What's wrong with physics?

[night912]

So now you´ve understood that Sabine Hossenfelder criticise the standing physics? About time too

Hahaha. Your calculations were incorrect. Did the electromagnetic field in your brain misaligned, resulting in your brain processing speed? Or were you using a ruler in an attempt to measure time, thinking that a particular way of measurement is capable of measuring something outside of its intended usage?


I understood what she said in the very first reply that I posted in this thread. Post #108. Thd very same one where I posted my theories on how you're going to respond to what I said. Again, reading comprehension skills are important. Without it, you will gather and/or process information inaccurately.

And I already show what and where you stated in regards to how you think physics should be used, and that was exactly one of the things that she criticized.

Here's my theories.

2. Saying that I didn't understand what she said, does nothing to show that you understood what she was talking about.

You proved that one true.

3. Avoid to address my points that I made above, does nothing to show that you understood what she was talking about.

You proved that one true. That's what you just did in your post that I'm responding to right now.


A Friendly Reminder:
Don't throw your ruler away just because you weren't able to measure time.

 

[night912]

It always amuses me when debaters speaks of a *Big Bang* as if it really happend

It's never a surprise to me when the people who are ignorant of science speak of a big bang, as if an explosion really happened.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Try to EXPLAIN this old gravity ghost before you´re take it for granted and insert it in scientific theories. What kind of a force is it? Does it work by rubber strands between objects? By teleportation?

Nope. The gravitational field is produced by mass and energy in a way analogous to the way that the electric field is produced by charges.

You still don´t EXPLAIN the nature of the force you´re talking about and nobody can either, contrary to the EM explanations. IN the real world it´s the chemical EM properties which binds atomic matter together.

For modern physics, gravity is actually a curvature of spacetime.

Einstein´s *rubber sheet gravity* which seemingly only is pushing down.

Just curvature of spacetime produced by mass and energy (or a field produced by mass). Other things move in the curved spacetime along geodesics (or in the field).

Very intertaining indeed Rubber strands and rubber sheets

 

[Subduction Zone]

Einstein´s *rubber sheet gravity* which seemingly only is pushing down.

No, it is not 'pushing down'. That is only an illustration to help people to understand. Mass warps space. Objects follow straight lines, but since space is warped around mass those straight lines look curved to us.

Do you really want to understand this? Then take some more advanced mathematics classes.

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
Try to EXPLAIN this old gravity ghost before you´re take it for granted and insert it in scientific theories. What kind of a force is it? Does it work by rubber strands between objects? By teleportation?

You still don´t EXPLAIN the nature of the force you´re talking about and nobody can either, contrary to the EM explanations. IN the real world it´s the chemical EM properties which binds atomic matter together.


Einstein´s *rubber sheet gravity* which seemingly only is pushing do

Very intertaining indeed Rubber strands and rubber sheets

The rubber sheet analogy is just that, an analogy. You cannot show it in full 3 dimensions.

"The GPS is a remarkable laboratory for applications of the concepts of special and general relativity. GPS is also valuable as an outstanding source of pedagogical examples. It is deserving of more scrutiny from relativity experts."

When using GR to position GPS systems there are many relativistic effects that need to be accounted for and many equations performed. This is an excellent test for GR.
We need to account for the Doppler effect, frequency shifts in orbit changes, perturbation equations, there are secondary relativistic effects as well as these 5 distinct relativistic effects:

• the effect of earth’s mass on gravitational frequency shifts of atomic reference clocks fixed on the earth’s surface relative to clocks at infinity;
  
  
• the effect of earth’s oblate mass distribution on gravitational frequency shifts of atomic clocks fixed on earth’s surface;
  
  
• second-order Doppler shifts of clocks fixed on earth’s surface due to earth rotation;
  
  
• gravitational frequency shifts of clocks in GPS satellites due to earth’s mass;
  
  
• and second-order Doppler shifts of clocks in GPS satellites due to their motion through an Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) Frame

Relativity in the Global Positioning System

This is a remarkable success of General Relativity to accurately solve all these issues and correctly get a GPS system in space to synch up with Earth clocks.

While there is no quantum description like with EM there is no doubt that this theory works. When a quantum version arises it will not replace GR but will add to it. Just like GR added to Newtonian gravity.

EM cannot re-produce any of this at all. Follow the link and view the incredible mathematics and the stunning success of the theory.

• 
  Relativity in the Global Positioning System
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
Try to EXPLAIN this old gravity ghost before you´re take it for granted and insert it in scientific theories. What kind of a force is it? Does it work by rubber strands between objects? By teleportation?

All of that is known and explained by the theory. The equations involve space and time and not only do they make sense they work, they also reproduce Newtonian gravity and make predictions like the universe is expanding, gravitational lensing, gravity waves, the solution to Mercurys orbit and account for time dillation and several relativistic effects on GPS systems.

The geometric description is just one way to describe it. You can form a geometrical description on EM as well. The theory works, that will never change. What is still needed is a quantum description. The macroscopic theory is complete.

 

[Native]

"The GPS is a remarkable laboratory for applications of the concepts of special and general relativity. GPS is also valuable as an outstanding source of pedagogical examples. It is deserving of more scrutiny from relativity experts."

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.

All of that is known and explained by the theory. The equations involve space and time and not only do they make sense they work, they also reproduce Newtonian gravity and make predictions like the universe is expanding, gravitational lensing, gravity waves, the solution to Mercurys orbit and account for time dillation and several relativistic effects on GPS systems.

The geometric description is just one way to describe it. You can form a geometrical description on EM as well. The theory works, that will never change. What is still needed is a quantum description. The macroscopic theory is complete.

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.

 

[Native]

Subject: What cosmological science is relevant and why is it that no new ideas aren´t suggested?

Sabine Hossenfeld´s thought a bout the LHC and *the sceintific methododology* in general.

What do you think about this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me put the following through a translator:

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 can't make heads nor tails of this Relativity. It is even harder to understand than Newtonian gravity. I know! I will make a false slur that I cannot defend against the scientists that do understand it. Now I feel better!

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.

Let me repeat, I do not understand these ideas at all. I will admit that they work sometimes, that should convince somebody that I am being reasonable. But since I do not understand these ideas they must be clearly wrong.

Whew, back to normal. That was a less than pleasant translation job.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And yet, it has been verified in detail.

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.

You can't separate the calculations from the forces involved. The calculations are *based* on keeping track of the forces.

If E&M were dominant, completely different calculations would have to be done. And the results would be NOTHING like the results from using gravity.

And it is the calculations from gravity that agree with observations.

 

[Native]

I said:
I´m NOT questioning neither the Newtonian nor the Einsteinian calculations 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.

You can't separate the calculations from the forces involved. The calculations are *based* on keeping track of the forces.

Of course I can´t and I´ve told you this several times by now, so please remember this when you´re replying.

What I CAN do is to questioning what forces are at play since *gravity* isn´t scientifically and dynamically explained anywhere. It´s just assumed and no more.

If E&M were dominant, completely different calculations would have to be done. And the results would be NOTHING like the results from using gravity.

Why do you mention EM i this case of *gravtational issues* on the Earth and it´s celestial surroundings? I´ve never postulated the EM to play any significant *gravitational* role in this case.

I´m only bringing the EM forward as the main force of formation everywhere and that´s it.

 

[Polymath257]

I said:
I´m NOT questioning neither the Newtonian nor the Einsteinian calculations 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.

Of course I can´t and I´ve told you this several times by now, so please remember this when you´re replying.

What I CAN do is to questioning what forces are at play since *gravity* isn´t scientifically and dynamically explained anywhere. It´s just assumed and no more.

Why do you mention EM i this case of *gravtational issues* on the Earth and it´s celestial surroundings? I´ve never postulated the EM to play any significant *gravitational* role in this case.

I´m only bringing the EM forward as the main force of formation everywhere and that´s it.

OK, so you are accepting that gravity works as claimed in the solar system? I thought you were denying its existence even there.

 

[Native]

OK, so you are accepting that gravity works as claimed in the solar system? I thought you were denying its existence even there.

No I don´t at all. I ONLY accept the CALCULATIONS to be OK but NOT for the *assumed gravity reasons*.

 

[Polymath257]

No I don´t at all. I ONLY accept the CALCULATIONS to be OK but NOT for the *assumed gravity reasons*.

But you can't get those calculations *except* from the assumption of gravity! The calculations *only make sense* in the context of gravity.

That's something you consistently seem to not understand. The reason *those* calculations, and not others, are done is that they take into account the gravitational influences of all the planets.

If you don't assume gravity, those calculations would make no sense to do at all. Otherwise, why would your calculations include the gravitational effect of Jupiter (say) on the other planets?

So, for example, to compute the motion of Mars, you need to include the force of gravity from the Sun, from Jupiter, from the Earth, and from all the other planets. Each such interaction has a separate term in the calculation. if you did not assume 'gravity', then it would make no sense to include those terms. And, without those terms, the calculations do not agree with observations.

You seem to think the calculations are done the same way as the calculations of the ancient Babylonians. They are NOT. But they *are* much, much more accurate than what the Babylonians did *because* they include gravity in motivating the specific calculations. It is NOT simply 'finding patterns in the motions', which is what was done by the ancients.

 

[Native]

But you can't get those calculations *except* from the assumption of gravity! The calculations *only make sense* in the context of gravity.

That's something you consistently seem to not understand. The reason *those* calculations, and not others, are done is that they take into account the gravitational influences of all the planets.

If you don't assume gravity, those calculations would make no sense to do at all. Otherwise, why would your calculations include the gravitational effect of Jupiter (say) on the other planets?

You seem to think the calculations are done the same way as the calculations of the ancient Babylonians. They are NOT. But they *are* much, much more accurate that what the Babylonians did *because* they include gravity in motivating the specific calculations. It is NOT simply 'finding patterns in the motions', which is what was done by the ancients.

Once, when you´ve changed you´re besserwissen and downgrading attitude, we maybe can have an equal conversation.

 

[Polymath257]

Once, when you´ve changed you´re besserwissen and downgrading attitude, we maybe can have an equal conversation.

When you explain why the calculations would be done at all without an assumption of gravity, then maybe there can be a conversation.

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

 

[Native]

When you explain why the calculations would be done at all without an assumption of gravity, then maybe there can be a conversation.

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

Wrong attitude once again.

 

[Native]

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".

 

[Polymath257]

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

More specifically, the assumption of an inverse square force proportional to both of the masses: in other words, gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong attitude once again.

Not an attitude. A fact about the reason those calculations are done at all. The very calculations require a force that falls as the inverse square of the distance and is proportional to the masses involved. In other words, gravity.

If, instead, you do the calculations for General Relativity, you need to assume a metric tensor that is determined by the distribution of mass and where objects move according to a geodesic. In other words, gravity.