/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3164937
>>3164946
We are very very very very very very very very very very very very far from even talking about this possibility. It is not even known if this can be done in theory (usually thought impossible to do).

Saying that shit right now, is basically you hoping for magic. This is now a magic thread! Since you love magic so fucking much!
Magic is real, right?!

>>3058960
>What precedent is there to suggest that changing the metrics is a better solution that hypothesizing something else?

Well, for one you can derive GR from first principles. Changing the metrics is actually not something you just "throw in there". You actually derive "changing the metrics" from the Least-action principle and calculus of variations (the same shit that all physics is derived from).

General relativity (changing metrics) was found to be a great scientific theory explaining gravity, therefore we use it. We try not to introduce dramatic changes into our current model of the universe, until everything else in our current models has been exhausted. Do you not understand lex parsimony?

Futhermore, any other "theory" for gravity would have to reproduce General Relativty, as GR fucking works. So it would now be pointless to make a competing model that just duplicates the results of GR. They would basically be isomorphic.

>Until the modifications to the original theory can make testable predictions of their own

General relativity does make testable predictions. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

>Tacking certain things onto a theory

This is not done with General Relativty. Where are you getting such nonsense from? You can derive general relativity off the first principles of physics.