exists, then it can be said that this universe is one out of an infinite number of multiverses, therefore subatomic particles which act this way must exist - as one realized potential out of an infinite number of potentials - in at least some of those infinite number of universes.
You reject a theory.
I was already familiar with Lorentz's work.
No, you have a theory. The theory has had some limited successes. That does not mean that the theory is true.
No theory is ever "true".
I don't have to wait till the emperor finds better clothes to point out that he isn't wearing any.
There should be a license requirement for using analogies (to ensure proper training beforehand).