Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal
From: vonroach (hadrainc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 11/03/04
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Scientifically valid definitions."
- Previous message: Patrick Reany: "Re: Scientifically valid definitions."
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:45:56 GMT
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:43:38 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
>
>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.
>
To late, I've already made a good living with it for 50 years and
retired;
>But it is possible for light to have a very
>small
>> >mass so it strictly is not the same speed in all inertial frames.
Do you have another explanation for its path in the vicinity of
massive objects?
> 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
>> >on relativity without c
One of Einstein's lucky choices.
>> >
>> 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.
>
The `vacuum' of space is suspected to be a very crowded vacuum.
>> 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.
>
I'd say a concept under investigation.
>> 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.
It is a nice theory that goes bad when applied to very small realms.
>> 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?
>
Hate to be coming back to Einstein.
>> >> >> 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.
>
Solving or at least working on problems is a part of science.
>>
>> >> 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: AllYou!: "Re: Scientifically valid definitions."
- Previous message: Patrick Reany: "Re: Scientifically valid definitions."
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
