Re: Quantum Gravity or... Quantum + Gravity

From: Marcel LeBel (lebel_at_muontailpig.com)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:07:19 -0500

Mike wrote:
> Marcel LeBel wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>This is where GR comes in. In a gravitational field time slows down
>
> and
>
>>forms a gradient vertically above Earth (or any other mass). If one
>>places the particle in this gradient, the probability cloud will be
>>distorted towards Earth where time passes more slowly. In short, the
>>particle tends to exist more where it stays longer. Logical!
>>
>
>
> No, formal logical fallacy: disconnected premises.
>
>
>>The subtle assumption here, is that one has to admit that this
>
> particle
>
>>really exists, not as the sum of its properties as we conceive it,
>
> but
>
>>by itself.
>
>
> Straw man argument
>
>
>
>>In empirical science there is no provision for admitting the
>>existence of anything beyond the sum its properties. (In a Machian
>>perspective, existence is a function of time spent in one place.)
>
>
> You mean bundle, not sum. You cannot sum properties, you can only
> consider them as a bundle.
>
> learn the correct terminology.
>
>
>>We see here that provided that we accept "existence" (position /
>
> motion)
>
>>as a function of time
>
>
> These are spatiotemporal relations, have nothing to do with
> existence,bare particulars, inherent relations, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>>GR and QM go hand in hand at explaining logically
>>how gravitation works. Not how it appears to behave, but rather how
>
> it
>
>>happens by itself. The actual mechanism nature uses has to be
>
> incredibly
>
>>simple and before all, logical. Comments? Arguments?
>
>
> Non sequitur from disconnected premises and straw man arguments. Is
> that enough for you?
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Marcel LeBel
>>remove particle from address
>
>
Mike,

O.K.! Please follow me as I will make a few more .. assumptions.
You replied to this post, so you may have a genuine interest in the
subject. The fact that you corrected some terminology may even suggest
that you (could) do understand what I am trying (obviously) to say.

So, if you think you do understand what I am trying to say, .....
Why don't you say it with the proper/accepted terminology?
In your own words. What is M.LeBel saying? Take the whole message, not
just bits and pieces. Then, I will see if you have any/any idea of what
it is all about.

Marcel,

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Gravity or... Quantum + Gravity
    ... In a gravitational field time slows down ... > forms a gradient vertically above Earth. ... > particle tends to exist more where it stays longer. ... > existence of anything beyond the sum its properties. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Geometry by itself has no physical content
    ... remark, that they do bears to the sum of the forces E and F, something, ... definitely bears to the sum of the forces E and F along a ratio which would ... resolve to you the sum of the forces A and B, and this is what the Geometry ... it does no good whatsoever to claim that in such and such> a theory free particles travel specific geodesics if you have no theory> to tell you when a particle is to be regarded as free or not. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
    ... So you are saying that the energy increases but it is still zero. ... Someone please tell doug that in the rest frame of the container sum ... of particle momentum in a gas or the sum of particle energy in a gas ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Diatribe against parallel universe stories
    ... every event, I don't see how it doesn't split on every particle movement, ... momentum of particles A through J, then you sum over all the rest of the ... photon at time T, absorbed by particle B at time T+2" merges into "Particle A ... nobody observes either one or the photon until time T+7. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)