| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Bacon" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2006 08:42:35 PM |
| Object: |
Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
So you would argue that the universal gravity theory is a load of
crap? "Proven" by Newton's invented and highly flawed branch of
mathematics, calculus.
Then there's gravitons, gravity waves, the big bang...it's
all clear to me now stepping back from it...it's complete nonsense.
Why is it still so readily accepted? Maybe expsosing school children
to
other theories would add to thought leadership and acceleration in
more complex concepts, like that string *****...
.
|
|
| User: "Gravity" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
27 Oct 2006 01:53:09 PM |
|
|
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161826955.553218.257150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So you would argue that the universal gravity theory is a load of
crap? "Proven" by Newton's invented and highly flawed branch of
mathematics, calculus.
Then there's gravitons,
if gravity can be quantitized, then there is a graviton. for instance, the
quantum of electromagnetic force is the photon.
gravity waves,
according to relativity, a mass distorts the fabric of space-time. a moving
object would create "fluctuations in the curvature of space-time which
propagates as a waves".
the big bang...
this stems from relativity and experiment. google COBE.
it's
all clear to me now stepping back from it...it's complete nonsense.
not really. it's extremely advanced mathematics and physics which looks
like gibberish to the casual observer. some of this stuff is probably
wrong, but until someone finds a deeper theory, we are stuck with relativity
/ Standard model
Gravity
Why is it still so readily accepted? Maybe expsosing school children
to
other theories would add to thought leadership and acceleration in
more complex concepts, like that string *****...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gravity" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
27 Oct 2006 02:00:06 PM |
|
|
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161826955.553218.257150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Then there's gravitons, gravity waves, the big bang...it's
all clear to me now stepping back from it...it's complete nonsense.
that is nothing! there's the anthropic principle, landscape, 26 dimensions,
Higgs boson, supersymetry, strings, Calibi-Yau manifolds, and much more.
lol.
Gell Mann ("gel" with a hard g and "man"), who coined the term quark (a
fundamental particle like an electron), said string theory was mental
masturbation. Pauli looked at a student's paper and said "this is not even
right, this is not even wrong" and some people say this about the modern
theories.
Gravity
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
25 Oct 2006 09:24:22 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Bacon ha escrito:
So you would argue that the universal gravity theory is a load of
crap? "Proven" by Newton's invented and highly flawed branch of
mathematics, calculus.
NO, it's not a "load of crap", nor it's "proven" by mathematics. In
fact,
experimental science cannot be "proven", period - let alone by maths.
It can be "unproven", by finding its faults, confronting it with
experimental
results.
"Newtonian" or "classical" gravitation, all the so called "classical"
physics
in fact (newtonian/lagrangian mechanics plus maxwellian
electromagnetism),
is a perfectly sound framework *within the limits of its
applicability*. And these
limits happend to be rather broad. Therefore, it's going to continue
being used
for a very long time yet.
New, more accurate models don't necessarily render older ones invalid.
You
use the older (but simpler) one where it works, and turn to the more
accurate
(but a lot more complicated) ones where the old one(s) don't suffice.
Then there's gravitons, gravity waves, the big bang...it's
all clear to me now stepping back from it...it's complete nonsense.
Why is it still so readily accepted? Maybe expsosing school children
to
other theories would add to thought leadership and acceleration in
more complex concepts, like that string *****...
In paedagogy it's generally accepted that it's better to work from the
simpler
to the more complex. First learn to add - THEN learn to solve
differential
equations, and not the other way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gravity" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
26 Oct 2006 01:08:19 AM |
|
|
excellent summary, Neoholistic.
string theory is a theory of everything *and* a theory of quantum gravity.
the good thing is that it tries to solve some fundamental problems, like an
explanation of gravity on very small scales, and also interactions at very
high energies.
the interesting thing is that string theory is background dependent, which
means there is a fixed space time background, just like quantum mechanics.
but general relativity (Einstein) is background independent. there are some
other issues that have some people (e.g. relativists) rejecting string
theory or trying to draw parallels between loop quantum gravity and strings.
i will comment more later. Neo is several years past me, and my major was
not physics. i am just a fan, some people watch football, i watch particle
physics.
Gravity
.
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
26 Oct 2006 02:53:51 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Gravity ha escrito:
excellent summary, Neoholistic.
string theory is a theory of everything *and* a theory of quantum gravity.
the good thing is that it tries to solve some fundamental problems, like an
explanation of gravity on very small scales, and also interactions at very
high energies.
the interesting thing is that string theory is background dependent, which
means there is a fixed space time background, just like quantum mechanics.
But I haven't seen this in QM? We've assumed our systems (when using a
coordinate representation) were always referred to some "laboratory"
inertial reference frame (except when it didn't matter). No "fixed
space"
at all AFAIR.
but general relativity (Einstein) is background independent. there are some
other issues that have some people (e.g. relativists) rejecting string
theory or trying to draw parallels between loop quantum gravity and strings.
i will comment more later. Neo is several years past me, and my major was
not physics. i am just a fan, some people watch football, i watch particle
physics.
Gravity
I'm not "years past" you (or anybody else).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Platypus Rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
26 Oct 2006 02:54:51 AM |
|
|
neoholistic coughed this up:
NO, it's not a "load of crap", nor it's "proven" by mathematics. In
fact,
experimental science cannot be "proven", period - let alone by maths.
It can be "unproven", by finding its faults, confronting it with
experimental
results.
This is extraordinarily well said. I'm presuming from the choice of
reference points in the rest of your post that your background is in
the physical sciences also?
The point you make here is one that is rarely grasped by non-scientists
and almost never made clear in public discourse on issues relating to
science. It was the thing I told my students that if they learn nothing
else, they should learn this: you do not prove things true in science,
since no matter how much evidence is collected in favor of a proposition,
there's always the possibility that tomorrow someone will collect
evidence that contradicts it; but what you can do is prove things false,
since a theory that makes predictions that fail to match reality is
wrong.
It's something I wish people would remember every time the fundamentalist
talking head of the week reminds Americans that ideas that the human
species evolved from earlier species, that humans and the great apes have
common ancestry, etc., "have not been proven." Well, yes, strictly
speaking, that's true; but one is either ignorant, or intellectually
dishonest, if using that as some sort of criticism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
26 Oct 2006 08:10:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:54:51 -0400, Platypus Rex
<duckbill@ovoviviparous.mammals.org> wrote:
neoholistic coughed this up:
NO, it's not a "load of crap", nor it's "proven" by mathematics. In
fact,
experimental science cannot be "proven", period - let alone by maths.
It can be "unproven", by finding its faults, confronting it with
experimental
results.
This is extraordinarily well said. I'm presuming from the choice of
reference points in the rest of your post that your background is in
the physical sciences also?
The point you make here is one that is rarely grasped by non-scientists
and almost never made clear in public discourse on issues relating to
science. It was the thing I told my students that if they learn nothing
else, they should learn this: you do not prove things true in science,
since no matter how much evidence is collected in favor of a proposition,
there's always the possibility that tomorrow someone will collect
evidence that contradicts it; but what you can do is prove things false,
since a theory that makes predictions that fail to match reality is
wrong.
It's something I wish people would remember every time the fundamentalist
talking head of the week reminds Americans that ideas that the human
species evolved from earlier species, that humans and the great apes have
common ancestry, etc., "have not been proven." Well, yes, strictly
speaking, that's true; but one is either ignorant, or intellectually
dishonest, if using that as some sort of criticism.
Well said and I completely agree. That's why I put "proven" in quotes
in my original post...my science background is limited to high school,
but we were continually reminded that experiments were performed to
rule out interactions that would otherwise negate a proposed theory...
My post was based on an article in the Humanist, strange magazine, but
interesting perspectives.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey Gravity...question about gravity |
26 Oct 2006 03:06:03 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Platypus Rex ha escrito:
neoholistic coughed this up:
NO, it's not a "load of crap", nor it's "proven" by mathematics. In
fact,
experimental science cannot be "proven", period - let alone by maths.
It can be "unproven", by finding its faults, confronting it with
experimental
results.
This is extraordinarily well said. I'm presuming from the choice of
reference points in the rest of your post that your background is in
the physical sciences also?
Yep.
The point you make here is one that is rarely grasped by non-scientists
and almost never made clear in public discourse on issues relating to
science. It was the thing I told my students that if they learn nothing
else, they should learn this: you do not prove things true in science,
since no matter how much evidence is collected in favor of a proposition,
there's always the possibility that tomorrow someone will collect
evidence that contradicts it; but what you can do is prove things false,
since a theory that makes predictions that fail to match reality is
wrong.
Exactly, which is why Popper should be taught in secondary school to
ALL students - no matter whether they choose sci/tech related subjects
or humanities. In a society that's driven by technology and science to
the
point that ours is, a basic understanding of the scientific method
should
be a required part of that which is vaguely known as "general culture".
It's something I wish people would remember every time the fundamentalist
talking head of the week reminds Americans that ideas that the human
species evolved from earlier species, that humans and the great apes have
common ancestry, etc., "have not been proven." Well, yes, strictly
speaking, that's true; but one is either ignorant, or intellectually
dishonest, if using that as some sort of criticism.
If I had a classroom, I'd have all my students read this magnificent
article by
Isaac Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong". Among other things, it'd
explain to them why
the question "how much is 2+2" is more correctly answered by "square
root of
pi" than by "bright green", even if both are 'wrong'. Following the
article, the inference
that 'wrong' theory A is more correct than 'wrong' theory B if it
correlates better
with the results of the experiments should be obvious for all of them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
