DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**flienianO** · 08-01-2012, 11:47 PM

Wasn't it mathematically consistent with all the observations at the time, and it's descriptions of inertial movement a much better fit for the observations? I'm thinking of how it deals with free fall and acceleration type things.

But what observations were viewable and accessible at that time in 1905?
It certainly fitted in and merged with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism in all reference frames, and which were not evident in Newtonian mechanics.

And yet Einstein Planck and others were quick to doubt the predictions of GR some 11 years later....Einstein had great difficulty accepting gravitational completely collapsed objects or BH's, while again certain of the general nature of the Universe predicted by GR before any observational evidence was forthcoming as it was in 1919 with Arthur Eddington and the measurement of a stars position during an eclipse, showing warping space/time and the geodesic path of light from that star.

Just seems to be some inconsistency in all of it.
I suppose though know one is perfect.

08-01-2012, 11:47 PM	#10
flienianO Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 440 Senior Member	Wasn't it mathematically consistent with all the observations at the time, and it's descriptions of inertial movement a much better fit for the observations? I'm thinking of how it deals with free fall and acceleration type things. But what observations were viewable and accessible at that time in 1905? It certainly fitted in and merged with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism in all reference frames, and which were not evident in Newtonian mechanics. And yet Einstein Planck and others were quick to doubt the predictions of GR some 11 years later....Einstein had great difficulty accepting gravitational completely collapsed objects or BH's, while again certain of the general nature of the Universe predicted by GR before any observational evidence was forthcoming as it was in 1919 with Arthur Eddington and the measurement of a stars position during an eclipse, showing warping space/time and the geodesic path of light from that star. Just seems to be some inconsistency in all of it. I suppose though know one is perfect.
	Quote