Space-time curvature was able to explain a lot of observed phenomena without having to invoke extra theories. It also predicted effects, such as gravitational lensing, that we have tested and found to be true. This is without invoking extra theories. Therefore, if something is able to explain observed phenomena and make testable predictions that are verified by observations, why do we need to invoke a more complex scenario?
Also, if light is nothing but a wave, how do you explain the photoelectric effect and things like that?
Admit it, Angua - the whole “space-time curvature” thing is just something scientists came up with because they couldn’t be bothered to do any real research.
Also, you know evolutionary theory? Here’s why Darwin came up with it.
By acknowledging the wave-particle duality of photons. And before you start, it is a demonstrable effect. Now, you’re going to have to explain the photoelectric effect in terms of waves to me and how we have electron diffraction.
Damn! We’re busted! Yeah, actually, we just sorta sit around, drinking coffee, shooting the shit and making stuff up whilst totally off our heads on caffeine.
Einstein spent ten years working with mathematicians and physicists all over Europe to formulate General Relativity.
People didn’t buy it until they went out and did actual tests, during which they found out that its predictions worked better than any theory in history ever had.
But that wasn’t sufficient. Even if it worked for one set of tests, it might not work for others. So scientists went out and tested thousands upon thousands of natural events. And other scientists devised hundreds and hundreds of alternate theories to see if they could get the everlasting fame of besting Einstein.
A century passes. Genera Relativity has passed every test thrown at it, although it still can’t explain all the millions of mysteries in the universe. None of the other theories do quite as well as explaining everything, although some have advantages in small ways. An epic battle continues to rage in every scientific journal to come up with THE answer, the one that will give you the Nobel Prize.
And this is what you call scientists doing nothing?
And the reason you don’t accept General Relativity is because you want light to be a wave? Regardless of the fact that that has nothing to do with relativity, which doesn’t care if light is waves or particles or the real quantum wavicles that everybody today assumes it is? (And remember that Einstein won his Nobel Prize for proving the photoelectric effect, which requires that photons have a particle nature in certain experiments.)
How are we supposed to argue against a belief like this?
This will take sometime, because I’m watching Emmerdale Marathon (An English Soap Opera), but where do you need particles. The work of electrons can be converted to similar wave-energy.
Oh puh-lease. Put up already and quit with the excuses, this is just getting silly. You’re seriously now trying to argue that Einstein was totally wrong, that all our telescopes are flawed, and that a century of experiments is nothing but BS? :dubious:
I really cannot comprehend all your messages. I just say that you don’t need particles. I’m still watching my favourite program - in the meanwhile: ALL YOU NON-PARTICLE PEOPLE - stand up and let them hear your piece!
When your favorite program ends, try tackling this one.
Particles have a property called spin (formally fermionic intrinsic spin). They aren’t actually spinning, but the property is analogous to angular momentum, so we can call it that for convenience. They can have either a right-handed spin or a left-handed spin.
The weak force is known to affect only particles with left-handed spin. To quote Lisa Randall:
Much more easily than I can with waves, actually. A light source emits a bunch of photons, in many different directions. If I have a screen of a certain size a certain distance away from the light source, I’ll intercept some of those photons. If I move the screen further away, I’ll intercept fewer of them. If you calculate out just how many photons I’ll intercept, you’ll find that the number is proportional to the inverse square of the distance.
So you’re saying that because electrons have wave-particle duality, it makes perfect sense to assume that photons don’t?
Actually I was waiting this (from Angua, though). If you have a bunch of photons, how can they go everywhere. If you are talking in numbers, there are places where the photons go , and so there must be a place where the photon do not go - that is the law with numbers. Can you distinguish the places where these photons don’t go? Are there places with no light at all?
Forget light - SOUND is only a wave? The phenomenon that requires a medium consisting of vibrating atoms and is transmitted by atoms bumping into each other? THAT sound?
You seem to think that it’s all or nothing - a particle OR a wave. If so, ISM that your understanding of such things is limited (possibly by choice, i.e. repudiating all that doesn’t fit in with your Weltanschauung).
