Thread: pulsating universe

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Was that a bad joke? How does a property explain a mechanism?

It doesn't. Like I said, the reason that mass bends spacetime is currently unknown. But it has been proven that mass does bend spacetime, so get used to it.

Originally Posted by Xei

Nice one... where are you studying?

Harvard on Mondays to Wednesdays, Oxford on Thursdays and Fridays, and on the weekends I swing by MIT to give some post grad lectures.

Ok, ok. McMaster University. You've probably never heard of it.

Nah, I've only heard of the big ones in the US... Oxford's a crap hole though. >:l

Did Einstein make a set of axioms when developing SR/GR?

It's just that, if so, gravity could be seen as a property of those axioms.

Ask me again in 3 months. It's my understanding that the axioms were his field equations and the fact that particles travel along geodesics in their local spacetimes, which is just a reasonable extension of a Euclidean axiom that things travel in straight lines.

Okay.

But yes, if so, the 'reason' for gravity would essentially be that it is a consequence of those postulates.

Yes indeed, the reason for gravity is the postulates. Brilliant explanation! LOL it's like you're just randomly throwing a bunch of words together... that's not science.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Yes indeed, the reason for gravity is the postulates. Brilliant explanation! LOL it's like you're just randomly throwing a bunch of words together... that's not science.

It's not proof of anything, but it is a way to shift the burden of proof to something that is testable. A good example of this is special relativity. Einstein basically gave a couple of postulates, which are unproven statements, and showed that IF they were correct, then there are certain consequences. But who proved the postulates? Michelson with his interferometer.

Another example is light wave theory. Maxwell proved that IF his equations were correct, light waves are a logical consequence. But proving his equations was another matter.

But then experimental scientists do come in and perform experiments on these things and prove that the postulates are correct to within 0.0000000000001%, and then the scientific community calls it a day.

Ok good point, but isn't it a good indication, if nobody can explain gravity with bending of space-time, that our concept of gravity might be wrong? Or is everyone just too stupid to explain?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Ok good point, but isn't it a good indication, if nobody can explain gravity with bending of space-time, that our concept of gravity might be wrong? Or is everyone just too stupid to explain?

Since we're talking about the philosophy of science, we must be very careful and exact with our assertions. A physicist might casually say that gravity is "explained" by GR, but that's not technically correct. The actual statement is that gravity is explained with the assumption that masses bend spacetime. This may not be correct, in which case you will need to go back to the drawing board. But there is extremely strong and plentiful evidence correlating spacetime distortion with mass, so you can't plausibly argue that masses don't bend spacetime.

Now, there's the second and entirely separate question of how masses bend spacetime, and no one even claims to know the answer to that.

Something I never understood was the (hypothetical?) graviton particle... surely gravity is a result of GR, not particles..?

Yes indeed, the reason for gravity is the postulates. Brilliant explanation! LOL it's like you're just randomly throwing a bunch of words together... that's not science.

Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension Chayba.

How do masses bend space-time? The mass causes pressure differentials in the ether, which cause ether flows toward the masses.

But hey, science claims ether doesn't exist, so gravity will stay a mystery until they realize ether does actually exist

Why on Earth would you think that?

Not only is there no reason to believe that in the first place; there is also, as I have stated three times previously, empirical proof that there is no aether.

It doesn't matter how many inane or convoluted arguments you come up with Chayba. You can't argue with the fact that the aether has been observed not to exist.

I really don't know why you want it to exist so badly in the first place.

Dude, if the ether didn't exist, everything around you would simply collapse. Everything doesn't collapse, so it's dead obvious the ether exists. You're just brainwashed into believing into the biggest lie of the 20th century: vacuum.

If you would just stop being stubborn and start to logically think about the validity of vacuum yourself, you would come to the same conclusion. But, for some reason, you refuse to think and only brainlessly copy concepts from others.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Since we're talking about the philosophy of science, we must be very careful and exact with our assertions. A physicist might casually say that gravity is "explained" by GR, but that's not technically correct. The actual statement is that gravity is explained with the assumption that masses bend spacetime. This may not be correct, in which case you will need to go back to the drawing board. But there is extremely strong and plentiful evidence correlating spacetime distortion with mass, so you can't plausibly argue that masses don't bend spacetime.

Now, there's the second and entirely separate question of how masses bend spacetime, and no one even claims to know the answer to that.

Actually, the current theory in the standard model relies on the existence of the Higgs Boson. I know that there are at least a handful of physicists who claim they know this theory to be correct, but only because they don't run into many people who can even attempt to dispute them.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Dude, if the ether didn't exist, everything around you would simply collapse. Everything doesn't collapse, so it's dead obvious the ether exists. You're just brainwashed into believing into the biggest lie of the 20th century: vacuum.

If you would just stop being stubborn and start to logically think about the validity of vacuum yourself, you would come to the same conclusion. But, for some reason, you refuse to think and only brainlessly copy concepts from others.

Its my opinion that ether is only poor explanation for the truth, and is not that much different from the current explanation. The ether is born out of pure materialism and perhaps under that assumption (everything that is real must be made of something) it is accurate, but we've since learned that materialism isn't the whole truth of reality.

Afaik, the ether theory is just the opposite of materialism. The ether theory claims everything is ether, and matter is actually nothing but waves on the ether.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, the current theory in the standard model relies on the existence of the Higgs Boson. I know that there are at least a handful of physicists who claim they know this theory to be correct, but only because they don't run into many people who can even attempt to dispute them.

The Higgs has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. The Standard Model has nothing to do with gravity. The Standard Model, in its mainstream form, does not touch gravity. The Higgs does have something to do with giving particles mass, but the Standard Model uses mass for other purposes, not involving gravity.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Afaik, the ether theory is just the opposite of materialism. The ether theory claims everything is ether, and matter is actually nothing but waves on the ether.

I really wanted to give you a chance, and assumed that your rantings just came from ignorance. But now I see that you have an agenda. This discussion is over.

Well yeah I guess it kinda is a big blow to your scientific ego realizing everything you ever scientifically believed in was actually a lie. I mean, being proud all your life you know so much about science, but not even being able to explain the mechanics of the most fundamental forces of the universe like gravity isn't something to be proud about. I can, you can't, yet, I'm the ignorant one. That's very scientific of you.

Everything I've ever learned in science is a lie?

Please hurl yourself off the most convenient skyscraper, I'm sure gravitational force will fail to accelerate and ultimately kill you.

Its my opinion that ether is only poor explanation for the truth, and is not that much different from the current explanation. The ether is born out of pure materialism and perhaps under that assumption (everything that is real must be made of something) it is accurate, but we've since learned that materialism isn't the whole truth of reality.

No it isn't for goodness sakes, the aether is disproved by materialism.

Originally Posted by Xei

Everything I've ever learned in science is a lie?

Please hurl yourself off the most convenient skyscraper, I'm sure gravitational force will fail to accelerate and ultimately kill you.

Lol! Don't take everything I say too seriously =P

No it isn't for goodness sakes, the aether is disproved by materialism.

Nope. Failure to prove existence does not prove non-existence. Something must fill the space, or everything would collapse. Why do you reason, that there can be vacuum? Why do you think not everything would collapse? You believe in the bending of space-time, but before space-time can bend, it must be made out of something right? How can space-time bend if it is vacuum, nothingness? How can nothingness bend?

No, they did not 'fail to prove its non existence'. It would of course be incorrect to say that a lack of proof for something's existence is a proof of its non existence.

The Michelson-Morely experiment succeeded in affirming aether's non-existence.

It sounds very much to me like you actually don't know what you're talking about to say otherwise.

The aether makes testable empirical predictions, so if those predictions do not occur, aether is incorrect.

Your weird, often nonsensical and always entirely semantic arguments saying 'if there's no aether how come the universe doesn't collapse??' are completely blown away by the hard evidence.

And I thought you were one of those types who liked to think of himself as open minded.

Why are you ignoring all my questions? How can I be open minded to your answers if you don't give them?

If gravity is caused by the bending of space-time, then this space-time must be made out of something in order for it to bend. Science claims it is made out of vacuum, nothingness. Empty space with a few molecules. But how can nothingness, empty space bend? Not only, in order for space-time to bend, must it be made out of something, it must be entirely filled with that something right? So what is space-time made out of?

Space is the set of relationships between objects. It isn't 'made' of anything. What do you even mean by space is 'made' of aether? If this aether doesn't have any physical prescence then you've just renamed space aether.

This has been proved by experiment.

No matter what arguments you make, they will be inherently wrong.

Why do you think your animal brain, built for eating, drinking, and having sex, should have any sort of intuitive grasp of these matters whatsoever?

Err, Chayba, if you suck everything out of a tank, producing a vacuum, the tank won't collapse if it is strong enough to keep atmospheric pressure from crushing it.

The bending of space time is an imagery to help you visualize what mass does to space. Because you can't comprehend it.

Originally Posted by Xei

Space is the set of relationships between objects. It isn't 'made' of anything. What do you even mean by space is 'made' of aether? If this aether doesn't have any physical prescence then you've just renamed space aether.

So according to you, objects are related by "nothingness"... how does that make sense? You claim space is made out of nothing. 99% of existence is nothing. How can nothing even exist?!

I claim space is made out of someting. And that something is what is called aether.

This has been proved by experiment.

No matter what arguments you make, they will be inherently wrong.

First show me the experiment. You can't link me up, because the experiment is non-existant. They just fooled you into believing there was actually an experiment. What experiment? What is it called? How does it go? You have no clue.

Why do you think your animal brain, built for eating, drinking, and having sex, should have any sort of intuitive grasp of these matters whatsoever?

Why? Because that's exactly how every other scientist and philosopher before me did it. Where do you think they got their theories from? From God? Lol. And this isn't just an intuitive grasp, I've read a lot about science and philosophy. But science came to a dead end, and I had to start looking for answers in other places. Answers you can't give me either (like the mechanics of gravity for example..).

First show me the experiment. You can't link me up, because the experiment is non-existant. They just fooled you into believing there was actually an experiment. Where is this experiment? What is it called? How does it go? You have no clue.

The Michelson-Morely experiment succeeded in affirming aether's non-existence.

Congratulations for not knowing one of the most important and well known experiments in the history of science.

Why? Because that's exactly how every other scientist and philosopher before me did it. Where do you think they got their theories from? From God? Lol. And this isn't just an intuitive grasp, I've read a lot about science and philosophy. But science came to a dead end, and I had to start looking for answers in other places. Answers you can't give me either (like the mechanics of gravity for example..).

No, scientists use evidence which is often completely contradictory to intuition.

For more information, see the entirety of quantum mechanics.