[Outcast (OP)]

Einstein could discover no mechanism for gravity's influence across space...
So he theorized that matter warps space...and provided no mechanism whereby matter does this.
I don't see this as a good answer.

[alancalverd]

It's the best we had, until the discovery of gravity waves. Still no evidence of a particle, but you are welcome to join the search.

[geordief]

It's the best we had, until the discovery of gravity waves. Still no evidence of a particle, but you are welcome to join the search.

I thought Einstein predicted gravitational waves...just thought we would never detect them.

[Outcast (OP)]

I thought Einstein predicted gravitational waves...just thought we would never detect them.

An argument can always be made that that which can't be detected doesn't exist.

[Outcast (OP)]

It's the best we had, until the discovery of gravity waves. Still no evidence of a particle, but you are welcome to join the search.

I never thought "the laws of physics permit it" was a strong argument. The laws of physics permit square turds...that's not a compelling reason for me to squander my brief flicker of a lifespan searching for square azzholes...LOL

[Bored chemist]

I thought Einstein predicted gravitational waves...just thought we would never detect them.

An argument can always be made that that which can't be detected doesn't exist.

An argument can be made for that which can't be detected, even in principle, doesn't exist
But you can't make an argument that "because we are too clumsy to find it, it doesn't exist"

[alancalverd]

And now we have detected the waves. It's still an odd force that doesn't seem to have a complement, but it seems I'm not alone in postulating negative mass particles, so there's still hope.

In fact the laws of physics do not allow square turds, as any physicist can tell you.

How you squander your life is entirely your concern, but criticising a dead genius for his honesty certainly wouldn't appeal to me as a pastime.   

[Kryptid]

An argument can always be made that that which can't be detected doesn't exist.

We have detected gravitational waves many times over by now, so that's not an issue.

[Outcast (OP)]

How you squander your life is entirely your concern, but criticising a dead genius for his honesty certainly wouldn't appeal to me as a pastime.   

Einstein's theories criticized a multitude of dead geniuses that came before him...I'm sure a few were honest...

[Kryptid]

The laws of physics permit square turds...that's not a compelling reason for me to squander my brief flicker of a lifespan searching for square azzholes...LOL

[Petrochemicals]

Quote

Einstein could discover no mechanism for gravity's influence across space...
So he theorized that matter warps space...and provided no mechanism whereby matter does this.
I don't see this as a good answer.

The problem is science fanzies who hold einstein up as some sort of prophet. Newton was not alone in his time either and it did spring from nowhere. The incandessant vacuum tungsten lightbulb was invented simultaneously, just on the back of others.  einstein was however not bad at science.

[alancalverd]

In fact Einstein stands out as possibly the only experimentally proven prophet. Others (including Newton) have explained existing observations or had the temerity to question Aristotle's logic, but relativity theory has accurately predicted a whole bunch of stuff, from gravitational lensing to the hydrogen bomb, that had never been seen or even sought previously.

Love the wombat poo. Yes, folks, there's nothing too weird or trivial for this forum! Interestingly, though, whilst their turds are isosymmetric with cubes (evolution?) , they do not (cannot) have sharp edges (biophysics).

[Janus]

Einstein could discover no mechanism for gravity's influence across space...
So he theorized that matter warps space...and provided no mechanism whereby matter does this.
I don't see this as a good answer.

This comment is worth 10 points on the "Crackpot Index":
"17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". "

[Outcast (OP)]

This comment is worth 10 points on the "Crackpot Index":"17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". "

Newton had a current well-established theory that predicted phenomena very accurately for a long time. Was Einstein a crackpot when he argued that wasn't enough?

[Janus]

This comment is worth 10 points on the "Crackpot Index":"17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". "

Newton had a current well-established theory that predicted phenomena very accurately for a long time. Was Einstein a crackpot when he argued that wasn't enough?

The reason It "wasn't enough" was that there were already "chinks' showing up in Newton's Theories by the time Einstein began to formulate his theory. Einstein didn't start working on his theory because he didn't think Newton didn't provide a mechanism, but  because issues had been arisen in Physics that needed answers.   Newton's physics couldn't account for Mercury's extra precession, for example.
 Einstein wasn't the first or only person to to address these issues,  But he was the first one come up with a complete theory capable of dealing with them.   

[alancalverd]

Newtonian mechanics doesn't address "why" - or even "how", or provide a "mechanism".  It does give adequately predictive formulae for the motion of mesoscopic objects but we still don't know why massive bodies attract each other, or, if you prefer, always warp spacetime in the same sense. 

[geordief]

we still don't know why massive bodies attract each other, or, if you prefer, always warp spacetime in the same sense

Is it a good starting off point to take it as axiomatic that the "natural" relationship between relative  space measurements and time measurements   is variable ?

Would that take us any further towards detecting the actual mechanism(s?) that caused changes in that variability?

To the OP I think it was probably in Einstein's character to kick the can down the road and continue running after it.

[Outcast (OP)]

The reason It "wasn't enough" was that there were already "chinks' showing up in Newton's Theories by the time Einstein began to formulate his theory.

Do you recognize any "chinks" in Einstein's theories?

[Outcast (OP)]

To the OP I think it was probably in Einstein's character to kick the can down the road and continue running after it.

I concur...he was still working on it on his deathbed.

[alancalverd]

Einstein thought he recognised a few, but the experimental results seem to hold up so far. 

It's all firmly grounded on the axioms that c is constant and all motion is relative. The first axiom derives from Maxwell who showed that there are no variables or unknowns in the  propagation of electromagnetic radiation in vacuo, the second is supported by the absence of any universal reference frame that we can detect. So you go on to develop the fundamental equations of physics, discover that things aren't quite linear as v → c or g > 0, and carry out the experiments that, to nobody's surprise, yield the predicted result to an exceptional degree of accuracy.

If there are chinks in the theory, they will be revealed by experimental anomaly. No good evidence to date.