A Refutation of General Relativity

[Farsight]

What I meant Zanket, was that a theory can be found to be lacking in some respect and yet still survive. String Theory started life as open and closed vibrating strings. Now it's M-theory (M for mystic!) in 10+1 dimensions. It's changed beyond all recognition. If somebody like you came along with some issue regarding String Theory, it would still survive. In fact, it wouldn't even flinch. It would carry right on regardless like the pseudoscience "recreational mathematics" steamroller that it is.

 

I'm not saying General relativity is perfect. It doesn't explain gravity for one thing. And I think many folk misunderstand the Principle of Equivalence. So you and I share some common ground. But you're trying to refute General Relativity and I, in my "popular science" fashion that lacks mathematical formalism and scientific rigour, am trying to gain insights that will improve it.

[Southtown]

What I meant Zanket, was that a theory can be found to be lacking in some respect and yet still survive. String Theory started life as open and closed vibrating strings. Now it's M-theory (M for mystic!) in 10+1 dimensions. It's changed beyond all recognition. If somebody like you came along with some issue regarding String Theory, it would still survive. In fact, it wouldn't even flinch. It would carry right on regardless like the pseudoscience "recreational mathematics" steamroller that it is.

Funny you should say that. I just learned about String/M from a non-proponent's perspective. One-hour lecture by physicist/author Lee Smolin for those who are curious... very informative:

 

ResearchChannel - The Trouble with Physics