Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal

From: vonroach (hadrainc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:11:45 GMT

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:01:35 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:

>
>"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:8todo099nf6qj1afor22n9h4qvj5cu3m02@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:00:07 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >vonroach wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:11:26 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>Hulse and Taylor's observations of binary pulsars show evidence of the
>> >>>emission of gravitational radiation.
>> >>
>> >> Then they should take their time and collect enough evidence for
>> >> others to examine. And their findings should be confirmed by others.
>> >> Have the waves been precisely measured and documented for other to
>> >> see?
>>
>> Perhaps like Newton and later Einstein, they think they have explained
>> `gravity'. `Gravitational radiation' - ROFLMAO.
>
>Whatever makes you think science explains anything? All science has is
>theories in accord with experiment - in physics those theories are usually
>mathematical models. If one thinks science explains anything, describes
>reality (whatever realty is), or any of the other philosophical positions
>one sees trotted out regarding it is of any real relevance, then they are
>mistaken.
>
I always imagined that Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Maxwell, Einstein,
Planck, et al, imagined that they had explained how many things
encountered in reality were as they were. Perhaps you confuse
explanations for answering the question `WHY?'. `Mathematical models'
are only explanations expressed in the language of mathematics, not
spoken by all, They are irrelevant to reality, otherwise.

>> >They have. See the literature. This is how science works.
>> >
>> >
>> >> It would be quite strange if this is the only evidence of this
>> >> ubiquitous force.
>> >
>> > [Gravitational waves are definitely not a "force". In fact,
>> > in GR even gravitation itself is not a "force" (it is
>> > merely the geometric properties of themanifold).]
>>
>> Einstein never succeeded in working gravity into GR .
>
>You are joking right? GR is a theory about gravity - specifically it says
>gravity is space-time curvature.
>
And that is one way of looking at the phenomenon. Even time may be
superfluous in this view.
Often the forgetful scientists include it as one of four fundamental
forces. The spacial explanation tends to come apart in the quantum
realm. Science doesn;t know much about `space' smaller than Planck
space. And quantum gravity is also obscure.

>> Until I see
>> evidence I will continue to regard it as a force capable of
>> accelerating a mass. Actually a rather tiny force.
>
>You will find evidence in any book on GR eg
>http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter2.pdf.

Ever mesmerized by the printed page. Many foresaw this result from
the invention of the printing press.
>>
>> >Not necessarily, as gravitational waves have proven to be extremely
>> >elusive to detect. There are several heroic experiments looking to
>> >detect them right now -- look up LIGO and VIRGO....
>> >
>> I'm ahead of you there - now tell me where to find their results to
>> date.
>>
>> Then tie dark matter, vacuum energy, and a few other little loose odds
>> and ends into your theory - recall we only have passing familiarity
>> with about 5% of the Universe. Our senses are only equipped to detect
>> what our ancestors needed to survive. Perhaps a bacterium with only
>> chemotaxis `knows' more than we do - they are certainly more
>> adaptable.
>
>Now tell me where in the scientific method it claims to give the answer to
>everything? - indeed where does it claim anything other than having theories
>in accord with experiment?

In your books and other delving into science, you haven't encountered
the quest for the elusive `grand theory of everything'?

>Bill
>
>> >
>> >Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
>>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? ... "The Einstein Hoax", and its related texts, were written because ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
    ... common-sense evaluation of my Einstein disproofs. ... Harrell, a mathematician, heads the science department at GT. ... wholly unqualified to head any department of trust at any university. ... Math can be the proof or it can be the solution. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
    ... to even the possibility that Einstein has been disproved. ... If there is one area of physics at which I excel, ... education whatsoever! ... and to 'professional' level magazines like: 'Science', ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... Einstein, but without a critical eye, nor the objectivity to realize ... subject is the measure of the subject's truths? ... But my posts and ... You don't evaluate new science by using old science as the standard. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Einsteins man in China
    ... For seven decades, Xu Liangying has been Albert Einstein's man in China, ... inspire a rebirth of interest in Einstein and in science in China. ... Chinese leaders say that science is the key to the country's ... Concluding that China needed "total revolution," he resolved to join the ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)