Do you ever get the feeling that cosmology has gotten so far down the wrong track that it's not even wrong?

That jefimenko guy is nowhere near the calibre of Einstein and nobody relevant takes his anti-relativity ramblings seriously. And I repeat he is just one person, the vast majority of scientists agree with GR. So who am going to listen to? The thousands of scientists who follow GR or this one guy from some unknown state college who has published a couple papers on magnets or whatever?

As for Tesla. He tried to build a death ray. No more needs to be said.

>Even that other guy above you, even though wrong at least he has an opinion, you can fuck off.
Tesla: We can get rid of all these relativistic effects with my electric universe.
>blatantly ignores that EM inherently has all of these relativistic effects built into it
Sure, Tesla totally wasn't a terrible scientist that did not understand theory beyond what was necessary for his engineering projects.

"That jefimenko guy"? Sorry this has descended to a level I can't go to, I have a degree in electrical engineering and thought there might be some intelligent thought on here. I haven't looked at this stuff in like 5 years but I remember being quite persuaded by Jefimenko's theories and him and Tesla are who I believe have it right. I'm not basing my beliefs on just reading up and deciding "who to believe", looking at his education, and being sarcastic about "couple papers on magnets". Don't be ridiculous.

So, what do you make of all of GR's predictions being correct (black holes, precession of the perihelion of Mercury, gravitational waves, accurate accounting of observed time dilation effects, gravitational lensing, etc.)?

No man, literally the clocks on GPS satellites have to be set to run at different rates to clocks on earth so the times match up when they're in orbit.

>check out Oleg Jefimenko's work
His equations for Electric and Magnetic Fields are nice but there's a reason that Einstein's formulation of things has become the standard.

>Maybe it's worth noting Nikola Tesla was largely unimpressed by Einstein's work and felt it could be accounted for electromagnetically as well, did not like the idea that space was "curved" etc.
Loads of other scientists didn't like it too, but the field still came around to it because it was supported experimentally.

>imo "time" makes a lot more sense if it's always constant across the board
Sure, it would also make a lot more sense if subatomic objects had a well defined position and momentum but we can't have everything, can we?

All Jewish tricks. The Jews flew a rocket to Mercury, set up nuclear explosions on the surface to fuck up the orbit and "prove Newton wrong". Then Einstein was paid to give his zionist approved theory that conveniently explained the motion thus securing Jews a pre-eminent position in science for all time.

Go to bed Lenard

GR is not the only model that accounts for the observations found. Other interpretations like Jefimenkos are simpler. Lots of models can predict things correctly without being completely valid. Simpson's rule estimates an integral, but it's not as exact as a proper integration. Ptolemy's equations that had the earth as the centre of the universe worked, but they were artificial concoctions and had no accounting for force. Einstein's are similar in that they tend to work, but you need to suspend belief and stretch the imagination. I also just disagree with the semantics of having time to be varying in different locations, which is unprecedented in physics and what causes all the unnecessary confusion.

How does Jefimenko reconcile constant distance and time with the invariant, frame independent speed of light?

How does Jefimenko's model then generalize Lorentz invariance to accelerating frames? Remember, GR isn't just a theory of gravity, but a reconciliation of classical electromagnetism with Newtonian mechanics in non-inertial frames. As such, any replacement must offer a similar reconciliation.

He has a theory of "electromagnetic retardation" based on time delay between electromagnetic condition. It's an obscure but established field in theoretical physics. A lot of the exact equations of GR can in fact be derived in a natural and clear way from the theory of electromagnetic retardation.

Jefimenko's namesake EM equations are literally relativistic in that they use a lorentz-transformed retarded time in their formulation. He's even quoted on the wiki page as mentioning the explicit, relativistic, causal form of his equations versus the Maxwell theory. Though the discussion section is pretty silly, it's an undergrad exercise to demonstrate how the maxwell equations imply relativistic wave equations for the E, B fields. His statement behind dual theories is a concept that carries to more complicated field theories.

While the theory of electromagnetic retardation naturally gives rise to the theory of special relativity, I am not asking about special relativity as i am asking about non-inertial frames. Asserting that this can be used to construct a less diverse theory of gravity is a pointless exercise if the existent theory is much more general and thus has much stronger predictive power.

the law of gravity is also pretty good at explaiing everyday life don't yo think so?

You would have to be full blown illiterate in the philosophy of science to claim that m theory is useless.

The only people I hear shitting on it are people who don't know shit about it, or people who are familiar to some extent but bitch about how it has almost no predictive potential, since they STILL think science is inductively predictive rather than explanatory.

The people who actually devote their time to study it properly, which includes some of the brightest scientific minds of the last century, say it's the most exiting development in physics.

You have to be scientifically illiterate not to appreciate that it's on to something fucking huge, potentially even a ToE.

I am horrified by this post. Do people actually think this ?

GR sure works great, if you pretend that 95% of the universe is unobservable and unmeasurable stuff.

So, how is it useful? What does it do that is so vital? Why is predictive power unimportant for a physical theory? How is the fact that all predictive tests have failed unimportant? Because the expected phenomena can reparameterize the theory to higher energy scales that are beyond experimental limits? If this is the case, then theory is indeed useless as a physical theory.

>unobservable and unmeasurable stuff.

It's obviously been both observed and measured, otherwise we wouldn't know it was there you dumb fuck. The only mystery is quite what it is.

>all predictive tests have failed
>Tests
>Of string and M theory.

Lol.

Galactic rotation curves are calculated using newtonian gravity because the forces involved are not sufficient to invoke the need for relativistic corrections. So, dark matter is not a problem for GR. Dark energy, on the other hand, is actually easily integrated into GR through the cosmological constant.

String theory was, indeed, used to make predictions about LHC results. All of those predictions failed and led to a reparameterization of the theory and a split in the community where those that tried to make such qualitative predictions were ostracized and denounced by those that led to the push for reparameterization.

>String theory was, indeed, used to make predictions about LHC results.

No, it wasn't. The LHC was used to test for supersymmetric partners to the standard particles. As of right now there's on evidence of these particles, although the LHC hasn't finished exploring all mass ranges. The important thing is supersymmetry isn't string theory, certainly string theory uses supersymmetry but it isn't dependent on it. There have still been no experimental tests of string theory.

No it hasn't. Dark bullshit is just a way to pretend that the cosmological constant is actually something real. But get a load of the butthurt from pointing that out.

>string theory

String theory has proved worthless. In fact the OP reference to "not even wrong" is a meta-reference to one of the most ardent critics of string theory. String theory was once touted as truth until more than a few people noticed it was bullshit. Cosmology is looking more and more like bullshit today as well.

>Dark bullshit is just a way to pretend that the cosmological constant is actually something real

Fucking kek, talk about being totally ignorant of a subject. The cosmological constant was added (or perhaps re-added) after cosmologists realised it captured the observational evidence.

>String theory
>cosmology

Try again, senpai. You're the reason people here hate pop-sci. Cosmology is pretty much described by general relativity from the Planck epoch on wards, string theory is more high energy particle physics.

You mean cosmologists fudged the model when they realized it didn't match observation.

One of the things the LHC tested was supersymmetry by finding the lightest supersymmetric partner, but this is not what I am talking about. See arxiv.org/pdf/1012.3375v1.pdf for what I am talking about.

Wow do you even know how to follow a thread? You're the reason everyone hates autismals.

Not really.
>Observe universe is expanding
>Realise expansion can be described by the addition of a constant to the field equations
>Add constant and compare to observation.

I guess it's a fudge in the sense that it works for some reason and no one is really sure why, but I don't really see it as a problem so long as no one starts thinking that it's the end of the road. And since no one thinks that I really don't get why you're so butthurt over it.

Maybe it Einstein spent less time being butthurt about quantum mechanics and putting so much effort into debunking it, he might have had more cycles to spare actually finishing off GR. The moral of this story is that even the smartest person can drown in dogma.

Even then it's only placed tighter bounds on models with large extra dimensions, still not really supporting what you were saying.

What's to follow? Op asked if cosmology had gone to far (presumably referring to dark matter and energy). Then you started bringing string theory in to it, even though ST would only be used in the first Planck time in any model of cosmology.

>observation SUGGESTS universe is expanding
>shoehorn current model to account for inflation
>fudge numbers until it works

It's a fudge in the sense that the model is a tautology until there's some actual evidence of dark energy outside of being a number that makes the model work.

So just to be clear, you'd prefer it if we didn't alter models based on new evidence? Okay user, whatever you say.

That's cool if cosmology took that viewpoint, but current teaching preaches dark energy as a fact as real as the moon in the sky.

>still not really supporting what you were saying
See "reparameterization." The black hole masses were pushed out of the range the then current parameterization allowed, leading to the schism. Now, back to my original question: how is string theory useful? You blasted my post about it being "useless," (which I did not say; I said it was increasingly a problem for mathematicians rather than physicists). So, what makes string theory a useful physical theory?

Nice ad-hominem, homo.

The cosmological constant works for modelling dark matter because it was explicitly introduced by Einstein to prevent metric expansion in his theory. Thus, changing its sign leads to accelerated metric expansion which is the signature of dark energy.

Okay I'm honestly confused about what you're arguing for. Einstein originally included the cosmological constant to make his equations reproduce a static universe, which was the prevailing view at the time. Hubble then showed the universe was expanding, so Einstein dropped the constant and labeled it "his greatest mistake". A few decades later we can see (from a few different line's of inquiry) that the expansion is accelerating, as it turns out that can be described in the field equations by the addition of a constant term.

What's the problem?

>the then current parameterization allowed

For models with extra large dimensions.

>So, what makes string theory a useful physical theory?

Right now, I'll admit it's debatable. It does describe certain things, but they're hard to test. But I'm of the opinion that just because something is hard to test doesn't mean we should stop investigating it.

>implying that means dark energy is a real thing

You see the cart leading the horse here?

Dark energy is based upon two basic observations: metric expansion is happening and something is accelerating this expansion. These are not debatable points as both are supported by multiple independent observations. Something is driving the acceleration. Whatever this is is dark energy. Where is the problem?

Expansion is implied by redshift, extrapolated to the big-bang theory. Current models fit this observation if certain assumptions are made.

That is the realistic appraisal of current theory, not the immutable fact which you present.

In the lineage of Veeky Forums shitposts, this thread is just another example of poe's law. It's easy to be fooled into thinking that these people are sincere but it's only because they have so little to do outside of Veeky Forums that they've become so adept at shitposting.

>science is infallible

math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?page_id=4338

Did you cite Wikipedia in your liberal arts thesis?

>Time dilation
>Theoretical physics
How is it living in the dark ages muon-denial fag?

Why are you talking about the big bang theory? Yes, it is a model which includes expansion, but that is because every model must include expansion since it is an observational fact. So, where is the problem?