2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 515:
Line 515: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 06:46, November 27, 2018
, 06:46, November 27, 2018→Briefly describe recommendation for removing point #1: new section
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:54, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:54, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
== Briefly describe recommendation for removing point #1 ==
Consider removing #1, because the sources it cites (which are the National Geographic and the Scientific American) are not scientific peer-reviewed journals, and cannot be considered as actual scientific evidence. Neither of these actually cite an
Also, specifically concerning the Scientific American, it does not actually state a specific computer model that has run on some computer. I had to do some digging around, but I found [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13316 this article] which I think is what these
articles are referring to. Anyway, even if this is so, this is not a valid counterexample to the Theory of Relativity because a computer model or simulation cannot necessarily falsify what is in the real world. For example, if this simulation is in ''any way'' not 100% accurate
to real life, then it is not necessarily a truly accurate representation of reality. Furthermore, this could be due to the fact that according to the aforementioned article, the simulation was conducted at a limited resolution of cosmic data, and thus, does not simulate small particles
such as atoms and small molecules.
The article itself (or rather, what is under the "Abstract" section of the article) even states: "It yields a reasonable population of ellipticals and spirals, reproduces the observed distribution of galaxies in clusters and characteristics of hydrogen on large scales, and at the same time matches the ‘metal’ and hydrogen content of galaxies on small scales."
This means that Chaos theory (a branch of mathematics which concerns outcomes being highly sensitive to initial conditions) could explain that due to a lack of atomic simulation of this model, it necessarily means that an exact replica of our universe is not contained within that computer simulation due to it not simulating our universe exactly how it is in the real world. Therefore, this model's density of black holes per whatever unit of measure is not sufficient evidence as a counterexample of the Theory of Relativity by Einstein because that computer simulation is not more accurate than Einstein's calculations based on Relativity.
Not only that, but I fail to see where it is mentioned in the article the popularity of black holes or a citation of Einstein's calculations for it as well. So the argument does not even have substantiation either.