MigL

Again, you are equating 'reality' ( the eart is NOT flat ) with the working theory ( mistaken ) of the people who proposed it. Didn't we already have 8 pages of this discussion ? Are we going to re-hash it all, so you can come to the conclusion that the word knowledge conveys a different meaning for a scientist ( an evolution of commonly accepted information ), than that from your quotes of Philosophers ( the absolute 'truth'; whatever that is ).

Really Davy_Jones ?? An awful lot of people know things which are simply untrue. But I like how you included justified beliefs as modifiers of 'truth' in your standard ( ? ) definition.

Our knowledge of the way things work, the mechanisms of the universe, is increasing; I don't know what that has to do with 'truth'. My initial comment may have been slightly disparaging towards Philosophers, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'mental gymnastics'. Someone who I consider a friend has taught me the value of Philosophy. It teaches us HOW to think. According to Eise, Philosophy can help direct the thought process in order to solve a Physics problem, and, as such, is a valuable discipline. I must say that your thought processes, in equating expanding knowledge of the mechanisms of the universe, with approaching 'truth', are a little confused ( for someone who claims to be a Philosopher ). Maybe you should ask a Philosopher to help guide your thinking 😄 😄 . es

Which were a result of discrepancies between observations and existing theories.

Don't sell yourself short... This has been one of the most interesting discussions in quite a while. It even brought Markus out of 'retirement'. They say that the first step on the path to better oneself is recognizing one's shortcomings. You're on your way to becoming a much better Physicist. 8 pages of ( very informative and interesting ) discussion, and that is your conclusion ? That sometimes Physicists ( and people in general ) sometimes use inappropriate words to describe things/effects ? You're only back briefly, and already we are learning and ggaining new interests.

One is based on evidence/observation; the other on mental gymnastics. ( no offense meant, Eise )

Flight of fancy ,indeed. The observable universe has an 'edge', but it recedes as you move closer to it. ( it is always at the same distance ) Correspondence of points is a useful tool when dealing with infinities. That doesn't mean areas are equal. So why would you need to prove it ( physically or otherwise ) ?

You've always been famous on ScienceForums.net 😄 .

That bolded question was answered, at which point it 'evolved' to which model, force or geometric, is true or real

The original Physics question, as I understood it, asked which of the two models of gravity is 'true', and accurately describes 'reality'. ( yes, I have a problem with both of those words ) We know for a fact that neither is 'true' or 'real'. The Newtonian concept of a force fails on many levels ( not to undermine its usefulness ), such as discrepancy between force and acceleration ( free fall ), direct observation ( Mercury's orbit ), or even instantaneous information tranfer between masses. GR, on the other hand, fails at scales of energy ( large ) and separation ( small ), while being exceedingly accurate in between these extremes. Invoking A Einstein, and his quotes, doesn't help the situation, as he didn't know about Black Holes, nor about gravitational effects on approaching Planck scales. So I don't see the point of quoting A Einstein, and his beliefs, nor about expecting one theory or the other to fully describe 'reality' or be 'true'. Obviously neither is, and we are faced with two prospects ... 1 - We don't have a full description of 'reality' yet. 2 - We may never be able to fully describe 'reality. Good to hear from you Markus ...

Maybe the meaning of 'discovered' also needs some clarification. What is actually discovered is the effect these so called particles have on other particles. Does that make the particles 'real', or is it simply the effect that is real and verifiable ? Hence, models/theories describe effects ( mechanisms/interactions ), and are not concerned with the particles themselves. I wasn't aware of this. I'll look it up. I find it very intellectually enticing. Thanks a lot. We had a mathematical Physicist member, AJB, whose primary area of research was fibre bundle theory of fields. Fiber bundle - Wikipedia He still posts very interesting stuff in our Blog section, but hasn't contributed to the forum in a couple of years. It would have been interesting to get his take on the present subject.

... and NOT an explosion!

It may help the explanations if Dagl1 was to express his opinions/misconceptions of what a frame ( inertial or otherwise ) is. I get the impression he thinks it is something other than the accepted definition.

subquantum = below a quantum of action = virtual

The fact that private citizens can sue abortion providers ( or anyone involved ) should have no effect on the Judiciary. Why can't judges simply dismiss these lawsuits according to case law ? IOW, are judges controlled by the bat-shit crazy Texan Republicans ?

'True', and 'truth' are subjective, and R Dawkins would be the first to agree. ( and the reason I use the scare quotation marks you previously asked about ) You seem to continuously want to steer the discussion in the Philosophy direction. I am not well versed in Philosophy, but I have deluded myself into thinking I know a little Physics; and that is guiding the opinion I'm giving you. My ( subjective ) 'truth', you might say.

I'm sure you're lying, @zapatos Did they not wish you a Happy Birthday ? Did they not give you a hug, or a big smile on your special day ? You would have to define that as 'nothing'. I wouldn't. Yup !

Descriptions are verbal models and, as such, some are applicable in some circumstances, and some are not. If I were discussing Gravity with someone versed in GR, I would certainly use the curvature of space-time description. If I were talking to a high-school student, I would use the force description. Words are a tool, just like math is, and both can be used to describe ( model ) Gravity. Math is much less subjective and ambiguous, however, and usually doesn't lead to these kinds of discussions.

As my opinions and thoughts on the nature of Gravity have been split-off from a thread appropriately entitled "Is Gravity a Force ?", I have to wonder ... What does the ideology of scientists, and the purpose of Science, which is being discussed at some length, have to do with the nature of Gravity ???

Einstein also thought there was a unified field theory that would unite Electromagnetism, gravity and the strong force, in his later years. Before we uncovered the color interaction , of which a side effect is the strong force, or even the weak interaction. Nobody's perfect; Newton had a lot of 'faulty' thinking also.

Not the center of the atom, but the center of the orbital, or probability distribution, itself. Even when they are 'lobes' about the nucleus, they have a central 'dense' area. They are often, erroneuously depicted with sharp edges, whereas we both know, the probability has no sharp edge, but gradually falls off.

If all you had to go by was a picture of an aye-aye, or a model of one, would you know what it is, or its properties are ? Physicists deal with models of reality; does space-time actually curve, or does the co-ordinate system we assign to space-time only curve ? Is there actually such a thing as space-time ? Our models only describe certain facets of reality, and are incomplete, or only applicable in certain circumstances; the only model that FULLY describes reality, is reality itself. That is the 'reality' of the situation, not an ideology or a philosophy.

Let me offer an alternate viewpoint ... We are considering a quantum mechanical system, so the HUP must come into play. The 'orbitals' of electrons are nothing more than probability distributions of where the electron is located. The outskirts, or distant areas, of the orbital cloud correspond to lower probabilities, while the inner areas have higher pobabilities, and are usually depicted as the shape of the orbital cloud. These higher probabilities 'constrain' the electron's location, and, according to the HUP, introduce greater 'variability' in the electron's momentum. For the positional probability that is very high, its momentum, and speed, is very indeterminate, and possibly relativistic. Orbitals which are more tightly bound would have more indeterminate momentum, and possibly, the highest electron speeds.

In case the two previous replies didn't make it abundantly clear ... Distance and time are two ( of many ) things that are frame dependent. And thanks for asking interesting questions 🙂 .

Only in this context, Studiot. And why is it OK to throw out the cat, but not the dog ?