Quote:
|
Instead of making vague generalizations based on perceptions instead of facts why don't you demonstrate where the current science is wrong.
|
Facts? like empirical ones? I did, I've listed some empirical failures above.
Quote:
|
For example show me the logical inconsistencies in the GR theory of gravitational waves, since by your definition they don't exist hence the theory must be wrong.
|
I'm cool with empirical science... How bout you show me they do exist in reality.
I have no doubt mathematics can describe them... I'm more interested in reality tho.
Quote:
|
Dark energy and dark matter are based on observations.
|
Dark energy and dark matter are mathematical descriptions of how far off empirical reality is from fitting the mathematical model we call standard.
How far off? well thats the definition of DM and DE
BBC Documentary - Even the cosmologists admit this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge6RjTgyLr0
You've got no idea what Dark Matter "IS" same with Dark Energy, the best empirical evidence we have to date is high definition measurements of 'nothing'.
It's misleading to say it "exists" in reality.
Quote:
|
What has the Eddington sun observations on the gravitational bending of light got anything to do gravitational wave experiments?
|
The verification of GR theory predictions. I was making the point that computers, lasers, highly accurate observational techniques were simply not around when the trophy of GR was held up.