Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannieD
1) Physicists already know that general relativity is an approximation because it does not model gravity at quantum levels. Newtons' equations work just fine when determining the orbits of satellites and asteroids, so the Newton's equations can't be wrong.
2)never said climate was a theory. I posted that climate is being observed, just as rocks falling from the sky are being observed.
3)You asked for a scientist that said the debate is over. I provided a name. What degree you have or do for a living is irrelevant.
4) So you agree that scientists can sometimes claim that the debate is over?
That's completely bogus. At "quantum levels", gravity is so weak compared to other forces present that nobody could devise an experiment to show how well it "works" in that domain, and nobody has ever said that it is incorrect.
Except at the singularity in the center of a black hole, which is where QM and relativity have a problem agreeing. Any undergrad in physics is aware of the problem. Where did you say you got your physics degree?
|
Now you're lapsing into the incoherent blather of the unschooled who read pages 356-357 in a physics book, and start pontificating.
You take the well known fact that there is a discrepancy between the predictions of GR and QM at a gravitational singularity, you "vote" for the QM solution, and then you think you've "disproved" GR. All quite hilarious.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade
You're just blowing past what I said about Mercury, that it's orbit was known to be anomalous way back in the nineteenth century.
And you're ignoring my evidence that Newton's theory is used successfully to plot orbits of satellites. If Newton's theory was wrong, then it could not be used to successfully plot orbits of satellites. Therefore, relativity is a refinement of an older theory.
|
Oh, I get it - you think that a theory that is
sometimes correct, is correct? By that reasoning, the theory that it's always four o'clock is correct, since it's true twice a day.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade
You didn't name a scientist, but rather a historian. Then you tried to justify your claim by saying he had a degree in physics. I pointed out that I do as well, as do many who aren't thereby scientists.
Anyone with a Physics degree is scientist.
|
Yaaaa - sure.
Quote:
|
Nice try trying to change the subject. Bottom line is that scientists do achknowledge that the debate is over.
|
Only for the devout of the global warming religion.
