[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"You'll have to work on your logic. Taking claims from 2 groups in conflict and forming a logical construct from their contradictory claims, as if they were one person is not an example of "begging the question". The act is irrational though."

Respectfully, that's actually not what I said. Please see my post 950 to clear this up.

"At this point in the history of the theory, the Correspondence principle applies. That says that any new theory must contain the old as a limiting example. Tossing out "fallible" is pointless. Evolution ain't going down."

Please refer to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for an opposing viewpoint.

"Well, here's one you're claiming. For your information the Newtonian theory of gravity is correct. It is a limiting case of the more general theory in the limit of small local energy density.".

Please refer to my post #483; wherein I said:

"Newton's law obviously wasn't actually proven -- just as no theory can actually be proven. It was, however, disproven. (Actually, many argue that it is still valid as a special case -- it is still useful for ordinary purposes here on earth.)"

It's not that we don't have relativistic effects on Earth -- it's just that for most practical purposes (e.g. calculating the trajectory of a bullet), Newton's formulae work just fine, and are much easier to work with. However, if took the trouble to measure things very, very carefully, you would see that there is a discrepancy.

BTW -- it seems that newer theories of gravitation are emerging. See:

"http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html"

(I'm not claiming to understand this -- It's pretty far out -- but, then again so was Newton's stuff in his day.)

[spunkets]

Re:""At this point in the history of the theory, the Correspondence principle applies. That says that any new theory must contain the old as a limiting example. Tossing out "fallible" is pointless. Evolution ain't going down.""

" Please refer to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for an opposing viewpoint."

Kuhn's book is philosophy and social science. It is not a science book. Once DNA was established as the fundamental mechanism for genetics, the theory of evolution was established as bedrock. The theory went from one with weak evidence at the time of Darwin to strong evidence before Watson and Crick. Once you have such a complete theory, it stays.

" Please refer to my post #483; wherein I said:
"Newton's law obviously ... was, however, disproven.

You are mistaken. As I said, Newton's law applies to any region of space were the energy density is sufficiently low. That means when you attempt calculations in GR and the local energy density is low enough, one can drop negligable terms. The same applies to QM in the classical limit.

"Actually, many argue that it is still valid as a special case -- it is still useful for ordinary purposes here on earth."

Not many, any scientist that understands GR does this, because Newton's law is the limit of GR at low energy density, just as Euclidian space is the limit of the hyperbolic space of SR at low velocity.

"it seems that newer theories of gravitation are emerging. "

Thanks for the link. I scanned it. All objects and interactions can be observed from a bounding surface.

GR is complete as it stands, just as Newton's theory was. Any new theory can not change GR. GR must be contained within it. In the case of the "new" theories, the simplest are the deSitter(dS) and antideSitter(AdS) spaces of 5 dimensions, our 4d and one more time_d. They contain all simple string theories. dS space is flat in 5d, and AdS is curved. Regardless of which particular one is correct, all theories that exist now, for our 4d world will survive. That includes the Standard Model.