What's wrong with physics?

[night912]

Regarding the very calculations, it doesn´t matter if you call these theoretical equations and conditions for *Gravity* or *Atmospheric Pressure*.

If that's really what you believe, then why would it matter if "gravity" was used instead of "force" in the statement below?

You can't have the CALCULATIONS without an assumption of GRAVITY.

Should be: "You can't have the CALCULATIONS without an assumption of a force".

 

[Native]

His is all true, but completely irrelevant to what we have been discussing. We were discussing the solar system, not gravity on the Earth.

You´re jumping imaginary fences here. I was discusing the very nature of Newtons *occult agency apple force* which led to his ideas of motion in the Solar System.

But, even on Earth, this (Atmospheric pressure) fails to explain what we observe.

Not if you open your eyes and your philosophical logics.

Of course it makes a difference! First, in the *solar system* there is no atmospheric pressure.

Wrong again. There is an atmospheric/spacial pressure on all orbital objects in space and a bit more on planets with more or less atmospheres..

But there is no way to separate the calculations from the assumption of gravity.

I just have shown you the one to which you agreed:

(T)His is all true . . .

You can't say the calculations are correct AND that you disagree with the theory of gravity.

Of course I can. and I do too: I just call your *Newtonian occult agency* for Atmospheric/Spacial pressure.

And since laws of celestial motions is based on the Newtons *occult apple agency* = Atmospheric/Spacial Pressure, it fits nicely on planets too, but it has nothing to do with *gravity* at all.

 

[Native]

If that's really what you believe, then why would it matter if "gravity" was used instead of "force" in the statement below?

Native said: ↑
Should be: "You can't have the CALCULATIONS without an assumption of a force".

That was just in order to open up for more than the *gravity* assumption.

 

[Native]

You can call it whatever you want while the rest of the world labels that "gravity".

Yes, and if I´m correct, you can call the rest of the *gravity assumptions* in the Solar System and in the entire Universe for the Apple-Pie Theory.

There was a serious reason for Einstein to discard Newtons *occult agency force* you know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, and if I´m correct, you can call the rest of the *gravity assumptions* in the Solar System and in the entire Universe for the Apple-Pie Theory.

There was a serious reason for Einstein to discard Newtons *occult agency force* you know.

You continue to make zero sense and in the process, you expose unsurprising deep rooted ignorance concerning the topic at hand.

@Polymath257 explained it to you. You agreed with the explanation and then reject it all on a semantic labelling of the explanation.
It's patently absurd.

 

[Native]

You continue to make zero sense and in the process, you expose unsurprising deep rooted ignorance concerning the topic at hand.

@Polymath257 explained it to you. You agreed with the explanation and then reject it all on a semantic labelling of the explanation.
It's patently absurd.

I´m sorry if it is too complicated for you.

 

[Native]

Subject: The Modern Grand Story of Nothing

Sabine Hossenfelder give a breif overview of the modern creation stories.

Sabine concludes:
“Physicist may simply have produced a lot of mathematical stories of how it all began, but these aren´t better than traditional tales of creation”.

Personally, I would say they´re much worse because they all lack philosophical perceptions and natural logics.

In the most specific ancient cultural stories of creation, the Universe is determined to be eternal and everything undergoes cyclical and eternal changes between creation/formation, dissolution and re-formation, thus transforming and conserving all energies eternally. Everything is cyclical!

No standing modern theory can beat that!

 

[Native]

Subject: 6 scientific specialists discuss why they don´t understand gravity.

PARTICIPANTS: Pedro Ferreira, David Gross, Szabolcs Marka, Rachel A Rosen, Maria Spiropulu and Moderator Richard Panek.

“Coming to Grips With Gravity”

Introduction 00:07
What is gravity? 2:39
A brief history of gravity 5:50
Space is fluctuating 14:22
Einstein and his equations 18:50
What changes in the 60's for science 24:39
Science and it's social development 34:19
How does dark matter fit in to gravity? 36:00
Why does dark energy get invoked in gravity? 48:00
Experimenters don't care? 58:10
What other phenomenon can create gravitational waves? 1:03:35
Black holes are amazing 1:11:01
Do all quantum mechanical process take place in space time? 1:18:26
What are your thoughts on a warp drive? 1:21:50
Does dark energy relate to dark matter? 1:22:59
----
It´s stunning that these scientists even can have a discussion based on a *force* they don´t know anything of but pure speculative assumptions and connect this unknown force to everything else in their assumptive theories.

All because of the Atmospheric/Spacial Pressure on the Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: The Modern Grand Story of Nothing

Sabine Hossenfelder give a breif overview of the modern creation stories.

Sabine concludes:
“Physicist may simply have produced a lot of mathematical stories of how it all began, but these aren´t better than traditional tales of creation”.

Overall, I agree with Hossenfelder. Once you get back prior to the energies we have explored in the LHC, things become much more speculative. We *do* have some evidence for higher energies (mostly from very high energy cosmic rays), but it is limited.

The inflaton field and the Higg's particle are very similar, if not identical. That connection is still being explored. But she is correct that inflation is still largely speculation (although there is some evidence for it).

Personally, I would say they´re much worse because they all lack philosophical perceptions and natural logics.

Both of which are completely irrelevant for modeling or understanding this material.

In the most specific ancient cultural stories of creation, the Universe is determined to be eternal and everything undergoes cyclical and eternal changes between creation/formation, dissolution and re-formation, thus transforming and conserving all energies eternally. Everything is cyclical!

No standing modern theory can beat that!

So, you agree with one of the cyclic universe models? There are several of those. But, again, we have no *evidence* that they are correct. They are ALL just speculation at this point.

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: 6 scientific specialists discuss why they don´t understand gravity.

PARTICIPANTS: Pedro Ferreira, David Gross, Szabolcs Marka, Rachel A Rosen, Maria Spiropulu and Moderator Richard Panek.

“Coming to Grips With Gravity”

Introduction 00:07
What is gravity? 2:39
A brief history of gravity 5:50
Space is fluctuating 14:22
Einstein and his equations 18:50
What changes in the 60's for science 24:39
Science and it's social development 34:19
How does dark matter fit in to gravity? 36:00
Why does dark energy get invoked in gravity? 48:00
Experimenters don't care? 58:10
What other phenomenon can create gravitational waves? 1:03:35
Black holes are amazing 1:11:01
Do all quantum mechanical process take place in space time? 1:18:26
What are your thoughts on a warp drive? 1:21:50
Does dark energy relate to dark matter? 1:22:59
----
It´s stunning that these scientists even can have a discussion based on a *force* they don´t know anything of but pure speculative assumptions and connect this unknown force to everything else in their assumptive theories.

Yes, they talk about gravity in a discussion about gravity and its effects. That is SO stunning!

All because of the Atmospheric/Spacial Pressure on the Earth.

Except, not.


I loved one of the quotes in the video: "we always try to find Einstein to be wrong. But he is always right. What a tragedy!"

 

[Native]

Personally, I would say they´re much worse because they all lack philosophical perceptions and natural logics.

Both of which are completely irrelevant for modeling or understanding this material.

I no more care what you think is irrelevant as you don´t have the relevant philosophical skills to differ what is relevant or not.

So, you agree with one of the cyclic universe models?

With "one of"? I just told you the ONE in which I agree:

In the most specific ancient cultural stories of creation, the Universe is determined to be eternal and everything undergoes cyclical and eternal changes between creation/formation, dissolution and re-formation, thus transforming and conserving all energies eternally. Everything is cyclical!

No standing modern theory can beat that!

 

[Polymath257]

Personally, I would say they´re much worse because they all lack philosophical perceptions and natural logics.

I no more care what you think is irrelevant as you don´t have the relevant philosophical skills to differ what is relevant or not.

I disagree. I just don't think your philosophical position holds any value.

With "one of"? I just told you the ONE in which I agree:

In other words, you pick the vaguest one without any evidence in favor of one that at least fits the evidence?

 

[Native]

Yes, they talk about gravity in a discussion about gravity and its effects. That is SO stunning!

Yes, begining with a total silence when asked what "gravity is" and then admitting that "we don´t know what gravity is" and then they wasted 1 1/2 hour speaking of all the areas in where their not understood gravity plays the main role.

Modern cosmological scientists in a nutshell.

I loved one of the quotes in the video: "we always try to find Einstein to be wrong. But he is always right. What a tragedy!"

I bet you did as you´re likewise collectively hypnotized as the participants who also believe in scientific gravity dogmas.

 

[Native]

In other words, you pick the vaguest one without any evidence in favor of one that at least fits the evidence?

No I just picks the logical one and leave the rest to fight against their own contradictions and inconsistensies.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, begining with a total silence when asked what "gravity is" and then admitting that "we don´t know what gravity is" and then they wasted 1 1/2 hour speaking of all the areas in where their not understood gravity plays the main role.

Modern cosmological scientists in a nutshell.

We also don't know what E&M 'is'. We don't know what friction 'is'. But we *do* know how they act and that is enough.

I bet you did as you´re likewise collectively hypnotized as the participants who also believe in scientific gravity dogmas.

And yet, Einstein is consistently found to be correct when his ideas can be tested. Even by those who *want* to show them wrong.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Native]

We also don't know what E&M 'is'. We don't know what friction 'is'. But we *do* know how they act and that is enough.

Speak for yourself

And yet, Einstein is consistently found to be correct when his ideas can be tested. Even by those who *want* to show them wrong.

Why do you think that is?

Because if a fameous person make a hypothesis he/her uncritical followers can find lots of observations which is interpreted to confirm the initial assumption, thats why. It´s called ad hoc assumptions and adding of epi cycles.

 

[Polymath257]

Speak for yourself

Because if a fameous person make a hypothesis he/her uncritical followers can find lots of observations which is interpreted to confirm the initial assumption, thats why. It´s called ad hoc assumptions and adding of epi cycles.

But, again, thi sis in spite of people trying to prove Einstein wrong. They are attempting to find evidence that goes against what Einstein's equations predict. And they fail to do so. This isn't just 'ad hoc assumptions'. It is dealing with actual evidence accumulated; actual measurements made.

And once again, a team that could show Einstein was *wrong* would be in line for the Nobel Prize. But they need much more than philosophical speculation to do so: they need actual measurements that don't agree with Einstein's equations.

And, again, this is a point you ignore repeatedly. The ability to correctly predict the results of observations is the *standard* for science. Not adherence to some silly philosophy or idealism of some personality. Simple ability to predict the results of measurements correctly.

 

[joelr]

I was only discussing the gravitational *curved space time* idea of the GR which I find very amusing and highly speculative - and even worse that the Newtonian gravity ideas.

I know that. GPS systems being in space and much higher up in a gravity well than the clocks and maps on the ground have several types of time/space dillation to correct for. The theory predicts it, It does show up as predicted. The equations allow us to correct all of the errors due to time dillation from several relativistic effects.

This paper demonstrates all of the issues needed dealing with and what equations. This is why it's considered a marvel of confirmation of general relativity.


Relativity in the Global Positioning System

I´m NOT questioning neither the Newtonian nor the Einsteinian calculatios in the Solar system at all as these works fine - even as for instants the GPR satellites needs constant corrections in their positions.

I´m ONLY questioning which or what forces are at the play and I don´t accept a *fundamental force* which is based on a pure apple-assumption.

The model of spacetime curvature predicted by GR is exactly what we see. The theory allows us to correct all of them.
Clearly this is a force which is not EM. We do not have a quantum version but that will not change the Newtonian equations or the GR equations. It will just explain what is happening at the quantum level.

I don't understand what you mean by "assumption" being the basis for gravity? The theory predicts that several relativistic effects will be seen in GPS triangulation and with sending the information to the ground. We do in fact see these issues.
Why would that be an assumption? We have a theory and it works to an incredible degree? Look at the paper.
Gravity is one of the forces, do you have reason to believe it's not?

 

[joelr]

Yes, begining with a total silence when asked what "gravity is" and then admitting that "we don´t know what gravity is" and then they wasted 1 1/2 hour speaking of all the areas in where their not understood gravity plays the main role.

at 3:27 he says from a practical standpoint we know exactly what gravity is. What they mean by not "knowing what gravity is" is just because we do not have a description of what's happening at the quantum level. That's it. This doesn't mean it's not real? That conclusion is absurd.
It means we haven't discovered it's quantum nature yet.
With EM we have a quantum description - quantum fields for the photon and Q. Electrodynamics about it's interaction with photons. So having all this we know for sure gravity isn't going to turn out to be E.M. acting in some new way. Gravity just needs to be quantized. It has to be doing something at the quantum level?

when Maxwell came up with his equations for E.M we had no quantum description either. So does that mean E.M. was just a fiction scientists made up? No, it was clearly a real force and eventually we discovered more about it. No other force is suddenly going to take over gravity and be able to reproduce the effects. We already have quantum descriptions of the others and the standard model is done. Whatever propaganda you are buying into is leading you into crank territory.

 

[Native]

Not adherence to some silly philosophy or idealism of some personality. Simple ability to predict the results of measurements correctly.

Your definition of *philosophy* is so silly in itself but expected as you´ve deposited this *skill of natural pondering* in the *math and prediction* department.

If your narrow standing philosophy constrains your ability to think of other solutions, you have no other options but to interpret all observations into the narrow philosophical department of your theory. Such a narrow minded method can only lead to further assumptions and addings of further epicycles.

A method which is taking place all over in the standing consensus astrophysics and cosmology.

But, again, this is in spite of people trying to prove Einstein wrong. They are attempting to find evidence that goes against what Einstein's equations predict. And they fail to do so.

You can´t disprove Einstein´s overall points of views by uncritically accepting Einsteins philosophical world view and calculations at all. You can only do this by taking alternate approaches to his postulations and speculations.

It´s a question of expanding your PHILOSOPHICAL world view and see tings from more than one side.

With your own words to yourself:

And, again, this is a point you ignore repeatedly.