Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
(Have you seen my Mariana Trench Challenge thread?)
Would you do that with any other branch of science?
(Have you seen my Mariana Trench Challenge thread?)
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.
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....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.
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.
I tend to assume most people have seen that usage.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:
!!
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 - WikipediaThe prediction for galaxy rotation curves is based on Newtonian physics (Keplerian curves) not LCDM.
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 (The prediction for galaxy rotation curves is based on Newtonian physics (Keplerian curves) not LCDM.
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.
Interesting.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.
Chatbot? Care to explain that in your own words?Quantum mechanics does not eliminate the measurement rule, but it provides a different interpretation of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?