Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is true or is it another pseudoscience crap

  1. Apr 25, 2012 #1
    I read in a book that "the laws of physics as defined by Newton and Einstein work just fine as long as one don't account for gravity ,rotation or acceleration."
    Also he said that there is no proof that the space is curved as predicted by Einstein, but i read before that it was poven by an experiment that involved a gyroscope attached to a satelite, so what is the validity of this claim.
    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 25, 2012 #2

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's nonsense. What's the book?
     
  4. Apr 25, 2012 #3
    Alphali, as Doc Al said, it's total nonsense. There is an insurmountable amount of evidence backing up general relativity, see here.

    Considering GR is a theory of gravity and acceleration, the other claim about it breaking down is also absurd.
     
  5. Apr 25, 2012 #4

    ghwellsjr

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wouldn't be so quick to label a book as nonsense that someone is quoting from without being able to actually see the context of the quote and the actual quote. For example, the OP of Is SOL infinite? (from its own point of view) quoted Roger Penrose as having said, "clock/time of light is at all times zero", which I didn't believe he would ever say. On further investigation, Penrose was saying something completely different.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
  6. Apr 25, 2012 #5

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Maybe the quote was related to special relativity (SR) only. In that case, it is right that SR is just an approximation once you add gravity. And while it is possible to handle accelerations, the usual framework is made for non-accelerating, inertial observers. And to cover the last thing, rotating systems are not inertial systems.


    There are no "proofs" in physics. Just theories which passed all the tests performed up to now*. And general relativity (GR) is very successful in that respect.

    *and many which did not, of course :p.
     
  7. Apr 25, 2012 #6
    Perhaps there are some details that you left out or paraphrased wrongly. As both Newton and Einstein accounted for those things, I can't imagine what the author could have meant (it could be crap of course!).
    Moreover, "curved space" is literal interpretation of the mathematics. What counts for physics are the predictions, and the basics have been confirmed, notably gravitational time dilation. Roughly speaking, a clock ticks faster far in space than on Earth.
    It could be that the book refers to (or that you refer to) a last remaining test which unexpectedly did not provide accurate confirmation, and which was indeed done with gyroscopes attached to a satellite. You can read criticism here:
    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110510/full/473131a.html
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012
  8. Apr 25, 2012 #7

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    What's the name of the book? The author? What's the exact text?

    I couldn't find anything close to the quoted text via google books.
     
  9. Apr 25, 2012 #8
    By this I assume you mean that the 4-dimensionl curved space concept is just one interpretation of GR, and 4-dimensional curved space-time has not been extablished as an actual physical reality.
     
  10. Apr 26, 2012 #9
    Yes, it could be that that book makes a philosophical statement concerning "reality". As long as the OP doesn't tell us what book, we can only guess. :tongue2:
     
  11. Apr 27, 2012 #10
    My friend gave this book "The choice" by Mike Bara, he said that the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong, it’s a book about ancient civilizations and their prophecies and torsion physics…, normally i would have dismissed this as total bs but he is an aerospace engineer that's what confused me, he should know better about relativity and Newtonian mechanics right? And on further research a lot of the numbers he mentioned in his book to back his theories are totally wrong.
     
  12. Apr 27, 2012 #11

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This site is not about debunking the nonsense of Mike Bara and Richard Hoagland. They are kooks.

    Thread closed.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is true or is it another pseudoscience crap
  1. Is this true? (Replies: 14)

  2. True Time and True c (Replies: 78)

Loading...