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 | 20 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 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:18 -0600 |
| Subject | Do we need a new theory of gravity? |
| Message-ID | <w-mdnVDcJbvSLtrLnZ2dnUU7-U-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
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.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 22:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.14.22.43.16@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #533137 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:18:55 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > Do we need a new theory of gravity? >> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-theory-gravity.html > So, Sammy, in your learned opinion, does this constitute an attack on the theoretical primacy of General Relativity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 17:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <MYydnQg-Lt5cINrLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #533145 |
On 11/14/15 4:44 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:18:55 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> Do we need a new theory of gravity? >>> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-theory-gravity.html >> > > So, Sammy, in your learned opinion, does this constitute an attack > on the theoretical primacy of General Relativity? > In my learned opinion, it is normal for researchers to continue to challenge the status quo of established scientific theories. That's how we advance our understanding of the universe. GR may be correct as it is or there may be something even better. Those little nagging discrepancies! I really appreciate the men and women who further our knowledge. -- 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 | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 23:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.14.23.24.28@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #533149 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:03:29 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > > In my learned opinion, it is normal for researchers to continue to > challenge the status quo of established scientific theories. That's > how we advance our understanding of the universe. GR may be correct > as it is or there may be something even better. > So, then, while Special Relativity can be accorded the status of physical law, General Relativity yet cannot. Would this be a correct statement?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 17:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <5_OdncEOX4zfXtrLnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #533153 |
On 11/14/15 5:24 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:03:29 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> >> In my learned opinion, it is normal for researchers to continue to >> challenge the status quo of established scientific theories. That's >> how we advance our understanding of the universe. GR may be correct >> as it is or there may be something even better. >> > > So, then, while Special Relativity can be accorded the status > of physical law, General Relativity yet cannot. > > Would this be a correct statement? > Neither have been falsified by experiment or observation. -- 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 | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 00:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.15.00.06.28@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #533155 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 17:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9d14e7e6-050e-4a9b-9d19-d8ac4e5ba28d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533172 |
Yes, we need a new theory of gravity. Suck Gravity doesn't even make sense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 18:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <46575732-a768-4071-92e5-3ce72e9c9526@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533185 |
John strikes again with his homosexual pederasty fixation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 22:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebd2fb41-4ca0-4798-a7e1-35795e457a93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533190 |
Hmm. HVAC, YOU'RE the guy always speculating about sexual orientation- Tesla and his bird, how much fun you have in the backwoods "fishing" with one of your "butties". Give it a rest you closet homo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 03:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Why won't HVAC admit his NAMBLA membership? |
| Message-ID | <wOX1y.65681$gK.49837@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #533223 |
On 11/15/2015 01:18 AM, john wrote:
> Hmm.
> HVAC, YOU'RE the guy always
> speculating about sexual orientation-
> Tesla and his bird, how much fun you
> have in the backwoods "fishing" with
> one of your "butties".
> Give it a rest you closet homo
HVAC is "bi". HE loves underage foreign girls AND his "fishing" trips to
Brokeback Mountain.
He accuses everyone else of being gay to cover that he's not out of the
closet yet. Same goes for his NAMBLA membership.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 04:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <D4Y1y.57951$dc2.41358@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #533190 |
On 11/14/2015 09:28 PM, HVAC wrote:
> John strikes again with his homosexual pederasty fixation
Been on a "fishing trip" to Brokeback Mountain lately?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 02:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n28qrr$ith$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #533185 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Yes, we need a new theory of gravity. >Suck Gravity doesn't even make sense So why do you keep advocating your Suck gravity? (I agree that disproved LeSage gravity doesn't make sense)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 22:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4e967e6-6839-48de-8574-1bd157b7547b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533191 |
No, Michael, YOU were the one advocating LeSage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2a82r$gg1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #533222 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >No, Michael, YOU were the one >advocating LeSage. Say what? Your kooky idea of magical particles coming from eveerywhere/ nowhere with partial blockage "sucking" gravitating objects together sounds a lot like discredited Le Sage gravitation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 09:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <122d7496-1152-4595-a243-cdac96e6b8c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533277 |
Galactic arms of stars emit neutrinos. They travel everywhere pushing on galactic centers. Electrons are the fractal equivalent of galactic arms, and emit the fractal equivalent of neutrinos. THEY travel everywhere pushing on protons. So...what was your problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2baa5$o4a$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #533289 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >So...what was your problem? That you spew word salad babble on this group and expect everyone to accept it as being something actually meaningful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 17:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <51317ce8-b0cb-4630-b6c5-2ecc3ea7407d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533429 |
No word salad, Michael. Just exploring the premise that atoms are little galaxies and put out the same stuff, but smaller. New food for thought to consider whole other realms of matter and emr that is far too small for us to perceive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2cvdg$g1n$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #533433 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >No word salad, Michael. Yes, it's word salad. You just don't realize it. >Just exploring the premise that >atoms are little galaxies Except that your babbling presents that as an established fact, although everyone else knows it's babble. <snip babble>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 08:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3efda0f8-ba2b-4a98-8d5f-59c57f8fba85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533482 |
And? Which of the absurdities in Standard Model is "established fact"? DM? DE? BH? "Point particles"? "Virtual particles"? "Warped Spacetime"? "Delocalized" electrons? "Wormholes"? Science of FOOLS, Michael. And you're one of them
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2d20l$i60$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #533483 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >And? >Which of the absurdities in >Standard Model is "established fact"? It is you with the laughable "established facts", not science. In science, a theory can only be disproved, not proved as an "established fact". >DM? >DE? >BH? >"Point particles"? >"Virtual particles"? >"Warped Spacetime"? >"Delocalized" electrons? These all have fair to substantial amounts of evidence that support them, without any evidence that refutes them. If you don't like these, disprove them. Don't just pull some spinny things out of your ass and claim that this is how the universe works. >"Wormholes"? Speculation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web