The pointing out of black hole failure
in [Physics]
|
Prev: BP is no stranger to major accidents
Next: Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 15:33 On May 7, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 1:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 1:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 5:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 4:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:39 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 5/6/2010 2:54 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:20 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge you to show that GR does not cause falling at light speed. > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge Kip Thorne's excuse. How much do you want to bet that in > > > > > > > > > >> the future you will find out you were wrong to deny what I have said? > > > > > > > > > >> I can wait. How about you? > > > > > > > > > > >> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > You're acting a little like the paranoid schizophrenic dubbed Magnetic > > > > > > > > > > who was on a while ago demanding that it be proven to him that the LHC > > > > > > > > > > was safe, and he was advocating that everyone at CERN be shot until > > > > > > > > > > someone would take the time to try to dispel his demons.. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch, you won't get very far in life, let alone physics, by casting > > > > > > > > > > fabricated assertions and then demanding that the assertions be proven > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > He's never done otherwise. We can readily see how far he's gotten > > > > > > > > > in physics and in life.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > The only way to win is not to play the game. > > > > > > > > You mean the welfare and posting-from-the-library game? > > > > > > > > > Black hole theory is wrong. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > I just like to point out the failures in black hole theory. > > > > > > There aren't failures in black hole theory. There are failures in what > > > > > is circulating around in your head and what you are mislabeling as > > > > > black hole theory. There is no real connection between the black hole > > > > > theory in your head and the real black hole theory. > > > > > > > Einstein > > > > > > never accepted a completely collapsed star and Stephen Hawking pointed > > > > > > out that the math at the extreme of the theory predicts GR's own > > > > > > downfall. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show > > > > > The theory of gravity or GR by Einstein is still incomplete. > > > > Incomplete is different than failed. Our understanding of genetics is > > > incomplete. This doesn't make genetics full of failures. Same is true > > > for our understanding of earthquakes. This doesn't make geological > > > theories full of failures. > > > > > Can you show there are no corrections to be made? Was Stephen Hawking > > > > wrong in saying what he said about the singularity? > > > > > The theory needs to become more complete. The new theory will be a > > > > theory based on limited strength acceleration/gravity. > > > > Yes, of course there is work to do. Physics isn't finished. This is a > > > much different statement than wild and unsupported claims that it's > > > all wrong, Mitch.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > An incomplete theory doesn't work all the way. > > Then you have a misunderstanding of what a theory is. No theory is > complete, never has been. This is not a measure of whether a theory is > a failure or not. > > If you thought that a good theory is complete, and there is no more > work to be done on it, then I'm afraid you just didn't know what a > good theory is. > > > > > What GR predicts at its > > extreme is where the theory of GR fails. > > > The new theory is a limited acceleration or gravity strength below the > > speed of light. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Please. Every theory is incomplete at this time. Science is young. What will it be like in millions of years? Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 7 May 2010 15:34 On May 7, 2:33 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 7, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 1:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 1:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 5:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 4:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:39 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/6/2010 2:54 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:20 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge you to show that GR does not cause falling at light speed. > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge Kip Thorne's excuse. How much do you want to bet that in > > > > > > > > > > >> the future you will find out you were wrong to deny what I have said? > > > > > > > > > > >> I can wait. How about you? > > > > > > > > > > > >> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > You're acting a little like the paranoid schizophrenic dubbed Magnetic > > > > > > > > > > > who was on a while ago demanding that it be proven to him that the LHC > > > > > > > > > > > was safe, and he was advocating that everyone at CERN be shot until > > > > > > > > > > > someone would take the time to try to dispel his demons. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch, you won't get very far in life, let alone physics, by casting > > > > > > > > > > > fabricated assertions and then demanding that the assertions be proven > > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > He's never done otherwise. We can readily see how far he's gotten > > > > > > > > > > in physics and in life.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > The only way to win is not to play the game. > > > > > > > > > You mean the welfare and posting-from-the-library game? > > > > > > > > > > Black hole theory is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > I just like to point out the failures in black hole theory. > > > > > > > There aren't failures in black hole theory. There are failures in what > > > > > > is circulating around in your head and what you are mislabeling as > > > > > > black hole theory. There is no real connection between the black hole > > > > > > theory in your head and the real black hole theory. > > > > > > > > Einstein > > > > > > > never accepted a completely collapsed star and Stephen Hawking pointed > > > > > > > out that the math at the extreme of the theory predicts GR's own > > > > > > > downfall. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show > > > > > > The theory of gravity or GR by Einstein is still incomplete. > > > > > Incomplete is different than failed. Our understanding of genetics is > > > > incomplete. This doesn't make genetics full of failures. Same is true > > > > for our understanding of earthquakes. This doesn't make geological > > > > theories full of failures. > > > > > > Can you show there are no corrections to be made? Was Stephen Hawking > > > > > wrong in saying what he said about the singularity? > > > > > > The theory needs to become more complete. The new theory will be a > > > > > theory based on limited strength acceleration/gravity. > > > > > Yes, of course there is work to do. Physics isn't finished. This is a > > > > much different statement than wild and unsupported claims that it's > > > > all wrong, Mitch.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > An incomplete theory doesn't work all the way. > > > Then you have a misunderstanding of what a theory is. No theory is > > complete, never has been. This is not a measure of whether a theory is > > a failure or not. > > > If you thought that a good theory is complete, and there is no more > > work to be done on it, then I'm afraid you just didn't know what a > > good theory is. > > > > What GR predicts at its > > > extreme is where the theory of GR fails. > > > > The new theory is a limited acceleration or gravity strength below the > > > speed of light. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Please. Every theory is incomplete at this time. Science is young. > What will it be like in millions of years? Right. That's what I said. This doesn't make the theory a failure.
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 15:46 On May 7, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 2:33 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 1:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 1:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 5:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 4:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:39 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/6/2010 2:54 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:20 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge you to show that GR does not cause falling at light speed. > > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge Kip Thorne's excuse. How much do you want to bet that in > > > > > > > > > > > >> the future you will find out you were wrong to deny what I have said? > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can wait. How about you? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're acting a little like the paranoid schizophrenic dubbed Magnetic > > > > > > > > > > > > who was on a while ago demanding that it be proven to him that the LHC > > > > > > > > > > > > was safe, and he was advocating that everyone at CERN be shot until > > > > > > > > > > > > someone would take the time to try to dispel his demons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch, you won't get very far in life, let alone physics, by casting > > > > > > > > > > > > fabricated assertions and then demanding that the assertions be proven > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > He's never done otherwise. We can readily see how far he's gotten > > > > > > > > > > > in physics and in life.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > The only way to win is not to play the game. > > > > > > > > > > You mean the welfare and posting-from-the-library game? > > > > > > > > > > > Black hole theory is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > I just like to point out the failures in black hole theory. > > > > > > > > There aren't failures in black hole theory. There are failures in what > > > > > > > is circulating around in your head and what you are mislabeling as > > > > > > > black hole theory. There is no real connection between the black hole > > > > > > > theory in your head and the real black hole theory. > > > > > > > > > Einstein > > > > > > > > never accepted a completely collapsed star and Stephen Hawking pointed > > > > > > > > out that the math at the extreme of the theory predicts GR's own > > > > > > > > downfall. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show > > > > > > > The theory of gravity or GR by Einstein is still incomplete. > > > > > > Incomplete is different than failed. Our understanding of genetics is > > > > > incomplete. This doesn't make genetics full of failures. Same is true > > > > > for our understanding of earthquakes. This doesn't make geological > > > > > theories full of failures. > > > > > > > Can you show there are no corrections to be made? Was Stephen Hawking > > > > > > wrong in saying what he said about the singularity? > > > > > > > The theory needs to become more complete. The new theory will be a > > > > > > theory based on limited strength acceleration/gravity. > > > > > > Yes, of course there is work to do. Physics isn't finished. This is a > > > > > much different statement than wild and unsupported claims that it's > > > > > all wrong, Mitch.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > An incomplete theory doesn't work all the way. > > > > Then you have a misunderstanding of what a theory is. No theory is > > > complete, never has been. This is not a measure of whether a theory is > > > a failure or not. > > > > If you thought that a good theory is complete, and there is no more > > > work to be done on it, then I'm afraid you just didn't know what a > > > good theory is. > > > > > What GR predicts at its > > > > extreme is where the theory of GR fails. > > > > > The new theory is a limited acceleration or gravity strength below the > > > > speed of light. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Please. Every theory is incomplete at this time. Science is young. > > What will it be like in millions of years? > > Right. That's what I said. This doesn't make the theory a failure.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It is a failure in the case of black holes. GR is a first shot by Einstein and is nowhere near complete and is wrong in some ways. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 19:56 On May 7, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 2:33 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 1:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 1:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 5:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 4:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:39 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/6/2010 2:54 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:20 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge you to show that GR does not cause falling at light speed. > > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge Kip Thorne's excuse. How much do you want to bet that in > > > > > > > > > > > >> the future you will find out you were wrong to deny what I have said? > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can wait. How about you? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're acting a little like the paranoid schizophrenic dubbed Magnetic > > > > > > > > > > > > who was on a while ago demanding that it be proven to him that the LHC > > > > > > > > > > > > was safe, and he was advocating that everyone at CERN be shot until > > > > > > > > > > > > someone would take the time to try to dispel his demons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch, you won't get very far in life, let alone physics, by casting > > > > > > > > > > > > fabricated assertions and then demanding that the assertions be proven > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > He's never done otherwise. We can readily see how far he's gotten > > > > > > > > > > > in physics and in life.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > The only way to win is not to play the game. > > > > > > > > > > You mean the welfare and posting-from-the-library game? > > > > > > > > > > > Black hole theory is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > I just like to point out the failures in black hole theory. > > > > > > > > There aren't failures in black hole theory. There are failures in what > > > > > > > is circulating around in your head and what you are mislabeling as > > > > > > > black hole theory. There is no real connection between the black hole > > > > > > > theory in your head and the real black hole theory. > > > > > > > > > Einstein > > > > > > > > never accepted a completely collapsed star and Stephen Hawking pointed > > > > > > > > out that the math at the extreme of the theory predicts GR's own > > > > > > > > downfall. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show > > > > > > > The theory of gravity or GR by Einstein is still incomplete. > > > > > > Incomplete is different than failed. Our understanding of genetics is > > > > > incomplete. This doesn't make genetics full of failures. Same is true > > > > > for our understanding of earthquakes. This doesn't make geological > > > > > theories full of failures. > > > > > > > Can you show there are no corrections to be made? Was Stephen Hawking > > > > > > wrong in saying what he said about the singularity? > > > > > > > The theory needs to become more complete. The new theory will be a > > > > > > theory based on limited strength acceleration/gravity. > > > > > > Yes, of course there is work to do. Physics isn't finished. This is a > > > > > much different statement than wild and unsupported claims that it's > > > > > all wrong, Mitch.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > An incomplete theory doesn't work all the way. > > > > Then you have a misunderstanding of what a theory is. No theory is > > > complete, never has been. This is not a measure of whether a theory is > > > a failure or not. > > > > If you thought that a good theory is complete, and there is no more > > > work to be done on it, then I'm afraid you just didn't know what a > > > good theory is. > > > > > What GR predicts at its > > > > extreme is where the theory of GR fails. > > > > > The new theory is a limited acceleration or gravity strength below the > > > > speed of light. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Please. Every theory is incomplete at this time. Science is young. > > What will it be like in millions of years? > > Right. That's what I said. This doesn't make the theory a failure.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If the theory doesn't work it is a failure. I challenge you that there will be complete theories in the future that will work together in the Standard Model. If a theory is tested in every concievable variation that is important and is never found wrong then it can be considered a complete theory. We have none right now. But later we will. It will take millions of years. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 8 May 2010 13:12
On May 7, 6:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 7, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 2:33 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 1:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 7, 5:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 4:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:39 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/6/2010 2:54 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:20 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge you to show that GR does not cause falling at light speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I challenge Kip Thorne's excuse. How much do you want to bet that in > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the future you will find out you were wrong to deny what I have said? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can wait. How about you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're acting a little like the paranoid schizophrenic dubbed Magnetic > > > > > > > > > > > > > who was on a while ago demanding that it be proven to him that the LHC > > > > > > > > > > > > > was safe, and he was advocating that everyone at CERN be shot until > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone would take the time to try to dispel his demons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch, you won't get very far in life, let alone physics, by casting > > > > > > > > > > > > > fabricated assertions and then demanding that the assertions be proven > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's never done otherwise. We can readily see how far he's gotten > > > > > > > > > > > > in physics and in life.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > The only way to win is not to play the game. > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the welfare and posting-from-the-library game? > > > > > > > > > > > > Black hole theory is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > I just like to point out the failures in black hole theory. > > > > > > > > > There aren't failures in black hole theory. There are failures in what > > > > > > > > is circulating around in your head and what you are mislabeling as > > > > > > > > black hole theory. There is no real connection between the black hole > > > > > > > > theory in your head and the real black hole theory. > > > > > > > > > > Einstein > > > > > > > > > never accepted a completely collapsed star and Stephen Hawking pointed > > > > > > > > > out that the math at the extreme of the theory predicts GR's own > > > > > > > > > downfall. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show > > > > > > > > The theory of gravity or GR by Einstein is still incomplete. > > > > > > > Incomplete is different than failed. Our understanding of genetics is > > > > > > incomplete. This doesn't make genetics full of failures. Same is true > > > > > > for our understanding of earthquakes. This doesn't make geological > > > > > > theories full of failures. > > > > > > > > Can you show there are no corrections to be made? Was Stephen Hawking > > > > > > > wrong in saying what he said about the singularity? > > > > > > > > The theory needs to become more complete. The new theory will be a > > > > > > > theory based on limited strength acceleration/gravity. > > > > > > > Yes, of course there is work to do. Physics isn't finished. This is a > > > > > > much different statement than wild and unsupported claims that it's > > > > > > all wrong, Mitch.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > An incomplete theory doesn't work all the way. > > > > > Then you have a misunderstanding of what a theory is. No theory is > > > > complete, never has been. This is not a measure of whether a theory is > > > > a failure or not. > > > > > If you thought that a good theory is complete, and there is no more > > > > work to be done on it, then I'm afraid you just didn't know what a > > > > good theory is. > > > > > > What GR predicts at its > > > > > extreme is where the theory of GR fails. > > > > > > The new theory is a limited acceleration or gravity strength below the > > > > > speed of light. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Please. Every theory is incomplete at this time. Science is young. > > > What will it be like in millions of years? > > > Right. That's what I said. This doesn't make the theory a failure.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > If the theory doesn't work it is a failure. It does work. You think it needs to be complete for it to work. That is not what science requires. To you, a theory that works but isn't complete doesn't work at all and should be considered a failure. But that's just you. > > I challenge you that there will be complete theories in the future > that will work together in the Standard Model. If a theory is tested > in every concievable variation that is important and is never found > wrong then it can be considered a complete theory. We have none right > now. But later we will. It will take millions of years. I'm sorry, Mitch, but your criteria are yours alone and are not common with that of scientists. > > Mitch Raemsch |