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.

Hi,

Thanks for the reply, but we will have to talk about this in another thread at some point.

 

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.

Hi again,

First, thanks for your insight again.

Are you talking about Einstein being either 'wrong' or just 'incomplete' ?
If so (and if not that's ok because some will be talking about this), my stand on that, as it always was, that there are some theories that are incomplete and some that are just wrong. Most however are just wrong as far as I can see. As bold a statement as this is, I believe Einstein is also just wrong, or at least probably wrong. I don't see any way out of this, except in the slight chance that there is a way to add maybe another variable to the equation and thus it would be a matter of a modification to Einstein rather than a complete rework.
Taking a step back in history, I can say this in the same way that I do not see Einstein as a 'modification' of Newton, and I am certain I am not alone in this idea. In other words, it is not a Newton in any way shape or form, but rather a complete paradigm shift. The idea of spacetime is in no way associated with a simple algebraic 'formula' for describing the nature of gravity. It's a completely different way of looking at things.
This would be similar to how we would see something like quantum gravity change things, which would most likely leave all of the previous history of gravity in the dust.

I'll try to show an 'example' of why I look at it like this.
Say we have 3 scientists A,B,C separated by some years, 3 theories a,b,c for each scientist respectively separated by some years, and 5 facts 1,2,3,4,5, known at the different times.
Now the first in time, scientist A knows about facts 1,2,3. His theory 'a' satisfies all of them.
Now second, scientist B knows about facts 1,2,3,4. His theory 'b' satisfies all four for those and thus can explain more than theory 'a'.
Third, scientist C knows about facts 1,2,3,4,5. His theory 'c' satisfies all five, and thus he can explain more than theory 'b'.

The thing about the facts however is that they almost come out of nowhere, and thus are not usually related, at least not too well. This means that it is unlikely that there will be some sort of 'linear' change in the theories a, b, and c, but they will be entirely different. One of the reasons for this I believe is because if they were already predictable based on the current information facts, then theory 'c' would have been known long before it actually was discovered.
This is what I believe has happened, and will happen again. We might think of Newton as scientist A, and Einstein as B, and yet to come is scientist(s) C. Theories a and b are already unrelated, and so theory c will most likely be unrelated also. This also seems the likely outcome because of the current research that rejects spacetime as the ultimate answer.

Also, keep in mind that there are approximations that can come out of a more advanced theory, but that does not make them right. Approximations are empirical that's about it.
For example, in control theory we can have a 2nd order approximation to a 3rd order system. The 2nd order approximation can be pretty darn good over a wide range of operating conditions. However, it can not completely specify the 3rd order system unless it was not really a 3rd order system. The 3rd order system is the only way to do that. It's the most general.

Any ideas, contradictions, etc., are welcome.

 

Relativity is far from a new way of looking at things. All physical theories are set in space and time. The main point is that theories of gravitation needed to be adjust to be more like electromagnetism where there is no absolute simultaneity in space or time. Everyone, including Newton knew that Newton's instant effects theory of gravity was 'incomplete' even while it provided perfectly good answers for most human time-scale events. We needed a gravitational theory that has a fixed speed limit like EM to explain the effects of gravity on electromagnetic energy at great distances but in the appropriate limit, approaches Newtonian gravity. GR gravity builds on EM theory and makes both compatible ,(remain valid even in the curved spacetime of general relativity). with the experimental data we see everyday on systems like GPS where EM and gravity interact.

 

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

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

Yes, it's just a preference. Imperfect isn't wrong.

I think the main thing is that "perfect" is such an elusive idea, something that can only be approached and even then only from one perspective. "Complete" doesn't have the connotation of suffering from Zeno's Paradox (for me).

No doubt there is nothing functionally wrong with that description, though.

 

Yes, it's just a preference. Imperfect isn't wrong.

I think the main thing is that "perfect" is such an elusive idea, something that can only be approached and even then only from one perspective. "Complete" doesn't have the connotation of suffering from Zeno's Paradox (for me).

No doubt there is nothing functionally wrong with that description, though.

I should add:

The flat earth example is interesting because in the process of working out the (distorted) spherical nature of the earth, it was necessary to understand and account for why the planet seems flat.

I have often thought about how (most?) flat earth enthusiasts suggest that the initial proof of the flatness is their inability to sense the roundness. Having had this "insight" they then spend their time trying to explain away the very things they are sensing that are proof of the roundness.

I spend a lot of time photographing the sunrise (and sunset). It is those times this comes to mind because I am struck by how my very own senses are constantly showing the true nature of our planet and some of the attributes the universe it is streaking through.

So, when I look at the horizon, and at the sky, and watch over time—what I see is confirmation of the kinetics and nature of the solar system that show unequivocally the earth is not flat.

In order to claim it is (and I am not making this up) flat earth enthusiasts must* claim:

1. There is no gravity
2. The sun is very nearby
3. The planets aren't the same thing as earth
4. There was no moon landing, nor was there ever any space mission since...
5. Space doesn't exist
6. The propagation of light doesn't follow the established rules
7. Antarctica is is an "ice wall" that encircles an area of flat earth
8. People are not allowed to go to Antarctica, and will be stopped by an international military alliance
9. Beyond the icewall is a fantastic and plentiful place being kept secret
10. and more, since every gap must be filled no matter how unlikely the explanation

*Some things on the list are not required but are nonetheless various part of the consensus.

And this would be the position someone would be in if they tried to uphold Newton against Einstein's additions. And, of course, flat earth enthusiasts do this very thing.

My point is, if they averred the many things we can sense that show the earth isn't flat, they wouldn't be able to deny it. So they keep repeating the same nonsense when confronted with evidence that one can, in fact, use one's own senses to perceive a spherical earth.

In this way, the first perception, that the earth is a plane, is superseded in the informed person's perception by the new additions made by keen observers. This converts the quite incomplete theory of earth's shape (that has some merit and will serve perfectly well if kept to a scale where it doesn't matter) to a more complete theory that allows for larger scale predictions.

 

Hi again,

First, thanks for your insight again.

Are you talking about Einstein being either 'wrong' or just 'incomplete' ?
If so (and if not that's ok because some will be talking about this), my stand on that, as it always was, that there are some theories that are incomplete and some that are just wrong. Most however are just wrong as far as I can see. As bold a statement as this is, I believe Einstein is also just wrong, or at least probably wrong. I don't see any way out of this, except in the slight chance that there is a way to add maybe another variable to the equation and thus it would be a matter of a modification to Einstein rather than a complete rework.
Taking a step back in history, I can say this in the same way that I do not see Einstein as a 'modification' of Newton, and I am certain I am not alone in this idea. In other words, it is not a Newton in any way shape or form, but rather a complete paradigm shift. The idea of spacetime is in no way associated with a simple algebraic 'formula' for describing the nature of gravity. It's a completely different way of looking at things.
This would be similar to how we would see something like quantum gravity change things, which would most likely leave all of the previous history of gravity in the dust.

I'll try to show an 'example' of why I look at it like this.
Say we have 3 scientists A,B,C separated by some years, 3 theories a,b,c for each scientist respectively separated by some years, and 5 facts 1,2,3,4,5, known at the different times.
Now the first in time, scientist A knows about facts 1,2,3. His theory 'a' satisfies all of them.
Now second, scientist B knows about facts 1,2,3,4. His theory 'b' satisfies all four for those and thus can explain more than theory 'a'.
Third, scientist C knows about facts 1,2,3,4,5. His theory 'c' satisfies all five, and thus he can explain more than theory 'b'.

The thing about the facts however is that they almost come out of nowhere, and thus are not usually related, at least not too well. This means that it is unlikely that there will be some sort of 'linear' change in the theories a, b, and c, but they will be entirely different. One of the reasons for this I believe is because if they were already predictable based on the current information facts, then theory 'c' would have been known long before it actually was discovered.
This is what I believe has happened, and will happen again. We might think of Newton as scientist A, and Einstein as B, and yet to come is scientist(s) C. Theories a and b are already unrelated, and so theory c will most likely be unrelated also. This also seems the likely outcome because of the current research that rejects spacetime as the ultimate answer.

Also, keep in mind that there are approximations that can come out of a more advanced theory, but that does not make them right. Approximations are empirical that's about it.
For example, in control theory we can have a 2nd order approximation to a 3rd order system. The 2nd order approximation can be pretty darn good over a wide range of operating conditions. However, it can not completely specify the 3rd order system unless it was not really a 3rd order system. The 3rd order system is the only way to do that. It's the most general.

Any ideas, contradictions, etc., are welcome.

A perfect example of "not even wrong".

1. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
   
   
2. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
   
   
3. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
   

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

The flat earth example is interesting because in the process of working out the (distorted) spherical nature of the earth, it was necessary to understand and account for why the planet seems flat.


I have often thought about how (most?) flat earth enthusiasts suggest that the initial proof of the flatness is their inability to sense the roundness. Having had this "insight" they then spend their time trying to explain away the very things they are sensing that are proof of the roundness.

Even as a child, the fact that the Earth is round seemed rather obvious to me. I would look at the moon, the sun, the stars. They all appeared ball-like in shape. And of course looking out over the horizon while at the beach or what have you. (Granted I don't think I considered the gravitational implications way back then.)

Point is a person would have to try REALLY HARD to reach the opposite conclusion. Some people for whatever reason just tend to gravitate toward weird and/or superstitious ideas, I think. Contrarians, et al...

 

Even as a child, the fact that the Earth is round seemed rather obvious to me. I would look at the moon, the sun, the stars. They all appeared ball-like in shape. And of course looking out over the horizon while at the beach or what have you. (Granted I don't think I considered the gravitational implications way back then.)

Point is a person would have to try REALLY HARD to reach the opposite conclusion. Some people for whatever reason just tend to gravitate toward weird and/or superstitious ideas, I think. Contrarians, et al...

I think the point is in this thread about flat earth, is that we all (all in scientific method terms) know is really wrong and incorrect as a physical theory of the earth but it's still a useful approximation that gives us usable physical answers at some small human scale. The usable physical answer range of GR gravity is so immense that any possible unification with quantum gravity won't make Einstein's theory wrong.

 

I think the point is in this thread about flat earth, is that we all (all in scientific method terms) know is really wrong and incorrect as a physical theory of the earth but it's still a useful approximation that gives us usable physical answers at some small human scale.

Well of course. The smaller the scale, the flatter a sphere appears to be, so at a certain point it can effectively be treated as such. Same approach can be found in other areas of maths too. The small-angle approximation for example.

The usable physical answer range of GR gravity is so immense that any possible unification with quantum gravity won't make Einstein's theory wrong.

How can one possibly hope to unify an essentially flawless (albeit perhaps limited) theory, GR, with the confusing mishmash of (not-actual-confirmed-theories-but) conjectures that make up what we know as "quantum gravity"? It isn't even necessary. If anything, a simplification of the relationship between the known forces would be more useful.

Personally I think electric charge, gravity, and quarks all arise from the same basic principle. The so-called "weak force" however I would argue is not a force at all, but the "quantum aspect" which effects all of the forces. That is, a function of the probabilities associated with the stochastic process of particle decay, thus Boltzmann's constant, entropy, etc. (Unfortunately, where I excel at insight, I absolutely fall short in terms of the mathematical prowess needed to state all of that much more concisely!)

 

A very good article about the subject from a few year back..
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists

https://news.fnal.gov/2015/12/holometer-rules-out-first-theory-of-space-time-correlations/

The main theory the Holometer was built to test was posited by Craig Hogan, a professor of astronomy and physics at the University of Chicago and the head of Fermilab’s Center for Particle Astrophysics. In a new result released this week after a year of data-taking, the Holometer collaboration has announced that it has ruled out Hogan’s theory of a pixelated universe to a high level of statistical significance. This means the Holometer did not detect the amount of correlated holographic noise – quantum jitter – that this particular model of space-time predicts.

But as Hogan emphasizes, that’s just one theory, and with the Holometer, this team of scientists has proven that space-time can be probed at an unprecedented level.

“This is just the beginning of the story,” Hogan said. “We’ve developed a new way of studying space and time that we didn’t have before. We weren’t even sure we could attain the sensitivity we did.”

https://news.fnal.gov/2021/02/rando...et-is-quantum-space-time-at-the-planck-scale/

Quantum matter and space-time: two world-systems sharing one unexplained reality

A quantum system is anything made of matter and energy, and nothing in it happens at a definite place and time until it is measured. Space-time seems to be just the opposite: Everything happens locally at a definite place, but its properties can be measured only nonlocally, that is, by comparing what happens in different places.

Somehow, these two different world-systems — quantum matter and space-time — share and interact in the same real physical world. Local absolute space directly affects matter, as anyone can see by spinning a top or experience by getting dizzy on a merry-go-round. Because matter is the source of gravity, it obviously affects space and time. Gravitational waves, which are made of pure space-time, carry energy and information, even through “empty” space, and matter can turn into pure space-time, in the form of black holes. But nobody understands exactly how quantum stuff relates to space and time.

The reason it’s easy to forget about quantum space-time in everyday life, and even in most Fermilab experiments, is that it doesn’t affect anything we actually measure. Although there must be some quantum uncertainty to space-time itself, it becomes fatal to standard theory only below the length where single quantum particles form black holes. This is the tiny scale we call the Planck length.

 

The main theory the Holometer was built to test was posited by Craig Hogan, a professor of astronomy and physics at the University of Chicago and the head of Fermilab’s Center for Particle Astrophysics. In a new result released this week after a year of data-taking, the Holometer collaboration has announced that it has ruled out Hogan’s theory of a pixelated universe to a high level of statistical significance. This means the Holometer did not detect the amount of correlated holographic noise – quantum jitter – that this particular model of space-time predicts.

But as Hogan emphasizes, that’s just one theory, and with the Holometer, this team of scientists has proven that space-time can be probed at an unprecedented level.

“This is just the beginning of the story,” Hogan said. “We’ve developed a new way of studying space and time that we didn’t have before. We weren’t even sure we could attain the sensitivity we did.”

I just have to laugh when I hear ideas like "pixelated universe" being thrown around. What does that even mean?! Sure you have to start from "somewhere" but that just seems like a really strange starting point!

And to be pedantic:

A quantum system is anything made of matter and energy, and nothing in it happens at a definite place and time until it is measured. Space-time seems to be just the opposite: Everything happens locally at a definite place, but its properties can be measured only nonlocally, that is, by comparing what happens in different places.

A quantum system is simply a mathematical formulation which is more or less based on probability-density functions. (Similar to what one might use to study some statistic of a population. You can't say with 100% certainty what is going on becuase you have only sampled a small set of data points. The equations only provide a method to predict something within some degree of certainty.) The system itself is NOT a quantum system per se, but rather a physical system which can be approached with the mathematical tools/models of QM.

 

The Lorentz transform is the result of the axiom : "the speed of light is constant".

The effects seen and explained by GR are consistent with that axiom.
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

 

I just have to laugh when I hear ideas like "pixelated universe" being thrown around.

I know! It’s a voxelated universe!

 

I know! It’s a voxelated universe!

The universe is Minecraft. I knew it.

 

Hello again,

GRAVITY
I have to think back to the pure philosophical ideas such as a hole in the ground.
One view of a hole in the ground is that it really isn't there, it is made up of the material around it. We call it a noun, a 'hole', just to simplify our everyday experiences with such a thing.
It's interesting that if we get inside the hole and look say North, then look South, we can discover that gravity will be trying to pull the North and South sides together, as well as the East and West sides, and of course other directions come into play also so in effect the hole is being crushed inward. That is, it becomes very slightly smaller in diameter than it would be without gravity.
Maybe the best we can do is say that Gravity is just the lack of matter. Maybe that would put Gravity in a class of its own, no energy and no matter; no quantum anything. To try to discover the actual mechanism behind it may be like sticking your hand into the empty hole in the ground and trying to grab at something when there is nothing in the hole. You grab and grab and grab, but you never get ahold of anything because there is nothing in the hole because the hole is just called a hole for convenience, and not an actual physical thing.

THE PIXELATED UNIVERSE
I am not sure if the pixelated universe idea is the same as the simulated universe, where the universe is said to be simulated with some very advanced computer-like device. There are interesting ideas that support that idea too, such as the 'minimization' theory or 'optimization' theory, where a computer (or the programmer) would try to create as much symmetry as possible in order to reduce computation times and storage space. Since we see a lot of symmetry in nature, that could support the simulated universe idea.

Unfortunately, as we all know, none of these ideas can be proved at the current time.

 

Can I say that the manifestation of gravity is brought about by displacement of anti-gravity?

 

Sure, but does it actually have any meaning? Not so sure.

 

Can I say that the manifestation of gravity is brought about by displacement of anti-gravity?

What is “anti-gravity”?

 

Sure, but does it actually have any meaning? Not so sure.

I am going to go with a version of the bowling ball on a trampoline analogy.
To me, the typical illustration depicts a single plane of something sinuous that stretches across the universe. Every point in space down to a few Planck units would be occupied by a matrix of these threads.

What is “anti-gravity”?

In the form of a preposition, it would be anything that strives against it.

 

No insult intended but you are just making things up

That’s really not how science is advanced. You would be much better off trying to understand the current state of knowledge about gravity before inventing things that sound good to you.