Hey everybody!
Where would I go to have a discussion about the nature of gravity?

 

Flat Earth Society?

 

 

Or have a conversation with Sabine Hossenfelder.

 

Flat Earth Society?

Not flat earth

 

Not flat earth

Why not? Something has to hold things to a flat Earth. I'm pretty sure the Aether is not up to the job. It lacks stickiness.

 

Not flat earth

I think my earliest intuition about it was not that is was a sphere. I don't think I really adopted a sphererical view until I was at least 10 or so. But I guess it is flat enough from where I am standing.

 

And if you enjoy listening to Sabine, watch this.

 

And if you enjoy listening to Sabine, watch this.

Not a fan, but I have no earthly idea why.

 

I think most people’s “understanding” of free will assumes the ghost in the machine. I reject that version of free will.

 

I think most people’s “understanding” of free will assumes the ghost in the machine. I reject that version of free will.

Hi,

Then how do you know if *you* are the one rejecting it or not?
If you are the one rejecting it, then there must be free will. If there is no free will, then you can't reject it.

 

Hi,

Then how do you know if *you* are the one rejecting it or not?
If you are the one rejecting it, then there must be free will. If there is no free will, then you can't reject it.

Here you have stopped discussing free will and begun to discuss language. The semantic content of his statement, parsed in a mode it was not intended to accommodate, has nothing to say about who “you” is.

Also the sentence doesn’t deny free will—it denies a specific version of it.

 

Hey everybody!
Where would I go to have a discussion about the nature of gravity?

You might find some interesting replies right here.

First, none of the theories are correct even Einsteins theory of warped spacetime.
We know this because:
1. It does not always work.
2. Although it has been rigorously tested, that testing has only been done under the influence of weak gravity. There are many, many places in the universe that have very strong gravity.

This should come as no surprise for various reasons. One reason is that knowledge is incremental, and if we look into the past, so far every theory has been updated in one way or another leaving the past stuck in the realm of pure empirical approximation. This does not mean that they can not be incredibly useful, it just means that we have not gotten to the bottom of this fascinating phenomenon yet.

This means none of the theories are there yet, but there are a lot of new theories being considered all of which have merit.

 

Here you have stopped discussing free will and begun to discuss language. The semantic content of his statement, parsed in a mode it was not intended to accommodate, has nothing to say about who “you” is.

Also the sentence doesn’t deny free will—it denies a specific version of it.

Hi,

Well what i am trying to say is that if there is no free will then how can we be sure anything we say has not been already predetermined. That would mean rejecting free will has already been predetermined.

 

Hi,

Well what i am trying to say is that if there is no free will then how can we be sure anything we say has not been already predetermined. That would mean rejecting free will has already been predetermined.

I understood your intent—but I find this is a thread about a topic that we haven’t (yet) prohibited and it’s neither the nature of the self nor free will.

So, back to æther talk and we can discuss this at another opportunity.

 

Hi,

Then how do you know if *you* are the one rejecting it or not?
If you are the one rejecting it, then there must be free will. If there is no free will, then you can't reject it.

Define “you”. This is a large part of he problem with discussion of free will. You and I would likely not agree on what is meant by “I” or “you”. If you think that is obvious, you obviously have not thought about it enough.

You argument is circular, it assumes the exist of free will as a premise.

 

You might find some interesting replies right here.

First, none of the theories are correct even Einsteins theory of warped spacetime.
We know this because:
1. It does not always work.
2. Although it has been rigorously tested, that testing has only been done under the influence of weak gravity. There are many, many places in the universe that have very strong gravity.

This should come as no surprise for various reasons. One reason is that knowledge is incremental, and if we look into the past, so far every theory has been updated in one way or another leaving the past stuck in the realm of pure empirical approximation. This does not mean that they can not be incredibly useful, it just means that we have not gotten to the bottom of this fascinating phenomenon yet.

This means none of the theories are there yet, but there are a lot of new theories being considered all of which have merit.

1. It works in the vast majority of cases, that means it's imperfect, not that it's incorrect. Any new theory MUST predict the same correct physics as Einstein's and extend that to predicts physics of conditions out of the realm of Einstein.
2. It been rigorously tested in about the strongest gravity conditions in the universe, merging black holes and neutron stars. Einstein's theory of warped spacetime includes the creation and propagation of gravity waves.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw

Gravitational waves are 'ripples' in space-time caused by some of the most violent and energetic processes in the Universe. Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916 in his general theory of relativity. Einstein's mathematics showed that massive accelerating objects (things like neutron stars or black holes orbiting each other) would disrupt space-time in such a way that 'waves' of undulating space-time would propagate in all directions away from the source. These cosmic ripples would travel at the speed of light, carrying with them information about their origins, as well as clues to the nature of gravity itself.

 

1. It works in the vast majority of cases, that means it's imperfect, not that it's incorrect. Any new theory MUST predict the same correct physics as Einstein's and extend that to predicts physics of conditions out of the realm of Einstein.

It is interesting that Einstein himself adopted this standard. In formulating Relativity, he made sure that it was compatible with all the previous successful theories that came before it.

It is a kind of Newton+. For that reason I prefer the word “incomplete” to ”imperfect”. Just as Newton breaks down under conditions he didn’t—in fact couldn’t—consider, Einstein has similar limits.

Einstein was more complete than Newton, a new theory of quantum gravity will be more complete than Einstein—and it may continue that way for quite a while before we run out of things to add.

 

It is interesting that Einstein himself adopted this standard. In formulating Relativity, he made sure that it was compatible with all the previous successful theories that came before it.

It is a kind of Newton+. For that reason I prefer the word “incomplete” to ”imperfect”. Just as Newton breaks down under conditions he didn’t—in fact couldn’t—consider, Einstein has similar limits.

Einstein was more complete than Newton, a new theory of quantum gravity will be more complete than Einstein—and it may continue that way for quite a while before we run out of things to add.

Sure, incomplete or ”imperfect”, neither means incorrect or wrong.

https://web.williams.edu/Mathematic.../341Fa16/handouts/asimovrelativityofwrong.htm

 

I understood your intent—but I find this is a thread about a topic that we haven’t (yet) prohibited and it’s neither the nature of the self nor free will.

So, back to æther talk and we can discuss this at another opportunity.

Hi,

When i looked back, i see i got side tracked as well. Somebody brought in the free will discussion for some reason not sure why. We can talk about this another time as you suggested, no argument here.