To disprove GR

From Dr. Flandern,
"GR as a mathematical theory is certainly as correct as Newtonian theory was.
"GR as a physical theory is almost certainly wrong.

Do you think that the principle of equivalence, GR, and blackholes can be disproved in mathematics?

I think they can dispoved by logic or mathematics. If they find the extent of how far a exponent of 2 can go then they casn disprove something on the idea of math of a real world model, Guess on the equation, observe, then edit until equation is done and with enough of those you can disprove the idea of a blackhole, GR and i am notsure about the principles of equivalence.

The intuitive mind

I think they can dispoved by logic or mathematics. If they find the extent of how far a exponent of 2 can go then they casn disprove something on the idea of math of a real world model, Guess on the equation, observe, then edit until equation is done and with enough of those you can disprove the idea of a blackhole, GR and i am notsure about the principles of equivalence.

The intuitive mind

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Do you think that the principle of equivalence, GR, and blackholes can be disproved in mathematics?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It is very hard to disprove tautologies. That's why it's called a principle. It is a carefully contructed logical argument of the form:

if A, then A

Therefore, nothing to disprove

You can go in a different path, you can find a theory that predicts physical reality much better than GR does, as the MM is, presumably. Them what you accomplish is to reject the totality of GR, but not its central argument, the principle of equivalence, necessarily. Notice that you do not disprove the principle, you just disprove the conclusions of a inferencial process that use it as a premise. It may be a fact as well, that you new theory uses the principle also.

Think about it: it is very hard to disprove GR on the basis of the principle of equivalence, unless you prove that:

Mi/Mg not equal to 1

experimentally. But GR and Newton are based on this assumption and all measurements made are based on equipment (observer) that implicitely utilize the same assumption for producing meaninfull numbers.

Therefore, if you believe that there is some other type of effect (like a new force) that contributes in such a way that it appears that Mi/Mg =1, then you must do the following:

1. Develop a theory about the new effect
2. Develop apparatus to measure it based on the theory

Unless you do the apparatus, nothing can be proved. That is, Einstein's theory is so cleverly constructed that using the same symbols he does, there's no way to disprove it. Do not forget that Einstein got good lessons from Logical Positivists, like Russell and Fredge.

That is why, any disturbances to GR can be patched and opponents are in limbo... unless a new cause and effect is proven. If the graviton can be detected, GR is gone for good. But we need the detector.

Makis

Hi Makis,
You say "it is very hard to disprove GR on the basis of the principle of equivalence, unless you prove that:

Mi/Mg not equal to 1

experimentally."

Please tell me what do you think when Dr. Flandern say "As regards the principle of equivalence, neutron interferometer experiments have already shown that the weak principle is contradicted."

Proving black holes and BB is easy mathematically. Equivalence is given by simply saying the phenomena are possible. What I mean to say is, the theory says blah, so we construct and equation blah. In Dark Matter, TVF gives an example that I have found to be true. A mathematical construct is proposed and then as new data is found, a place in the equation is made.
Consider the ideal gas law PV=nRT. Every chem student works this to death. However when van der Waals interactions, compressiblility, zero-point energy, and a few other poorly understood effects are added to this handy formula you get a mess that cannot predict the behavior of a gas in a balloon at room temperature. Furthermore, the graphs generated from this equation (Real Gas Law) are not even valid in the range of experimentally accessable temps and pressures. It is assumes that the law is good for temps and pressures that are inaccessable. Why? I was told not to ask when I was in pchem.

Using mathematics we can, like a good magician, show you that all the sides are even, the weight feels real, the illusion is reality. Really its just a wiff of smoke with a little fairy dust...