God Is Not Dead

[DrTaffy]

Seeing that you no more have your Dr in physics than I do,

Really?

Or are you saying that you do have a PhD in a field of Physics?

Gravity is not an effect; it is a part of the natural world that science seeks to explain.

Which it explains as an effect of, for example, the metric of space-time.

I hope you can follow this because it’s basic.

Stay polite, please.

What is gravity?

Newton described it as a force.

Exactly. Gravity is a force, and as such is trivially measurable, as you go on to say:

When I step on the scale and push down with 830 N., it pushes back with the same force, registering my weight as 83 kg.

No, your weight is the force. Kg measure mass, not weight. So, I guess that I can rule out the possibility that your first sentence meant that you have a PhD in any field of Physics.

This is what Einstein addressed. I can fall off the roof, not because forces act “at a distance” (if that meant there were no connection, no relationship between them), but because space-time “bends”, actively pushing me down. The force is in space-time, which is not nothing, but something that “bends” and can hurl me to the ground.

Well, not quite but lets not go there. In any case you are going for a classical GR model of gravity, which does not predict a ‘graviton’ - so, so far, you seem to agree with me that gravity is measurable and does not rely on the existence of a graviton. So what did I say that you disagree with?

In the end, you have not found the cause of gravity; you have clarified how it all works.

Yes you have, you have found that the cause of gravity, the force, is the space-time metric. this allows you to understand gravity a lot better and do things like predict the orbit of Mercury accurately or build a GPS system that works.

FYI: the cause is God.

Great, call me back when NASA uses the Aloysium “God did it” Theory of Gravity to predict orbits. If you find time between collecting your Templeton and Nobel prizes. Meanwhile I’ll stick to physics, TYVM!

 

[Aloysium]

I may be wrong . . .

. . . if you were to add all of the matter and anti-matter and cancelled all that stuff out then you would get zero. . .

I think that was a Star Trek episode maybe, but no. Google “antimatter”, maybe “baryogenesis” as to why the universe is mainly matter.

I’ve heard them talk about how the universe is flat instead of a saddle shape which confirms it somehow?

Haven’t heard that. The universe is generally thought of as being flat and infinite, whatever that means in reality.

The way I took it is that if you have two things that are equal and opposite then they can cancel out to become nothing, something became nothing. So they look at it in reverse order, nothing becomes something by becoming two equal and opposite things.

You would have to come up with something that would cause that. If there is truly nothing, it is truly nothing.

I always thought it of as the laws of physics say that something spontaneously being created doesn’t necessarily break the laws of physics . .

The laws of physics are based on the opposite of what you are proposing, but it is complicated. You may want to start off Googling “Conservation of Mass”. There is one thing that keeps getting created in time, but not spontaneously: it is ourselves - each one of us unique, able to act, think and love.

. . . I personally have a hard time believing the universe just appeared. . .

I don’t think there is much support for believing the universe just appeared. Revelation tells us that it was created and is maintained by God. You identify yourself as a Deist, presumably reflecting a similar view. Catholics believe that God, who is the Source of all beauty, love, and truth, created the universe and ourselves for a purpose, to bring us to Him. He even sacrificed His son, the Word whereby all this was created, to make it possible. There’s lots to read about that here, in scripture and in the Catechism.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . are you saying that you do have a PhD in a field of Physics?. . . . Kg measure mass, not weight. . . . Yes you have, you have found that the cause of gravity, the force, is the space-time metric. this allows you to understand gravity a lot better and do things like predict the orbit of Mercury accurately or build a GPS system that works. . . Great, call me back when NASA uses the Aloysium “God did it” Theory of Gravity to predict orbits. If you find time between collecting your Templeton and Nobel prizes. Meanwhile I’ll stick to physics, TYVM!

Lol

I was meaning to say that we are equally unqualified to speak definitively on the subject.

Yeah, you are right. I keep telling my scale but it doesn’t listen. “Kg”, “Kg” - it’s obsessed.
In the past I have tried to coax it lower, but it will have none of my cajoling, registering 83 +/- 2 Kg.

So friend, you wish distinguish gravity from the force. Pray tell then, what is the cause of the force? The bending of space-time? What causes the bending of space-time? I can keep doing this but we’ll just get back to the same thing: the cause is God.

I’m not intending to be impolite, but you really do not understand what I am saying if you are serious about the comment concerning NASA.

 

[DrTaffy]

Certainly. Dr. Anthony Rizzi, Fr.John A. Weisheipl, Fr. William A. Wallace and I’m sure we can count on Fr. George Lamaitre ( were he still living ), Fr. Robert Spitzer come immediately to mind.

So for any one of those, can you show that they both understand the physics and claim that an internally consistent physical model of the universe is impossible? Dr Rizzi and Fr Lemaitre clearly qualify as understanding the physics, but I frankly doubt that they rejected the validity of physics.

Horse feathers!!

A profound argument! I am impressed at the depth of your philosophical and scientific expertise!

DrTaffy;12041513:

So failure to detect a graviton is not equivalent to failure to measure gravity.

So if there is no " there " there, then we can infer that gravity is a power not of this universe, though it guides the universe.

No, if there is no ‘graviton’ we can infer only that gravity is not caused by a QFT-style “gravity field”.

And I profoundly disagree, so does Willam A. Wallace and John A Weisheipl ( you could read both to great advantage, but they are deep, deep, and deeper ).

Would you care to summarise their alleged arguments that failure to detect a graviton is equivalent to failure to measure gravity, or is name-dropping as far as your understanding of these “deep, deep, and deeper” authors goes?

Oh really Doc.! The motion of the planets and objects falling are the effect. I am very surprized you made such a comment.

Those are the effect of the force, the force is the effect of something else - for example, ‘curvature’ of space-time or interaction with virtual particles mediating a QFT force field.

DrTaffy;12041513:

Gravity is

“susceptible to being seen on some scientific instrument”

Really, and just when did this occur and what did gravity look like. Can you provide a link that explains this?

Here. I’m sure your dear old Mum can lend you one of these high-tech scientific instruments.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Great, call me back when NASA uses the Aloysium “God did it” Theory of Gravity to predict orbits. If you find time between collecting your Templeton and Nobel prizes. Meanwhile I’ll stick to physics, TYVM!

This is truly a bizarre notion that only a fundamentalist would find compelling.

To claim “God did it” leaves open and does not even pretend to answer the question of how or why God did it. Hence it is completely consistent to claim “God did it” and go on to gather evidence and construct theories on how he did.

As I said, only a simplistic thinker would contend that “God did it” covers fully the answer to how. Why is this so difficult for one track thinkers to comprehend? One of the mysteries of science, I suppose.

Perhaps, it is just as reasonable to assume that “John Harrington invented the flushing toilet” answers completely all questions getting at understanding the mechanisms involved, or that fully understanding the mechanisms involved dispels us of the need to make reference to John Harrington as the inventor or how the invention came about.

 

[DrTaffy]

I may be wrong so if anyone knows that to be the case, just don’t be too hard but I believe the theory is that if you were to add all of the matter and anti-matter and cancelled all that stuff out then you would get zero. I’ve heard them talk about how the universe is flat instead of a saddle shape which confirms it somehow?

I think you are referring to the idea that the sum energy of the universe may be zero, as backed up by measurements showing that space-time is flat, on average, over large distances.

The saddle shape refers to the ‘shape’ space time would have had in a ‘hyperbolic’ universe that would keep on expanding forever. As opposed to the ‘spherical’ solution that would collapse back on itself eventually. The flat space solution is the cusp balanced between the two, which corresponds (or can do) to universes where the negative energy due to (e.g.) that pesky gravity we’re all bassing on about is exactly balanced by the positive energy of things like mass.

All horribly over simplified, of course, and it is late-ish for me, but you can read more here.

 

[DrTaffy]

So friend, you wish distinguish gravity from the force.

Nope, other way around. Gravity is the force, which I would distinguish from the cause of the force. Let us stick to GR for now and assume that is the metric tensor of space time.

In any case we are quibbling about semantics here.

Pray tell then, what is the cause of the force? The bending of space-time?

In GR, yes.

What causes the bending of space-time

Mass.

And to forestall your next question I refer you to the truly mass-ive discovery of the Higgs Boson recently.

I can keep doing this but we’ll just get back to the same thing: the cause is God.

No, we eventually get to a point at which the answer is “I don’t know” at which point you say that the cause is God.

So from that point of view Hawking may be right to say “God is dead”, but the God in question is the God of the Gaps. Who was never a God worthy of your worship to begin with, and who will in any case spring back to life the moment we unearth a new unanswered question.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Really?

Or are you saying that you do have a PhD in a field of Physics?

Which it explains as an effect of, for example, the metric of space-time.

Stay polite, please.

Exactly. Gravity is a force, and as such is trivially measurable, as you go on to say:

No, your weight is the force. Kg measure mass, not weight. So, I guess that I can rule out the possibility that your first sentence meant that you have a PhD in any field of Physics.

Well, not quite but lets not go there. In any case you are going for a classical GR model of gravity, which does not predict a ‘graviton’ - so, so far, you seem to agree with me that gravity is measurable and does not rely on the existence of a graviton. So what did I say that you disagree with?

Yes you have, you have found that the cause of gravity, the force, is the space-time metric. this allows you to understand gravity a lot better and do things like predict the orbit of Mercury accurately or build a GPS system that works.

Great, call me back when NASA uses the Aloysium “God did it” Theory of Gravity to predict orbits. If you find time between collecting your Templeton and Nobel prizes. Meanwhile I’ll stick to physics, TYVM!

Oh bull Doc., more assertions from scientism. Your errors here prove, if you do have a science degree, you should also have gotten one in Philosophy. You can wave arround Phd’s all day but if you don’t know how to think, what good are they? I meet Phd’s every day who are complete arses, dumbells.

If the " great " men of science, from the Enlightenment to today, want to believe that a clump of mud created itself, and the whole universe, including ourselves, came from that, they have proven only that there is something severly lacking in the education of our scientists. They have also proven that they have a short circuit " upstairs. "

Linus2nd

 

[Jerbear]

I think you are referring to the idea that the sum energy of the universe may be zero, as backed up by measurements showing that space-time is flat, on average, over large distances.

The saddle shape refers to the ‘shape’ space time would have had in a ‘hyperbolic’ universe that would keep on expanding forever. As opposed to the ‘spherical’ solution that would collapse back on itself eventually. The flat space solution is the cusp balanced between the two, which corresponds (or can do) to universes where the negative energy due to (e.g.) that pesky gravity we’re all bassing on about is exactly balanced by the positive energy of things like mass.

All horribly over simplified, of course, and it is late-ish for me, but you can read more here.

Thank you for having a more respectful response to my post than Aloysium. I know that I do not know all the details and thought to give my opinions as to what I thought it meant, not what scientists actually say, hence the “I may be wrong” comment I used.

 

[KingCoil]

quote ]

Originally Posted by Jerbear View Post
I may be wrong so if anyone knows that to be the case, just don’t be too hard but I believe the theory is that if you were to add all of the matter and anti-matter and cancelled all that stuff out then you would get zero. I’ve heard them talk about how the universe is flat instead of a saddle shape which confirms it somehow?

unquote ]

I think you are referring to the idea that the sum energy of the universe may be zero, as backed up by measurements showing that space-time is flat, on average, over large distances.

The saddle shape refers to the ‘shape’ space time would have had in a ‘hyperbolic’ universe that would keep on expanding forever. As opposed to the ‘spherical’ solution that would collapse back on itself eventually. The flat space solution is the cusp balanced between the two, which corresponds (or can do) to universes where the negative energy due to (e.g.) that pesky gravity we’re all bassing on about is exactly balanced by the positive energy of things like mass.

All horribly over simplified, of course, and it is late-ish for me, but you can read more here.

There is something that is horribly wrong with this exchange.

Are you aware that you are into fictions?

One of you say:
but I believe the theory is that if you were to add all of the matter and anti-matter and cancelled all that stuff out then you would get zero.

And the other one say:
I think you are referring to the idea that the sum energy of the universe may be zero, as backed up by measurements showing that space-time is flat, on average, over large distances.

It is all fictions because you two are into a fictional scenario, owing to your assuming that by mathematical computations from even socalled physics data you can effect the extinction of the universe into nothingness.

It is all gibberish.

Tell, pray me, who is going to extinguish the universe or any particle at all by mathematical manipulations of matter and anti matter?

That is what I alway find to be most amazing with the kinds of talks engaged in by folks here, a lot of gibberish, all ridiculous fictions parading as learning.

Please, don’t lift your feet into free fall as you talk, always keep in mind your experience of reality.

It’s no different with the weird gibberish again that in quantum physics particles are popping in and out of existence without any cause.

That is a media hype, for I can’t locate any text from any established sober-minded physicists who have not turned into money-making writers selling books with outrageous marketing lies, with that kind of a gibberish statement.

KingCoil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So for any one of those, can you show that they both understand the physics and claim that an internally consistent physical model of the universe is impossible? Dr Rizzi and Fr Lemaitre clearly qualify as understanding the physics, but I frankly doubt that they rejected the validity of physics.

I don’t think disagreement with Hawkings, Dawkins, Krauss, et al, has any thing to do with accepting or rejecting the validity of physics. That would be the kind of narrow minded view that a Phd mentor might hold over the head of one of his starving students. And I can assure you that Wallace and Weisheipl understand the physics. And how about you Doc. I’ve asked you twice if you understand it and have gotten no answer. So are you just " beating the drum? " I admit I don’t understand it. And I suspect there is nothing there to understand.

A profound argument! I am impressed at the depth of your philosophical and scientific expertise!

So glad you are impressed. But, as you know ( but then perhaps you didn’t ), it was not an argument but rather an expression of disgust at having to repeat the obvious. And for the benefit of the reader here is the exact context:

" Exactly the source of our disagreement. What " physical " explanation are you talking about for Pete’s sake? And how does that provide an " internally consistent " description of universe and how it came to be? Horse feathers!! "

And of course you still have not answered my question. So please do so, unless your whole statement was a spat of emotional exuberance which meant no more than a clapping of the hands or the stamping of the feet, a " hoot " of approval in support of some vapid utterance by someone who has lost his common sense.

No, if there is no ‘graviton’ we can infer only that gravity is not caused by a QFT-style “gravity field”.

Oh, oh, there you go with the shop talk again, you mean the Quantum Field Theory of gravity?

So this is what your are talking about:

" 3.1 Quantum Gravity
The standard model of particle physics covers the electromagnetic, the weak and the strong interaction. However, the fourth fundamental force in nature, gravitation, has defied quantization so far. Although numerous attempts have been made in the last 80 years, and in particular very recently, there is no commonly accepted solution up to the present day. One basic problem is that the mass, length and time scales quantum gravity theories are dealing with are so extremely small that it is almost impossible to test the different proposals.

The most important extant versions of quantum gravity theories are canonical quantum gravity, loop theory and string theory. Canonical quantum gravity approaches leave the basic structure of QFT untouched and just extend the realm of QFT by quantizing gravity. Other approaches try to reconcile quantum theory and general relativity theory not by supplementing the reach of QFT but rather by changing QFT itself. String theory, for instance, proposes a completely new view concerning the most fundamental building blocks: It does not merely incorporate gravitation but it formulates a new theory that describes all four interactions in a unified way, namely in terms of strings (see next subsection). plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/

How impressive Doc, and you understand all that? My oh my, so impressive. Let’s see how many theories are there, at least three or four? Now I wonder which one is right?

One thing is certain, whichever it is, no matematical abstractoin, will ever define the narture of real substances. So yes, we demand a particle or a wave or something real to prove that gravity is a derivative of matter, of the material universe. We demand a graviton or its equivalent. Otherwise we are as entitled to our inferences as science ( aahchew! pardon the sneeze) is to its. After all, you wouldn’t be prejudiced toward us would you Doc?

Would you care to summarise their alleged arguments that failure to detect a graviton is equivalent to failure to measure gravity, or is name-dropping as far as your understanding of these “deep, deep, and deeper” authors goes?

You may refer to From a Realist Point of View by William A. Wallace or Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl for their views on gravity, etc.

But I don’t need any " names. " Ordinary common sense demands that some equivalent of a graviton be produced, as I have just explained. Surely I don’t need a Phd’s approval for such a conclusion!!

Those are the effect of the force, the force is the effect of something else - for example, ‘curvature’ of space-time or interaction with virtual particles mediating a QFT force field.

Really, how so very phoney. You know Doc. I just can’t have any respect for anyone, even if they have a hundred Phd’s, who believes that space curves and that time curves and that is what gravity really is. Gravity is something real like a tree or a bush or any other constituent of the material world.

Here. I’m sure your dear old Mum can lend you one of these high-tech scientific instruments.

Well that was very funny, I’ll give you credit for that. But that isn’t exactly what I had in mind. And I don’t think Galileo and Newton would have those items in mind, where they alive today. But nice try.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are basically three sources of truth in the world. Divine Revelation, Philosophy, and Science. Each looks at reality a different way. Divine Revelation speaks of God, who he is, how we have a world, and man and the relationships between the three. God put the world in man’s hands. Philosophy speaks to the underlying nature of substances of which the world is composed, including man, and what this tells us about God. Science, as in hard science, deals with the physical structure of the material world and the relationships contained in this physical structure.

Since all three sources of truth seek truth there is and can be no fundamental, objective disagreement between them. Nothing in Divine revelation is contrdicted by anything learned in Philosophy or Science. Any supposed contradictions are merely apparent and is usually caused by one source going where it shouldn’t.

Of the three, Divine Revelation is certain. And by it we know absolutely for certain that the universe did not create itself, it was created by God. For certain schools of Cosomology to say that gravity or the laws of gravity created or could create the universe is false - no matter how many theories are spun which purport to suggest otherwise.

Now the existence of God is established by Divine Revelation and by Philosophy. Those who claim that Divine Revelation has no proof or that Philosophical inferences to God’s existence are invalid, merely display gross ignorance or deep seated prejudice.

Objectors who claim God doesn’t exist or that the world created itself are no better than someone who suggests that a clump of mud created itself and that the universe came from that.
No matter how " scientific " the arguments presented defending a self caused, self sustaining, self directed universe, they essentially amount to the " mud from nothing " theory, which is irrational, for nothing material can cause itself. This has been adequately demonstrated by both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, even Plato, not to mention the great Muslim and Jewish philosophers.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . No, we eventually get to a point at which the answer is “I don’t know” at which point you say that the cause is God. . .

Yep that’s pretty much it. You’ve got it. We get to the point where we hit reality and ask, what is the cause of everything.

What you describe does not reveal what I mean by causes but rather refers to models that explain what is going on, how the various components interact. We two are talking about different things. It is not a simple matter of semantics.

This isn’t about the gaps. There are no gaps with regards to the cause of the fundamental aspects of the universe such as energy, space, time and constants. We can find different, more practical ways to describe them, but ultimately they just are. Even if something more fundamental is determined, eventually there is a ground, there is something irreducible. Let’s not forget, there is also the totality.

We are left with the question as to what causes the universe. Because there is nothing else in the system to explain what is basic, at that point you have to go on faith: I go with what has been revealed and proved itself as Truth to me: I say God.

 

[DrTaffy]

Oh bull Doc., more assertions from scientism. Your errors here prove, if you do have a science degree, you should also have gotten one in Philosophy. You can wave arround Phd’s all day but if you don’t know how to think, what good are they? I meet Phd’s every day who are complete arses, dumbells.

And was that pile of ad hominem supposed to impress me with your Philosophy-granted superior ability to think?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And was that pile of ad hominem supposed to impress me with your Philosophy-granted superior ability to think?

You know, I just misspeleld your name I have no superior ability of any kind, I’m just an old retired farmer. But I recognize the truth when I see it and I’m very surprised that so many men of science seem to have lost the ability to recognize the truths of nature.

Your old friend Hawkings seems to have shown just how ignorant he is in the first two chapters of his book The Grand Design. And we are supposed to put trust in his objectivity, wow ? See this thread on this forum, Hawking - Grand Design - Commentary

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

I don’t think disagreement with Hawkings, Dawkins, Krauss, et al, has any thing to do with accepting or rejecting the validity of physics. That would be the kind of narrow minded view that a Phd mentor might hold over the head of one of his starving students. And I can assure you that Wallace and Weisheipl understand the physics.

So that is a ‘no’ on you being able to quote a qualified physicist supporting your assertion?

And how about you Doc. I’ve asked you twice if you understand it and have gotten no answer. So are you just " beating the drum? " I admit I don’t understand it. And I suspect there is nothing there to understand.

The saying is that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you really do not understand quantum mechanics.

But I do have a solid background in QM, albeit not specifically on quantum cosmology since my undergraduate days.

What " physical " explanation are you talking about for Pete’s sake?

The statement you flatly contradicted was:

noone who actually understands the physics denies that physics can at least potentially provide an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence.

So I do not have to specify an existent, perfect Grand Unified Theory of Everything. You, by contradicting me there, have asserted that no physical model can ever provide an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence.

That is the assertion that I honestly doubt any of the physicists you mention would support.

Oh, oh, there you go with the shop talk again, you mean the Quantum Field Theory of gravity?

(rant snipped)

Well yes.Of course.

That is the Quantum Field Theory that you have been talking about for several pages now.

Or am I being too charitable by assuming that you have a good understanding of what you have been saying? Do you get the fact that the idea of every force such as gravity being associated with a boson such as a ‘graviton’ is intrinsically a feature of QFT, not GR?

You may refer to From a Realist Point of View by William A. Wallace or Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl for their views on gravity, etc.

Will either of those support your assertion that failure to detect a graviton implies that we cannot measure gravity?

Really, how so very phoney. You know Doc. I just can’t have any respect for anyone, even if they have a hundred Phd’s, who believes that space curves and that time curves and that is what gravity really is. Gravity is something real like a tree or a bush or any other constituent of the material world.

Are space and time not real things? Given the above, do you really grasp what is meant by space-time “curvature”? Hint: it is almost as misleading a term as “survival of the fittest” as far as the misunderstandings it leads to. Hence my preference for the less easily comprehensible, but less misleading, term “metric”.

Well that was very funny, I’ll give you credit for that. But that isn’t exactly what I had in mind. And I don’t think Galileo and Newton would have those items in mind, where they alive today.

Those items do actually measure gravity. As Galileo and Newton would instantly recognise.

If you want to directly measure ‘curvature’ in space-time and related phenomena, that can and has been done, just less easily. See, for example, gravity lensing, frame dragging, or how the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) results were used to estimate the ‘shape’ of the universe (i.e. how flat space is over very large scales).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So that is a ‘no’ on you being able to quote a qualified physicist supporting your assertion?

Anthony Rizzi is an award winning physicist who works in physics every day and has written a book, etc. And the other names I gave you are all Phd’s, since you place such great stock in that. Wallace, who is still alive and working at 95, has three Phd’s and has written many books in the philosophy of science.

The saying is that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you really do not understand quantum mechanics.
But I do have a solid background in QM, albeit not specifically on quantum cosmology since my undergraduate days.

Good for you, I admire that.

The statement you flatly contradicted was:

That’s right, science cannot provide proof of that. But I also objected because you have asserted that they have " provided an internally consistent description of the universe that can explain how the universe came into existence. You did not explain what that " internally consistent description " was. If it cannot be explained to a layman then you are saying the great mass of mankind must place their faith in men they don’t know, may not trust, and may regard as of questionable moral stature and reject what they know from what they have received from God’s own Revelation, for which there are good reasons to adhere to and which directly contradict your contention.

Why in the world would I or anyone want to place their faith in such hostile, arrogant, insulting personalities, people who ridicule believers and philosophers as fools from one end of the world to the other.

So yes, we are going to make you people prove, beyond a doubt, that what you say is true.

That is the assertion that I honestly doubt any of the physicists you mention would support.

They would all support my objections.

Or am I being too charitable by assuming that you have a good understanding of what you have been saying? Do you get the fact that the idea of every force such as gravity being associated with a boson such as a ‘graviton’ is intrinsically a feature of QFT, not GR?

I get the idea that is what you say. It has yet to be proven.

Will either of those support your assertion that failure to detect a graviton implies that we cannot measure gravity?

No. But they would insist that if there is no graviton, that is, if some physically detectible derivative of matter cannot be identified as gravity, then we may actually be looking at the " hand of God. "

Are space and time not real things? Given the above, do you really grasp what is meant by space-time “curvature”? Hint: it is almost as misleading a term as “survival of the fittest” as far as the misunderstandings it leads to. Hence my preference for the less easily comprehensible, but less misleading, term “metric”.

Yes " metric " or a matematical abstraction from the nature of reality. In other words, it all may work for scientific purposes but it does not reflect the nature of the universe as it actually exists.

Those items do actually measure gravity. As Galileo and Newton would instantly recognise.

But they don’t tell us that gravity is a derivative of matter or the " hand of God. "

If you want to directly measure ‘curvature’ in space-time and related phenomena, that can and has been done, just less easily. See, for example, gravity lensing, frame dragging, or how the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) results were used to estimate the ‘shape’ of the universe (i.e. how flat space is over very large scales).

Oh yes, light bends, it is after all a derivative of matter and subject to gravity. That does not mean that space bends or that time bends, that is a mathematical abstraction.

I would say that scientists are far too loose in their descriptions and the term " curvature of space-time " is the single most unfortunate term ever contrived by " cosmologists. " Did Einstein actually use the term? That is hard to believe.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

Anthony Rizzi is an award winning physicist who works in physics every day and has written a book, etc.

But do any of them deny that “physics can at least potentially provide an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence”?

But I also objected because you have asserted that they have " provided an internally consistent description of the universe that can explain how the universe came into existence.

Not what I claimed. See above.

Why in the world would I or anyone want to place their faith in such hostile, arrogant, insulting personalities, people who ridicule believers and philosophers as fools from one end of the world to the other.

Maybe they would be more friendly if you stopped calling them things like “complete arses, dumbells”?

They would all support my objections.

Great, so please provide a quote.

Do you get the fact that the idea of every force such as gravity being associated with a boson such as a ‘graviton’ is intrinsically a feature of QFT, not GR?

That is simply a statement of what the two theories say. ‘Gravitons’ feature in quantum field theory, not general relativity.

No. But they would insist that if there is no graviton, that is, if some physically detectible derivative of matter cannot be identified as gravity, then we may actually be looking at the " hand of God. "

Why? Is this just the ‘God of the Gaps’ in that as QFT doesn’t explain gravity, then you assert that it must be the “hand of God”?

Surely either all the forces would be the hand of God, or none would. What sort of God, for that matter, would create a universe where he had to intervene continuously just to keep planets in their orbits?

Yes " metric " or a matematical abstraction from the nature of reality. In other words, it all may work for scientific purposes but it does not reflect the nature of the universe as it actually exists.

I just explained how we can directly observe those things. They are not just mathematical abstractions.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But do any of them deny that “physics can at least potentially provide an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence”?

They would all say that science could not prove that the universe caused itself/and/or that it can account for its own existence, such that it could be regarded as a " bold fact. "

Not what I claimed. See above.

They look the same to me .

Maybe they would be more friendly if you stopped calling them things like “complete arses, dumbells”?

They started it, its been going on since The Enlightenment

Great, so please provide a quote.

I don’t have time to leaf through three or four books looking for the word " graviton " which is nothing but a metaphore for the supposed physicality of gravity. All of them would agree that if gravity cannot be demonstrated to be a derivative of matter, then it is reasonable to hypothocize that it is the " hand of God " guiding the universe.

That is simply a statement of what the two theories say. ‘Gravitons’ feature in quantum field theory, not general relativity.

But a mathematical theory is an abstraction from the nature of reality. By the very nature of mathematical equations much of nature is ignored. That means the theories under question do not reflect and/or define the actual nature of real substances.

Why? Is this just the ‘God of the Gaps’ in that as QFT doesn’t explain gravity, then you assert that it must be the “hand of God”?

No. All material substances ( even waves, etc. ) are composed of matter and form, a potency element and a actuality element called a substantial form. As such, each substance is an actuality which was once only potentially what it is now and now it is potentially what it could be in the future. But we cannot regress infinitely into the past from one cause to another. We must reach a first cause which has no potentiality and never had any, a pure act which transcends the universe of material being, which Thomas Aquinas called God. God is an absolutely necessary inference, otherwise nothing would exist now, which is clearly false. Therefore, God exists.

Surely either all the forces would be the hand of God, or none would. What sort of God, for that matter, would create a universe where he had to intervene continuously just to keep planets in their orbits?

Correct, we will make you a philosopher yet. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God typically operates through the natures of the substances he created. These natural causes Thomas calles secondary agents or secondary causes. But the case of gravity is unique. First we know that it is a power that " acts at a distance " which contradicts all known laws of physics. Secondly it has never been shielded. Thirdly, no one has been able to demonstrate that it is a derivative of matter. So it may be nothing more than the naked power of God, or the " hand of God " at work guiding the universe.

I just explained how we can directly observe those things. They are not just mathematical abstractions.

And I just explained the special case of gravity. And you do not observe magnetism or gravity. You can detect their presence. Now we know magnetism is a derivative of matter because it can be shielded. But gravity cannot be detected and it " acts at a distance. "

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12054229:

But do any of them deny that “physics can at least potentially provide an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence”?

They would all say that science could not prove that the universe caused itself/and/or that it can account for its own existence, such that it could be regarded as a " bold fact. "

So “no”. I think we are done with this part of the discussion - you’ve had plenty of chances to defend your assertion.

They look the same to me .

That, I think, is one half of the problem here. You are not thoroughly reading what other people say, but leaping to assumptions about what you think they are saying - at which point it seems next to impossible to get you to revisit that assumption.

DrTaffy;12054229:

Maybe they would be more friendly if you stopped calling them things like “complete arses, dumbells”?

They started it, its been going on since The Enlightenment

Now, if you boys can’t play nicely you are all going to the naughty step until you are willing to shake hands and apologise to each other!

Also, you guys ‘started it’ at least as far back as killing Hypatia. This is no excuse for not engaging in reasoned debate rather than insults.

I don’t have time to leaf through three or four books looking for the word " graviton "…

But you think I do, based on your assertion that these books would support your assertion about gravitons? :ehh:

…which is nothing but a metaphore for the supposed physicality of gravity.

Well, no. This is the other half of the problem - you are using technical terms such as ‘graviton’ without knowing what they mean.

DrTaffy;12054229:

Surely either all the forces would be the hand of God, or none would.

Correct, we will make you a philosopher yet.

Well, we won’t make a philosopher of you until you stop contradicting yourself like this.

But the case of gravity is unique. First we know that it is a power that " acts at a distance " which contradicts all known laws of physics.

All the fundamental forces ‘act at a distance’ - the only debate is whether that action is mediated by a field and associated virtual particles, or via something like space-time ‘curvature’.

Secondly it has never been shielded.

Neither have the strong or weak nuclear forces. Also your claim is slightly debateable (see The Oracle of Wikipaedia for more info) but I have no real interest in defending Podkletnov or Majorana.

Thirdly, no one has been able to demonstrate that it is a derivative of matter.

If anything it is more obviously a derivative of matter than the other forces, as it is caused directly by mass, which is arguably the defining quality of matter.