What is the use of General Relativity

[paddoboy]

I agree that paddoboy is boorish, comes across as being undereducated relative to some of the positions he takes and acts like an self-appointed enforcer of ideology. Please demonstrate those are violations of the forum rules, if that is your assertion. While paddoboy may be irrelevant to the progress of science and sometimes does nothing more than science cheerleading on this forum, that doesn't make you more right that he is. paddoboy just puts high weight on information supplied to him by those with empirical histories of being reliable. That's not really "religious" especially since you provide him with nothing better.

That position you claim I take is totally false rpenner, and I believe you already know that. I state often that I am a lay person before proceeding to give answers or descriptions of what is accepted by mainstream, in lay person's language, and as I have stated to you before, I believe that lay person's description sometimes conveys far more understanding to certain aspects of physics/cosmology then your own full mathematical description, that although most probably far more professionally correct then my own lay description, means nothing to the other undereducated members on this forum, as you so succulently put it.
Self appointed enforcer and science cheer leader accusations is also rather funny. I mean are our well known science presenters we often see on TV and in the media also enforcers and cheer leaders?
Should they, or for that matter me or anyone else, let the quacks, cranks, god botherers etc, exploit the gaps that are in science for their own agenda laden crusades?
You as an obvious professional rpenner, need to realise that we are not all professionals, and of course you also as an obvious professional rpenner and also as a mod, have the right and the duty, to correct any error or mistake in what I'm trying to present on any subject, just as you do with the "the god" and his brother's in arms on the rather rare occasions.
And finally let me say I totally agree with your comment re myself being irrelevant to the progress of science, but does that not apply to all of us, including [as far as I know] yourself?
And of course the quacks, cranks and god botherers that like to spread rubbish in relation to science?.
In fact the only ones that are relevant to the progress of science are generally those at the coal face and the forefront of research, and of course if you are one of those, then I sincerely withdraw my inference re your own irrelevancy.
That's my position/s anyway on your rather back-handed compliment.
Let's all hope anyway, now that the god has returned, that you take a more active position in correcting his nonsense and the nonsense often promoted by his brothers in arms and like-minded anti mainstream science they and he present.
And of course that goes for the science cheer leaders and enforcers such as myself.

 

[paddoboy]

No. It would be completely reasonable to support an alternative if it succeeds to do the same as the mainstream theory. The requirement that it has to be better is already a compromise with all those paddoboys, which support the old mainstream theory because it is the mainstream theory.

And as I said before, those that decide on the relevancy or otherwise of your own interpretation, are your peers and they will be the final judge/s.

 

[Schmelzer]

Self appointed enforcer and science cheer leader accusations is also rather funny. I mean are our well known science presenters we often see on TV and in the media also enforcers and cheer leaders?

Of course. Unfortunately, they are nothing more. Given the low quality of science journalism, it is even hard to tell if you, doing the same what you do here, would be above or below average as a science journalist.

Should they, or for that matter me or anyone else, let the quacks, cranks, god botherers etc, exploit the gaps that are in science for their own agenda laden crusades?

There is certainly no obligation to "do something" against them. Because what you can do without evaluating the content of their claims is not better than what they do, it is at best ad hominem. But evaluating the content requires time. And nobody is obliged to spend own time and resources for quacks.

So, if somebody spends time criticizing cranks by criticizing their content, thanks very much. This is useful. The problem is there are far too many cranks, and evaluating their content is far too boring. That means, not all crank content will be adequately criticized. Fortunately, for some sufficiently large classes of crank nonsense, much less than an evaluation of the content is sufficient. Say, formal criteria like absence of formulas, or of formulas typical for presenting physical theories (Lagrangians, evolution equations and so on), are often sufficient. Complete absence of knowledge of established theories (that means GR and SM) is also sufficient in most cases. And sometimes some fun like http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html is helpful too.

Unfortunately, the ad hominems you use are not on this level yet. They are usually nothing beyond "your theory is not accepted by the mainstream", which is worth nothing.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course. Unfortunately, they are nothing more. Given the low quality of science journalism, it is even hard to tell if you, doing the same what you do here, would be above or below average as a science journalist.

My post was addressed to rpenner, and obviously you have missed the point I'm making.
Try reading it again.
Our science presenters in general do a great job, far better than you obviously imagine that you are doing.

Unfortunately, the ad hominems you use are not on this level yet. They are usually nothing beyond "your theory is not accepted by the mainstream", which is worth nothing.

While you may believe that my comment that your ether interpretation will be judged by your peers, as rather harsh considering your rather general personal "I am" attitude, it never the less is factual.

 

[rpenner]

That position you claim I take is totally false rpenner, and I believe you already know that.

You are parsing something I wrote, but I know not what.

And of course the quacks, cranks and god botherers that like to spread rubbish in relation to science?.

Of course they do, but let's not commit the genetic fallacy by assuming their positions are wrong because of who they are.

And finally let me say I totally agree with your comment re myself being irrelevant to the progress of science, but does that not apply to all of us, including [as far as I know] yourself?

My notable inventions have been mostly technical innovations, not scientific progress at the frontier and some are owned by the University of California and some by entities I dare not name. I have however done work on Australian meteorology, infant heart beats and a book on "fractals" (it was the 90's) and provided academic assistance to PhD candidates and post-docs. Also, I invented multivariable calculus the quarter I showed up to take the final cold (no class attendance, homework, midterm or even opening the book). It's generally a bad sign when your reasoning begins “If I were a eighteenth century mathematician named Jacobi, what would a jacobian be?” (Turns out he was a nineteenth century mathematician which goes to show this is terrible practice for a history final.)

 

[paddoboy]

You are parsing something I wrote, but I know not what.

I'm not parsing at all: The general gist of your relative post and references to me as some supposed enforcer, and undereducated and a science cheer leader, speaks loudly for itself I suggest: Particularly since I am never backward in coming forward and revealing myself as an amateur and lay person, and incidently why I will on near all occasions, link to reputable sites/links/citations etc to support my general stance.

Of course they do, but let's not commit the genetic fallacy by assuming their positions are wrong because of who they are.

I don't believe I do that: I assume and actually know their positions are wrong, as they mostly are contradictory to accepted mainstream knowledge....and of course if any of them were really correct in any of their assumptions, would they be making it known on a public forum?

 

[paddoboy]

My notable inventions have been mostly technical innovations, not scientific progress at the frontier and some are owned by the University of California and some by entities I dare not name. I have however done work on Australian meteorology, infant heart beats and a book on "fractals" (it was the 90's) and provided academic assistance to PhD candidates and post-docs. Also, I invented multivariable calculus the quarter I showed up to take the final cold (no class attendance, homework, midterm or even opening the book). It's generally a bad sign when your reasoning begins “If I were a eighteenth century mathematician named Jacobi, what would a jacobian be.” (Turns out he was a nineteenth century mathematician which goes to show this is terrible practice for a history final.)

That's nice, and congrats: as I said, I wasn't sure. Obviously though my statement stands re who or who is not relevant to the perpetual progress of science.

 

[The God]

You are parsing something I wrote, but I know not what.

Of course they do, but let's not commit the genetic fallacy by assuming their positions are wrong because of who they are.

My notable inventions have been mostly technical innovations, not scientific progress at the frontier and some are owned by the University of California and some by entities I dare not name. I have however done work on Australian meteorology, infant heart beats and a book on "fractals" (it was the 90's) and provided academic assistance to PhD candidates and post-docs. Also, I invented multivariable calculus the quarter I showed up to take the final cold (no class attendance, homework, midterm or even opening the book). It's generally a bad sign when your reasoning begins “If I were a eighteenth century mathematician named Jacobi, what would a jacobian be?” (Turns out he was a nineteenth century mathematician which goes to show this is terrible practice for a history final.)

Thats wonderful, nice to see a guy like you around.

 

[The God]

now that the god has returned,

Well, where did I go? Don't you know that I am omnipresent?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Actually the dark truth is hidden in your statement...."inumerable topics of active research"....funds?!

I do recall going thru a couple of years ago an trying to total the funding related to GR an it did seem huge. Unfortunately I can't guess at the figure I came up with but if you took an hour or two you would get an idea.
I think there was a site showing where money went and what for and I was surprised.
But if you feel strongly you should find much joy in working out the actual finding.

Alex

 

[The God]

Have I ever said I support GR? I support my own ether theory of gravity. Which gives, in some limit, the Einstein equations of GR. Only if I'm extremely tired and sloppy I would write, instead, that it gives in some limit GR. See for example http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether/

But I support also a little bit more than only the math. But also how this math is connected with what experimenters measure. The most important example is the formula how to compute, from the solution of the gravitational field $g_{mn}(x,t)$ and a trajectory of a clock $x(t)$ the clock time shown by the clock. So, I support also some predictions about what real clocks will measure as their clock time. Which is obviously more than math alone, it has some well-defined connection with reality.

And, even more, if one takes some part of the mainstream (positivist) ideology seriously, and ignores all the metaphysics of GR, restricting oneself to claims about observable, physical facts, then the part which I share is essentially all what GR tells. All this spacetime talk is essentially metaphysics, not testable in any experiment.

So, if one takes this anti-metaphysical position seriously, "[t]he concept of Spacetime goes to the root of GR, if this concept fails then GR fails" should be rejected as wrong. You would be obliged, instead, to ignore it as metaphysical.

Fortunately for you, this does not mean that you are really wrong about this. Because this anti-metaphysical philosophy is wrong, in conflict with the established mainstream philosophy (which is Popper's methodology) and is so influential only based on tradition (positivism was the leading philosophy during the time of the relativistic as well as quantum revolution, Popper came only 1935, the English translation much later). That positivism remains powerful has, unfortunately for science, the fatal consequence that a serious scientific discussion about the metaphysics of the leading theories does not exist. So, every scientist is doing his own metaphysics. And the GR mainstream is doing spacetime metaphysics, and if spacetime metaphysics would fail, this would be fatal for them, and they would consider this as a failure of GR too.

The situation may be sticky for them, but certainly not for me. Because I'm open to a rational discussion as of the spacetime metaphysics itself, as of the scientific methodology which shows that physical theories contain (and have to contain) metaphysical parts, and the only problem I'm faced with is ignorance of these questions and refusal to discuss them.

The association of word 'metaphyisics' in context with GR, takes away GR from reality.

Secondly do you think GR passes Popper Philosophy? It does not matter when Popper proposed.

My resistance to GR (relevancy immaterial) will soften if it is said that a mass causes curvature in the space (not spacetime) which is gravity, space has certain materialistic properties which are not fully understood yet, and also we are yet to find out the mechanism of this curvature formation.

 

[paddoboy]

Well, where did I go? Don't you know that I am omnipresent?

Sure! and delusional to boot!

 

[paddoboy]

My resistance to GR (relevancy immaterial) will soften if it is said that a mass causes curvature in the space (not spacetime) which is gravity, space has certain materialistic properties which are not fully understood yet, and also we are yet to find out the mechanism of this curvature formation.

Your resistance to GR matters not...You are irrelevant in the greater scheme of things, [as am I of course!] you are a nobody, a no one, like your brothers in arms pushing the same anti science conspiracy nonsense.

 

[The God]

Your resistance to GR matters not...You are irrelevant in the greater scheme of things, [as am I of course!] you are a nobody, a no one, like your brothers in arms pushing the same anti science conspiracy nonsense.

You keep honking that English is your first language, still you cannot decipher the meaning, are you so undereducated?

 

[Schmelzer]

Our science presenters in general do a great job, far better than you obviously imagine that you are doing.

Of course, in your opinion they do a great job, simply because they support the mainstream.
That they often heavily distort even the mainstream, to present the 0815 result as a sensation, or to present some wild speculation as a serious result, is nothing you can identify. So you simply don't see all this.

While you may believe that my comment that your ether interpretation will be judged by your peers, as rather harsh

I don't. My remark was a general one, and about your typical reaction to cranks, thus, something completely different.

 

[Schmelzer]

The association of word 'metaphyisics' in context with GR, takes away GR from reality.

No. The GR spacetime interpretation contains, of course, metaphysics. So what?

Secondly do you think GR passes Popper Philosophy? It does not matter when Popper proposed.

Of course. It is an empirical theory which makes a lot of testable predictions.

My resistance to GR (relevancy immaterial) will soften if it is said that a mass causes curvature in the space (not spacetime) which is gravity, space has certain materialistic properties which are not fully understood yet, and also we are yet to find out the mechanism of this curvature formation.

In this case, your problems with GR seem completely metaphysical.

Rename "curvature" into "gravitational stress tensor", "spacetime" into "gravitational field", and return to Einstein's classical distinction between constructive and principle theories, where GR is a principle theory (thus, a theory which does not speculate about mechanisms) and everything is fine? Then, nothing changes in the empirical predictions, and your modified GR would be identical to original GR not only from positivistic, but even from Popper's point of view.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course, in your opinion they do a great job, simply because they support the mainstream.
That they often heavily distort even the mainstream, to present the 0815 result as a sensation, or to present some wild speculation as a serious result, is nothing you can identify. So you simply don't see all this.

Of course in your opinion they distort the facts, simply because they would probably treat your ether the way I and others have treated it, and obviously would agree that your opinion on your own ether is irrelevant and your peers will be the best judge.
Despite your irrelevant comments re science popularisers, they do a great job and at least are making some attempt at getting science and the methodology to the masses, in easy to understand steps.

 

[paddoboy]

You keep honking that English is your first language, still you cannot decipher the meaning, are you so undereducated?

My education is/was enough to understand the meaning of what you and your brother's in arms are trying to convey, and decipher the general bullshit contained within.

 

[Schmelzer]

Of course in your opinion they distort the facts, simply because they would probably treat your ether the way I and others have treated it, and obviously would agree that your opinion on your own ether is irrelevant and your peers will be the best judge.

Nonsense. They simply will not write about me because (or as long as) I'm not an established mainstream scientist. That's all. I do not even expect them to write about me at all.

If I criticize journalists, I criticize them for doing a bad job. And if they distort the scientific results they are writing about, they do a bad job. I have to admit that the job is very hard - but if the result is bad, I name it bad.

You are, of course, unable to see these distortions, because to see them you would have to understand the results themselves, and to see the difference. So, all you can do is to see if they are good at writing science fiction - some fantasies which present the job of a modern scientist as something very interesting to people who have no idea about it. If these beautiful fanfasy stories have something in common with the real research is nothing you would be able to do. So, you evaluate something completely different - what I criticize you are unable to evaluate, what you like is nothing with interests me.

Despite your irrelevant comments re science popularisers, they do a great job and at least are making some attempt at getting science and the methodology to the masses, in easy to understand steps.

No. They do a great job only if they succeed. Not if they make some attempt.

 

[paddoboy]

Nonsense. They simply will not write about me because (or as long as) I'm not an established mainstream scientist. That's all. I do not even expect them to write about me at all.

The reason/s why they don't write about you is obvious.
But I certainly had not twigged that this had gotten you so offside and angst.

If I criticize journalists, I criticize them for doing a bad job. And if they distort the scientific results they are writing about, they do a bad job. I have to admit that the job is very hard - but if the result is bad, I name it bad.

Irrelevant, particularly on a public science forum...Won't affect anything to any degree.

. So, you evaluate something completely different - what I criticize you are unable to evaluate, what you like is nothing with interests me.

Again, your evaluation means nothing in the greater scheme of things, and that is evident in you once again raising your long defunct ether model on a medium such as a public forum, for obvious reasons, and of course my own evaluation is targeted towards those that do come to a forum to at least gather knowledge and learn the basics.

No. They do a great job only if they succeed. Not if they make some attempt.

They do succeed.