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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
Nah, I've only heard of the big ones in the US... Oxford's a crap hole though. >:l |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
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. |
|
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? |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
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. |
|
Something I never understood was the (hypothetical?) graviton particle... surely gravity is a result of GR, not particles..? |
|
How do masses bend space-time? The mass causes pressure differentials in the ether, which cause ether flows toward the masses. |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
Why on Earth would you think that? |
|
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. |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
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. |
|
Last edited by Xaqaria; 01-12-2009 at 02:34 AM.
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
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. |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
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. |
|
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. |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
Everything I've ever learned in science is a lie? |
|
Lol! Don't take everything I say too seriously =P |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
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. |
|
Why are you ignoring all my questions? How can I be open minded to your answers if you don't give them? |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
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. |
|
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. |
|
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?! |
|
"Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina
|
|
Bookmarks