4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: − #''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?'' − #:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron. − #:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously. − #:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15. − #:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct. − #::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results. − #:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search. − #:This has nothing to do with global warming.
Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 02:18, August 31, 2012
, 02:18, August 31, 2012removing flawed counterexample
Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute. We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.
Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute. We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.