Refutal of General Relativity, one of the simplest

[questfortruth]

Steps are simple:

1. Matter curves space creating gravity.
2. The matter in the gravitational anomaly called "Dark Matter" is not found (no Dark Matter particle detection in underground Dark Matter detectors).

Conclusion: Einstein is wrong.

 

[`mud]

They're all finding space for their dimensions !

 

[`mud]

Some are trying to find the edge, some are trying to find the center.

 

[`mud]

These scientists don't seem to realize that there are `corners` in the Cosmos !
They haven't found the `steering wheel` !

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Steps are simple:

1. Matter curves space creating gravity.
2. The matter in the gravitational anomaly called "Dark Matter" is not found (no Dark Matter particle detection in underground Dark Matter detectors).

Conclusion: Einstein is wrong.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from what came before it. I don't see an argument against Einstein's theories here.

And so what if it can be shown that Einstein was wrong? If new evidence arises that is not explained by the existing theory, it is modified to reflect the new discovery. The evidence that existed before the new finding doesn't go away. It merely needs to be explained in the light of the new knowledge.

Again, what is your point? To demonstrate how science has to adapt to the existing evidence? That's one of its strengths.

As an aside, I was going to tell you that there is no word refutal - that it's rebuttal or refutation - until I Googled the word and found that you were right as well, so thanks for that.

 

[exchemist]

Steps are simple:

1. Matter curves space creating gravity.
2. The matter in the gravitational anomaly called "Dark Matter" is not found (no Dark Matter particle detection in underground Dark Matter detectors).

Conclusion: Einstein is wrong.

By your logic Newton is wrong too, then.

The galaxies behave as if there is extra gravitation, beyond that due to the mass estimated by counting the stars, i.e. the luminous matter.

It does not make any difference whether you use the GR model of gravitation or Newton's earlier model, the discrepancy is there either way.

Which is why we think there is what we call "dark matter" present.

Whether or not we have any model of physics to explain what this "dark matter" may be is neither here nor there. The gravitational effect can be observed, so it is real.

 

[ratiocinator]

Steps are simple:

1. Matter curves space creating gravity.
2. The matter in the gravitational anomaly called "Dark Matter" is not found (no Dark Matter particle detection in underground Dark Matter detectors).

Conclusion: Einstein is wrong.

First of all this is either a plain non-sequitur, or you're attempting an argument from ignorance (we can't prove that dark matter exists, therefore it doesn't).

Einstein's theory is almost certainly "wrong" in the sense that it's probably an approximation to a combined theory with quantum field theory (just as Newton's theory was an approximation to Einstein's), but dark matter may well have nothing at all to do with that.

The fact that we can map where dark matter is and there seem to be galaxies without any, suggests that it isn't a general problem with the current theory of gravity.

 

[icehorse]

Steps are simple:

1. Matter curves space creating gravity.
2. The matter in the gravitational anomaly called "Dark Matter" is not found (no Dark Matter particle detection in underground Dark Matter detectors).

Conclusion: Einstein is wrong.

I think that from the scientific perspective we would say "not found yet"

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Steps are simple:

1. Matter curves space creating gravity.
2. The matter in the gravitational anomaly called "Dark Matter" is not found (no Dark Matter particle detection in underground Dark Matter detectors).

Conclusion: Einstein is wrong.

Wow, I'm impressed. You should claim your Nobel Prize.

 

[questfortruth]

By your logic Newton is wrong too, then.

It should be your logic too.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from what came before it. I don't see an argument against Einstein's theories here.

And so what if it can be shown that Einstein was wrong? If new evidence arises that is not explained by the existing theory, it is modified to reflect the new discovery. The evidence that existed before the new finding doesn't go away. It merely needs to be explained in the light of the new knowledge.

Again, what is your point? To demonstrate how science has to adapt to the existing evidence? That's one of its strengths.

As an aside, I was going to tell you that there is no word refutal - that it's rebuttal or refutation - until I Googled the word and found that you were right as well, so thanks for that.

Hey, they've got to be right about SOMETHING every now and again. Too bad it's never anything right concerning how science works.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Steps are simple:

1. Matter curves space creating gravity.
2. The matter in the gravitational anomaly called "Dark Matter" is not found (no Dark Matter particle detection in underground Dark Matter detectors).

Conclusion: Einstein is wrong.

Oh my, yet ANOTHER poster on this Website who uses a computing device that ONLY exists because the scientific method enabled us to figure out how electrons work who doesn't believe in the scientific method. It's sad and an example of how people pathetically live in self-induced ignorance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Steps are simple:

1. Matter curves space creating gravity.
2. The matter in the gravitational anomaly called "Dark Matter" is not found (no Dark Matter particle detection in underground Dark Matter detectors).

Conclusion: Einstein is wrong.

I think you would have more fun -- and benefit yourself a whole lot more -- by simply going and taking some actual courses. There are tons of free ones online you could look for.

 

[shunyadragon]

It should be your logic too.

your argument is neither logical nor rational. It is simply a disjoint statemnt as a misuse of science to justify your agenda which is confusing at best.