[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 52 KB, 456x599, Albert Einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11663982 No.11663982[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>ummm what if I flew next to a light beam and time doesn't real, omfg I invented a new version of pseudoscience please give me twitter likes!!!!!

>> No.11664011

>>11663982
false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
there have been hundreds of experiments and observations that back the general relativity model that have been repeated hundreds of times. all observations and experiments have shown the general relativity model to be accurate in its predictions.

>> No.11664025
File: 44 KB, 365x215, .33.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11664025

>> No.11664057

>>11664011
>mathematical framework is accurate in some situations
>therefore the theory accurately describes the objective nature of reality
Nice try, based retard

>> No.11664064

>>11664057
okay great now make an experiment that debunks general relativity. should be pretty easy. it isnt like there have been thousands of scientists that have tried and failed over and over again.

>> No.11664070

>>11664057
>implying GodsHell didn’t prove that impossible with incompleteness

One can either be complete, or consistent, but never both.

GR as valid as any other theory

>> No.11664073

>>11664057
>therefore the theory accurately describes the objective nature of reality
It's accurate enough to describe many aspects of reality. It might not be perfect, but it works and it works much better than any other alternative.

Just because a model sounds silly, doesn't mean that its merits are invalid.

>> No.11664075

>>11664073
I didn't say the math doesn't have useful applications
>>11664064
ok
>>11664070
>not refuting anything
It is possible to have a valid theory and framework accurately describing the nature of reality. ERT fails to do that.

>> No.11664079

>>11664075
>It is possible to have a valid theory and framework accurately describing the nature of reality. ERT fails to do that.
But it does accurately describe reality.

>> No.11664080

>>11664075
come on anon show me your experiment that debunks GR. should be super easy do some science maybe even get it published. if it is so ridiculous.

>> No.11664093

>>11663982
is spacetime just a 4-manifold?

>> No.11664121
File: 25 KB, 512x512, ok.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11664121

>>11664075
>ok
>yfw trying to disprove relativity

>> No.11664129

>>11664057
>objective nature of reality
>>>/x/

>> No.11664134

>>11664093
Yes it is. But not just.

>> No.11664150

>>11664075
>all the experiments based on GR works
>somehow it's still bullshit
Ok, lets start with the assumption that you're correct. How the fuck would I prove that?
>All the underlying assumptions of GR are bullshit, but somehow it just turned out to be the foundation for mathematical models which do predict real results very well.

>> No.11664170

>>11663982
>muh judenphysik spammer yet again

fuck off back to /x/