Einstein's theory of gravity

[pgil]

as I understand it, Einstein claimed that mass causes a curvature in space-time, and this curvature is gravity.

the classic graphical depiction of this is a 3-dimensional cone-shape.

leaving aside the philosophical problems of space being a thing that can be bent (or of time being a dimension), this view of gravity does not seem to work/cannot work when viewed from the perspective of all planes at once. I realize that this is a somewhat confusing statement, and I will try to clarify.

hold out an outstretched small towel, and place a poker chip in the middle. this creates the einsteinian (?) picture of gravity (a cone shaped deformation of space). now, what happens to this deformation if you approach it from the underside, it is no longer a curvature that will attract an object, but is one that will repel an object. clearly something is amiss.

As far as I can imagine, there is no way to graphically represent the gravity of an object on more than one plane at one time. doing so would create an actual vaccuum of space in between the object causing the deformation and the outside world. ie. imagine that the cone shaped deformation existed in all planes at once, what would it look like? you would have an object surrounded on all sides by nothingness (and by nothingness, i mean completely nothing. there would not even be space surrounding it). this would clearly meet the definition of a black hole. but, it would also mean that any object that produced a gravitational effect would be a black hole.

thoughts.

[Miffed22001]

give it up human

Resistance is futile

[jackvance]

You are confusing the visualisation of the theory with the reality of it. Or in other words, us humans are limited to 3 dimensional perception, and mapping a 4-dimensional space onto a 3d one is only for clarification, it is not meant to be accurate. So you cannot draw conclusions from it. It's as if you take a picture of a building (3d mapped onto a 2d space) and then bend the picture and draw the conclusion that the building can easily be bended.

[pgil]

how would time affect this? time being the '4th' dimension.

[jackvance]

We cannot perceive this; We cannot even imagine this, because even in our mind we are limited to 3 dimensions. Us humans are made through evolution to survive and reproduce, not to understand the universe. As such we're limited. The only way we can objectively try to understand 4 dimensions is through mathematical formulae.

[Greedo017]

what you talkin bout willis

[pgil]

if we cannot imagine 4 dimensions, or what that would be like, how do you take seriously a theory that posits 4 dimensions?

[jackvance]

Because not only is it mathematically sound - ie, all observed occurrences are explained by this theory - it also has predictive value. This means it is either true, or, more likely, a good approximation of truth inside a larger truth (such as newtonian mechanics has proven to be).

Btw I've also never seen atoms, air (as in, oxygen), radiowaves, microwaves, etc..

[Tomazores]

>>if we cannot imagine 4 dimensions, or what that would be like, how do you take seriously a theory that posits 4 dimensions?<<


It is much easier if you imagine the difference between 3 and 2 dimensions. A good book that helps is called Flatland.

[Bailey]

Einstein LIKES BOYS!!!1!

[Tomazores]

from what i understand, Einstien was quite a ladies man.

[jackvance]

from what i understand, Einstien was quite a ladies man.

no he wasn't

[Tomazores]

you may want to check this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html

[ItDepends]

jackvance: my college prof at Illinois was working on visualisation of the 5th dimensions. He showed us a bit of his study but I was 100% lost.

[Miffed22001]

jackvance: my college prof at Illinois was working on visualisation of the 5th dimensions. He showed us a bit of his study but I was 100% lost.

no wonder you dropped outta college

[Zodiac Killer]

Because not only is it mathematically sound - ie, all observed occurrences are explained by this theory - it also has predictive value. This means it is either true, or, more likely, a good approximation of truth inside a larger truth (such as newtonian mechanics has proven to be).

Btw I've also never seen atoms, air (as in, oxygen), radiowaves, microwaves, etc..

I've seen microwaves. As a matter of fact, I have one that I put Ramen Noodles in.

[Miffed22001]

Because not only is it mathematically sound - ie, all observed occurrences are explained by this theory - it also has predictive value. This means it is either true, or, more likely, a good approximation of truth inside a larger truth (such as newtonian mechanics has proven to be).

Btw I've also never seen atoms, air (as in, oxygen), radiowaves, microwaves, etc..

I've seen microwaves. As a matter of fact, I have one that I put Ramen Noodles in.

have u seen a UFO yet?

[Lukie]

Quantum mechanics vs theory of relativity.

Discuss.

[Rockymv]

Quantum mechanics vs theory of relativity.

Discuss.

superstrings. gg.

[pgil]

superstring isnt a theory. it offers no testable predictions.

[pgil]

Btw I've also never seen atoms, air (as in, oxygen), radiowaves, microwaves, etc..

you may not have seen them, but there are those that have seen them using instrumentation. and they are not "impossible to imagine".

According to Wolfgang Pauli's Exclusion principle (1925), certain pairs of subatomic particles, even when separated by great distances, can instantaneously "know" what the other is doing...the phenomena was proved in 1997 when physicists at the university of geneva sent photons seven miles in opposite direction and demonstrated that interfering with one provoked an instantaneous response in the other (pgs 145-146, A short history of nearly everything, Bryson, B.) not as good as a brief history of time, but much easier to read.

hard to imagine how nothing can move faster than the speed of light, yet this is so. another hole for einstein.

clearly not "all observable occurrences" can be explained via einstein.

and the differences in predictive value of newtonian mechanics vs einsteins theory of gravity are very small. a reworked or modified version could probably be produced to close the gaps further. and just because its the best we have currently, doesnt mean we cant question it

[vqc]

superstring isnt a theory. it offers no testable predictions.

faith in string theory = faith in god
discuss.
yes that means u boost. =)

[pgil]

superstring isnt a theory. it offers no testable predictions.

faith in string theory = faith in god

does not equal, but is equivalent to...
discuss

[pgil]

string theory is a good example of a mathematically sound theoretical position gone completely awry. it posits up to and including 20 dimensions, at least that was the last number i heard. the math in the theory is sound, but the theory is sadly lacking in the philosophy department. its connection with reality has been strained so much by its reliance on pure mathematics.

besides, if we allow for the curvature of space, and extra dimensions, this drastically changes the mathematics that can be used. and i would be less likely to trust the outcome of math that requires curved space and extra dimensions. again because of a lack of connection with reality.

[vqc]

superstring isnt a theory. it offers no testable predictions.

faith in string theory = faith in god

does not equal, but is equivalent to...
discuss

correct
discuss

[swiggidy]

Quantum mechanics vs theory of relativity.

These really aren't in opposition. Quantum mechanics covers the topics that would be linked by a theory of relativity.

superstring isnt a theory. it offers no testicle predictions.

FYP

I was going to write a post about how it is impossible to have a civil discussion on FTR. Then I read the above post. I can't even describe how much I hate myself right now.

{NOTE: I wrote this before the previous five comments}
{EDIT: Ok, didn't miss much}

[Rockymv]

string theory is a good example of a mathematically sound theoretical position gone completely awry. it posits up to and including 20 dimensions, at least that was the last number i heard. the math in the theory is sound, but the theory is sadly lacking in the philosophy department. its connection with reality has been strained so much by its reliance on pure mathematics.

besides, if we allow for the curvature of space, and extra dimensions, this drastically changes the mathematics that can be used. and i would be less likely to trust the outcome of math that requires curved space and extra dimensions. again because of a lack of connection with reality.

lol. as a philosophy major i usually think science is pretty funny. scientists generally seem to look down on philosophy, but philosophy is what today's main scientific disputes are centered on. half of the scientific community believe (like you) that string theory is stupid because it's fundamentally unverifiable. whether you realize it or not, you think this because of karl popper's notion of falsifiability. the other half loves string theory, because they care more about elegance and explanatory power than whether it can be "proven" (because no theory ever can). these people are having their thinking informed by thomas kuhn's idea of paradigms and scientific revolutions. it's just so hilarious...the different sides of this debate seem like they're speaking a different language, because they can't get clear on the philosophical framework for what they're doing.

[ItDepends]

btw

Way to much content for the commune

[pgil]

i think this because it offers no testable predictions. thats not a theory. it has no place in a scientific debate. in a philosophical debate, sure.
it has explanatory power in exactly the same way as a belief/reliance on god does. a little deus ex stringina and everything is explained. all of the forces are collapsed into a single force. yippee.

[pgil]

FWIW i am currently reading the essential tension, which as you may or may not know is a collection of essays by thomas kuhn.
its good. clearly written by a philosopher and not an english major though.

[BobbySalami]

Wow, every single long winded reply in this thread makes me think that there is some kind of inside crazy funny joke in there somewhere.

Then I realize that there is not, and wish I had other things like this enter my mind rather then tits, ass, beer, poker, and porn.

[vqc]

Wow, every single long winded reply in this thread makes me think that there is some kind of inside crazy funny joke in there somewhere.

Then I realize that there is not, and wish I had other things like this enter my mind rather then tits, ass, beer, poker, and porn.

Tits + Ass + Beer + poker + porn is a more likely Theory of Everything than String Theory is.

I mean wat event in ur life could u NOT explain using TABPP?
Furthermore, I predict with 100% certainty that I can find porn on the intertron tomorow at 12:03PM. I cannot do that with string theory.
TABPP > string theory.

[BobbySalami]

Tits + Ass + Beer + poker + porn is a more likely Theory of Everything than String Theory is.

I mean wat event in ur life could u NOT explain using TABPP?
Furthermore, I predict with 100% certainty that I can find porn on the intertron tomorow at 12:03PM. I cannot do that with string theory.
TABPP > string theory.

So where do I get my honorary doctorate?

[jackvance]

you may want to check this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html

I just can't call <10 a ladiesman sry..

you may not have seen them, but there are those that have seen them using instrumentation. and they are not "impossible to imagine".

That's just wrong. We are human beings made for survival and reproduction.. and you're basing the validity of a theory on whether or not you can imagine it in your head?! Btw I can also "imagine" what 4d is like when I compare it to 3d=>2d. But that's just a semantic battle I'm afraid.

clearly not "all observable occurrences" can be explained via einstein.

I covered this already. It doesn't mean it's blatantly wrong or anything. Like how Newtonian mechanics has proven to be "a good approximation when speeds aren't too great and masses aren't too small", I expect (hope) Einstein's theories to be a good approximation that explains things inside a larger "truth". That truth being the Unified Theory.

Until we can find that unified theory, every theory is flawed, or incomplete.

I get the impression from your initial posts that you doubt time is anything more than just 'the difference between 2 minutes ago and now'. Well, consider this then. Time slows down when speed goes up. This has been scientifically proven by comparing an atomic clock on earth with one inside a satellite. So apparently time is not how we perceive it, not some monolithic constant that governs everything equally.. but it goes faster or slower depending on how fast an object moves (compared to its point of reference). This should atleast open up in your mind the possibility that time may not be how you perceive it.. and as such, may make it more conceivable that it is a dimension..

but philosophy is what today's main scientific disputes are centered on

That may sound flattering for philosophers, but it's not something scientists care much about. Rightfully so. Most of philosophy is a total waste of time.. sorry.. and I know some of it has its (scientific) merits, but the basis has to be scientific truth.

Furthermore, I predict with 100% certainty that I can find porn on the intertron tomorow at 12:03PM. I cannot do that with string theory.
TABPP > string theory.

I can posit scenario's with a possibility greater than zero that falsify your theory (like, you getting a seizure or heart attack.. power failure in your area.. computer problems.. all preventing you from finding porn on the internet at 12:03), hence the 100% certainty has been disproven, falsifying also the conclusion that TABPP>string theory.

[Greedo017]

Time slows down when speed goes up. This has been scientifically proven by comparing an atomic clock on earth with one inside a satellite.

I saw a show where they synchronized two atomic clocks, put one on a plane and flew it around the world, then compared them, and the one on the plane was slow.

[jackvance]

I saw a show where they synchronized two atomic clocks, put one on a plane and flew it around the world, then compared them, and the one on the plane was slow.

Yep.. speed increased, thus time slowed down.

This (time speeding up or slowing down) is probably something that is near impossible to imagine in your head.. which doesn't make it less true however.

[pantherhound]

Is string theory related to mulitiple universes? I did a course at Uni that said there was about a 1 in 10 billion chance of the laws of nature having the exact values that allow life to exist, so logically there should be 10 billion universes, however the other ones have no life because the chemistry is slightly or drastically wrong.

[jackvance]

String theory is basically this.. I haven't been following it recently so I don't know what dimension they're at now (they seemed to increase constantly), but let's say 8. So according to this theory, the entire universe is one string. (or more) So all there is, is this string. Everything you see, taste, feel.. TV, beer.. tits&asses.. it's all just our 3d perception of the reality of this string. And this string is 8 dimensional. That is not something you can imagine.

Now, why a string and not, say, a balloon? Because a string has certain mathematical properties we need, called harmonics. Like if you swing a rope around, it'll vibrate. But these vibrations can be an infinite number of big or small. But in the case of a string, its begin- and endpoint are fixed, so there are set rules for the oscillations. Here is an extremely sucky drawing in paint of what I mean:



So, then we have this 8 dimensional string that is oscillating in place.. so how come we can see so many different things? Well, that is because we can see only 3 of its dimensions. (or 4, if you count time.. which we can experience too) To understand this, imagine you are living in 2d, on a piece of paper. You can only see what's on the paper. So I stick my finger through the paper.. then you can see the cross-section of my finger. A bunch of circles and lotsa red, with a white circle (my bones) in the middle probably. And then I shove my whole arm through it.. but what you see is 4 new circles emerging (my other fingers), and then a bigger circle suddenly (my arm), etc.

So as you can hopefully understand from this example.. if you view something in a dimension lower than what it really is - like in this example you view a 3d thing (me) in a 2d plane (the piece of paper) - then it looks all weird and seems to make no sense. So if we take this string that is sitting there quietly oscillating in 8 dimensions, and we dumb it down to the 3 dimensions we can see (+time) then we get.. the world we see now. Tits and asses.. all really just a string.

That's it in a nutshell...

Alternate universes is something different.. it's a theory that everything imaginable exists.. something that we can neither prove nor disprove. So according to occam's razor we have to ignore it.. but it's a nice explanation for the reason why the universal constants are exactly the way they are, and allow the formation of matter (and ultimately, life). Basically all the other possibilities exist too, but there is nothing there where they exist (no matter) so there is noone to observe it. But like I said, this is a theory that can neither be proven nor disproven..

[ItDepends]

My clone exists

[pantherhound]

At some point in space and time, cereal rillas are shaving using razors with inbuilt TVs, whilst 12 foot spiders are sketching Pythagoras backwards on a giant milk bottle and Elvis dances with Genghis Khan on a dancefloor of frozen tomato juice.

[Miffed22001]

so because i dont fly ever (because im scraed) im going to die before everyone?

man that sucks

[jackvance]

so because i dont fly ever (because im scraed) im going to die before everyone?

man that sucks

Yeah one can add valuable microseconds to ones life by repeatedly flying around the globe.. but not you! :P

[pgil]

I saw a show where they synchronized two atomic clocks, put one on a plane and flew it around the world, then compared them, and the one on the plane was slow.

Yep.. speed increased, thus time slowed down.

the thing about atomic clocks is they are reliant on the mass of the nucleus of an atom. now according to einstein, as your speed increases, your mass will also increase. this would affect the oscilations of an atomic clock, and make it appear as though 'time' were variable, without it actually being so. you see, even within the theory there is an alternative explanation for this result.

and to claim that philosophy has no bearing on science, well that is just wrong. you cant have statistical analyses without logical arguments. and where would science be without stats? you cant really do much of anything in any scientific field without philosophy. any "scientist" that laughs at, or scorns philosophy, is not a good scientist, and not a smart individual.

[pgil]

and if you are going to apply occams razor (philosophy BTW) to a theory to dismiss it because it cant be proven or disproven, then you must also apply it to string theory.

[jackvance]

the thing about atomic clocks is they are reliant on the mass of the nucleus of an atom. now according to einstein, as your speed increases, your mass will also increase. this would affect the oscilations of an atomic clock, and make it appear as though 'time' were variable, without it actually being so. you see, even within the theory there is an alternative explanation for this result.

There is also the thing that the speed of light is the same no matter how fast you move when you observe it. There is no relevant mass change here, and changeable time is the only variable.

and to claim that philosophy has no bearing on science, well that is just wrong. you cant have statistical analyses without logical arguments. and where would science be without stats?

Didn't know statistics was philosophy.

you cant really do much of anything in any scientific field without philosophy. any "scientist" that laughs at, or scorns philosophy, is not a good scientist, and not a smart individual.

I am very much for scientific philosophy. It's however sadly only a smart part of the whole matter. Stuff about a higher being existing or not, what exactly thinking is etc is for me quite unproductive - not in the least because evolutionary biology and game theory etc have better answers.

and if you are going to apply occams razor (philosophy BTW) to a theory to dismiss it because it cant be proven or disproven, then you must also apply it to string theory.

If you want you can, I'm not a particular fan of string theory. But you should know there is quite a difference between string theory and multiple universe theory. Occam's razor states that if you cannot discern between two theories or explanations, and one is a lot more complex than the other, then just take the simple one. So: lotsa universes that we will never be able to see.. or just ours. Let's just stick to ours. However, string theory is a shot at a Unifying Theory, it is not a more complex variant of a simpler evenly correct theory. Basically, the calculations stemming from string theory are just too damn complex for it to be fully testable as of now.

[pgil]

if you didnt know that statistics is based on logic, then please never ever use them (oh, and sue your professors for not teaching stats properly). when you make a statement using statistics in a scientific setting, basically when you design an experiment, you create a logical argument, and then test this using the appropriate statistical device. when people dont understand this, or dont understand what they are doing, this is where things go awry. i am of course speaking not of descriptive statistics, but of the more fun variety.

how is there "no relevant mass change here"???? thats a bold statement. is there a reason that there is no relevant mass change, or is it just cus you said so?

if you had a better background in "stuff about a higher being existing or not", or as it is sometimes called "metaphysics", you might realize that there is a very relevant discussion to be had about what exactly is the nature of time. and that it is only through this type of exploration that you will be able to find the fruits of progress in this discussion.

IF time is a dimension, then how/why is it alterable?? a dimension is not a 'real' thing of course, but is a construct of a system that allows one to plot the exact location of an object in space. using this definition you could make an argument that time is in fact a dimension, but then you would also have to accept that time is therefore not a 'thing in the world' that can be altered.

[jackvance]

if you didnt know that statistics is based on logic, then please never ever use them (oh, and sue your professors for not teaching stats properly). when you make a statement using statistics in a scientific setting, basically when you design an experiment, you create a logical argument, and then test this using the appropriate statistical device. when people dont understand this, or dont understand what they are doing, this is where things go awry. i am of course speaking not of descriptive statistics, but of the more fun variety.

Logic is also a part of math. And if you're actually trying to argue that statistics is a part of philosophy.. ok, just lol..

how is there "no relevant mass change here"???? thats a bold statement. is there a reason that there is no relevant mass change, or is it just cus you said so?

Let's say there are two observers. One is immobile vs our point of reference (earth) and the other one is moving at half the speed of light. Both observe the speed of light as the same. So where is the relevant mass change in this thought experiment?

if you had a better background in "stuff about a higher being existing or not", or as it is sometimes called "metaphysics", you might realize that there is a very relevant discussion to be had about what exactly is the nature of time. and that it is only through this type of exploration that you will be able to find the fruits of progress in this discussion.

There is indeed a very good discussion to be had about time, but attacking a graphical visual of einstein's theories because in your mind you can approach it from the other side (or something), doesn't make you seem very credible to me.

[thenonsequitur]

some stuff

pgil, i'm not going to bother outlining the flaws in your arguments (because other people are doing it well), but I'd just like to point out that it sounds like you either smoke too much pot (equating logic, life, the universe, and everything to philosophy), or don't smoke enough pot (failing to understand what 4+ dimensions of reality means).

[Rockymv]

I am very much for scientific philosophy. It's however sadly only a smart part of the whole matter. Stuff about a higher being existing or not, what exactly thinking is etc is for me quite unproductive - not in the least because evolutionary biology and game theory etc have better answers.

lol

[mcatdog]

This thread turned out to be surprisingly good considering how clueless the OP is. Jackvance, your posts in this thread are great. You're obviously a smart guy and I also admire your patience. If someone was repeatedly talking down to me, even though it was extremely obvious that he had no idea what he was talking about, I'd probably tell him to shut up and leave me alone, but you did a good job of patiently explaining a lot of difficult ideas. I for one enjoyed your posts even if the OP didn't.

[spoonitnow]

We cannot perceive this; We cannot even imagine this, because even in our mind we are limited to 3 dimensions. Us humans are made through evolution to survive and reproduce, not to understand the universe. As such we're limited. The only way we can objectively try to understand 4 dimensions is through mathematical formulae.

Incorrect.

[Pelion]

Didn't know statistics was philosophy.

if you didnt know that statistics is based on logic, then please never ever use them

You seem to have forgotten to include any logic in what you are doing here. Just because statistics is based on logic, and philosophy is based on logic doesnt mean that statistics is based on philosophy. If you think those two statements are the equal then perhaps you should sue your professors for not teaching logic properly...

how is there "no relevant mass change here"???? thats a bold statement. is there a reason that there is no relevant mass change, or is it just cus you said so?

Light doesnt have a mass so its mass cant change.

Also you said "according to einstein, as your speed increases, your mass will also increase". This is just wrong. Physicists toyed with the idea of a "relativistic mass" for a while as a way of explaining why things cant accelerate past the speed of light. This idea is totally out of date now but even so, it explains the point anyway. Using the idea of relativistic mass you notice the atomic clock running slower. You would also notice all other processes going slower. Not much difference there from saying time would be running slower.

These days we dont talk about increasing mass.

The kinetic energy of a particle is given by:

E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

So that the amount of kinetic energy needed to accelerate a particle to the speed of light would be literally infinite.

I dont actually see a problem with what you said first of all. If you look at a set of coordinates from the other side then all directions are reversed. If you take a line running left to right from -10 to +10 and you look at it from the other side of the page then left to right would now read +10 to -10. Whats wrong with believing reversing the direction of time would cause gravity to become repulsive?

I have to point out at this point that this is just something I have thought out myself in response to your question which I had never considered before but it seems pretty logical to me.


As for talking about metaphysics, yes it really would be pretty exciting stuff to know. The difference between that and science however is that noone even bothers to try and test any of it. Popular philosophy may aswell be (and frequently is) just a bunch of blokes chatting in a smokey pub.

as a philosophy major i usually think science is pretty funny. scientists generally seem to look down on philosophy, but philosophy is what today's main scientific disputes are centered on

Scientists in general dont look down on philosphy. Philosophy is a huge subject and some of it is in everyday use by scientists.

The bits of philosophy that scientists tend to look down on are the popular philosphies like metaphysics, where people who should probably be spending their time on something more useful sit around discussing the big pointless questions like "what is real?".

Sciences main debates these days are all based on science. Occasionally scientists and philosophers accidently try to answer the same questions, but they have very different methods. Science continually tries to prove or disprove itself. Philosophy can do neither.

[thenonsequitur]

Whats wrong with believing reversing the direction of time would cause gravity to become repulsive?

This is an interesting thought (and true), and one I've never had. It just inspired me to create a computer game based on this principle. I'll get started on that now.

[jackvance]

This thread turned out to be surprisingly good considering how clueless the OP is. Jackvance, your posts in this thread are great. You're obviously a smart guy and I also admire your patience. If someone was repeatedly talking down to me, even though it was extremely obvious that he had no idea what he was talking about, I'd probably tell him to shut up and leave me alone, but you did a good job of patiently explaining a lot of difficult ideas. I for one enjoyed your posts even if the OP didn't.

Glad you appreciate it.

Incorrect.

Hard to argue with such an eloquent reply, but what exactly do you have a problem with?

@Pelion: very good explanation about philosophy, kind of how I see it too. In our first university year we had a compulsory class philosophy.. I got top grades on it, on the oral examination the professor even said I had explained it better than he had in his class, lol. And I didn't even take a single class.. I just copied the notes from some girl and reluctantly memorized some key elements the night before the exam. Earlier this year we had yet another compulsory class, religion, which is very much like a philosophy class. The day before the exam I printed off the course, and spent 3 hours reading it. I got a little over half way through until the aggravation with how much nonsense there was in there got the better of me. But again somehow I managed to get a high grade.. it sure has its merits, but it's for a large part retoric. Like you said, "Popular philosophy may aswell be (and frequently is) just a bunch of blokes chatting in a smokey pub. "

Another thing.. about thinking about a complex scientific subject based on limited knowledge (like, something you read) and drawing intuitive conclusions from it is what I call armchair science. Just think about it like this.. the people who are dealing with this kind of stuff, are probably smarter than all of us here.. but what is more important, they also have access to vastly more information (math, experimental data, etc) and have given it a lot more thought than us. The chance that you're going to find something revolutionary based on a very limited and very basic understanding of a subject after thinking about it for a few minutes.. is kinda small, even if it "seems to make sense". I hope you understand what I mean..

[Greedo017]

Another thing.. about thinking about a complex scientific subject based on limited knowledge (like, something you read) and drawing intuitive conclusions from it is what I call armchair science. Just think about it like this.. the people who are dealing with this kind of stuff, are probably smarter than all of us here.. but what is more important, they also have access to vastly more information (math, experimental data, etc) and have given it a lot more thought than us. The chance that you're going to find something revolutionary based on a very limited and very basic understanding of a subject after thinking about it for a few minutes.. is kinda small, even if it "seems to make sense". I hope you understand what I mean..

The world would be a better place if more people would understand this paragraph. Armchair science is gold.

[pgil]

my point about statistics and logic was simply that logic is a branch of philosophy. aristotle gave us many of our current logic rules, and philosphers of logic have worked tirelessly to refine, expand, and perfect these rules. so an attack on all of philosophy, which is what was seeming to occur, is also an attack on anything scientific, since science requires logic.

[pgil]

a few people have made me out to be something of a crackpot in this thread. now i am the first to admit that i have some crackpot tendencies, but in this thread i feel that i have not really exposed any of them. please point out my crackpot posts.

[Greedo017]

my point about statistics and logic was simply that logic is a branch of philosophy. aristotle gave us many of our current logic rules, and philosphers of logic have worked tirelessly to refine, expand, and perfect these rules. so an attack on all of philosophy, which is what was seeming to occur, is also an attack on anything scientific, since science requires logic.

Philosophy is based on logic, logic is not based on philosophy.

[pgil]

but attacking a graphical visual of einstein's theories because in your mind you can approach it from the other side (or something), doesn't make you seem very credible to me.

the whole point of my original post was to basically ask the question "where do the deformations of space go in einsteins theory of gravity? if a mass makes a depression in space, then shouldnt there be an equal and opposite to gravity somewhere? ie. gravity is the concave, what about the resulting convex?"

i tried to explain why i was having a problem understanding how such a thing could exist via graphical representation. it is sometimes the best way to get your point across.

[pgil]

not "is based on", but is a branch of.

read closely, sound out every word.

[Greedo017]

philosophy is a branch of logic, logic is not a branch of philosophy. that help you understand? lol.

[pgil]

it means that there is a subdiscipline within philosphy devoted entirely to logic.

i never said that logic is based on philosophy. i did however say that philosophy, and philosophers of logic, have done a great deal of work in the field of logic "refining and expanding and perfecting the rules of logic".

[pgil]

that was one mighty fast edit.

[Greedo017]

Philosophy and philosophers of logic doing a great deal of work in the field of logic "refining and expanding and perfecting the rules of logic" does not make science based on philosophy.

if what you meant by saying that logic is a branch of philosophy is that there is a subdiscipline of philosophy that has contributed to the advancement of logic, which is clearly true, then saying it would have no contribution to the truth of your assertion that criticizing philosophy is the same as criticizing science.

if what you meant by saying that logic is a branch of philosophy is that logic as an entire field is based on philosophy, then that would contribute to your claim, however this is clearly not true.

I assumed you meant the second one, that way your argument would make sense. however, looks like I should've listened to everyone else and assumed otherwise.

[jackvance]

a few people have made me out to be something of a crackpot in this thread. now i am the first to admit that i have some crackpot tendencies, but in this thread i feel that i have not really exposed any of them. please point out my crackpot posts.

To be perfectly honest, the impression you have given me in your first post, and which you kept affirming in your further posts, is that you have read some scientific theories, thought about it for a few minutes, drew wild conclusions and just blather on from there using intelligent-sounding words. No offense, seriously, just the impression you gave me..

the whole point of my original post was to basically ask the question "where do the deformations of space go in einsteins theory of gravity? if a mass makes a depression in space, then shouldnt there be an equal and opposite to gravity somewhere? ie. gravity is the concave, what about the resulting convex?"

i tried to explain why i was having a problem understanding how such a thing could exist via graphical representation. it is sometimes the best way to get your point across.

I'll try to explain the reasoning behind the visualisation, hopefully that'll clear things up. In our 3d world, we have objects. Say, a planet. Its mass attracts other objects. (to be correct, all masses attract each-other, it's just the biggest ones that have the noticeable effects)

Now, Einstein said, what if mass only SEEMS to attract other mass? What if we actually live in a 4-dimensional spacetime world, and gravity is just an illusion because of the 3d perception of a 4d world thing?

So to explain it, imagine the 4d spacetime is a towel, and a planet is lying on this towel, making a conic dent. Everything close to the planet is then falling towards it.. not because it is being attracted by the planet, but simply because the big mass of the planet makes a big dent in spacetime and everything that is close is just rolling downhill.

Now, if you really think about this visualisation, you will see that it inherently makes no sense.. in a 3d world we would "fall" towards the planet because of gravity - the same gravity that we just said doesn't exist and is just an illusion! That is because it is just a layman's explanation, nothing more.

What really happens is this. Say you are flying in your spaceship and you are passing by a planet. As you get closer to the planet, it starts to draw you in. Gravity is pulling you in. Or so it seems. What really happens (according to the spacetime theory) is that your TRAJECTORY is being deformed towards the planet. So in the 4d world, you're really just flying straight ahead.. but the mass of the planet has bended this path so that in 3d it looks like you are going near the planet. So there isn't really a point in looking for an other side or something.. unless you can somehow make a negative mass, which would bend the spacetime the other way, and so if you simply follow this trajectory in 4 dimensions, then in 3 dimensions it would look like you are being repulsed. Ofcourse, wtf is a negative mass right?

Anyway, I hope this makes sense ^^

[pgil]

clearly there is philosophy underlying logic rules. there is also clearly philosophy underlying all of science. that is why philosophy of science is so important. science may not be 'based on' philosophy in the strictest sense, but the scientific method certainly is. though i feel that science is actually based on philosophy, but i dont really want to argue that right now.

[Greedo017]

clearly there is logic underlying philosophy rules.

correct. i won't argue, not worth it, i'm out.

[krimson]

but attacking a graphical visual of einstein's theories because in your mind you can approach it from the other side (or something), doesn't make you seem very credible to me.

the whole point of my original post was to basically ask the question "where do the deformations of space go in einsteins theory of gravity? if a mass makes a depression in space, then shouldnt there be an equal and opposite to gravity somewhere? ie. gravity is the concave, what about the resulting convex?"

i tried to explain why i was having a problem understanding how such a thing could exist via graphical representation. it is sometimes the best way to get your point across.

The problem is that the graphical representation you attempt to use is completely inadequate. You might as well ask for an explanation of Newtonian gravity in the following terms:
"Some guy told me that the planets are kept in orbit around the sun by gravity, kind of like as if they were connected by a spring. But then wouldn't the spring between the objects break if they were really far apart? There's clearly something wrong with this theory!"
You paint a picture of a 2d object being deformed by moving it around in a 3d space in which it is embedded (an 'ambient space'). But space-time is not embedded in some larger space, and phrases like "convex" and "concave" deformations make no sense in this context. You would be better off thinking of deformation as changing the structure of space. The points in space aren't moving, but their properties (in particular the distances between them) are changed.

[Anonymous]

Wow, every single long winded reply in this thread makes me think that there is some kind of inside crazy funny joke in there somewhere.

Then I realize that there is not, and wish I had other things like this enter my mind rather then tits, ass, beer, poker, and porn.

I'm PGIL's girlfriend, so I can confirm that the above subjects (tits, ass, beer, poker, and porn) make more than a fleeting pass through his consciousness.

Miss you Paul. You may be a crackpot at times, but you're MY crackpot