Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:46:36 GMT

"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fh85o0lnj2qcee6d8hio5uaiuc3sq6q3or@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:52:41 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
> wrote:
>
> >vonroach wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:28:07 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>So the "loss" here is in people's conceptual models of the world, not
> >>>anything related to Nature.
> >>
> >> All the contacts we have with `nature' are conceptual models. They are
> >> regularly proven wrong and exchanged for new `conceptual models'.
> >
> >Well, OK. There are nuanced differences in what we each meant by
> >"conceptual model". No matter. All that has happened is that one
> >conceptual model (Newtonian mechanics) that contains global conservation
> >laws has been replaced by GR, which contains only local conservation
> >laws. But these local laws are indistinguishable from the old global
> >laws for all cases they have been examined, AFAIK, except for the binary
> >pulsar data. That data agrees with GR, not NM (Hulse and Taylor received
> >a Nobel Prize for that work).
> >
> > [Yes, I'm oversimplifying. But I'm not omitting anything
> > essential to _this_ discussion.]
> >
> >
> >What I was trying to say is that the global conservation laws have an
> >intellectual appeal to humans, but such an appeal is irrelevant in
> >formulating models of Nature.
> >
> >
> >Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
>
> So we formulate our `conceptual models' with the naive assumptions
> that the underlying basis for our `model' has existed since time = 0
> until the present and into the eternity of the future. Only the brave
> speculate about 0 - 10^ -43 sec.

So we have brave souls in physics - why is that bad?

> Do you have a conceptual model for
> that period of time?

Maybe - see http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html.

> Always conserved (as far as known) : momentum and
> energy, angular momentum, electric charge/color/weak isospin, baryon
> number, lepton number, and a few other quantum statistics. And we
> confidently award a prize for the negative vacuum energy that we know
> little about, other than it is allegedly accelerating our slow (in our
> frame of reference) fade to black.

Yea because it solves a number of puzzells eg from the above link

'While it may be too early to say that inflation is proved, I claim that the
case for inflation is compelling. It is hard to even conceive of an
alternative theory that could explain the basic features of the observed
Universe. Not only does inflation produce just the kind of special bang that
matches the observed Universe, but quantum fluctuations during inflation
could have produced nonuniformities which served as the seeds of cosmic
structure. These nonuniformities can be observed directly in the cosmic
background radiation, with an amplitude of about one part in 100,000. So far
the measurements of the spectrum have been beautifully consistent with the
predictions of inflation, although it must be admitted that nonuniformities
created by cosmic strings are also consistent with the observations. Cosmic
strings, however, cannot explain the large-scale homogeneity or the flatness
of the Universe.'

Of course that is not he work Hulse and Taylor received Nobel Prize for.

> Hulse and Taylor received
> >a Nobel Prize for that work).

>We even conceptualize chaos as
> orderly disorder.

Have not heard that one before.

> A wrinkled space and accordion unidirectional time
> cones, confident that the speed of electromagnetic radiations is a
> constant limit.

We are not 100% confident of that at all - but what really going on is
probably beyond your ken.

> 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.

>
> 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?

Bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal
    ... >>laws has been replaced by GR, which contains only local conservation ... 'While it may be too early to say that inflation is proved, ... Of course that is not he work Hulse and Taylor received Nobel Prize for. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal
    ... >>laws has been replaced by GR, which contains only local conservation ... 'While it may be too early to say that inflation is proved, ... Of course that is not he work Hulse and Taylor received Nobel Prize for. ...
    (sci.math)