Good news: Because more and more high energy laboratories will be closed and more and more money was, is and will be put on space study, more and more talented high energy physisists go to astrophysics to find jobs. Truth can be covered for longer time!!
trilairian OK, I do not know what you means by `the factor of two`. In fact, as explained in the following or astro-ph/0512614, What I want is the EXACT, and what you want is the approximate: Gravity whose nature is fundamental to the understanding of solar system, galaxies and the structure and evolution of the Universe, is theorized by the assumption of curved spacetime, according to Einstein`s general theory of relativity (EGR). Particles move on curved spacetime along straight lines (geodesics). In the last year, I proposed the mirrored version of EGR, the flat-spacetime general relativity (FGR), in which particles move along curved lines on flat spacetime. This puts gravitational study back to the traditional Lagrangian formulation. In fact, all claimed accurate verification of general relativity is the verification of FGR, because people when confronting GR to observational data, calculate time, distance, or angle by directly using the coordinates in Schwarzschild solution or in post Newtonian formulation. For example, two famous tests of general relativity are about angles. People calculate the angles by directly using the coordinate $\phi$. However, only when spacetime is flat does there exists one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time, distance, angle, and vice verse. This is the famous Riemann theorem. Therefore, the more claims are made that classical tests of general relativity fits data with great accuracy, the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption. That is, the claim is specious to EGR. People made three specious claims to EGR as collected in the present paper. However, FGR predicts observationally verified results consistently for solar system, galaxies, and the universe on the whole. I show that the possibility of curved spacetime, black holes, and big bang is less than one billionth. An experiment is proposed whose results will completely decide the fate of curved spacetime assumption.
exact When applied to galaxies and the universe on the whole, what I want is still the exact, and what you want is the gap of black holes and dark matters and dark energies.
No, you are just insane. You have nothing exact. In fact you have nothing valid at all. By the way arxiv archives are not publication journals.
There is absolutely no proof that space (and time!) can bend. If there is no proof for it, how can people call it scientific? Because science is just a belief. Einstein was just kidding you know. It was supposed to be a joke.
So what is this verifiable proof; when who and how was it proved that the light bending around sun is a result of space bending regardless of the curve it takes (which itself is mysterious since noone has got into space to trace that curved path (which itself seems impossible since we too will be bend inside the space) ). Is this science or blind faith ? No matter what curve path is taken, whats makes us think its not the pulling of the light. BTW, what do we gain in terms of applications if light can be pulled ? Light propulsion ? or speeds faster than light ? Will someone talk to the point Damit.
I did disprove your point. Its because your off by a factor of 2. Your the one not sticking to the point with your last questions.
cosmology I read the cosmologystatement many times at http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ since I found it four months ago. Each time I read it I am with more tears with the thought why arxiv.org chose to receive fund from physics authority or other authority. It would be easy for it to get enough donation if it would choose to be an independent company. I understand that the creators of arxiv must be always under pressure!! The signers for the cosmology statement are over 500. The initial signers are 30 top physisists. At least 3 Nobel prize winners are the signers. But even they can not make much noise. How about we common ones. Compared to the long-term cause, the argument among us is minute. No hatred. Welcome peace!
Anyone wishing to have a massive overdose of Relativity may read Gravitation by Meissner/Thorne/Wheeler. It is the size of the Chicago Metro phone book and provides us with a vast amount of professional physicist's opinions about bent space. There are those among the most elite of professional physicists who have serious concerns about the validity of the concept of bent space, expressed in said book. My books work for their living. They sometimes have more dog ears than virgin pages. It will take some more time to find and provide authoritative quotes of dissent toward the concept of bent space. It is there, I will dig it up, and I will post it. Bent space is not a slam dunk.
I always keep forgetting that it is not MY job to do a moron's work for them. Damit: you can do your own homework and look it up in GRAVITATION and see your questions answered or you can remain ignorant. The choice is YOURS. I have an ignore button too. Right?
Spacetime is considered to be something akin to a fabric. Hence it's properties can be modeled using topology.
No, it is done. Your explanation is insane as its plain wrong by a factor of two and yet you still assert it.
If light is bent in a certain direction in "bended space" Since light always travels in straight line, Do u think it will emerge out in the same straight line no matter how warped up the space there was ?