To disprove GR

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

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."

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

A would prefer not to comment on TVF's statements, I only know a drop of water and he is the ocean.

Your question was:

Is it sufficient to say that the GR is not right if we can disprove the principle of equivalence?

"A sufficient condition for disproving GR is disproving EP" is correct. It is not necessary because it may be disproved other ways. So that answers your question, which was just a logical one dealing with necessity and sufficiency. If you need details on how one can go about disproving the EP or GR, I am not the right person, look for someone in here named AgoraBasta(besides TVF). I haven't seen him around for a while though but he has a lot of knoweledge in this subject.

Aw come on makis - be brave!

My two pennies worth -

Don't know what Tom's alluding to here. As far as I knew, experiment agreed with theory to about 1% for observations using neutron interferometers. Might be worth digging through MetaResearch's archives to see which experiments have shown a contradiction (Collela, Overhauser and Werner's 1975 experiment showed a 4% discrepancy in retrospect, but I thought latter stuff had covered that (e.g. van der Zouw and Zellinger))?

Agorabasta's proabably even fooled around with this sort of equipment, so if we can't tempt him in with this thread I'll give him a shout and see what he thinks.

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

Aw come on makis - be brave!

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

Welcome back Atko. Ok, let's try to be brave, although "there exists at least one kind of danger that will turn every brave person to a tremelous creature"... Eric Form said that the untimate fear is freedom.

Last think I new, long time ago, the week EP was proved to a few parts in 10^13. There was an experiment, I believe in Stanford, to increase that by two orders. I do now know the results, is they got any. But let's be brave and state that there in no experiment without experimental error, and if that error is higher than the error you try to show then all sorts of conclusions are possible.

Khmm, errmm,... what? Me not sleeping! (tssk-uhhh - opens another beer) Well, (puff - another cigarette lit), that's a huge can of worms...
It all looks natural from the QT point of view. It must've been a total blasphemy to pure GR, since that theory considered gravity as the very background (spacetime) for everything else in this reality.
Now my point of view is quite apparent - the GR has been "disproven" the very moment the QT came into (recognized) existence; the cold neutrons experiments prove that gravity is a true "force" and not a mere "background".
The point of view of the "official" science is quite transparent as well - that's a mere GR/QT "interference", nobody cares, everything's still okay "mathematically".

( Here - antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020122.html - you can find some info and links to the most recent experiments related to the matter; or try a Google search - www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=...on+gravity+quantized )

(It's brandy time here, so long for now...)

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

from: physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/9

Nesvizhevsky says that the experiment could precisely verify the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses - the reason that all masses accelerate equally in a gravitational field. The set-up could also confirm the electrical neutrality of neutrons. But such studies will require a significant increase in the neutron flux.

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

Let's be clear here. Has the weak EP been disproved or verified by the experiments? I think the later. The original question posed by Cindy was whether disproving EP is sufficient for disproving GR. My answer is yes, although it is not necessary to disprove GR via disproving EP, you can do it by proving gravity is a pure force.

But did the experiments disprove EP? I guess not. Come on guys. Some lady asks a specific question and we seem not to be able to give a specific answer. Cindy did not ask if GR is a correct theory.

Hi Makis,
Thank you for your answers. One of your answers implied that mathematics alone is not sufficient to verify EP, GR, or blackholes. However, I will be happy if you or somebody else can show me where I can get a sensible mathematical disproof of EP, GR or blackholes. Thank you again,