Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/02/04
- Next message: futureworlds: "*ATTN*: Moderate (reasonable) Democrats . . . ."
- Previous message: Peter J Ross: "Re: digest 2453311"
- In reply to: vonroach: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Next in thread: vonroach: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Reply: vonroach: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:43:38 GMT
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qa4fo01o9dr0ca6gdobfj32edh25jfk22g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:43:08 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:ghabo0pcoiockknakni70upaoaate86qn7@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:46:36 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It is hard to even conceive of an
> >> >alternative theory that could explain the basic features of the
observed
> >> >Universe.
> >>
> >> Do my ears deceive me? You sound like a contemporary of Newton.
> >
> >First I am not the one who wrote that. But if you doubt it then detail
your
> >alternative.
> >
> Chuckle..., new theories concerning the origin and nature of the
> Universe jump up as thick as fleas on a junkyard dog.
So? - the scientific method makes no demand that theories must be unique -
any theory is valid as long as it is in accord with experiment - eg their is
no way to tell the difference between LET and SR. If you don not like it -
tough luck - maybe science is not for you.
>
> >> >We are not 100% confident of that at all - but what really going on is
> >> >probably beyond your ken.
> >>
> >> Is that the best you can do?
> >
> >Just in case I am wrong here is the detail. The POR gives the Lorentz
> >transformations up to an undetermined constant whose value must be found
> >from experiment. That value is found to be the speed of light to a very
> >high degree of accuracy. But it is possible for light to have a very
small
> >mass so it strictly is not the same speed in all inertial frames. If
that
> >was true it would in no way change the fact that such a speed exists and
is
> >finite which is basically what SR is about - see
> >ttp://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf and the
section
> >on relativity without c
> >
> Speed of light outside an imagined vacuum is not all that constant.
Which is irrelevant because SR says to the best experimental accuracy we
currently have the speed of light tin a vacuum is constant. Since we do not
have a perfect vacuum to test but that is par part the process of
abstraction - something I suspect you have a bit of difficulty with.
> Wonder what it might be in a black hole or at a singularity? Also it
> can be measured by physical experiments. Gravity, gravity waves, the
> graviton, and quantum gravity - all remain `concepts'.
It has been pointed out to you gravity waves are now a bit more than a
concept.
> All except the
> acceleration produced by the force of gravity acting on a real mass,
> which has been elegantly measured and described in relatively simple
> experiments that anyone can perform and compare their results. If you
> choose to view that force as a distortion of space, the results still
> hold. Elegant mathematical concepts can't always be closely applied to
> reality. The fact that the equations balance is nice but irrelevant
> to reality.
> I assume that your comment applies to all electromagnetic waves from
> radio to cosmic (and beyond if they exist).
Please point me to the experiment that has definitely disproved GR? Can not
do that - then it stands a as valid theory - simple as that. Your
philosophical meanderings notwithstanding.
> >> >
> >> >> Sounds closer to hubris than intellectual appeal. I
> >> >> tend to be a bit cynical.
> >> >
> >> >Your cynicism is fine - simply do not confuse it with science.
> >> >
> >> It is the essence of science.
> >
> >Not really - correspondence with experiment is.
> >
> True experiments that give consistent results when other perform them.
> Not to be confused with `Gedanken experiments' carried on in the inner
> recesses of one's cave.
Since when has any legitimate scientists confused the two?
> >>
> >> >> IMHO, even our invented language of mathematics has more
`intellectual
> >> >> appeal' than the above melange of assumptions that appear to have
> >> >> worked for the anecdotal period of a few hundred years in vicinity
of
> >> >> a small star.
> >> >>
> >> >> But carry on, it gives you something to do while DNA plays out its
> >> >> game.
> >> >
> >> >It is obvious the above poster understands nothing or at the most
little
> >> >about science. His philosophical evaluation of a theories foundations
> >are
> >> >irrelevant - what is relevant is correspondence with experiment. Now
I
> >> >wonder if he has any concerns on those grounds?
> >> >
> >> Billy, I wasn't aware that any experiments had successfully found any
> >> definite evidence of gravitons, gravity waves, or energy strings
> >> beyond `mathematical conceptual models'.
> >
> >Vonroachy (you don't mind if I call you Vonroachy do you - Billy is fine
by
> >me) science does not require direct experimental confirmation of every
> >prediction or assumption of a theory. We however do have evidence for
> >gravity waves.
>
> You practice an artful `science' but not a true scientific science.
More philosophical mumbo jumbo.
> These `gravity waves' must be your own cherished property. The tiny
> polished balls in space and the long terrestrial tubes have had less
> success. The ancient variety has had considerable success in guiding
> people to space and on to the Moon and back.
> It has also aided many generations of engineers in their constructive
> efforts even such trivial pursuits as amusement park rides.
> It has also made possible to a satisfactory degree of precision for
> our needs, our mapping of the cosmos.
Your point being?
>
> >> I don't even know if there is
> >> a way to prove these `concepts' wrong.
> >
> >Sure there is - simply find an experiment that is in disagreement with
> >theories that predict or assume them.
>
> OK. I predict and assume that they are erroneous concepts incorrectly
> applying mathematical concepts to reality. Now ball is back in your
> court . Please furnish evidence that I am wrong.
Please provide the detail for such - now the ball is in your court. It is
like the old joke about the guy who says to someone 'Have you stopped
beating your wife yet'. The tacit assumption is he is doing it in the first
place - and the answer is exactly the same - what evidence do you have that
I am doing it?
>
> >> Then there is a horizon beyond
> >> which we cannot see with the most powerful telescopes arrayed in
> >> space. The light had not disengaged and the Universe was dark. A
> >> `philosopher' might say this destroys the credibility of these
> >> concepts beyond mathematical curiosities.
> >
> >Philosophers ask many things - a lot of which science can not answer -
see
> >http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm.
> >
> Scientist ask many things - a lot of which scientists or science can
> not answer.
So?
> Meta physicists ask many questions that metaphysics can
> not answer. And relativists and quantum mechanics ask a lot of
> questions that the theories don't answer. Homo sapiens has been asking
> a lot of `things' for a long, long time that they still can not
> answer.
But it is only people like you that want to view it as some kind of problem.
>
> >> I can see that my reference to human destiny on this speck of rock was
> >> a bit over your head.
> >
> >Sure is - like a lot of philosphiocal rot is eg the following rubbish by
> >Hegel:
> >
> >'All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he
> >possesses only through the State... For Truth is the unity of the
universal
> >and subjective will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in
its
> >laws, its universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine
Idea
> >as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of history in
a
> >more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains
objectivity.
> >For Law is the objectivity of the Spirit'
>
> Then I take it that you are unfamiliar with the false `logic ' of the
> dialectic, which claims it is a science and socialism or communism
> (from a practical standpoint - tyranny) is its aim.
Science is based on correspondence with experiment - philosophical mumbo
jumbo is based on semantic motivated ramblings that people try and make
sense of. This was one of the great discoveries of Wittgenstein -
http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/ten.html and note its conclusion -
'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' A lot of
philosophical writing, especially by people like Hegel, is in that category.
Basically what they do is try an mix concepts that are really incompatible.
They ask and try to answer questions like the meaning of life without even
asking is the concept of 'meaning' and 'life' compatible in the first place.
But if such questions are your primary focus (and from your writings they
seem to be) then may I suggest a science forum is not the place to discuss
them. I post from sci.physics.relativity and while the philosophy of
relativity is on topic general philosophical questions are not.
Bill
> >
> >Bill
> >
> Vonroachy
- Next message: futureworlds: "*ATTN*: Moderate (reasonable) Democrats . . . ."
- Previous message: Peter J Ross: "Re: digest 2453311"
- In reply to: vonroach: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Next in thread: vonroach: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Reply: vonroach: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
