The Theory of General Relativity Is Valid

I am going to cover the two issues my opponent brings up at the beginning of his argument first before I refute my opponent's three arguments themselves. Clarifying Misconceptions I understand that science constantly changes and that no theory is set in stone because of science's nature of falsification, and what we learn after we make a theory. The resolution states that the theory of general relativity is valid, which I defined to be, "Having some foundation; based on truth. " In other words, I am not arguing that general relativity is the last word on the subject, nor am I arguing that it is completely true and will always be true. I am simply arguing that, from what we currently know and the affirmed predictions of general relativity, that the theory is valid. The other thing I will address is his new definitions. If you read them, and then compare then two the definitions I gave of special and general relativity, the two are the same. I mentioned special relativity has two postulates - the consistent laws of nature for inertial reference frames, and the constant speed of light. I defined general relativity to be a description of how gravity works by matter warping the spacetime fabric. Notice how this is the same as what I said in my first argument, and is the same as what my opponent has defined them as. I'm not sure why my opponent felt the need to define both theories again. Refuting Counterarguments My opponent makes three separate arguments against the resolution that I will refute individually. Orion Trapezium Cluster After giving the video my opponent presents a listen, I honestly can not help but say outright that this argument is incredibly stupid. Even assuming that the two mirror each other (when you look at the picture, you see that it doesn't really), there are still a number of questions my opponent has left unanswered. One, what mechanism causes the Orion Nebula to mirror the Nile? Two, why is it only in the Orion Nebula and only the Nile (the sheer size of the universe, again assuming the pictures showed mirroring, makes a coincidence almost certain)? And three, the Nile has changed little over the past 100 years, so the "mirror" may mirror the Nile as it was 1300 years ago. But again, these are all assuming that the "mirror" exists, which, judging by the picture, doesn't. There has been no scientific research on the topic. My opponent's only evidence is a conspiracy theorist from a conspiracy website. There is no credibility at all. For my opponent to even attempt to salvage his point here, he needs to address all of these glaring holes in his argument. Event Horizon of a Black Hole Before I begin rebutting this claim, I would like to point out that my opponent's argument here is still a hypothesis, and is nowhere near refuting the idea of the event horizon. A lack of X-ray bursts in black hole candidates points toward the need for an event horizon for black holes, "A type of X-ray explosion found on neutron stars does not occur near black holes, scientists announced here today. The lack of explosions is strong evidence for the existence of a black hole event horizon. ""They must then have event horizons. Though not yet strong enough to qualify as proof, this line of reasoning must surely be considered compelling evidence for the reality of the event horizon. "[1][2] Even so, eliminating the event horizon does not disprove the entire concept of general relativity anyway. Hawking's own solution points to a reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity, "Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact, but black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist. " Assuming that this hypothesis is valid, it, by no means, makes general relativity invalid, as it offers a compromise between the two initially competing theories. [3] Neutrinos This experiment has been disproved several times. In fact, the major coordinators of the experiment resigned in the face of extreme hostility. As it turned out, "A link from a GPS receiver to the OPERA master clock was loose, which increased the delay through the fiber. The glitch's effect was to decrease the reported flight time of the neutrinos by 73 ns, making them seem faster than light. " Notice the glitch was larger than the supposed violation of the speed of light, making the problem null. [4][5] Experiments after the fact have determined on four separate occcasion that neutrinos travel very close to the speed of light and not over it. "Gran Sasso houses four particle detectors capable of timing neutrinos fired from CERN: OPERA, ICARUS, BOREXINO, and LVD. All four have now found that the neutrino's speed is consistent with the speed of light, as Sergio Bertolucci, research director at CERN, reported at the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto, Japan. " Other experiments have been conducted elsewhere that have arrived at the same conclusions. [6] Overall, this finding was the result of an over-exuberant group of researchers who wanted fame without checking for possible other explanations for the result. This experiment does not violate the theory of special relativity's second postulate. Sources [1]: . http://www.space.com... [2]: . http://arxiv.org... [3]: . http://www.nature.com... [4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]: . http://www.sciencemag.org... [6]: . http://news.sciencemag.org...