1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Einstein was right, of course."

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by mikeky, Jan 9, 2003.

  1. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Nice in this age of conflicting information that some things turn out as previously supposed. Here's to you Prof. Einstein.
     
  2. claire

    claire Registered User

  3. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Thanks Claire -- I love a good debunking, and this one is a classic!

    Perhaps Einstein wasn't <i>always</i> correct.
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I'll go with Mike's source, untill I see something otherwise. :)
     
  5. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Or maybe he was; sometimes the <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#speed">debunkers need debunking</a>.
     
  6. EMIG

    EMIG Yup

    Yipe! Did you read some of the stuff here?
     
  7. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I still like the first post of this thread. It's consice, to the point, and until something conclusive comes out, I will think Mr. Einstein was right. :)

    There! ;)
     
  8. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Now that was an intense debate; nice find.
     
  9. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    What's being argued by this latest claim isn't really whether or not Einstein was right, but rather, what was proven...or more exactly, what was measured...if anything. Van Flandern would have us believe Kopeiken sereptitiously obfuscated the math...Dr. Carlip would have us believe that Van Flandern <strike>is sleeping with Fomalout's wife</strike> is an obstructionist and basically disingenuous in his scholarly pursuits.

    All of which basically goes to prove that whatever disagreements we have going on in these forums, we ain't got nothin' on gravitational physicists. :p

    EMIG, thanks for the link, I'm going to enjoy the reading this over the next couple of days ;)
     
  10. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Lol, you just have to love physicists. ;)
     
  11. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    As long as I don't have to fully understand them. ;)
     
  12. EMIG

    EMIG Yup

    Is such a thing even possible?
     
  13. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Do you mean in GR theory, with ten degrees of metric freedom? :p
     
  14. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Must I remind you Coot, that there are only four degrees of freedom in choosing coordinates so only six metric components are really determinable! :p
     
  15. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Bah!! The use of overdetermined equations is explicitly allowed in....lemme find the reference. rofl

    I really do think that's how that shit starts with those boys :nut:
     
  16. Attila

    Attila Registered User

    Coot is absolutly correct. What, indeed, was measured here?

    Isn't using light speed to measure "the speed of gravity" like using the speed of sound to measure the mass of a carrot? It just don't work.

    Besides, the vast majority of work on this question of graitational propogation is in enourmous conflict with gravity "speed" from light to infinity. Unitl we can resolve these math problems, there will be no answer.

    Godspeed to you all on this one.
     
  17. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Only if it's less than or equal to the speed of light.
     

Share This Page