Neutral Observer

Active Member
Nov 25, 2022
318
121
North America
✟27,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So then you would agree on principle with those who are educated enough, familiar enough, or foolish enough to score them as: "abnormal"?

Sorry, I wouldn't even be able to do that. I would consider the source, weigh it accordingly, and then respectfully withhold judgment.

What would you do?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Neutral Observer

Active Member
Nov 25, 2022
318
121
North America
✟27,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Would you do that with any other branch of science?

Depends. But when it comes to making judgments about what's 'normal' human behavior I'm a bit more lenient than I assume most people to be.

Lot's of 'odd' behaviors are none-the-less normal... not necessarily rational or logical, but normal.

Many areas of science however, can't be categorized by the term 'normal'.

(Have you seen my Mariana Trench Challenge thread?)

I'm certainly familiar with the thread, as I am with a LOT of your threads. Unfortunately, as with most of them I ignored it.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Depends. But when it comes to making judgments about what's 'normal' human behavior I'm a bit more lenient than I assume most people to be.

Okay.

Thanks for the quick, honest replies.

I took from this short conversation the idea that some educated people -- such as yourself -- don't always take the words of other professionals on principle.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I doubt General Relativity will ever be "overthrown" as Newton's theory of gravity has never been overthrown despite being "wrong".
Physical theories evolve and a theory which replaces its predecessor needs to make the same successful predictions as per the theory it replaces.
What a new theory does as General Relativity did in replacing Newton's theory is to add corrective terms.

maxresdefault.jpg
The above equation is the potential energy for orbital motion.
The first two terms in the right hand side of the equations are the Newtonian terms describing the gravitational and centrifugal potentials respectively.
The last term is a General Relativity term which is usually extremely small and can be ignored.
It becomes significant when planets are very close to the Sun such as Mercury where the effects of space-time curvature become apparent leading to non Newtonian behaviour such as the perihelion advance of Mercury's orbit.

In most cases Newtonian gravity is satisfactory to use, it is an incomplete theory like General Relativity both of which are not likely to overthrown but incorporated into a more general theory such as a Quantum theory of gravity.
Good review of the basics. (while I doubt anyone in physics could get confused by what I meant by 'overthrow' or 'dethroned' is probably better as it's a more common usage you'd see dozens of times by now if you read much...-- they'd just be logical and assume I mean what I say in a physics sense: 'overthrown' = shown to be only an approximation that breaks down and is false past certain domain limits or once we can measure more accurately , etc. -- quite possible some day, but not a sure thing either way) I forget to offer people those basics because I tend to assume we all already know the basics of how Newtonian gravity was shown to be only an approximation....

Which of course isn't so for everyone -- many no doubt don't know that. thanks for doing the mopping the floor chore of explaining the basics over and over... seriously. But you could make more of an effort to be polite when you explain basic stuff, so it doesn't make the false appearance that what I wrote was wrong when it is correct when understood as meant. (unless you have Asperger's and then it's fine, and I'm not offended then)
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for that clarifying example .. (helpful).

Not intending, in even the slightest way, of dragging you into this, (so please feel free to ignore what follows):

I, also, am quietly pondering just how else I could possibly interpret the comment of how a Physics theory could be 'overthrown', in a supposed 'mainstream' sense, (given the smoke and mirrors accusations about my supposed 'lack of logic', lack of 'curiosity' and supposed propensity for 'insufficient thinking'). Ie:

!! :rolleyes:
I tend to assume most people have seen that usage.

I mistakenly tend to just assume without thinking that everyone realizes that General Relativity 'dethroned' Newtonian gravity is a typical wording.... (Thesaurus results for DETHRONE)

But it's not a good assumption to assume everyone is familiar with that typical popular usage/language. My bad.

E.g.:

Nearly 230 years passed before Newton's law was dethroned by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.. (Resurrecting Newton to do away with dark matter)

etc.

Gravitation was the last Newtonian pillar left, and Einstein shattered it in 1915 by putting forth his theory of General Relativity. -- This One Puzzle Brought Physicists From Special To General Relativity

But I feel its required of us all on the internet to try to get what someone means, even if their wording is unfamiliar.....
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The prediction for galaxy rotation curves is based on Newtonian physics (Keplerian curves) not LCDM.

RotCurve2.gif
Post Newtonian theory is not a MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamic) where the inverse square law is modified to account for observations such as rotation curves but uses methods for finding an approximate solution of the Einstein field equations which is the metric tensor.
The approximations are expanded in small parameters which express orders of deviations from Newton's inverse square law.
I've not thought these modified gravity theories much interesting back when I was first reading of them, quite a long time ago, and as you may know an early form was decided against. So, regarding new forms, I wonder (speculatively) if they might continue to run into problems, such as Scalar–tensor–vector gravity - Wikipedia
Of course, we can't really conclude much until some particular theory makes a unique prediction that can be observed or tested. But I don't rule out that just a math approach might eventually pay off.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The prediction for galaxy rotation curves is based on Newtonian physics (Keplerian curves) not LCDM.

RotCurve2.gif
Post Newtonian theory is not a MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamic) where the inverse square law is modified to account for observations such as rotation curves but uses methods for finding an approximate solution of the Einstein field equations which is the metric tensor.
The approximations are expanded in small parameters which express orders of deviations from Newton's inverse square law.
I thought it might be interesting to see what Hossenfelder thinks about it more recently (in the last year), and found a video to watch (
) , and one interesting point she makes towards the end is that since in the view of QFT particles are fields and fields are particles that in a way any dark matter 'particles' and any new fields in a modified gravity theory are sorta different faucets of the same thing (I'd add 'possibly') -- it's an interesting thing to keep in mind.

While she is saying how both views fall short -- both the current versions of dark matter calculated distributions/etc and on the other hand modified gravity theories -- both types of theories currently explain some things and not others, that to me, my personal thought, is interesting in that it might be that we find out in time that we have steps towards the eventual correct theory from both approaches (thought not necessarily all correct steps). While it's pretty weird to consider a linear 'gravitation' effect on it's own, it's a lot less weird when it could be just a field from 'particles', etc., and then it's no longer so out there, and so now I'm much more interested.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,854
3,888
✟273,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I thought it might be interesting to see what Hossenfelder thinks about it more recently (in the last year), and found a video to watch (
) , and one interesting point she makes towards the end is that since in the view of QFT particles are fields and fields are particles that in a way any dark matter 'particles' and any new fields in a modified gravity theory are sorta different faucets of the same thing (I'd add 'possibly') -- it's an interesting thing to keep in mind.

While she is saying how both views fall short -- both the current versions of dark matter calculated distributions/etc and on the other hand modified gravity theories -- both types of theories currently explain some things and not others, that to me, my personal thought, is interesting in that it might be that we find out in time that we have steps towards the eventual correct theory from both approaches (thought not necessarily all correct steps). While it's pretty weird to consider a linear 'gravitation' effect on it's own, it's a lot less weird when it could be just a field from 'particles', etc., and then it's no longer so out there, and so now I'm much more interested.
Interesting.
From a historical perspective the nature of light was an argument on whether it was a wave or particles with various experiments supporting one but not the other.
Eventually through QM it was shown light has a wave/particle duality.
Whether history repeats itself with dark matter/modified gravity duality remains to be seen.

The problem I see with Sabine's reasoning it makes the development of a QFT for gravity compulsory yet I seem to recall somewhere in one of Sabine's videos this is a pipedream motivated by theorists obsession with symmetry and pretty mathematics rather than the physics which according to her may not be necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0