Reply to comment
2nd Re: A "Two-Choice Dilemma"
January 23, 2008 by Halliday, 1 year 43 weeks ago
Comment id: 27128
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Jim:
Once again you either misunderstand my position, or you have (intentionally?) misconstrued it.
I most certainly do not hold that simply because something is predicted by General Relativity then it must be. (Regardless of how successful the theory has been, thus far, anything that has not yet been measured is a potential test. Furthermore, even if a theory passes all tests with flying colors, this still does not imply that its description is the Truth or Reality.)
You certainly have a right to take a stand against General Relativity. Just be a man and state that such is your position! That is one of your two choices, as I have pointed out. (Then you can have the integrity, and our respect, in being honest about your position concerning the curvature and geodesic aspects of GR vs. the Gravitational Wave etc. aspects. Of course, then the onus is upon you, and any cohorts you can convince to join you, to come up with a viable alternative to General Relativity that has your desired characteristics while simultaneously explaining all presently measured results at least as well as GR.)
Your only other choice, as I've explained, is to continue to hold that you believe that the field equations of General Relativity are "correct" (as per your assertion that you do not dispute such), recognizing that predictions like Gravitational Waves are inextricably tied to such.* While you may still be free to dispute "force"-like interpretations appended thereto.
The problem, as I pointed out, is that you cannot have it both ways: You cannot hold to the field equations of General Relativity, while also holding that Gravitational Waves do not have the characteristics predicted thereby. It's as simple as that.
Be a man, make you choice, within your "two-choice dilemma".
I await your decision.
David
* If you wish to see "proof" of this inextricable connection, we may be able to help. However, so far, I have seen no evidence that you have taken advantage of the references you have been presented. So do try those references first, and if they are still unsatisfactory (as I expect they may well be) simply come and ask for some more specific "proof" you desire.
(I'm afraid that some "hand waving", conceptual level will almost certainly not satisfy you, since all such I have seen rely upon "energy" like concepts. So, if you can really stand by your prior assertion that you do not dispute the field equations of GR, any such "proof" will be quite mathematical, I'm afraid. So I suspect you won't like it in any case. But please do let us know what you desire.)