General theory of relativity a pseudoscience?

[wandelaar]

 

I personally don't think that general relativity is a pseudoscience but lets see why Taoist Texts thinks it is. So Taoist Texts go ahead and tell us what makes general relativity theory a pseudoscience.

[Taoist Texts]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity

 

enjoy)

[wandelaar]

Quote

Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideological bases.^{[A 1][A 2][A 3]} Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community.^[1]

Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity have included alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, and alleged errors of the theory. According to some authors, antisemitic objections to Einstein's Jewish heritage also occasionally played a role in these objections.^{[A 1][A 2][A 3]} There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community.^{[A 4][A 5]}

 

So yes: there are still critics around, but that doesn't make general relativity into a pseudoscience. There is no part of science that is absolutely without its critics. One can never convince everyone even with the best of arguments. If that is your criterion than all of science should be considered pseudoscience. And in that way the very term "pseudoscience" loses its meaning.

 

Lets return to your earlier Wikipedia-link to "pseudoscience". The following possible criteria for something being a pseudoscience are mentioned there:

 

Quote

Indicators of the possible presence of pseudoscience

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

• Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements^[40]
• Assertion of a claim with little or no explanatory power.^[34]
• Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can measure or test them independently)^{[Note 4]} (See also: Reproducibility).
• Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's razor).^[42]
• Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
• Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.^[43]
• Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design.
• Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering^[44]

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

• Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: Falsifiability).^[19][45]
• Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.^[46] Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g. Ignoratio elenchi)^[47]
• Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance).^[48]
• Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).^[49]
• Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims.^[27] This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.
• Promulgating to the status of facts excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect.^[50]
• Reversed burden of proof: science places the burden of proof on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on the claimant.^[51]
• Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to dismiss negative findings.^[52]

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

• Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (termed "science by press conference"):^{[51][53][Note 5]} Some proponents of ideas that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.^[52]
• Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.^[54]
• Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested^[54]
• Substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all viewpoints is not encouraged.^[55]

Absence of progress

• Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.^{[45][Note 3]}Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.^[43][56] (see also: Scientific progress)
• Lack of self-correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to reduce these errors over time.^[57] By contrast, ideas may be regarded as pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.
• Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

Personalization of issues

• Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.^[58]
• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results^{[Note 6]}
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy)^{[58][Note 7]}

Use of misleading language

• Creating scientific-sounding terms to persuade nonexperts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.
• Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline

 

As you claim that the theory of general relativity is a pseudoscience please tell us what properties of general relativity point in the direction of general relativity being a pseudoscience.

Edited October 18, 2018 by wandelaar

[Taoist Texts]

2 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

As you claim that the theory of general relativity is a pseudoscience please tell us what properties of general relativity point in the direction of general relativity being a pseudoscience.

Oh it is very simple: GRT is a fantasy. If something is not observed in our human experience then its a fantasy, or pseudoscience if you will. None of GRT's predictions are observable (nor in practice nor in principle) , therefore it is  a pseudoscience.

 

7 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

One can never convince everyone even with the best arguments.

Hmm, no, wrong word. Convince has no part here. Proving does. Newtons laws are provable. GRT is not.

[wandelaar]

Thank you! Your previous post saves me a lot time and trouble. Anyone who would have taken the trouble to actually read some more about general relativity (and not just the criticism-part that happens to accord with his own preferences) would have known that the theory of general relativity has a lot of empirical support and that Newton's laws fail on the subatomic level and in the case of very high speeds and very strong gravitational fields. So you are complete wrong but you nevertheless imagine to know better than those who do know something about it. Good luck with this topic. I am not going to waste any more time on willful ignorance.

[Taoist Texts]

Just now, wandelaar said:

that the theory of general relativity has a lot of empirical support

Haha no it does not. If it had a lot, you would name at least one.) But you did not.

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

Haha no it does not. If it had a lot, you would name at least one.) But you did not.

 

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech-0529/

 

Sir Frank Watson Dyson, Astronomer Royal of Britain, conceived in 1917 the perfect experiment to resolve the issue. A total solar eclipse on May 29, 1919, would occur just as the sun was crossing the bright Hyades star cluster. Dyson realized that the light from the stars would have to pass through the sun's gravitational field on its way to Earth, yet would be visible due to the darkness of the eclipse. This would allow accurate measurements of the stars' gravity-shifted positions in the sky.

Eddington, who led the experiment, first measured the "true" positions of the stars during January and February 1919. Then in May he went to the remote island of Príncipe (in the Gulf of Guinea off the west coast of Africa) to measure the stars' positions during the eclipse, as viewed through the sun's gravitational lens.

Eddington also sent a group of astronomers to take measurements from Sobral, Brazil, in case the eclipse was blocked by clouds over Príncipe. Outfitting and transporting the dual expeditions were no small feats in the days before transoceanic airplanes and instantaneous global communication.

Both locations had clear skies, and the astronomers took several pictures during the six minutes of total eclipse. When Eddington returned to England, his data from Príncipe confirmed Einstein's predictions. Eddington announced his findings on Nov. 6, 1919. The next morning, Einstein, until then a relatively obscure newcomer in theoretical physics, was on the front page of major newspapers around the world.

The bending of light around massive objects is now known as gravitational lensing, and has become an important tool in astrophysics. Physicists now use gravitational lensing to try to understand dark matter and the expansion of the universe.

[Taoist Texts]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

The bending of light around massive objects is now known as gravitational lensing

Light from a star bends around another star. Due to the latter star's gravitational pull. 

A question: how does the light leave its original star at all?

 

and while we ponder...

Edited October 18, 2018 by Taoist Texts

[Apech]

55 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

Light from a star bends around another star. Due to the latter star's gravitational pull. 

A question: how does the light leave its original star at all?

 

and while we ponder...

 

Radiation.  Speed of light exceeds the escape velocity of the star.  If it cannot it becomes a black hole.

[thelerner]

There's been many tests that General Theory of Relativity has passed.  see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Einstein came up with the idea to understand and predict observations that had been going on for 100's of years, again see above article.

 

Is it we no longer trust physicists, people who've studied the universe for the decades and are making new contributions?  Seems this distrust of science is a sad fact of our age.   A new paranoia, where established facts are pooed pooed because people without science degrees and serious studies don't understand them.

 

It's not that science shouldn't be questioned.  That is the basis of science, how it moves forward.  Rather at times science is hard, and people who've spent decades studying it should probably be listened to.  Until a better theory comes along, its math makes sense and it predictions pan out more accurately.

[Taoist Texts]

6 hours ago, thelerner said:

A new paranoia, where established facts are pooed pooed because people without science degrees and serious studies don't understand them.

right, right

Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False

"Science has taken a turn towards Darkness"

https://www.globalresearch.ca/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/5451305

 

 

Judson thinks that fraud is common because it is the inevitable product of the current culture of science. Fraud, he says, is intrinsic in institutional cultures that are “characterized by secrecy, privilege, lack of accountability”.  . ....  this year, under a decade later, the NIH budget is nearly $28 billion. To protect this investment, .....“the scientific communities believe that public funding is their right, but so is freedom from public control.....

Fraud has always been present in science, long before the NIH was handing out grants. Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics, had results that are just too good to be true. Louis Pasteur's notebooks, long kept secret, reveal that he misled the world and his fellow scientists about the research behind two of his most famous experiments: the vaccination of sheep against anthrax, and that of a boy against rabies. And it is common knowledge that Sigmund Freud fabricated many of the case studies on which he built his psychoanalytic theories and career.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)17334-0/fulltext?code=lancet-site

 

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

Speed of light exceeds the escape velocity of the star

No. You see

Quote

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 300,000 km/s (186,000 mi/s)[Note 3]).

 

You proposition would mean, that either

the initial velocity has to be larger than c in order to be slowed down by star's gravity and somehow become exactly equal c, which is impossible, since under GRT light's speed never can be larger than c.

OR,  

the initial velocity equals c, and after the light is slowed down by the star's gravity, the light travels at less than c, which is again impossible since c is constant.

[Apech]

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

No. You see

 

You proposition would mean, that either

the initial velocity has to be larger than c in order to be slowed down by star's gravity and somehow become exactly equal c, which is impossible, since under GRT light's speed never can be larger than c.

OR,  

the initial velocity equals c, and after the light is slowed down by the star's gravity, the light travels at less than c, which is again impossible since c is constant.

 

That's quote mining.  If you include the next sentence from wiki:

 

"According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all conventional matter and hence all known forms of information in the universe can travel."

 

You will see that c is a maxima.  Light does travel slower than c, for instance in different media, refraction is evidence of this.  The light leaving the sun is very slightly slowed but because of the large radius of the sun the effect is minimal.

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Light does travel slower than c, for instance in different media,

Different is is a red herring. ) Starlight travels in vacuum, where its speed is a constant according to GRT. Not slower, not speedier - constant.

Quote

The light leaving the sun is very slightly slowed but because of the large radius of the sun the effect is minimal.

Larger the radius=larger the mass=maximization of the effect

 

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

Different is is a red herring. ) Starlight travels in vacuum, where its speed is a constant according to GRT. Not slower, not speedier - constant.

Larger the radius=larger the mass=maximization of the effect

 

 

Its a maximum limit.

 

No.  Larger radius further from centre of gravity.

[Stosh]

Space-time is not uniform around the star , the light travels at the same rate of progression per 'mile of spacetime' so in that respect the velocity is constant and it is not lensed or bent.

Space is.    But if one presumes that space is an evenly distributed context , then it instead appears that the light is curved and slowed by the effect of gravity . 

The question science should ask , is if between gravitational bodies ,that spacetime is rarified ,so that when presuming a uniformly distributed context of space, c ends up being slower than the actual speed of light.

[Taoist Texts]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Its a maximum limit.

so you do claim that in vacuum the speed of light is less than c?

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

No.  Larger radius further from centre of gravity.

so you are saying that a larger star has a smaller gravitational pull than a smaller star?

[Marblehead]

9 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

so you are saying that a larger star has a smaller gravitational pull than a smaller star?

What?

 

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

The question science should ask , is if between gravitational bodies ,that spacetime is rarified ,so that when presuming a uniformly distributed context of space, c ends up being slower than the actual speed of light.

Well you see Stosh, the psedoscience is schizophrenic. One one hand they hold GRT an infallible truth; on the other hand they do have to show something for their grants. And that something is meaningless calculations with so called free variables

general relativity - Gravitational Lensing equivalent refractive ...Nov 6, 2017 - Reading about gravitational lensing here and here, its seems that it can be ... Due to symmetries, the metric tensor has 10 free variables

which are dummy values adjusted whenever the observation does not match the GRT predictions. Which happens always and which is fraud. Your question they answer by just plugging in any value that reconciles the calcs with the observation.

[Taoist Texts]

Just now, Marblehead said:

What?

 

thats what Apech says)

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

Larger radius further from centre of gravity.

(so the gravity is weaker at the surface of a larger star). Thats his logic right there)

[Apech]

23 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

so you do claim that in vacuum the speed of light is less than c?

so you are saying that a larger star has a smaller gravitational pull than a smaller star?

 

c as a constant is the maximum speed of light in a vacuum.

 

Its a gravity well - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_well - work it out for yourself.

[Taoist Texts]

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

work it out for yourself.

 

22 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I am not going to waste any more time on willful ignorance.

 

Ah, the ultimate disputation technique: "A random link+go-educate-yourself". Well played guys, well played.

 

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

 

 

Ah, the ultimate disputation technique: "A random link+go-educate-yourself". Well played guys, well played.

 

 

Here's another - self explanatory question and answer.

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59502/does-gravity-slow-the-speed-that-light-travels

[Stosh]

35 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

Well you see Stosh, the psedoscience is schizophrenic. One one hand they hold GRT an infallible truth; on the other hand they do have to show something for their grants. And that something is meaningless calculations with so called free variables

general relativity - Gravitational Lensing equivalent refractive ...Nov 6, 2017 - Reading about gravitational lensing here and here, its seems that it can be ... Due to symmetries, the metric tensor has 10 free variables

which are dummy values adjusted whenever the observation does not match the GRT predictions. Which happens always and which is fraud. Your question they answer by just plugging in any value that reconciles the calcs with the observation.

Yeah, I am not crazy about the 'convenient' fudge factors either , but at the edge of established fact , there's always as much unproven guesswork. It just comes with the territory. That which some might consider 'infallible' is often rightly held with suspended disbelief, 

unjustified faith though, is even worse.

Science is simply a process by which one determines the most accurate mental paradigm to fit a scenario, its trying to be objective, I rightly think my car keys will not miraculously teleport to mars.. but it is possible some daydreaming co-worker may walk off with them. 

[Taoist Texts]

er, no) Your link contains 2 posts with answers

Does gravity slow the speed that light travels?

1. So I suppose the only accurate answer to your question is: it depends.

2. Not really. 

 

These are non-answers. Now i am asking a very simple, yes or no question:

 

Does the light from a star travel at c speed in the interstellar vacuum as measured by an observer on earth?

 

Yes it does.

No it does not.