Gravity Works Like This

[Undefined]

And what a farce this much vaunted 'peer review' process is. Recent internet experiments using computer-generated gobbledegook saw 'peer review' PASS them! And it is only the latest proof that the 'peer review' is broken and flawed at its core and biased to accept only those ideas/perspectives which agree with those biases. Incestuous and Religious Method of preventing new ideas to replace old ideas are some words that comes to mind which perfectly describes the status quo 'peer review' system.

All systems at times have some hiccups/problems.
Peer review is the best scientific system we have.
Your criticism of it is expected, as you have never submitted anything successfully to the accepted system.

Other than submitting whatever it is you have, and having it accepted, your so called ToE, will languish forever in obscurity.

What you don't seem to even realize, let alone have a clue about, is that even ONE important 'paper' that is FLAWED but 'passed' by 'peer review', and then is USED and CITED in FURTHER 'papers' which depend on that earlier paper's validity is then 'passed' as well, creates a CASCADE EFFECT of flaws which infect future work/papers!

The CASCADE of FLAWS which has been INBUILT into the mainstream literature/models through many FLAWED work/'papers' which have been INCORRECTLY 'accepted source' citations over the last few decades about CMB data etc 'assumptions/interpretations' and the observations made to 'fit' pre-conceived 'accepted but flawed' ORTHODOXY, makes the whole EDIFICE SUSPECT from WAY BACK before the latest in a long line of flawed and improperly passed 'peer review' works/papers in the literature.

This 'peer review' system is not just another 'near enoufgh is good enough' system of checks; it is CRUCIAL that no flawed work/papers be passed so that FURTHER work/papers based on previous flawed pwork/papers doesn't get BUILT INTO the modeling/and review process ITSELF which would then be INCORRECTLY BIASED for 'previously acceptable' citations and BIASED against any work/papers which do NOT support the previous flawed inbuilt prejudices/acceptances of the 'peers' doing the reviewing.

That you have no clue about the SERIOUSNESS of the situation and the DAMAGE which even ONE incorrectly passed peer reviewed paper/work early on in the stream of works/papers which build on those earlier SERIOUSLY FLAWED works/papers passed incorrectly, just shows you have no clue at all. Period. Just trolling your silly facile uninformed and ego-driven 'beliefs based' nonsense opining about subtle/complex/important things you don't 'get' at all. Good luck with that record, mate.

 

[paddoboy]

Getting to the title of the thread......
Gravity is evidenced in the attraction between masses in Newtonian mechanics......
It's actual cause is unknown and could be said at a stretch to be "magical"
Newton, said as much.

Einstein solved that problem to a great extent, with GR and the reality that gravity is evidenced when any mass warps/curves the space/time within its vicinity.

“Matter tells space how to curve.
Space tells matter how to move.”
John Archibald Wheeler:

Newtonian mechanics is still used in the main, even solar system probes etc, while Albert's model offers a far more realistic accurate model of what is happening, and what gravity is.
It has been continually supported for 100 years, and continues to be supported by even more precise extreme situations as in binary and trinary systems.

SR/GR gives us a very accurate, reality of what and how the solar system/galaxy/Universe operate.
Einstein showed that space and time were NOT absolute, and that the speed of light WAS absolute only 100 years ago, although of course those facts were always so, and we were just not smart enough to realize it...Until Albert came along. [with some help of course!]

 

[Undefined]

“Matter tells space how to curve.
Space tells matter how to move.”
John Archibald Wheeler:

What is the coupling mechanism/process in reality between space and matter by which "matter tells space how to 'curve'", and by which "space tells matter how to move". How is the 'telling' effected inn reality, not in your abstraction/magic terms, paddoboy?

Have you bothered to ask that question and come up with the answer? If not, then please stop cluttering up the threads/discussions with your inane irrelevant repetitions of inane irrelevant quotes from magic/abstraction-driven mainstream scientist speculators who also haven't the answer either. Thanks for your co-operation in you keeping your 'noise' down if you have nothing original or relevant to offer the thread/discussion. Thanks.

 

[CptBork]

What is the coupling mechanism/process in reality between space and matter by which "matter tells space how to 'curve'", and by which "space tells matter how to move". How is the 'telling' effected inn reality, not in your abstraction/magic terms, paddoboy?

Have you bothered to ask that question and come up with the answer? If not, then please stop cluttering up the threads/discussions with your inane irrelevant repetitions of inane irrelevant quotes from magic/abstraction-driven mainstream scientist speculators who also haven't the answer either. Thanks for your co-operation in you keeping your 'noise' down if you have nothing original or relevant to offer the thread/discussion. Thanks.

There's no point in trying to invent a mechanism for General Relativity unless you have some precise physical evidence for that mechanism, or it models physical situations that GR can't handle, such as quantum gravity. Even then, whatever mechanism might underlie GR would itself have unexplained features that would force people like you to demand an even deeper mechanism, and a mechanism for that mechanism, and so on ad infinitum. At some point, you will have no choice but to assert that "this is what happens, because it just does", without proof of why it has to happen; otherwise, in theory you could deduce all the properties of the universe in your sleep even if you were born blind and deaf, and our universe would be the only one that could possibly exist under the rules of logic. In other words, lay off the demands to have an a priori deducible mechanism for General Relativity, because it's impossible to deduce something a priori.

 

[paddoboy]

What is the coupling mechanism/process in reality between space and matter by which "matter tells space how to 'curve'", and by which "space tells matter how to move". How is the 'telling' effected inn reality, not in your abstraction/magic terms, paddoboy?

Space/time curvature/warping twisting etc, and which we have measured.
Gravity is space/time geometry.

space, time, space/time, gravity, matter, energy, all exist. Without one, we wouldn't have the other.
See Sten Odenwald.

Have you bothered to ask that question and come up with the answer? If not, then please stop cluttering up the threads/discussions with your inane irrelevant repetitions of inane irrelevant quotes from magic/abstraction-driven mainstream scientist speculators who also haven't the answer either. Thanks for your co-operation in you keeping your 'noise' down if you have nothing original or relevant to offer the thread/discussion. Thanks.

It appears to be you cluttering up threads, with your inane alternative theories, and obsession for one-up-man-ship.
My quotes from reputable mainstream science WILL continue, whenever I deem them necessary to refute your silly claims and somehow contain your delusions of grandeur.
What you interpret as noise, is reputable refutation of your alternative crap, which is unsupported, unreviewed, unscientific and unevidenced.

 

[paddoboy]

**********************************************************************************************************
Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

from.....
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
********************************************************************************************************



The following outlines the construct of SR, GR quite well.


http://course.physastro.iastate.edu/astro250/WudkaGR-7.pdf

 

[Undefined]

Hi CptBork.

There's no point in trying to invent a mechanism for General Relativity unless you have some precise physical evidence for that mechanism, or it models physical situations that GR can't handle, such as quantum gravity. Even then, whatever mechanism might underlie GR would itself have unexplained features that would force people like you to demand an even deeper mechanism, and a mechanism for that mechanism, and so on ad infinitum. At some point, you will have no choice but to assert that "this is what happens, because it just does", without proof of why it has to happen; otherwise, in theory you could deduce all the properties of the universe in your sleep even if you were born blind and deaf, and our universe would be the one that could possibly exist under the rules of logic. In other words, lay off the demands to have an a priori deducible mechanism for General Relativity, because it's impossible to deduce something a priori.

Not when the self-evident and reality-referentially supported identification of the nature and origin of the universal energy-space itself can be provided in/by the complete and consistent reality-based ToE, mate. It's just because the conventional theories have become abstractions-based that one needs the never-ending abstract math speculative/fantasy dimensional/worlds fix upon fix ad infinitum of math abstraction.

No need for all that 'abstraction-turtles-all-the-way-down-ad-infinitum' treadmill to nowhere now that reality has come back full force to inform the ToE 'from scratch' based on the primary reality readily discernible by EVERYONE around them as a starting point for the naturally self-directing reality-based logical flow from there identifying ALL the REAL PHYSICAL entities, processes and mechanisms to make the ToE complete and consistent from start to finish, subsuming all previous partial/abstract theories naturally and consistently to COMPLETION.

Never say die, CptBork, help is at hand to get us out of the abstractions mess we were landed in by careless deniers/ignorers/dismissers of the physical reality around us who now wouldn't know reality if it bit them in the face. Cheers!

 

[CptBork]

Not when the self-evident and reality-referentially supported identification of the nature and origin of the universal energy-space itself can be provided in/by the complete and consistent reality-based ToE, mate. It's just because the conventional theories have become abstractions-based that one needs the never-ending abstract math speculative/fantasy dimensional/worlds fix upon fix ad infinitum of math abstraction.

No need for all that 'abstraction-turtles-all-the-way-down-ad-infinitum' treadmill to nowhere now that reality has come back full force to inform the ToE 'from scratch' based on the primary reality readily discernible by EVERYONE around them as a starting point for the naturally self-directing reality-based logical flow from there identifying ALL the REAL PHYSICAL entities, processes and mechanisms to make the ToE complete and consistent from start to finish, subsuming all previous partial/abstract theories naturally and consistently to COMPLETION.

Never say die, CptBork, help is at hand to get us out of the abstractions mess we were landed in by careless deniers/ignorers/dismissers of the physical reality around us who now wouldn't know reality if it bit them in the face. Cheers!

Sounds like a whole lot of magic "turtles all the way down" to me. If you think in your sleep your were able to derive an explanation for how and why things work, which would automatically imply a priori that our universe is the only one that can logically exist, then that's great and all, there's a section where you're supposed to post that kind of stuff, and it ain't here. If someone makes a topic about how something works and someone else outlines a mainstream scientific theory that explains or models it, your criticisms aren't fit to be discussed on a science forum unless some aspect of the mainstream theory was incorrectly or unsatisfactorily described, or you have some actual verifiable experimental evidence for an alternative POV which mainstream science isn't able to explain with its own models.

So please, stop attacking people for posting mainstream views here and calling them "magic" just so you can plug your pet theory, it's trolling. You already have a section devoted to alternative theories, so it's completely inappropriate and disruptive to scientific discussions for you to post it here instead.

 

[paddoboy]

So please, stop attacking people for posting mainstream views here and calling them "magic" just so you can plug your pet theory, it's trolling. You already have a section devoted to alternative theories, so it's completely inappropriate and disruptive to scientific discussions for you to post it here instead.

So now someone else is trolling because they dare have the audacity to question your unsupported model.

If your theory/model/crap cannot run the gauntlet of peer review, then you are wasting your's and our's time.

 

[Undefined]

Hi CptBork.

Sounds like a whole lot of magic "turtles all the way down" to me. If you think in your sleep your were able to derive an explanation for how and why things work, which would automatically imply a priori that our universe is the only one that can logically exist, then that's great and all, there's a section where you're supposed to post that kind of stuff, and it ain't here. If someone makes a topic about how something works and someone else outlines a mainstream scientific theory that explains or models it, your criticisms aren't fit to be discussed on a science forum unless some aspect of the mainstream theory was incorrectly or unsatisfactorily described, or you have some actual verifiable experimental evidence for an alternative POV which mainstream science isn't able to explain with its own models.

So please, stop attacking people for posting mainstream views here and calling them "magic" just so you can plug your pet theory, it's trolling. You already have a section devoted to alternative theories, so it's completely inappropriate and disruptive to scientific discussions for you to post it here instead.

Sorry, mate, I was under the impression you were reading the discussions. It was paddoboy who used the word 'magic' in the context of abstract theories like Newton's 'attraction' etc concepts. I merely used that 'theme' to point out the equally unexplained abstractions in current theory, that's all. Nothing directed at you personally.

How does it "sound like turtles all the way down" if I just said I identified the nature and origins of the physical and reality evident/confirmable universal energy-space itself? It stops there, at the physical starting reality which we all can agree on from 'scratch'. No 'beliefs and abstractions' involved anywhere along the line/logic/physics. Hence no 'turtles' of any kind, "magic" or otherwise. OK.


And if you call the outcome of my pointedly thorough non-stop 56-yr-long strictly independent, scrupulously objective and reality-referential scientifically and always-physically-consistent re-thinking of the whole shebang 'from scratch', beginning when I was 9 yrs old, as something you "derived in your sleep", then you are in for a real shock, mate.

I would have thought that it was all the multidimensions/multiverse etc math/abstraction based speculative 'mainstream fantasies' that didn't belong in this section but under the 'pseuo-science' section.

Apparently, in the 'mainstream forums' it apparently is OK to REVERSE the onus regarding the "Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary evidence" mantra used against the 'cranks'.

Mate, I have pointed to (as have others, including Maxila re 'time' and Farsight re 'GR effects on light etc, and their implications logically, even based on mainstream claims) which have more regard for reality/empirical things rather than abstract/math 'constructs', so I feel that your trying to 'frame' what I and others have been presenting here as being the 'pseudoscience' while you seem to be OK with multidimension and multiuniverse COP OUTS for FAILURE of all those abstractions/maths constructs to consistently and properly explain gravity (even to the stage it has 'explained' the other 'forces), is a bit rich to say the least.

Never mind. This too shall pass, as that old saying goes. Science will advance because the 'cranks' are forcing it to, as usual; because today's 'crank' often become tomorrow's revolutionary hero. Don't be too dismissive of the obvious reality, mate. Someone has to do it, and the purveyors of ad nauseam abstraction won't be the ones (as Einstein himself so prophetically bemoaned in his jesting words). Cheers and good luck, CptBork.

 

[CptBork]

Never mind. This too shall pass, as that old saying goes. Science will advance because the 'cranks' are forcing it to, as usual; because today's 'crank' often become tomorrow's revolutionary hero. Don't be too dismissive of the obvious reality, mate. Someone has to do it, and the purveyors of ad nauseam abstraction won't be the ones (as Einstein himself so prophetically bemoaned in his jesting words). Cheers and good luck, CptBork.

Einstein demonstrated his mastery of classical mechanics and solved several major classical problems which hadn't been previously tackled, such as explaining Brownian motion and conclusively demonstrating the existence of atoms and molecules. He was even able to come up with a proof of the Pythagorean theorem when he was still just a kid, unassisted, within a few hours or days of first learning about it. When he published his Special Theory of Relativity, he already had extensive credentials and contacts in the field along with a Ph.D., and his patent office job was specifically chosen to give him more time to write his papers. You can call yourself the next Galileo, Archimedes or anything you want, but I have yet to see you demonstrate that you understand mainstream science as it is in its present state, let alone believing you're the next genius who's going to successfully extend it.

 

[Undefined]

Einstein demonstrated his mastery of classical mechanics and solved several major classical problems which hadn't been previously tackled, such as explaining Brownian motion and conclusively demonstrating the existence of atoms and molecules. He was even able to come up with a proof of the Pythagorean theorem when he was still just a kid, unassisted, within a few hours or days of first learning about it. When he published his Special Theory of Relativity, he already had extensive credentials and contacts in the field along with a Ph.D., and his patent office job was specifically chosen to give him more time to write his papers. You can call yourself the next Galileo, Archimedes or anything you want, but I have yet to see you demonstrate that you understand mainstream science as it is in its present state, let alone believing you're the next genius who's going to successfully extend it.

Like Newton, Hook and many others, Einstein was a genius, yes. That has never been in contention. Classical mechanics were still finding its way into the greater reality of the universal physics as a whole, not just partial domains where certain technical/common knowledge and techniques produced wonderful results even with the most basic of tools/experiments/cogitation.


But Einstein's gedanken/intuitive approach willing to go AGAINST the classical theories and views of his day produced the GR theory which stunned EVERYBODY, since it did not follow from ANYTHING that classical theory held to that time. The SR 'Relativity' and other "relativities' pure and simple were known and discussed long before Einstein. However, his GR Theory was a SHOCK to EVERYONE, as it didn't follow from all that had gone before....it was not 'evolutionary', it was REVOLUTIONARY to the max.

Even so, the mathematicians took over and took his theory into places/interpretations dead ends when the reality is consulted directly....as in the TWINS SCENARIO case; where NOW the mainstream explanations HAVE to INCLUDE the ACCELERATIONS profile information to make real sense of the disparity in aging of the twins above and beyond the RECIPROCAL POV of straight maths SR. They were forced (after years of comments and observations by the same 'cranks' which you disparage so lightly and indiscriminately) to fully recognize the necessity of consulting the NON-inertial aspects (accelerations) in order to INFORM the reality of what is happening above and beyond mere mathematical reciprocity of POV abstractions which made the TWIN exercise sterile and inconclusive as to real meaning without the NON-inertial info/effects taken into the picture overall.

Like I said: POV and abstractions therefrom are not reality per se. Caution and fuller consultation of the reality is always the final arbiter as to meanings of various POVs. That's all I am saying, mate. Cheers.

 

[Undefined]

@Farsight. Anyhow, I have made all the observations/inputs I can at this time, so it's back to you and your discussions with others, mate! Thanks for the great threads/discussions. It's been a pleasure to read/watch it unfold. Will continue to read-only with great interest. Cheers Farsight, everyone, and bye for now!

 

[CptBork]

Even so, the mathematicians took over and took his theory into places/interpretations dead ends when the reality is consulted directly....as in the TWINS SCENARIO case; where NOW the mainstream explanations HAVE to INCLUDE the ACCELERATIONS profile information to make real sense of the disparity in aging of the twins above and beyond the RECIPROCAL POV of straight maths SR. They were forced (after years of comments and observations by the same 'cranks' which you disparage so lightly and indiscriminately) to fully recognize the necessity of consulting the NON-inertial aspects (accelerations) in order to INFORM the reality of what is happening above and beyond mere mathematical reciprocity of POV abstractions which made the TWIN exercise sterile and inconclusive as to real meaning without the NON-inertial info/effects taken into the picture overall.

For a guy who claims to know everything there is to know about what Einstein did, it's baffling that you're not even aware of Einstein's own resolution to the paradox of the twins, which he published in 1905 at the same time as the Special Theory of Relativity. The twins cannot both be taken to remain in consistent inertial frames, or else they'd continue drifting apart forever and never meet back up at the end. This really isn't an issue, the only reason Einstein called it a paradox was because of the counterintuitive result from a classical perspective, and the fact that this result can seem contradictory if you neglect the subtleties involved with switching inertial frames, the relative simultaneity of clocks, etc.

 

[PhysBang]

This 'peer review' system is not just another 'near enoufgh is good enough' system of checks; it is CRUCIAL that no flawed work/papers be passed so that FURTHER work/papers based on previous flawed pwork/papers doesn't get BUILT INTO the modeling/and review process ITSELF which would then be INCORRECTLY BIASED for 'previously acceptable' citations and BIASED against any work/papers which do NOT support the previous flawed inbuilt prejudices/acceptances of the 'peers' doing the reviewing.

Putting crazy words in capital letters does not make them less crazy, it makes them more crazy.

It is important that scientific papers that are flawed get published, so that people can point out these flaws. This is what happens.

 

[paddoboy]

But Einstein's gedanken/intuitive approach willing to go AGAINST the classical theories and views of his day produced the GR theory which stunned EVERYBODY, since it did not follow from ANYTHING that classical theory held to that time. The SR 'Relativity' and other "relativities' pure and simple were known and discussed long before Einstein. However, his GR Theory was a SHOCK to EVERYONE, as it didn't follow from all that had gone before....it was not 'evolutionary', it was REVOLUTIONARY to the max.

I would argue with "to the max". Other scientists/physicists/astronomers were already speaking of time dilation, length contraction etc...Lorentz, Fitzgerald, etc The precession of the perihelion of Mercury did need explaining...So in essence, something new was ready for the picking, so to speak.
He did put two and two together and assembled different aspects to come up with SR.

And of course it is rare for geniuses such as himself, Newton and others, to pop on the scene too often, to revolutionize the science of the day.
It doesn't come along too often.
And yes, there will probably be more as time progresses, and all just like Albert, will follow accepted scientific methodology and peer review.

 

[CptBork]

What you don't seem to even realize, let alone have a clue about, is that even ONE important 'paper' that is FLAWED but 'passed' by 'peer review', and then is USED and CITED in FURTHER 'papers' which depend on that earlier paper's validity is then 'passed' as well, creates a CASCADE EFFECT of flaws which infect future work/papers!

The CASCADE of FLAWS which has been INBUILT into the mainstream literature/models through many FLAWED work/'papers' which have been INCORRECTLY 'accepted source' citations over the last few decades about CMB data etc 'assumptions/interpretations' and the observations made to 'fit' pre-conceived 'accepted but flawed' ORTHODOXY, makes the whole EDIFICE SUSPECT from WAY BACK before the latest in a long line of flawed and improperly passed 'peer review' works/papers in the literature.

This 'peer review' system is not just another 'near enoufgh is good enough' system of checks; it is CRUCIAL that no flawed work/papers be passed so that FURTHER work/papers based on previous flawed pwork/papers doesn't get BUILT INTO the modeling/and review process ITSELF which would then be INCORRECTLY BIASED for 'previously acceptable' citations and BIASED against any work/papers which do NOT support the previous flawed inbuilt prejudices/acceptances of the 'peers' doing the reviewing.

That you have no clue about the SERIOUSNESS of the situation and the DAMAGE which even ONE incorrectly passed peer reviewed paper/work early on in the stream of works/papers which build on those earlier SERIOUSLY FLAWED works/papers passed incorrectly, just shows you have no clue at all. Period. Just trolling your silly facile uninformed and ego-driven 'beliefs based' nonsense opining about subtle/complex/important things you don't 'get' at all. Good luck with that record, mate.

This rant constitutes one of the most absurd misunderstandings of how science works that I've ever seen. Old results are checked and re-checked all the time, both experimentally and theoretically, and new methods and technologies to check old results with ever-higher precision are developed all the time. Many historical developments in physics occurred simultaneously in multiple locations, with most of the credit going to whoever managed to publish first. Mathematical derivations can be checked all the way back to first principles without any reference to original materials and results. Virtually no scientists learn and develop their material by going over all the major historical papers leading to the final development, although it's valuable to go through such papers to gain insight into the thought process by which scientists originally arrived at their conclusions. Another incentive for reading original papers is that they often go into far more sophistication, detail and development than the abbreviated treatments presented in university classes and textbooks, but they're by no means essential to gain understanding.

In short, if our present understanding were simply built on a flawed misinterpretation of a single paper or a critical error therein, we wouldn't have any success predicting and modelling all the phenomena we've discovered since, it simply wouldn't work. There'd be no point to building particle accelerators, because we'd fail in all of our attempts to mathematically model the particle beams and thus be unable to use this knowledge to produce and control them, never mind predicting and detecting what will happen when those beams smash.

 

[paddoboy]

And if you call the outcome of my pointedly thorough non-stop 56-yr-long strictly independent, scrupulously objective and reality-referential scientifically and always-physically-consistent re-thinking of the whole shebang 'from scratch', beginning when I was 9 yrs old, as something you "derived in your sleep", then you are in for a real shock, mate.

uke: :roflmao: :soapbox:

Not sure which fits the bill more correctly

 

[krash661]

ridiculous.

 

[Aqueous Id]

ridiculous.

That should be the title of this thread, for the Ridiculous Physics forum.