Leaderboard

! Moderator Note These arguments seemed eerily familiar, and after some digging the staff has determined that Davy_Jones is Reg Prescott, a previously banned user. The feeling of deja vu was because we had, in fact, done this before. Right down to the citing of Frank Sinatra in a thread title. If you find merit in the discussion please continue, but Davy/Reg will not be participating

If by 'keep on going' you mean do things, like work, then it is energy that keeps it 'going'. Energy has some funny properties. If you have a box divided by a partition, where one side has a more energetic gas than the other side, the partition will be accelerated, and move. That is an example of doing work ( much like the pistons moving in your car's engine let you travel down the road ) When the gas on both sides of the partition has equal energy, obviously the partition will stop moving, and no more work can be done. Notice that the total gas still has energy, but it is the difference in energy that allows work, and processes to happen. So, we have useable energy, which can do work, and un-useable energy which cannot. We call this process, of converting useable energy into un-useable, entropy. Entropy can also be a measure of the 'order' of a system, which means that, although it can be reversed locally ( life is proof of that ), it must always increase globally. That is where the idea for the 'heat death' of the universe comes from. Once entropy of the universe is maximized, and there are no more energy differences, all work and processes will cease, and the universe will essentially be dead. This is a rather simple explanation, which is, hopefully, suitable for your level of understanding. If you should need elaboration, don't be afraid to ask.

That’s because the sun slowly looses mass and angular momentum through radiation and emission of particles (‘solar wind’), so it’s total mass decreases over time, making planetary orbits larger. The effect is really small though.

As studiot already said, you only need to know about this tensor if you want to look at spacetime in the interior of an energy distribution, where it functions as the source term. In vacuum it is identically zero. Curvature itself is described by other tensors.

Such majestic Animals with Mnt Kilimanjaro in the background.

Scientific anti realist, realist, truth, reality etc etc 😁You're fond of pidgeon holing people as someone previously mentioned earlier. Are you into the supernatural? I mean you are approaching this stuff, and avoiding the question, much as a religious fanatic does. That question again..."telling us what gravity really is with an all inclusive observational model, over all regions of spacetime, in any situation". Afterall, as you are inferring, everyone else is wrong, and so many scientists/philosophers [that you have misinterpreted] support your stance, so should be easy for you.

@Davy_Jones, I'm fond of QBism, to get around the troubles of quantum realist interpretations. Limited time, so I'll leave it there. (Quantum Bayesianism is the longer original term. )

Thanks, didn't see that one. And reading the rest of that post, I'm seeing personal mental health needs that cannot really be met on the web. The family member getting typhoid suggests a challenging spot in a developing country. I hope there are people there working towards a more nurturing community -- sometimes it seems to me that America could, instead of trying to export our highly boasted values (often down the barrel of a gun), just send money and expertise for clean water, sustainable agriculture, green energy, and local entrepreneurship. When desperation drops, warlords and tyrants and religious zealots have less of a foothold.

No At least 34 according to the post 4th above yours.

You sound extremely low based on your post. Please seek some support or counselling, it really does help. I can see your frustration, but I think you are being over paranoid. Most of your claims, (though in some minority sectors maybe true) in general are heavily exaggerated at best, and mostly unfounded in reality. Life can be and is unfair at times and so can people also be cruel, at times. But life is a wonderful gift and one that, as a whole, should be cherished. Unfortunately as with all things some people are more fortunate than others, but people find happiness in the simplest of things not the wealth and prosperity they desire. One thing that always reminds me of joy and sadness, is when my son was seriously ill and I attended a children's hospital. Walking down the corridor between wards I passed by a little girl, no older than 12 being pushed in a wheel chair. Her head was bald and she was painfully thin. But her smile lit up the corridor like a little angel from above. I found out later from her parents that she was indeed terminal and that all that was being done to prolong her life was ongoing. It struck me at that moment, she was smiling with joy, yet faced the most horrible of fate. Please find help my friend.

I do wonder whether the human race will ever tire of hunting and burning witches. Re: (and I refer to the more malevolent elements in the thread, not you nice folks) the latest scandal from the quidnuncs around the scuttlebutt regarding myself imposing definitions on others Are we to believe now that I, perhaps with the help of a time machine, held a gun to the head of Einstein, Weinberg, Perrin, and all the rest, mercilessly forcing them to conform to my idiosyncratic definition (which I have never proposed in the first place) of reality? "Your obeisance to lexicographical tyranny or your life, sucker!" Let's suppose that what the Council of Grand Inquisitors says is correct, and we're all working with more-or-less different understandings of the terms truth and reality. It's not even all that implausible; intuitions do vary from person to person. The facts remain, however, that contra the opposition claims, there are scientists who are trying to describe reality as they understand the term ; there are scientists who speak of, who "deal with", truth and reality whatever these things mean to them. They said so! What next: they're all deluded liars? I could, of course, be quite wrong about all this. Wouldn't be the first time. Isn't it wonderful, though, that we live in an enlightened age where people can speak freely without fear of an auto-da-fé. Cough, cough.

Oh, I know QM is a major headache to the realist. She extrapolates from quantum reality to macro-reality and gets caught up in all kinds of paradoxes and puzzles. The question I'm asking here, though, is: Why should the scientific antirealist (like almost everyone here it seems), if he is a commonsense realist too, squirm with questions about the reality of soccer balls (as you were doing, I think)? After all, the scientific antirealist doesn't believe all that quantum stuff is true. It's just a model. Seems to me the obvious answer he (the latter) should give is "Of course soccer balls are real. Why would you ask such a silly question?".

Don't the witchhunters in the thread have other witches to burn?