Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In time
In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote: We have damn-all direct evidence of general relativity at high space- time stresses, or even that the red shift is due to recession I disagree with the position that there is a bright line between observation and inference, Eh? I never claimed there was one. I was drawing a (blurred) distinction between direct and indirect evidence - where the former rests on a basis of only theories themselves established by direct evidence, culminating in actual measurements. but I presume that you consider the various standard candle techniques, the correlation between luminosity and redshift, and the variation of galaxy morphology with redshift to be indirect evidence. Of course, because they are. Would the light echo of SN 1987A be the greatest distance that you accept as directly measured? I would need to study the paper in detail, to see whether it relies on any so-far-unproven hypotheses. This is off-group, so will be my penultimate post. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|