The nature of force

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Turned out to be right about what? that the unseeable existed? Or that the effect could be described using the unseeable that still remained such?

Examples?

Mike
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Just take GR: warped space has never be proven to exist beyond reasonable doubt, yet GR is used to predict many observable phenomena. More precisely, "gravitational lensing" does <b>not</b> imply that space warps near the gravitating object, because we can perfectly assume that substance in the immediate vicinity of this object has a different density. Since light is the manifestation of wave propagation through the substance that is normally called "space", we therefore have explained the gravitational lensing in a natural manner that can be understood by anyone.

Granted, "elysium" remains to be detected but it explains what we observe brilliantly.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Turned out to be right about what? that the unseeable existed? Or that the effect could be described using the unseeable that still remained such?

Examples?

Mike
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Just take GR: warped space has never be proven to exist beyond reasonable doubt, yet GR is used to predict many observable phenomena. More precisely, "gravitational lensing" does <b>not</b> imply that space warps near the gravitating object, because we can perfectly assume that substance in the immediate vicinity of this object has a different density. Since light is the manifestation of wave propagation through the substance that is normally called "space", we therefore have explained the gravitational lensing in a natural manner that can be understood by anyone.

Granted, "elysium" remains to be detected but it explains what we observe brilliantly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is no such thing as "warped" space in GR or any other metric or scalar theory of gravitation. Some here are looking for a physical explanation of GR. Some even base their search or denial of such explanation on the wrong understanding of what GR stands for. You'll find none, especially when based on misconceptions about GR.

What wraps is spacetime, not space. Geodesic motion has a null four-momentum vector and thus in 4-d spacetime such motion is inertial. This is the only way to resolve the circular motion problem whilst untiting orbits with free-fall. Thus, in geodesic motion in 4-space, Newton's first law holds but in 4-space.

More importantly, in GR all phenomena have the some explanation in all moving reference frames. This epistemology of GR is what makes it a superior model of the phenomena it predicts.

Beware that as soon as epistemology is displaced by ontology, such as in MM, the superiority is lost in place of metaphysical assertions that fail verification.

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Some here are looking for a physical explanation of GR. Some even base their search or denial of such explanation on the wrong understanding of what GR stands for. You'll find none, especially when based on misconceptions about GR.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Some of us are seeking the actual mechanism behind gravitation, meaning that there should be an "interaction" manifested as gravitation. So yes, a physical interpretation of gravitation is preferred by many. Indeed, I'd like to think that forms in the universe interact, and these interactions are manifestated, gravity is no different in that regard.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Beware that as soon as epistemology is displaced by ontology, such as in MM, the superiority is lost in place of metaphysical assertions that fail verification.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Gravitational waves are still very much in need of verification...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Some here are looking for a physical explanation of GR. Some even base their search or denial of such explanation on the wrong understanding of what GR stands for. You'll find none, especially when based on misconceptions about GR.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Some of us are seeking the actual mechanism behind gravitation, meaning that there should be an "interaction" manifested as gravitation. So yes, a physical interpretation of gravitation is preferred by many. Indeed, I'd like to think that forms in the universe interact, and these interactions are manifestated, gravity is no different in that regard.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Allow me to say that this is wishful thinking. "Actual mechanism", "interactions", "manifestations", "forms", "form interaction" are all terms beyond the realm of physical science but metaphysical postulations no different from religious doctrines.

Beware that as soon as epistemology is displaced by ontology, such as in MM, the superiority is lost in place of metaphysical assertions that fail verification.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Gravitational waves are still very much in need of verification...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

True, but that is not what the theory rests on. You must differentiate between postulations and predictions. If gravitations waves are detected the theory is further corraborated (not proven). If not detected, auxiliary hypotheses can be used to rectify the situation. All it matters is the accuracy of predictions of known effects in comparison that that offered by compensatory theories. This is the criterion of theory selection. The rest is metaphysics.

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Allow me to say that this is wishful thinking. "Actual mechanism", "interactions", "manifestations", "forms", "form interaction" are all terms beyond the realm of physical science but metaphysical postulations no different from religious doctrines.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The above terminology makes sense if you give it a chance. Physics is in my view the science of interaction, thus objects (e.g. particles) interact and manifest the interaction as heat, radiation etc. What does a geometric framework really contribute to an understanding of the material world? I'd say that using Riemanian geometry to show how the universe operates is a true leap of faith.