I'm aware of the (few) true confirmed predictions of relativity. SR gets speed based clock slowing half right (the half wrong shows the theory is wrong). GR gets clock slowing based on distance from Earth right, but fails to properly explain gravity near earth.
Conceptually and physically it is a complete mess. Saying something naturally falls (faster and faster) due to "curved space time" is the height of "trusting the science". Curved space time is an undefined and unknown dark energy or material. It magically acts on objects without applying any force. It both is and isn't. That's nonsense of course, and that nonsense is exposed by explanations like this one.
“Curved spacetime” is the allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity. I intrinsically distrust classical relativity theory simply because it was presented by a confirmed plagiarist, but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity
Nicely put. Since we are compartmentalized (not infinitely seeing) we make up shit beyond our veil to affirm our "understanding" of reality. One of the tell tale signs is mixing notions of "curve" and "straight", or even worse fusing concepts that are exclusive such as "space" and "time".
but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
The italicised word "appear" is important. It can't be denied, but can it be really "confirmed"? The act of forcing a conclusion is a mental deconstruction, and is really a pre-cursor to getting someone to believe in even more stupid shit.
I’m totally open to “relativity” being a farce and a new framework being put in place to describe observations over distance at speeds above 0.14c. I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally, not to subscribe to a specific interpretation like ‘relativity.’
Hell, we still don’t have a grand unified theory. If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally,
I did notice that, and appreciated. Being careful to say "no more than we should" is the only way to untangle the damage done by sorcerers. I can see you walk the line ... it's hard to stay on it for sure.
If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
This nails the reason why "good" scientist refer to it as a "theory" and "bad" scientists refer to it as "true". It's a tough walk, because nowhere in the journy really feels satisfying.
I'm aware of the (few) true confirmed predictions of relativity. SR gets speed based clock slowing half right (the half wrong shows the theory is wrong). GR gets clock slowing based on distance from Earth right, but fails to properly explain gravity near earth.
Conceptually and physically it is a complete mess. Saying something naturally falls (faster and faster) due to "curved space time" is the height of "trusting the science". Curved space time is an undefined and unknown dark energy or material. It magically acts on objects without applying any force. It both is and isn't. That's nonsense of course, and that nonsense is exposed by explanations like this one.
“Curved spacetime” is the allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity. I intrinsically distrust classical relativity theory simply because it was presented by a confirmed plagiarist, but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
Nicely put. Since we are compartmentalized (not infinitely seeing) we make up shit beyond our veil to affirm our "understanding" of reality. One of the tell tale signs is mixing notions of "curve" and "straight", or even worse fusing concepts that are exclusive such as "space" and "time".
The italicised word "appear" is important. It can't be denied, but can it be really "confirmed"? The act of forcing a conclusion is a mental deconstruction, and is really a pre-cursor to getting someone to believe in even more stupid shit.
I’m totally open to “relativity” being a farce and a new framework being put in place to describe observations over distance at speeds above 0.14c. I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally, not to subscribe to a specific interpretation like ‘relativity.’
Hell, we still don’t have a grand unified theory. If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
I did notice that, and appreciated. Being careful to say "no more than we should" is the only way to untangle the damage done by sorcerers. I can see you walk the line ... it's hard to stay on it for sure.
This nails the reason why "good" scientist refer to it as a "theory" and "bad" scientists refer to it as "true". It's a tough walk, because nowhere in the journy really feels satisfying.