The conceptual origins of gravitational lensing · HackerPapers discussions

The conceptual origins of gravitational lensing — mentioned by gmueckl

Sat, 19 May 2018 04:48:02 GMT

>>"Mercury's apsidal precession computed precisely" > >- GR was designed to fit this, which is great.. but doesn't count as a confirmation. How can you claim this? GR is derived from first principles only. It also does not need any new physical constant to describe Mercury's apsidal precession. There are no adjustable parameters. It fits precisely even without the cosmological constant which you seem to hate with a passion. >- This idea predates GR: https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1165 What?! How can you possibly claim that work published in the 1930s predates GR, which was published in 1915…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The conceptual origins of gravitational lensing — mentioned by nonbel

Fri, 18 May 2018 13:53:56 GMT

>"And noone was so far able to create an experiment that managed to falsify that theory (it is a perfectly falsifiable theory), but not for lack of trying." It was falsified by the aberrant rotation curves way back in the 1930s, the "dark matter" save was allowed for awhile but still no other evidence has been found for that. The only evidence is that GR predicts the wrong thing. It doesn't matter how many successes your theory has when we are talking about taking it as fact, only whether there is a single fail. Regarding your individual examples: >"Mercury's apsidal precession computed…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.