| Line 230: |
Line 230: |
| | :REPLY BELOW: | | :REPLY BELOW: |
| | | | |
| − | ::It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing. | + | ::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing. |
| | | | |
| | ::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true. | | ::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true. |
| | | | |
| − | ::#7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge. | + | ::#2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge. |
| | | | |
| | :::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd. | | :::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd. |
| | | | |
| − | 3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated. | + | ::3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated. |
| | | | |
| | :::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality. | | :::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality. |
| | | | |
| | :::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT) | | :::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT) |