Gravity is not a force (in relativity)

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I hadn't heard this previously, though the last physics I had was in high-school. It's almost backwards from Newtonian physics, but really just different.

I think he is saying that mass warps space/time and that accounts for why we experience gravity as an apparent force. Still trying to wrap my mind around a new concept and not grasping it well.

 

Gravity is not a force

[WalterP]

Perhaps this will help, Fuego?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

 

The most persuasive aspect of scientific theory is when it makes a prediction that is confirmed with evidence.  General relativity predicts that extremely massive objects will warp space in extreme ways.  On this Wiki page the images and animations show examples of space being severely warped by massive objects like galaxies.  These are just a few of the many confirmations of general relativity.   Here are some others.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_Refsdal 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave 

 

If it helps, why not think of three dimensional space as a kind of a mix of taffy and jello?  It can wobble, stretch and bend.  A sudden surge of energy can make it ripple temporarily, while a constant pressure causes it to warp and curve accordingly.

 

The first two videos, while not being about general relativity itself, might be useful when it comes to visualizing how space flex and moves.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpEevfOU4Z8

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18BL7MKjtZM

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4XzLDM3Py8

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Fuego said:

I hadn't heard this previously, though the last physics I had was in high-school. It's almost backwards from Newtonian physics, but really just different.

I think he is saying that mass warps space/time and that accounts for why we experience gravity as an apparent force. Still trying to wrap my mind around a new concept and not grasping it well.

 

Gravity is not a force

 

Yes, gravity is not a force according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Einstein's related equations have been tested for over a hundred years now and so far there are no accepted contradictions to them. But Einstein's rationale for his equations was the idea that matter warps space. Many believe this idea has not been proven. We know that gravity bends light to some extent. Newton also predicted that gravity bent light, but Newton only predicted half the bending of light that Einstein predicted, and Einstein has been proven right concerning his equations. There is no evidence that space warps at all, just the theory of it.

 

IMO there are many aspects of modern physics where the equations or statistics have been proven generally correct but the rationale behind the theory is wrong. I think Quantum Mechanics is a good example of this and General Relativity is another. Instead of matter warping space, space can be made up of a gravity centered background field. You have heard of such background fields as the Zero Point Field, the Higgs field, the theoretical fields of dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, quantum foam etc. Density and pressure differentials can exist is such physical fields, and maybe even in energy fields. If so field flows would also be the result.

 

Instead of matter warping space, it could alter the density and pressure of the field in which it resides. If so the field would alter the effects of gravity to the extent predicted by General Relativity instead of warping space. In this case gravity would neither be a force nor the effects of warped space. Gravity instead would simply be the reactions of a background field to the presence of matter.

 

Of course an analogy concerning changes in a background field could be made by asserting the warping of space. The question arises whether space is something physical or simply the distance between matter. Many or most theorists believe that space is not something physical.

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Hello Pantheory.

 

 

Just over a week ago, in the 'Did the Universe begin?' thread, you wrote... 

 

As a formal cosmological theorist myself, I do not believe in the Big Bang model and most of its tenets, such as dark matter, dark energy, Inflation, an expanding universe, the beginning BB entity, a beginning of heat, etc., but concur with a beginning to the universe similar but simpler to that described above concerning a beginning entity. 

 

 

 

Two hours ago, in this thread, you wrote...

 

Many believe this idea has not been proven. We know that gravity bends light to some extent. Newton also predicted that gravity bent light, but Newton only predicted half the bending of light that Einstein predicted, and Einstein has been proven right concerning his equations.

 

IMO there are many aspects of modern physics where the equations or statistics have been proven generally correct but the rationale behind the theory is wrong.

 

 

But surely, as a "formal cosmological theorist", you understand that no theory is ever proven right?

 

Nor is any theory ever proven correct.

 

 

Care to comment?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Of course I could have said that most believe that Einstein has been proven right, or I could have said, most believe that the theory of warped space cannot be verified. Most scientists would say that theories can be falsified but not proven. The statement that a theory has been proven generally correct, generally means that it has not as yet been contradicted. In common language we ask how can that theory be proven? It's just a matter of semantics.

 

Of course in time some theories can be proven such as the theory that the Earth was round and orbited the sun, instead of being the center of the solar system.

[WalterP]

29 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Of course I could have said that most believe that Einstein has been proven right, or I could have said, most believe that the theory of warped space cannot be verified. Most scientists would say that theories can be falsified but not proven. The statement that a theory has been proven generally correct, generally means that it has not as yet been contradicted. In common language we ask how can that theory be proven? It's just a matter of semantics.

 

Of course in time some theories can be proven such as the theory that the Earth was round and orbited the sun, instead of being the center of the solar system.

 

No Pantheory.  That is false.

 

This is a matter of epistemology, not semantics.  Epistemologically speaking the only science that deals in proofs is mathematics.  In every other branch of the sciences theories are either falsified or supported by the available evidence.  They are never proven right, proven correct or proven wrong.  

 

I now have reason to doubt your claim to be a formal cosmological theorist.

 

The reason for this doubt is that the Christians who visit this forum almost always display an ignorance of the workings of science.  They usually (and falsely) believe that scientific theories are proven.  It falls to us Ex-Christians to correct them on this matter.

 

These are links that I would use to correct these Christians and show them that nothing is ever scientifically proven right, proven correct or proven wrong.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof#:~:text=Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic%2C not,evaluation of scientific theory is evidence%2C not proof.

 

https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#314b759c2fb1

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/can-science-prove-anything-3973922

 

https://grist.org/article/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

 

So, do you accept that you were wrong about how proofs are used in science?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Yes, epistemology is more correct language than proof of theory.  But as I said before, some theories can be proven, no? When Copernicus came up with his theory that the Earth rotates around the sun instead of the other way around, don't you think that his theory has been proven? --------------And that it is no longer theory but fact?

 

[WalterP]

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

Yes, epistemology is more correct language than proof of theory.  But as I said before, some theories can be proven, no? When Copernicus came up with his theory that the Earth rotates around the sun instead of the other way around, don't you think that his theory has been proven? --------------And that it is no longer theory but fact?

 

 

Pantheory,

 

You are confusing facts with proof.  A proof is absolute, but a fact is not.  

 

Therefore, it is a fact that the Earth rotates around the sun, but that fact cannot be proven in science.

 

So the status of the Sun and the Earth remains unproven and unprovable by science.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

FYI,  Pantheory.

 

 

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof#:~:text="Proof" is something that the opponents of science,suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.

 

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrP4o9uT4xfjj8AMnYM34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzMEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?qid=20151216012204AAiMQon

 

https://woofreezone.com/scientific-proof-evidence-and-the-scientific-method/

 

 

 

So, as outrageous as it may seem to you, this rule applies to all of science, all of the time.

 

Meaning that science has not and cannot prove that the Earth orbits the Sun.

 

It cannot be used to prove anything about the physical universe.

 

 

Another way of checking this out for yourself is to look up the Scientific Method and see if proofs are involved in it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

FYI,  Pantheory.

 

 

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof#:~:text="Proof" is something that the opponents of science,suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.

 

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrP4o9uT4xfjj8AMnYM34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzMEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?qid=20151216012204AAiMQon

 

https://woofreezone.com/scientific-proof-evidence-and-the-scientific-method/

 

 

 

So, as outrageous as it may seem to you, this rule applies to all of science, all of the time.

 

Meaning that science has not and cannot prove that the Earth orbits the Sun.

 

It cannot be used to prove anything about the physical universe.

 

 

Another way of checking this out for yourself is to look up the Scientific Method and see if proofs are involved in it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

You are epistomologically correct   But how about the theory that the Earth is round. Pathagorus about 500 BC proposed the hypothesis that the Earth is round. About 300 BC in Alexandria an experiment was conducted based upon shadows to estimate the diameter of the Earth, adding evidence to the Pathagorian hypothesis making it a theory. Even In the time of Columbus there were still those who believed the Earth was flat.

 

Even though today there are still flat-Earthers, don't you think the Earth Is Round theory has been proven? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

You are epistomologically correct   But how about the theory that the Earth is round. Pathagorus about 500 BC proposed the hypothesis that the Earth is round. About 300 BC in Alexandria an experiment was conducted based upon shadows to estimate the diameter of the Earth, adding evidence to the Pathagorian hypothesis making it a theory. Even In the time of Columbus there were still those who believed the Earth was flat.

 

Even though today there are still flat-Earthers, don't you think the Earth Is Round theory has been proven? 

 

 

 

I don't know why you are pursuing this line, Pantheory.

 

It's simply not within the remit of the empirical sciences to prove anything.  That is not what science is for and not what it does.  Proofs are used only in mathematics and in logic.  Nowhere else.

 

 

Btw, have you had any luck finding proofs in the scientific method?

 

 

Anyway, beyond the epistemological requirement to use the word proof correctly and only in its proper context, there's another important reason for my position on this issue.  A reason that has to do with the function of this forum.  Can you think what that might be?

 

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

51 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

..................Anyway, beyond the epistemological requirement to use the word proof correctly and only in its proper context, there's another important reason for my position on this issue.  A reason that has to do with the function of this forum.  Can you think what that might be?

 

Walter.

 

Others in the past have mentioned this aspect of the forum which you mention but I think each topic should stand for itself without necessarily interjecting purposeful motives into postings. If one thinks wrong conclusions by readers could occur, then I think more exact postings of clarification might be made, as both of us have done in this thread.

[WalterP]

But do you know just what aspect of this forum I'm referring to, Pantheory?

 

We could be talking at cross purposes.

 

So, please explain what you think this aspect is, who it applies to and how it influences the content of the threads in this forum.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

36 minutes ago, WalterP said:

But do you know just what aspect of this forum I'm referring to, Pantheory?

 

We could be talking at cross purposes.

 

So, please explain what you think this aspect is, who it applies to and how it influences the content of the threads in this forum.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I was referring to the aspect of the forum whereby Christians and lurkers might get the wrong impression of some postings providing support for their own religious beliefs. My belief is to present the evidence, or lack thereof, and facts the best that you know of, without having an ulterior motive for one's postings. Let the cards fall accordingly.

 

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

I was referring to the aspect of the forum whereby Christians and lurkers might get the wrong impression of some postings providing support for their own religious beliefs. My belief is to present the evidence, or lack thereof, and facts the best that you know of, without having an ulterior motive for one's postings. Let the cards fall accordingly.

 

 

 

That's not quite it Pantheory.  I'll explain when I'm ready.

 

 

But I notice that you've changed your tune somewhat. 

 

Yesterday and today you believed that science did prove things. 

 

But as of an hour ago your belief is to present the evidence and the facts.

 

Don't you still believe that science proves things?

 

What's changed your mind in such a short space of time?

 

Please explain your shift of position on this issue.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Oh btw, Pantheory...

 

 

 

Have you had any luck finding proofs in the scientific method?

 

 

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Walter, it seems that you have a need to get everything "perfect", and as you see it.  And a need to get the last word in.  Reminds me of church members I left behind.

[WalterP]

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

Walter, it seems that you have a need to get everything "perfect", and as you see it.  And a need to get the last word in.  Reminds me of church members I left behind.

 

That's an interesting observation, Weezer.

 

 

But would you have a problem with my attention to detail if I were in a debate with a Christian or some other kind of theist?

 

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

This post is for Pantheory, Weezer and anyone else who thinks I’m trying to get everything perfect as I see it..

 

First, I don’t decide how science runs itself.  Scientists do that.  So, if we want to discuss and debate science here we have to toe their line.  Not mine. 

If you don’t want to toe their line, then don’t pretend that you’re talking science.  You’re not.

 

It’s quite simple.  If you want to do science and talk science, then abide by its working practices and principles and then you’ll be doing and talking science.  If you want to go your own way, fine.  But you won’t be doing or talking science, even if you claim to be, pretend to be or genuinely believe that you are.

 

Time and again Christian apologists come to Ex-C, trying to tear up science’s rule book and to rewrite it so that their beliefs appear to be vindicated by science.  Do we let that pass?  No.  Of course not.  We show them the correct and proper way to do and to talk about science.  Why?  Because we have a community of Ex-Christians here who need protecting from those who would subvert the rules, the facts and the evidence for the sake of their own ends.  Frightened, anxious and confused people come to us, looking for help in their efforts to escape from the damage done to them. 

 

We Ex-Christians freely offer to help and to counsel and we do this by demolishing spurious arguments, by shining the spotlight on lies and disinformation and by rigorously sticking to the rules, the facts and the evidence.  To do these things we have no choice but to apply exacting standards of accuracy, precision and attention to detail.

 

So, in case anyone should think that I’m trying to force my way onto others… I’m not.  If we Ex-Christians want to help others then we need to be accurate and precise and to pay attention to detail.  We have to closely examine the claims that Christians make, closely inspect their arguments and also closely investigate every aspect of what they write.  We look for inconsistencies, contradictions, logical fallacies, falsehoods, disinformation and outright lies. 

 

I don’t get to decide what qualifies as a contradiction or a falsehood – but I am very good at spotting them.  Therefore, when I find them, it would be a cardinal error for someone to say, ‘Oh you’re just trying to force your way onto me!’  No, I’m not.  I haven’t decided what constitutes a logical fallacy.  That’s not for me to decide.  But if I see one I’ll call it out.  That’s not me forcing my way on others either.  That’s me holding someone else to account.  Not to my standard but to the standard that applies to all of us.  If you don’t want to be held to account, don’t commit the fallacy.  If you don’t like the standard… tough.  It’s not for you to decide what constitutes a logical fallacy.  Take it or leave it.

 

The same goes with science.  If I see something being claimed as ‘science’ or as a ‘proof’, when I know its not, then I’ll call it out.  Once again, I’m not forcing my way onto anyone.  There is a recognized standard for science and scientific research and it’s non-negotiable.  If you can’t hold to it or don’t feel like applying it today, then once again… tough.  It’s not for you to decide what science should or shouldn’t be.  Take it or leave it.

 

In case anyone thinks we can relax the rules, take a look at this.

 

https://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/apologetics/5-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god/

https://biblereasons.com/is-god-real/

https://www.godisreal.today/proof-god-exists/

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/is-there-a-god/proof-of-god/

https://toptenproofs.com/blogs/articles/scientific-evidence-of-god

https://gewatkins.net/5-proofs-of-gods-existence/

http://im-just-a-regular-guy.com/proof-of-god/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32920294-proof-of-god

https://scientific-proof-of-god.com/proof-of-god/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er9D00DXQQs

https://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm

https://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Reason-Theistic-Proofs-Religion/dp/0802844502

 

Out there, outside of this forum, Christians happily break the rules to further their own agendas. 

 

For them, science DOES prove things and therefore it can be used to prove the existence of god.  If we allow ourselves to accept their standard and agree that science does prove things, then we make a whole lot of trouble for ourselves.

 

Why?  Because our holding to the proper and correct ruling (that science doesn’t prove things) decapitates all of their false arguments with one stroke.  But if we climb on their bandwagon and allow ourselves to accept that science does prove things, then they can bring their science-proves-god arguments in here and we will then have to dismantle them piecemeal, on a case-by-case basis. 

 

Letting that happen is doing a disservice to the very people who come to Ex-C to seek a haven of rationality and reasoned thinking. 

 

Am I the one making these rules up for my own benefit?  Is this an ego trip for me?  No and No.  I do what I do and play it straight, sticking resolutely to the facts and the evidence and the rules that govern them, for the benefit of others.  Not for myself.

 

Am I the one policing these rules and regs for my own benefit?  Is that my ego again?  No and No, again.  I do what I do, calling out discrepancies, errors and deviations from the required standards for the benefit of others.  Not for myself.

 

And if you’ve ever chipped in with useful knowledge or corrected someone’s misunderstanding, then you’ve done just the same.  In Ex-C we all help each other out and I’m just as much a recipient of help as anyone else.  As it happens, in the near future, I plan to ask for help about certain theological questions and about the meaning of bible verses.  I’ll gladly accept tuition and guidance from those members who are expert in these areas.  When I put a foot wrong or mess up then I’ll happily accept their correction.  It’s a two-way street.  I correct others and they correct me.

 

The same is true when it comes to holding to the correct standards of anything mentioned in this post.  Other members can and should call me to account when I commit logical fallacies and when I deviate from what is proper. I will gladly accept this.  You’ll get no attitude problems from me.  I welcome it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

I gave you a "like" above because of the effort you put into it which means to me that your intent was good.

 

But our argument was whether a scientific theory can be proven or not. I expect you will find many scientific sources saying, for various reasons, that theories cannot be proven. On the other hand there are other scientific sources asserting that scientific theories can be proven as well as rejected or discarded.  Those that believe that they certainly can be proven require that the theory in question, and the proof of it, must meet certain criteria. For instance every aspect of a theory's assertions must be completely testable. Every aspect of its proof must be indisputable, such as the Earth is round. IMO this probably leaves out every major theory in modern physics today, for instance.

"The evolution of a scientific theory

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

 

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease ................................"

 

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, pantheory said:

I gave you a "like" above because of the effort you put into it which means to me that your intent was good.

 

Ditto.  If you get satisfaction from all the work you put into getting things "perfect", then continue to do so. 

[WalterP]

11 hours ago, pantheory said:

I gave you a "like" above because of the effort you put into it which means to me that your intent was good.

 

But our argument was whether a scientific theory can be proven or not. I expect you will find many scientific sources saying, for various reasons, that theories cannot be proven. On the other hand there are other scientific sources asserting that scientific theories can be proven as well as rejected or discarded.  Those that believe that they certainly can be proven require that the theory in question, and the proof of it, must meet certain criteria. For instance every aspect of a theory's assertions must be completely testable. Every aspect of its proof must be indisputable, such as the Earth is round. IMO this probably leaves out every major theory in modern physics today, for instance.

"The evolution of a scientific theory

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

 

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease ................................"

 

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

Pantheory,

 

You know I said that I was good at spotting inconsistencies and contradictions?  The article you quoted contains them. 

 

If a theory that meets certain criteria is considered to be proven but is then improved upon, what status is it now given? 

 

Proven again?  Proven better?  Proven but still able to be proven better?  And so on?

 

That's the kind of mess you get if you relax the definition of proven from anything less then absolute.

 

My point stands but your given example is unworkable.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[WalterP]

6 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

Ditto.  If you get satisfaction from all the work you put into getting things "perfect", then continue to do so. 

 

Thank you for the upvote Weezer.

 

 

But it seems that I've failed to convey to you why I put in all the work I do.

 

I don't do it for personal satisfaction.

 

I do it because the discipline of science requires it and because it benefits those people in this forum who need the help I can give them.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

On 10/20/2020 at 3:24 AM, WalterP said:

 

Pantheory,

 

You know I said that I was good at spotting inconsistencies and contradictions?  The article you quoted contains them.

If a theory that meets certain criteria is considered to be proven but is then improved upon, what status is it now given?

Proven again?  Proven better?  Proven but still able to be proven better?  And so on?

That's the kind of mess you get if you relax the definition of proven from anything less then absolute.

 

My point stands but your given example is unworkable.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

The link did not say that a proven theory would or could be improved upon!  But I'll provide some examples anyway.

 

Proven theory Examples.

 

Simple example: (proven theory) The Earth is round. But not exactly round. It's polar radii are about 13+ miles less than its equatorial radii and its circumference varies by about 41 miles.

                  

More complicated example:  (proven theory) Evolution works via natural selection.  But natural selection is not the only known factor of evolution even though the other known factors are believed to be of less importance. One or more of these  known factors still may in time prove to be more important than presently believed, even more important than natural selection, and undiscovered factors of unknown importance can still be discovered.      

 

You can have your last word of our discussion/ argument or any others if you wish to continue off topic. The topis is "Gravity is not a force according to General Relativity." Our discussion is whether or not a theory can be proven or not. IMO on a larger scope I would say the discussion revolves around the definition of a theory. If you want this discussion to continue start a thread with that topic. If not PM me and I'll start one. Otherwise I'm done here on our over-extended off-topic discussion.

                   .

                  

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

We can break the impasse between us in a very simple way.

 

By you citing examples where others actually declare that a given theory has been proved.  

 

 

Can you please do that?

 

 

Your own say so, anecdotal examples, articles from the popular press and other imprecise sources wouldn't count.

 

Peer-reviewed examples from the empirical sciences would.

 

 

I'm taking a short break from Ex-C for a few days.

 

I'm  look forward to seeing what you can come up with.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.