beecee

I was rather nonplussed that he could continue to misconstrue and misquote what others supposedly were saying, and then when confronted with that, just ignored it and continued on his merry way. Yes annoying and disingenuous to say the least.

That certainly covers his methodology to a "T"...but I won't pidgeon hole you for that! 😉

Such majestic Animals with Mnt Kilimanjaro in the background.

Funny philosophical stance you have, treating anyone that disagrees with you and showing you wrong as witch hunters. A shame you do not have the more desirable philosphical stance of the great man you have mis-quoted in Albert Einstein and the ability to admit to error and mistakes.

We don't know...that's simply how GR models it. A number of us have been arguing with the reality/truth or otherwise of spacetime warpage and gravity. If space, spacetime has a property, it is I suggest expansion and whatever is making that expansion accelerate. But there are others that may like to elaborate.

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.

You've been told that because that is the way it is. You failing to see or accept that, does not invalidate it. It's not keeping me awake at all. It's apparently you having sleepless nights and coming back with further confusing rhetoric, rather then seeing the obvious, as has been explained. Well redeem your self, by telling us what gravity really is with an all inclusive observational model, over all regions of spacetime, in any situation.

Most analogies have limitations, we all know that. They are used to offer an explanation as to what is basically happening. Invariably when getting down to the nitty gritty, faults, limitations will always be found. Still when I first became familiar with the rubber sheet/bowling ball analogy in the early to mid fifties as a hairy arse kid, It was a revelation to me. It was like someone turning on a light in a darkened room. It did its job for me. Since then of course, as I have learnt more, read more reputable books, the limitations are far more obvious. Anyway I did find a paper on the same subject with an evaluation of this commonly used analogy. https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/176999/Fisidabo_Paper_vfinale.pdf;jsessionid=4185CF6A53188D7F069FE5F69750A73D?sequence=1 Evaluating the rubber sheet spacetime analogy by studying ball movement in a bent trampoline: Abstract. A usual qualitative analogy used to explain gravitation in general relativity is comparing spacetime warping by massive objects with deformation in a rubber sheet. Motivated by this analogy, which identifies planet orbits with trajectories of rolling objects on the rubber sheet, the movement of a small ball in a trampoline bent because of the presence of a heavy mass in its center is studied. It is concluded that the similarities between how masses move under warped spacetime and under a warped trampoline are only qualitative, and later some analogy flaws are outlined, which can be useful for general relativity teaching. Since the “relativistic model” does not match the ball movement in the experimental conditions, two models based on classical mechanics are presented to describe it. The models are implemented computationally and parameters of such models are optimized to match experimental trajectories. In the case of the most complex of these two models, the high accuracy between optimized and observed trajectories implies that the model is able to explain the experiment behaviour. Conclusions The two main questions this article addressed were evaluating the rubber-sheet analogy and predicting the orbit of balls rolling on a warped trampoline, by using in both cases data collected from the experiment performed in Tibidabo park. Firstly, no way of extending the analogy accurately beyond the rubber sheet being a visualization of the spacetime warping caused by masses has been found. It can not be considered as a complete spacetime where bodies follow geodesics, neither the orbits a ball follows on a warped trampoline are compatible with Newtonian and GR planetary orbits. The alternative model proposed by K.Thorne in [9], in which the rubber sheet only represents a slice of space instead of the full spacetime would help overcome some of the analogy deficits but would still not suffice to describe the apsidal precession observed in ball trajectories. Regarding the second question, two different physical models were proposed and compared to describe the phenomenon. Computational simulations of both the trampoline and the ball movement concluded that the proposed rolling sphere model can predict accurately the experimental results, outperforming the other model proposed, the point particle model. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...................................... We know analogies have limitations, so when explaining it to someone, that point needs to be emphasised. The same applies with pop science docos. They generally give a basic rundown on a situation or scenario, and obviously with limitations also. The relevant point is that those that are interested and/or attracted to that scenario, will probably go out of their way to do further research and learn more,including getting down to the real nitty gritty. What I'm trying to say, is that analogies do play a necessary part in educating, as do pop sci docos.

The discovery of an acceleration in the expansion rate, suggests that space will expand forever and ever, amen. All the matter in the universe will though undergo decay at various rates...stars will go nova and supernova, WD's will become black cinders, BH's will evaporate via Hawking radiation, and possibly even protons will undergo decay. The universe/space/time, will be a cold dark place. We are though looking at a time frame approaching hundreds of trillions of years.

Wow! Breathtakingly amazing!! Not quite as spectacular but is up there..... Iguazu Falls are the world’s largest, highest waterfall system. A jaw-dropping sight, the chain of falls features nearly 300 drops as the Iguazu River snakes along the Brazil-Argentina boundary.

From your somewhat muddled post, the above needs correcting.Mass/energy curves/bends/warps spacetime. We feel that geometry as gravity. As John Wheeler said, mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve; spacetime tells matter/energy how to move. [or words to that effect]

They don't, at least in the cases I have read. You still cannot get rid of them rose coloured gardens that you see things through. The others, you have probably misinterpreted going on your past history. No, as I and others have continually told you, reality/truth if it even exists, varies between person, and also while some maybe trying to describe realty, scientific modeling and theories by definition, do not necessarily have that as there goal. You ignoring those facts, is where obtuseness and arguing in bad faith raises its ugly head. You were totally wrong with what you supposed Einstein said. No he is not a deluded liar. Well so far, [as far as I am aware] it has been basically the only subject you have commented on and/or started threads on...appears a real obsession, much like some religious obsessions I have seen. The anti vaxxers where I come from were given their rights to speak freely, but needed to resort to the only persausive method they know of with violence, as they were without any evidence at all...For their trouble they got fines, jail and criminal records.

Not being as uncouth as you, coupled with my superior upbringing and refinement, I resisted with all my might to say the same thing!!😉😜

Playful? hmmm, yeah, I have seen many of your posts making silly claims, and then * I'm only joking* quickly added. I am no psychologist but I smell something. Science is a discipline in eternal progress, that may change as further observational and experimental data adds to our knowledge. You are claiming nothing new sensational, controversial, or in any way invalidating what most here have been trying to explain to you. Ummm, yeah sure, so? Ancient stone age man also saw gods in the Sun, the Moon, Mountains etc. Science/knowledge progresses. Raed previous answer. I'm really not to sure what you are waffling on about, but yes, it is indeed true that scientists are not out to reveal and "supposed' truth and/or reality. Do you now accept that? What you have done and continue to do imo, is try and confuse and side step the issue at hand. What your definition [which you say you havn't given] of truth and reality is, is your own. Scientific models and theories do not have that as their goal. What claims are those? I'm really interested in knowing what you believe you have refuted. I'll start the ball rolling....gravity is real, although we do not know its true nature.....Not all birds are able to fly? True, not all birds can fly...Atoms are real and always have been real, although our limited knowedge for a lot of time, prevented us from knowing that fact. In concluding, I respectfully suggest you quit practising your faulty philosophy with us, and accept what is real, what is not real, and the unknown aspect of a deeper truth and reality when applied to the universe.

Certainly most people are religious to one degree or another...by name anyway [even me by name that is] I have an hypothesis as to why that is....Convention...his parents were catholic, muslim or whatever...his parents parents were the same...ad infinitum. What do you think?

Yet your posts continue to reflect an obtuse nature, and your claims are wrong to boot. Again for your information, a scientific model and/or theory, was never meant to reveal any possible truth or reality, or deeply underlying make_up. Gravity exists...we just do not know its true nature. Phlogiston has been shown by further observational and experimental evidence to be falsified. Yes, and I don't believe I am the first to note such "qualities" of yours.. You see, I'm pretty sure evry man and his dog understands that gravity is real. And I'm pretty sure most while knowing it is real, do not know what it is exactly...as in the true nature. That's where obtuse comes in, and intellectually dishonest, and obstinate, and bad faith argument.

Thank you...That means a lot coming from someone who has as much respect [including mine] from most members here. Great point, among a great post, that I have never really used so far...thanks again for the reminder.

Again you have the Bull by the arse end. Of course gravity is real, no one would ever deny it, you know that....further more you are obviously now being obruse and as others have said, arguing in bad faith. You know and understand what I mean by gravity real, or a rock is real. What you obviously are comprehnsively wrong at is believing that we know the true reality or truth of gravity. Our decision on the real nature of gravity is borne out by the effects we see.eg: jump off a 10 story building...what happens? C'mon Davy, how's about being just a little bit fair dinkyum for a change!!

I don't believe there was anyone as cool, calm and collected as Deano...Loved him!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprX0sMEdSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTZsptKZlbI That does not change the fact that we do not know the underlying nature of gravity. He created a successful and very useful model that we still use today, on Earth and most space endeavours, if not all space endeavours. Of course gravity is real!

I'm not interested in the unscientific catagory of creationists, so we'll leave that be. On your above, yes, they are real, based on observational and experimental data. But again that is not the "objective" of scientific models and/or theories. Nice work if we can get it, but not always possible. It seems like my account wasn't sufficiently good enough, but that's OK...here are two more answers that cover your obsession and semantical games with real and truth....... The problem the way I saw it, emenating from your very early posts, and the supposedly false "true/reality" of gravity according to your philosophy, is that you seem to think that scientists are inclusively and exclusively after the truth and/or reality of aspects of science. It isn't an exclusive or a totally inclusive exercise. That's not true. I presented an account from a philosopher, criticising the criticism from some of his own kind....and also other accounts from the likes of Hawking, Weinberg, and Degrasse-Tyson. I have hear scientists say gravity is real...that doesn't mean we know exactly what the underlying reality of gravity is. They are explaining things to lay people and see no need to go into the deeper understandings of things...The Feynman video illustrates that admirably.

You keep missing the point. The object of a scientific model is to assist and add knowledge to how the world operates based on what we observe. It isn't necessarily looking for any underlying truth and/or reality. A rock exists,chimps exist, yes they are real. They are real concrete examples of life and geology...why do they exist? That's another question. Just part of the evolutionary process of life and the universe. The evolution of life happens and is real...why does it happen via natural selction? and why does life pass on some of its advantagious traits? Why did the rock as we see it, evolve from the BB 13.83 billion years ago. We know Abiogenesis happened as it is the only scientific answer to how life arose somewhere in the universe? Why? Why does mass/energy warp/curve spacetime? Why do we feel that warping and curving as gravity? Why? why? Science doesn't give a stuff, at least not in the first instant and prime objective. It's prime objective is telling it like it is. Scientific models do not NECESSARILY search for any SUPPOSED truth and/or reality. I accept most of the above as reasonably factual, based on the evidence supporting them. Why they happened is another question. Is there more to it then what we see on face value? As poorly as I have probably explained that, I'm sure most will understand.

We maybe able to have good reason to believe our theories are great models, but we can never be really sure how close we are to whatever reality and truth is at the core. EG: Gravity. But even with limited applicability, we still have some knowledge. Until we have a model/theory that accounts for the actual instant of the BB [that very first quantum/Planck instant below 10-45 seconds, and at the core of BH's, we can never be sure about any truth/reality or if its turtles all the way down. GR also does not preclude the existence of ERB's and wormholes, nor does it preclude the existence of White Holes specifically. Do they exist? No evidence yet of either afaik. It's certainly more practical in today's society I would imagine...and also obviously many more philosophical questions can never really be answered. [please don't ask me why] Although just as obviously going back to the ancient Greeks and other historical scenarios, philosophy held a higher position. Any building needs and depends on a strong, sturdy foundation....from there, we can build 100 story sky scrapers. No one is belittling philosophy, and I have already agreed that Krauss was wrong in calling another philosopher a moron, for which he apologised for anyway. It's a controversial subject but in essence I believe that all Krauss and other reputable scientists were saying is that philosophy is certainly at the foundation of science, but as science has grown, many more areas and arenas soley in the domain of philsophy, are now in the domain of theoretical physicists and scientists. I believe that is true, and I don't see it as any reason for philsophers to be dismayed. Perhaps towards the end of WW2, they should have listed to the philosophical reasonings of the physicist Leo Szillard and the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man. Each discipline has had periods of prominence. Perhaps one day again, philsophy will be prominent again, as it was in the past. Enough for my philsophising at this time!!!

There are three possible types of universe...Open, Flat and closed. An open universe is one with negative curvature much like a saddle. Such a universe would be infinite. So far the evidence points to a flat universe, one where two parallel beams of light would remain parallel. This would also be infinite. The other is a closed universe with positive curvature. The evidence for the flat universe [WMAP] though still has small margins of error, and obviously those small margins could be parts of a larger curvature. A finite [closed universe] would have spacetime shaped like a globe, with no centre or edge. If the universe is infinite, then again, we can have no centre or edge. In essence whether the universe is open, flat or closed, depends on the amount of matter/energy and consequently gravity, trying to close the universe, and the rate of expansion, and DE/ CC [cosmological constant] pushing things apart. This is called the "Hubble Constant" and at present is calculated at 74kms/second/mega parsec. In essence, we are sure there is no edge to the universe that is flat, open or closed, and if there is no edge how can there be any centre to speak of? This may explain better then I.... https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/05/how-is-the-universe-accelerating-if-the-expansion-rate-is-dropping/?sh=6e000d340937 or this one....https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data The other possibility also is some sort of exotic shape, like a torus for example...

On the highlighted part by me, isn't much of that political...science split the atom...it can be put to good use or bad...we can go on and on and on. The same applies to ancient stone age man and the use of fire, which I saw comments on somewhere or other..... Thanks for your answers...I more or less generally agree, although and havn't too much critical argument against them...except perhaps.....at Q2 you said "I agree only with the first part of your sentence": then you follow and say it should aim for truth [albeit a simpler concept of truth] as opposed to my not necessarily aim for truth. I see that as a roundabout way of agreeing with me. Then at Q4 you mention and comment on my remark of "absolute certainty"...My personal view, based of course on my non limited knowledge is at least in one case, we have reached certainty...the theory of evolution of life. Other theories of course are less certain then others, eg: DM and its existence is less certain then GR or stellar fusion being the mechanics of stars, or our theories of say DE and the age and shape of the universe being less certain then the evolution of space and time [spacetime] in the BB account. Perhaps the certainty I speak of with relation to the theory of evolution of life, is different and apart from this truth and/or reality that personaly I find annoying. Just gave you a like, you lucky fella you! This is the most disturbing parts of your posts...your catagorising of realists and/or non-realists. Scientific models and theories by definition, do not set out to reveal whatever truth and/or reality that we can be aware of. A scientific model is as follows......https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+a+scientific+model+do&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=what+does+a+scientific+model+do&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j0i390l3.10608j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Models are useful tools in learning science which can be used to improve explanations, generate discussion, make predictions, provide visual representations of abstract concepts and generate mental models: or A limitation of models in science is that they are usually simplified versions of the real situation or concept. Sometimes, models spark debates leading to new and improved models. A model may be used when it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to test a concept or theory. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-scientific-models/ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My other only comment re your "philosophy" is that at least imho, you have linked to a few scientists and philsophers of note, claiming that they support your philosophy. They don't. At least not in the cases I have read. Einstein was one of them in the other thread, where you finally did relent to some extent.

Saw the beautiful Lainie in Sydney in the mid sixties.