Why do anti-science religionists never question the theory of gravity?

[OohPooPahDoo]

There were no misspellings in any dissertation I ever turned in, and I did them before spell check even existed. There was a grammatical error,

Great. I don't give a shit. For all I know there aren't any in mine, either. Considering its length, however, I wouldn't be surprised.

RHS belongs to the right hand side? The right hand side of what?

The equation shit for brains. Whose the stupid one here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you kidding me? High school freshman can only understand gravity in the Newtonian limit - and in that limit space and time can be considered absolutes. I'm talking about Einstein's theory of gravity - and I guarantee you that there are a very small number of people who understand the math behind it. By einstein's gravity space and time are not absolute, they are warped by matter.

The group of scientists activiely publishing in matters of gravity is not terribly big, at least not on the theoretical side.

Are you telling me that high school students can't understand this?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaOHvy5AcA"]The curvature of Space-Time - YouTube[/ame]

That's not general relativity. (If it were life would be easier for so many graduate students) Its a conceptual approximation of general relativity. Its like saying you can understand the trajectory of a baseball without Newton's laws just because you can conceive of how a baseball might be set on a given trajectory.

You don't even need that much. Most people can look at a baseball after it leaves a bat and do all the math in their head and give a good guess as to where it will land, even if they can't do the math on paper. Being able to do the math om paper doesn't prove you understand the the trajectory of the baseball any better than they do, it just proves you can do the math.

Since general relativity is, in itself, a conceptual representation using another one to explain it is a perfectly valid way to make it understandable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I like all science.

You like it because you think it proves you are smart for not believing in God, I like it because I understand it.

I don't not believe in God.

I don't not believe in grammar, so what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The current one. General relativity.

General Relativity is not the current theory of gravity

Yes it is. There are others (scalar-tensor theory, for instance), but GR is the most recent generally accepted theory of gravity.


Yeah. A theory of gravity. Duh.



Sure it does. Gravity is a bending of space-time by matter.


No, right, he didn't say that, he just published a generally covariant theory of gravity. Sure thing bud.


Hence no preferred frame of reference. why do you insist on contradicting yourself over and over again?

Since Einstein was working in 4 dimensions, and current scientific theory is pretty sure that there are at least 10.

No it isn't. You're consfusing string theory with GR. GR does not require more than 4 dimensions. And string theory hasn't been experimentally proven.

How do we know there is not a preferential refernce frame we can't see if we only look at 4 dimensions?

We know that the theory of general relativity is generally covariant. It prefers no frame over another as it can be expressed with equal correctness in any frame.

You just proved that you are even dumber than I thought, which makes you about as dumb as rdean. Keep posting like this and you will easily reach that pinnacle.

How does gravity bend space time?

How does pointing out that if we only examine 4 of the 10 or 11 dimensions that exist we limit our frame of reference prove that I am contradicting myself?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are you telling me that high school students can't understand this?

The curvature of Space-Time - YouTube

That's not general relativity. (If it were life would be easier for so many graduate students) Its a conceptual approximation of general relativity. Its like saying you can understand the trajectory of a baseball without Newton's laws just because you can conceive of how a baseball might be set on a given trajectory.

You don't even need that much. Most people can look at a baseball after it leaves a bat and do all the math in their head and give a good guess as to where it will land, even if they can't do the math on paper. Being able to do the math om paper doesn't prove you understand the the trajectory of the baseball any better than they do, it just proves you can do the math.

That doesn't even make sense.

Since general relativity is, in itself, a conceptual representation...

GR is a quantitative explanation. You can't predict the orbit of Mercury just because you've seen a conceptual analogy of it.

using another one to explain it is a perfectly valid way to make it understandable.

Its not GR. You can't understand GR without math.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

General Relativity is not the current theory of gravity

Yes it is. There are others (scalar-tensor theory, for instance), but GR is the most recent generally accepted theory of gravity.


Yeah. A theory of gravity. Duh.



Sure it does. Gravity is a bending of space-time by matter.


No, right, he didn't say that, he just published a generally covariant theory of gravity. Sure thing bud.


Hence no preferred frame of reference. why do you insist on contradicting yourself over and over again?

No it isn't. You're consfusing string theory with GR. GR does not require more than 4 dimensions. And string theory hasn't been experimentally proven.

How do we know there is not a preferential refernce frame we can't see if we only look at 4 dimensions?

We know that the theory of general relativity is generally covariant. It prefers no frame over another as it can be expressed with equal correctness in any frame.

You just proved that you are even dumber than I thought, which makes you about as dumb as rdean. Keep posting like this and you will easily reach that pinnacle.

How does gravity bend space time?

GR doesn't tell us how. It tells us how much it does bend it, though, and that's what we need to predict observation.

How does pointing out that if we only examine 4 of the 10 or 11 dimensions that exist we limit our frame of reference prove that I am contradicting myself?

You're assuming 10 dimensions exist. String theory is not yet supported by experiment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There were no misspellings in any dissertation I ever turned in, and I did them before spell check even existed. There was a grammatical error,

Great. I don't give a shit. For all I know there aren't any in mine, either. Considering its length, however, I wouldn't be surprised.

RHS belongs to the right hand side? The right hand side of what?

The equation shit for brains. Whose the stupid one here?

You, because you missed me mocking your grammatical skills. You said "Its" when you should have said it is or it's. Its is the possesive of it. I have never met anyone in my life who couldn't grasp grammar that could understand science, even the simpler concepts, like relativity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There were no misspellings in any dissertation I ever turned in, and I did them before spell check even existed. There was a grammatical error,

Great. I don't give a shit. For all I know there aren't any in mine, either. Considering its length, however, I wouldn't be surprised.

RHS belongs to the right hand side? The right hand side of what?

The equation shit for brains. Whose the stupid one here?

You, because you missed me mocking your grammatical skills. You said "Its" when you should have said it is or it's. Its is the possesive of it.

Good for you!

I have never met anyone in my life who couldn't grasp grammar that could understand science, even the simpler concepts, like relativity.

Well now you have!

I wouldn't consider GR to be simple. Those LHS terms actually represent dozens upon dozens of permutations of sums and products of the Christoffel symbols (which themselves cotain spatial and time dervatives of the metric). But I guess since you're the expert it in, I must be wrong. if only you had been around back in 1920's, we would have had to wait till the 59 s for the ADM formalism!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not general relativity. (If it were life would be easier for so many graduate students) Its a conceptual approximation of general relativity. Its like saying you can understand the trajectory of a baseball without Newton's laws just because you can conceive of how a baseball might be set on a given trajectory.

You don't even need that much. Most people can look at a baseball after it leaves a bat and do all the math in their head and give a good guess as to where it will land, even if they can't do the math on paper. Being able to do the math om paper doesn't prove you understand the the trajectory of the baseball any better than they do, it just proves you can do the math.

That doesn't even make sense.

Since general relativity is, in itself, a conceptual representation...

GR is a quantitative explanation. You can't predict the orbit of Mercury just because you've seen a conceptual analogy of it.

using another one to explain it is a perfectly valid way to make it understandable.

Its not GR. You can't understand GR without math.

You can't understand that people have to solve differential equations in order to catch a ball and you want me to believe you understand general relativity?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You can't understand that people have to solve differential equations in order to catch a ball and you want me to believe you understand general relativity?

Really? Seriously? NEWSFLASH - man has been catching balls long before differential equations were studied. I could catch a ball years before I even know what calculus was.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes it is. There are others (scalar-tensor theory, for instance), but GR is the most recent generally accepted theory of gravity.


Yeah. A theory of gravity. Duh.



Sure it does. Gravity is a bending of space-time by matter.


No, right, he didn't say that, he just published a generally covariant theory of gravity. Sure thing bud.


Hence no preferred frame of reference. why do you insist on contradicting yourself over and over again?

No it isn't. You're consfusing string theory with GR. GR does not require more than 4 dimensions. And string theory hasn't been experimentally proven.
We know that the theory of general relativity is generally covariant. It prefers no frame over another as it can be expressed with equal correctness in any frame.

You just proved that you are even dumber than I thought, which makes you about as dumb as rdean. Keep posting like this and you will easily reach that pinnacle.

How does gravity bend space time?

GR doesn't tell us how. It tells us how much it does bend it, though, and that's what we need to predict observation.

How does pointing out that if we only examine 4 of the 10 or 11 dimensions that exist we limit our frame of reference prove that I am contradicting myself?

You're assuming 10 dimensions exist. String theory is not yet supported by experiment.

That is my point, if it doesn't explain how it bends space time it is not a theory of gravity, which probably explains why Einstein didn't call it General Theory of Gravity.

If I was assuming that 10 dimensions exist I would not have said 10 or 11. It is pretty obvious to me that there are more than 4 dimension, most of the math requires at least 6. So far, the best guess seems to be M-theory. Mostly because anything more than that makes my head hurt.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You just proved that you are even dumber than I thought, which makes you about as dumb as rdean. Keep posting like this and you will easily reach that pinnacle.

How does gravity bend space time?

GR doesn't tell us how. It tells us how much it does bend it, though, and that's what we need to predict observation.

How does pointing out that if we only examine 4 of the 10 or 11 dimensions that exist we limit our frame of reference prove that I am contradicting myself?

You're assuming 10 dimensions exist. String theory is not yet supported by experiment.

That is my point, if it doesn't explain how it bends space time it is not a theory of gravity,

Fine - then its a theory of how things move in response to gravity. Whatever you want to call it!

which probably explains why Einstein didn't call it General Theory of Gravity.

Right. He just titled his paper on the subject "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation" ("The Field Equations of Gravitation") But he didn't think of it as a theory of gravity.

Sure thing.

It is pretty obvious to me that there are more than 4 dimension

Really? Because it took generations of trained physicsts to come to that conclusion. You just must be the smartest man in the universe.

As I go on now to our group's Monday meeting, I will keep in mind that Einstein's paper "The Field Equations of Gravitation" wasn't meant to lay out a theory of gravity, and I will agonize over the fact that your genius will not be available in the room to tell us everything we need to know. You've probably already got the interacting double white dwarf thing figured out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Great. I don't give a shit. For all I know there aren't any in mine, either. Considering its length, however, I wouldn't be surprised.

The equation shit for brains. Whose the stupid one here?

You, because you missed me mocking your grammatical skills. You said "Its" when you should have said it is or it's. Its is the possesive of it.

Good for you!

I have never met anyone in my life who couldn't grasp grammar that could understand science, even the simpler concepts, like relativity.

Well now you have!

I wouldn't consider GR to be simple. Those LHS terms actually represent dozens upon dozens of permutations of sums and products of the Christoffel symbols (which themselves cotain spatial and time dervatives of the metric). But I guess since you're the expert it in, I must be wrong. if only you had been around back in 1920's, we would have had to wait till the 59 s for the ADM formalism!

relativity is a step on the way to understanding the universe, even Einstein knew there was more. We need to unify relativity and quantum mechanics before we even begin to build a Theory of Everything. That makes relativity, in relative terms, simple.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't understand that people have to solve differential equations in order to catch a ball and you want me to believe you understand general relativity?

Really? Seriously? NEWSFLASH - man has been catching balls long before differential equations were studied. I could catch a ball years before I even know what calculus was.

Which is my entire point. If the world worked the way you think, and math was the only way to understand things like differentials, no one would have been able to catch anything. As it turns out, even animals can actually catch things, and math is no more than a means to explain things, just like English.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

GR doesn't tell us how. It tells us how much it does bend it, though, and that's what we need to predict observation.

You're assuming 10 dimensions exist. String theory is not yet supported by experiment.

That is my point, if it doesn't explain how it bends space time it is not a theory of gravity,

Fine - then its a theory of how things move in response to gravity. Whatever you want to call it!

which probably explains why Einstein didn't call it General Theory of Gravity.

Right. He just titled his paper on the subject "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation" ("The Field Equations of Gravitation") But he didn't think of it as a theory of gravity.

Sure thing.

It is pretty obvious to me that there are more than 4 dimension

Really? Because it took generations of trained physicsts to come to that conclusion. You just must be the smartest man in the universe.

As I go on now to our group's Monday meeting, I will keep in mind that Einstein's paper "The Field Equations of Gravitation" wasn't meant to lay out a theory of gravity, and I will agonize over the fact that your genius will not be available in the room to tell us everything we need to know. You've probably already got the interacting double white dwarf thing figured out.

You really want to insist on missing the point, don't you.

General relativity reconciles relativity with Newtonian gravity. All it does is predict the affect of relativity on the observed phenomena we call gravity, it doesn't actually explain gravity, if it did we wouldn't be scratching our head trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You, because you missed me mocking your grammatical skills. You said "Its" when you should have said it is or it's. Its is the possesive of it.

Good for you!

I have never met anyone in my life who couldn't grasp grammar that could understand science, even the simpler concepts, like relativity.

Well now you have!

I wouldn't consider GR to be simple. Those LHS terms actually represent dozens upon dozens of permutations of sums and products of the Christoffel symbols (which themselves cotain spatial and time dervatives of the metric). But I guess since you're the expert it in, I must be wrong. if only you had been around back in 1920's, we would have had to wait till the 59 s for the ADM formalism!

relativity is a step on the way to understanding the universe, even Einstein knew there was more. We need to unify relativity and quantum mechanics before we even begin to build a Theory of Everything. That makes relativity, in relative terms, simple.

No it doesn't.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You can't understand that people have to solve differential equations in order to catch a ball and you want me to believe you understand general relativity?

Really? Seriously? NEWSFLASH - man has been catching balls long before differential equations were studied. I could catch a ball years before I even know what calculus was.

Which is my entire point. If the world worked the way you think, and math was the only way to understand things like differentials,

Differentials ARE math - so its not surprising you'd need math to get them.

no one would have been able to catch anything.

You don't need to understand differentials to catch things.

As it turns out, even animals can actually catch things, and math is no more than a means to explain things, just like English.

Did I ever say animals can't catch things?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That is my point, if it doesn't explain how it bends space time it is not a theory of gravity,

Fine - then its a theory of how things move in response to gravity. Whatever you want to call it!

Right. He just titled his paper on the subject "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation" ("The Field Equations of Gravitation") But he didn't think of it as a theory of gravity.

Sure thing.

It is pretty obvious to me that there are more than 4 dimension

Really? Because it took generations of trained physicsts to come to that conclusion. You just must be the smartest man in the universe.

As I go on now to our group's Monday meeting, I will keep in mind that Einstein's paper "The Field Equations of Gravitation" wasn't meant to lay out a theory of gravity, and I will agonize over the fact that your genius will not be available in the room to tell us everything we need to know. You've probably already got the interacting double white dwarf thing figured out.

You really want to insist on missing the point, don't you.

General relativity reconciles relativity with Newtonian gravity.

IT REPLACES NEWTONIAN GRAVITY

Poisson's equation for gravity:

is not generally true. It is replaced with the EFE:

The latter becomes the former only under certain limits.

All it does is predict the affect of relativity on the observed phenomena we call gravity,

You're losing it.

it doesn't actually explain gravity,

Right, it doesn't expain gravity, just how particles move in a gravitational field. Just like my friend Eddie doesn't understand cars, he just understands how to fix them.

 

[Alter2Ego]

We can quantify, falsify and repeatedly test -in context- the theory of gravity, to the point that a high school freshman can understand it, even though it cannot be explained at the molecular level....

ALTER2EGO -to- OOH POO PAH DOO:
Who created gravity? It just popped up out of nowhere?

Are you kidding me? High school freshman can only understand gravity in the Newtonian limit - and in that limit space and time can be considered absolutes. I'm talking about Einstein's theory of gravity - and I guarantee you that there are a very small number of people who understand the math behind it. By einstein's gravity space and time are not absolute, they are warped by matter.

ALTER2EGO -to- OOH POO PAH DOO:
You do realize there's a difference between scientific THEORY and confirmed fact (eg. Newton's Law); do you not? You do realize scientific theory is nothing more than educated guesses aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven"; don't you?

BTW: Who created Newton and Einstein? How did they get here? I'm referring to their very first ancestor--the genesis. How did life come from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent Designer/God?

Let me know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do anti-science religionists never question the theory of gravity? Seriously, our current theory of gravity is far more God destroying than evolution or the big bang theory ever could have been! Einstein's gravity shows us that the concepts of an absolute time and space are false, that the measurement of these very basic quantities changes depending on how the observer's space-time is warped by matter - there is no preferred reference frame! Doens't that just blow God out of the water? Yet I rarely see the anti-scientist religionists attacking the theory of gravity!

why?

If you're such a big science maven, how come you don't know that gravity isn't a theory? There are theories ABOUT gravity, or involving gravity, but if what we're talking about is, as Sir Isaac Newton put it, "Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects", aka "the Earth sucks", that would be the LAW of Universal Gravitation.

I have no idea where you nitwit liberals got the idea that gravity was theoretical. Of course, I have no idea where you nitwits got the idea that evolution or anything else "destroys God". Why is it everything liberals base their existences on is so much wishful thinking?

Why?