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!
David,
The site I referred you to (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html), which you didn’t want to consider, was a treatment of the Field Equations by John C. Baez, a mathematical physicist and author at UC Riverside and Emory F. Bunn, a physicist at U of Richmond. I don’t think their discussion can be considered “half-baked.†My point in referring you there was to show that the mathematics of the field equations is ambiguous as to geometry or force. If math can be ambiguous, if in the case of gravitation it can model the phenomena as either the manifestation of geometry or force, then the dilemma you pose for me – “You cannot hold to the field equations of General Relativity, while also holding that Gravitational Waves do not have the characteristics predicted thereby†– excludes my position, and it remains for you, or someone, to explain (non-mathematically) how grav waves can result from a consistent geometric model.