Changes

The following are refutations of points made in the article by user Gresavage, and is meant for article improvement.  Discuss one at a time.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

The following are refutations of points made in the article by user Gresavage, and is meant for article improvement.  Discuss one at a time.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

seeing no further discussion from the administrators on these points which have already been previously discussed in great detail on this talk page, i am going to edit the page. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 18:50, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

:seeing no further discussion from the administrators on these points which have already been previously discussed in great detail on this talk page, i am going to edit the page. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 18:50, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

 

::I'm going to refute all of the "counterexamples" which incorporate quantum interactions. This is due to the fact that it is generally accepted that GR does not account for them. It is a mathematical model that applies to a certain range of values. The values encountered in QM and the ones on the much larger scale at the other end of the spectrum are not within the domain of GR. If GR did in fact agree with QM in it's predictions of quantum interactions, then we would have found the elusive "unifying gravitational field theory". Which of course we have not. There is in fact no unifying field theory. comparing GR and QM, is very much akin to trying to compare principles of circuits to principles of newtonian mechanics (F=ma). Yes, there is some overlap, but these two things deal with, and are born from, completely different domains; yet are proven to exist due to the same thing (electromagnetism). If i were to try to solve for voltages and currents in a mechanics problem, naturally i would have wrong answers. This does not imply that either of them is incorrect. As i have said, to properly determine whether a theory is accurate, one must see if it is true everywhere in it's domain. So far, GR has been proven to be true everywhere in it's domain. If that is not the case, then we limit the domain solely to where it is true. This is a very well known principle of mathematics. Take, for instance, the function <math>f(x)=1/(2-x)</math>; and lets say that we are using this function to try to explain a graph, (lets say the graph of: if U(x)={(2+x)/(4-x²) for -∞<x<-2 ∪ -2<x<2 ∪ 2<x<∞; 3 for x = -2 ;  5 for x = 2}. We would find that the graphs are nearly identical. However there are two hitches. The first is that the graphs are NOT identical, this would be the metaphor between GR and the actual universe, as well as QM and the actual universe. The graphs are only mostly identical, in fact, they are so identical that the percent error goes to 0 as the limit of x → ∞. This does not mean that <math>f(x)</math> is a bad representation of <math>U(x)</math>, it means that it is not the exact one. Lets say that at QM says that for x=2 <math>h(x)=5</math>, and for x=-2 <math>h(x)=3</math>. This theory of QM would be a good model for the universe where GR falls short. This also does not mean that GR or QM is a bad model. QM being true at some points does not mean that GR is generally inaccurate, just as QM being true in ALL points does not mean that GR is generally inaccurate. In fact, both models can be true independently, as well as simultaneously (however they are not true simultaneously in this example).(this metaphor, however, is not a good example of the true relationship between the universe and QM). Finally, to say that GR is not a good model for the universe because at one point, or even a range of points, it is inaccurate, would be an erroneous statement. To say that because GR is a bad model at 2, and/or -2, because it does not match exactly what the universe (<math>U(x)</math>) is doing, it then must be a bad model everywhere else, would be erroneous. Also, to say that solely because <math>f(x)</math> is not defined at x=2, it must be a bad model of the universe, is incredibly erroneous, as it is a near perfect model everywhere else! And in fact, this is the relationship that GR shares with the universe, and QM. Where GR leaves off (is not defined/is an inaccurate model) is exactly where QM picks up, and is an accurate model. That is not to say, that because QM is true where GR is not true, GR as a whole must be an erroneous theory, is preposterous, and an incredible misunderstanding of math, physics, logic, and the universe as a whole. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:12, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

I intersperse my rebuttals below:

I intersperse my rebuttals below: