Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #533137 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-14 16:18 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-11-17 15:36 -0800 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 77 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Do we need a new theory of gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:18 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-14 22:44 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:03 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-14 23:24 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:26 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 00:08 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:56 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 18:28 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 22:18 -0800
Why won't HVAC admit his NAMBLA membership? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 03:58 -0500
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 04:17 -0500
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-15 02:32 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 22:15 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-15 15:24 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 09:24 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 01:08 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:13 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 16:14 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 08:20 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 16:59 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:25 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:11 -0500
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:13 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:47 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:08 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:10 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:21 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:19 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:42 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 23:59 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:48 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 16:19 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 00:05 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 23:55 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 00:54 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 10:21 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:09 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:46 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:32 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:28 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:41 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 14:48 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 17:24 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 16:53 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:07 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 00:27 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Dave Smith" <invalid@exampll.com> - 2015-11-17 18:01 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 00:24 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-17 17:07 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 11:11 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 11:28 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:00 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:11 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:45 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:51 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 15:00 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-17 20:30 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 13:44 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-17 20:23 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:46 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:00 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-14 22:36 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 06:58 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-14 23:21 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 07:26 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 07:40 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-15 00:10 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 21:54 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-17 11:35 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 22:47 +0000
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 01:02 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-15 14:13 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 00:00 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-17 11:28 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 13:46 -0600
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-17 15:06 -0800
Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-17 15:36 -0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 14:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8e4ace17-2d86-471e-a84f-3cfa0416af3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533792 |
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 9:07:29 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >Electrostatic attraction occurs because > >charged particles curve in > >circles when they travel. > >You've probably never seen a > >bubble chamber, but when subatomic > >particles are created they don't just > >fly off in a straight line; they go around > >and around like boomerangs. > > That's because bubble chambers employ powerful magnets to MAKE the > particles curve. F=Bq x v. Otherwise the particles would fly off in > straight lines and there would be no way to determine their charge or > their charge/mass ratio (how much the magnet makes them curve). > > >That's why it's a "short-range" phenomenon. > > Electromagnetism has an infinite range. Particles that show curve have + and - charge.Neutrons and neutrinos go straight. trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 22:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6948f2c8-c4d6-4951-8597-051d64d9b35b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533172 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 7:07:40 PM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:26:58 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > Neither have been falsified by experiment or observation. > > > > So, then, there are no physical laws. There is only > the provisional status of being un-falsified. > > Yes, I would agree. xxein: You also state that November 22 is Veteran's Day. Tsk, tsk. You are a bad boy. Since some veterans do physics, it would not be inappropriate for you to contribute, on these pages, your thoughtful opinion on the Purple Heart award for those lacking your knowledge. Some would give an arm and a leg for your right to give your opinion. Also mention that their provisional status of missing limbs is not a physical law. Enlighten them of the good old days when sulphur packing was the fast standard operating procedure. Imagine the horrors of modern medicine not being able to save all lives. Mostly, I want to say "Shut the fsck up!".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 06:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.15.06.57.11@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #533224 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:36:20 -0800, xxein1 wrote: > it would not be inappropriate > for you to contribute, on these pages, your thoughtful opinion on the > Purple Heart > Suckers. They all work for me. Let 'em spill their blood and lose their limbs while I recline on my indolent ass and fsck their grieving wives. > > Mostly, I want to say "Shut the fsck up!". > Say it. Scream it. It won't make any difference, except to irritate your throat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 23:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <790c4822-3a4d-4bf8-ab5f-daa8d3a4dcd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533225 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:57:50 AM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:36:20 -0800, xxein1 wrote: > > > it would not be inappropriate > > for you to contribute, on these pages, your thoughtful opinion on the > > Purple Heart > > > > Suckers. They all work for me. > > Let 'em spill their blood and lose their limbs while I recline on > my indolent ass and fsck their grieving wives. > > > > > > Mostly, I want to say "Shut the fsck up!". > > > > Say it. Scream it. > > It won't make any difference, except to irritate your throat. xxein: Hmm. Preaching indolence? I can't decide. Norman Bates or the Menendez brothers. Either way - how do you feel about that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 07:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.15.07.27.03@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #533229 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:21:02 -0800, xxein1 wrote: > > Preaching indolence? > 'Twas merely a metaphor for a far distant future age when men control their own destinies and are not the pawns of a fictitious State.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 07:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.15.07.38.31@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #533230 |
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 07:26:59 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:21:02 -0800, xxein1 wrote: > >> >> Preaching indolence? >> > > 'Twas merely a metaphor for a far distant future age when men control > their own destinies and are not the pawns of a fictitious State. > Before the control of destiny must come the control of mind. You lose. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Sucker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 00:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <447557c8-799e-4598-940d-03e71016afab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533232 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:38:53 AM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 07:26:59 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:21:02 -0800, xxein1 wrote: > > > >> > >> Preaching indolence? > >> > > > > 'Twas merely a metaphor for a far distant future age when men control > > their own destinies and are not the pawns of a fictitious State. > > > > Before the control of destiny must come the control of mind. > > You lose. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > Sucker. xxein: You are suckered into your hubris by your defective mind. Ha-ha back. Throughout living species, the hubristic curtail evolution while the altruistic promote it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.15.21.54.37@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #533234 |
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:10:27 -0800, xxein1 wrote: > > Throughout living species, the hubristic curtail evolution while the > altruistic promote it. > Hubris and altruism, being high order illusions, require a MIND for their existence. Most living species do not possess a MIND, and therefore there can be no hubris and altruism. But you are indeed like most living species, because you share a lack of MIND. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Now go where all mindless creatures go. Go back under your rock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 11:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8adb3152-fe89-496a-85d0-8a215b5c28ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533374 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:55:00 PM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:10:27 -0800, xxein1 wrote: > > > > > Throughout living species, the hubristic curtail evolution while the > > altruistic promote it. > > > > Hubris and altruism, being high order illusions, require a MIND for their > existence. > > Most living species do not possess a MIND, and therefore there can be no > hubris and altruism. > > But you are indeed like most living species, because you share a lack > of MIND. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. > > Now go where all mindless creatures go. Go back under your rock. xxein: E. O. Wilson -- of ants and men. Look him up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <49qkhc-bp5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #533137 |
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > Do we need a new theory of gravity? >> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-theory-gravity.html > >> One of the real challenges in building theories of gravity is that >> you need to make sure that your theory makes sense at the very large >> cosmological scales, without predicting ludicrous things for the >> solar system, such as the moon spiralling into the earth. I don't >> think enough of that kind of synoptic analysis gets done. >> Cosmologists tend to focus on the cosmological properties and they >> don't always check: does my theory even allow stable stars and black >> holes to exist? Because if it doesn't, then you need to throw it out >> straight away. >> >> Over the past decade hundreds of researchers have come up with all >> sorts of ways to change gravity. Part of the problem now is that >> there are so many different theories that if you were to test each >> one individually it would take forever. I've done a lot of work on >> trying to come up with unified descriptions of these theories. If you >> can map them all onto a single mathematical formalism, all you have >> to do is test that one thing and you know what it means for all the >> different theories. >> >> In doing this mapping process we've discovered that a lot of the >> theories look very different to start with, but at the mathematical >> level they're moving along the same lines. It suggests to me that >> people are stuck in one way of thinking at the moment when they build >> these gravity theories, and that there's still room to do something >> completely different. >> >> More recently I've moved on to developing ways to actually test the >> mathematics ? to constrain it with data. For example, we can use >> gravitational lensing. If you have a massive object like a galaxy >> cluster, the light from objects behind it is bent by the gravity of >> the cluster. If you change your theory of gravity, you change the >> amount of bending that occurs. Basically we throw every piece of data >> we can get our hands on into constraining these frameworks and >> testing what works. >> >> At this precise moment the data we have is not quite good enough to >> distinguish between all the different gravity models. In other words, yet another cut and paste about nothing. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 01:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de2f5d7a-3e0c-4985-bf80-4ccc3cda6fe4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533137 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:18:58 AM UTC+2, Sam Wormley wrote: > Do we need a new theory of gravity? > > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-theory-gravity.html > > > One of the real challenges in building theories of gravity is that > > you need to make sure that your theory makes sense at the very large > > cosmological scales, without predicting ludicrous things for the > > solar system, such as the moon spiralling into the earth. I don't > > think enough of that kind of synoptic analysis gets done. > > Cosmologists tend to focus on the cosmological properties and they > > don't always check: does my theory even allow stable stars and black > > holes to exist? Because if it doesn't, then you need to throw it out > > straight away. > > > > Over the past decade hundreds of researchers have come up with all > > sorts of ways to change gravity. Part of the problem now is that > > there are so many different theories that if you were to test each > > one individually it would take forever. I've done a lot of work on > > trying to come up with unified descriptions of these theories. If you > > can map them all onto a single mathematical formalism, all you have > > to do is test that one thing and you know what it means for all the > > different theories. > > > > In doing this mapping process we've discovered that a lot of the > > theories look very different to start with, but at the mathematical > > level they're moving along the same lines. It suggests to me that > > people are stuck in one way of thinking at the moment when they build > > these gravity theories, and that there's still room to do something > > completely different. > > > > More recently I've moved on to developing ways to actually test the > > mathematics - to constrain it with data. For example, we can use > > gravitational lensing. If you have a massive object like a galaxy > > cluster, the light from objects behind it is bent by the gravity of > > the cluster. If you change your theory of gravity, you change the > > amount of bending that occurs. Basically we throw every piece of data > > we can get our hands on into constraining these frameworks and > > testing what works. > > > > At this precise moment the data we have is not quite good enough to > > distinguish between all the different gravity models. > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. ========================= little crock pig hypocrite !! if you pose to be so sure about 'curved space' WHY DO YOU STILL QUESTION IT ??!! it seems that you crock want to hold the long stick at its two edges !! it does not work like that in nature 'God did t play the dice' 2 MASS (THE ONLY MASS ** IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FORCES INCLUDING GRAVITY !! Y.Porat ==============================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 14:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n2ap0m$lth$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #533137 |
On 11/14/2015 4:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > Do we need a new theory of gravity? >> http://*phys.org*/news/2015-11-theory-gravity.html >> More recently I've moved on to developing ways to actually test the >> mathematics – you fail at understanding how math is used in physics. another phys.org crap article, w snaggie headline, and crap payload
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 00:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e3ad22c1-3ced-4838-9e0c-fb317dcbee30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533327 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 10:13:16 PM UTC+2, gilber34 wrote: > On 11/14/2015 4:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > > Do we need a new theory of gravity? > >> http://*phys.org*/news/2015-11-theory-gravity.html > > >> More recently I've moved on to developing ways to actually test the > >> mathematics - > > > you fail at understanding how math is used in physics. > > > another phys.org crap article, w snaggie headline, and crap payload =========================== i wonder Wormley IS A PRESUMPTIONS orchestra conductor that started to believe he because an innovator in physics or that parrot became a crock thief as well so i start to wonder which is bigger his benefit by supplying quotes ?? ---- or his big damage he is causing by pushing his private ignorance and disturbing some real advantage here done by others and by that becoming a criminal against mankind !!?? Y.Porat ========================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 11:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <870db8a3-6cb3-4e28-941e-7d4299bd0ce1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533137 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:18:58 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > Do we need a new theory of gravity? > > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-theory-gravity.html > > > One of the real challenges in building theories of gravity is that > > you need to make sure that your theory makes sense at the very large > > cosmological scales, without predicting ludicrous things for the > > solar system, such as the moon spiralling into the earth. I don't > > think enough of that kind of synoptic analysis gets done. > > Cosmologists tend to focus on the cosmological properties and they > > don't always check: does my theory even allow stable stars and black > > holes to exist? Because if it doesn't, then you need to throw it out > > straight away. > > > > Over the past decade hundreds of researchers have come up with all > > sorts of ways to change gravity. Part of the problem now is that > > there are so many different theories that if you were to test each > > one individually it would take forever. I've done a lot of work on > > trying to come up with unified descriptions of these theories. If you > > can map them all onto a single mathematical formalism, all you have > > to do is test that one thing and you know what it means for all the > > different theories. > > > > In doing this mapping process we've discovered that a lot of the > > theories look very different to start with, but at the mathematical > > level they're moving along the same lines. It suggests to me that > > people are stuck in one way of thinking at the moment when they build > > these gravity theories, and that there's still room to do something > > completely different. > > > > More recently I've moved on to developing ways to actually test the > > mathematics - to constrain it with data. For example, we can use > > gravitational lensing. If you have a massive object like a galaxy > > cluster, the light from objects behind it is bent by the gravity of > > the cluster. If you change your theory of gravity, you change the > > amount of bending that occurs. Basically we throw every piece of data > > we can get our hands on into constraining these frameworks and > > testing what works. > > > > At this precise moment the data we have is not quite good enough to > > distinguish between all the different gravity models. > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. xxein: All about nothing. Useless. Apparently, by what she says, if the real explanation of gravity came along, she wouldn't know it. SR-GR would falsify it. Nobody would think the opposite, that SR-GR could be falsified. Based upon what I have read and heard for the last three decades, I doubt that hardly anyone still knows what relativity theory is all about. It is a measurement theory, not a physical theory. But that still doesn't mean that its starting physical assumptions (2nd postulate SR, for example) were entirely correct either - at least not the nouveau-classical sense of it. And I am still defending it for what it is despite its faults, although it is hard to tell from what I say. But, in short, the real gravity would still falsify SR-GR. I had ample reason to suspect that SR_GR was wrong even before I started to study gravity. That led me to find a gravity that met with my own construction of the physics. To my surprise and relief, the gravity I found did not violate Einsteinian measurements but it did give a different physical reasoning for the outcome of the measurements. This reasoning is so simple that it is suitable for grade school but the actual, real life computations can still remain daunting. But don't worry. At least you will know what you are actually doing. Generally, when one thinks about a theory of gravity, it is under ideal conditions. Mine is no exception.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 13:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Rs-dnX8X4-m1GdbLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #533811 |
On 11/17/15 1:28 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > Based upon what I have read and heard for the last three decades, I doubt that hardly anyone still knows what relativity theory is all about. It is a measurement theory, not a physical theory. I have to disagree -- special and general relativity are physical theories, who's predictions nature happens to agree with. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 15:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4d4aed47-3d9c-4693-b6a3-700958f70863@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533818 |
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 11/17/15 1:28 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > Based upon what I have read and heard for the last three decades, I doubt that hardly anyone still knows what relativity theory is all about. It is a measurement theory, not a physical theory. > > > I have to disagree -- special and general relativity are physical > theories, who's predictions nature happens to agree with. > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. xxein: Tell that to Tom Roberts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 15:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <993fc0e2-68c3-4acf-9562-60d149581412@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533818 |
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 11/17/15 1:28 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote: > > Based upon what I have read and heard for the last three decades, I doubt that hardly anyone still knows what relativity theory is all about. It is a measurement theory, not a physical theory. > > > I have to disagree -- special and general relativity are physical > theories, who's predictions nature happens to agree with. > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. xxein: This thread is about gravity. If a new theory doesn't satisfy GR, can it be valid?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web