To disprove GR

Cindy,

In your question about whether GR can be disproven do you mean

A: In a mathematical sense
B: By observational, common sense

If you mean A then GR can never be disproven because one can always adjust the equation to get whatever answer one needs. This is like asking "Can geocentrism be disproven?". The answer is no because one only has to invent new forces for every observation. The GR version of this is to invent kludges like Dark Matter etc.

If you mean B than Occam's razor is almost demanding that we dump GR or at least honestly admit there are several alternatives to its worldview.

There is no way to prove GR is wrong or blackholes do not exist using math since both are the result of using math. The way to get to the fact of the matter is by doing a search of the history of these things. They exist because they make money for research and thats all folks.

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

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

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

Jeremy gave a more concise answer along the same lines I was also pointing. Here is the thing: There is no way to disprove conclusions of inferencial logic unless you disprove the premises that lead to its conclusions. Therefore, to disprove GR you must disprove EP, its central hypothesis or premise, as you correctly pointed out. There seems to be no way in using the very same mathematics it uses to disprove GR, simple because the mathematics will lead you back to the same conclusions. The choice you have is only one: come up with another theory and prove that it gives better estimates of physical reality. But then, you must also make some assuptions or use some kind of premises, not proven, simply because causes are unknown. The MM, to the extend I understand it, establishes a complete theory that encompases causes, like the graviton. However, its premises cannot also be proven, at least for now.

Conclusion: using math to disprove GR is a hopeless task (thousants have tried already spending a whole life time on it). EP is a principle. If EP is disproved experimentally, GR collapses, although I suspect a patch will be found by introducing a new particle or state thereof, and fix it.

But those that rush to conclude that GR is not valid are oblivious to the fact that GR is not concern with causes, like Newton too. It uses fantom constructions to measure states on larger scales. The theories that introduce causes, must prove them first. That is why GR has survived that long. It does not mess with God, let's say it that way.

Good luck

Check this site: www.autodynamics.org

Go back to the original GR experiments. We can provide evidence backed theories to explain, say Mercury's perturbation for instance, that do not invoke the neccesity to warp the fabric of space and time. Inventing no unneccessary hypothesises? Come on. No one felt that they could challenge Einstein. Hey the photoelectric effect is good and all, relativity = no nobel prize. Cindy, that is a mathematical proof that cannot be denied
MV

MV, I don't know if that's what you meant, you probably did:

the photoelectric effect= nobel prize for Einstein

MV, I don't know if that's what you meant, you probably did:

the photoelectric effect= no nobel prize for Einstein