ajb

Electromagnetic waves originate from accelerated charges. Gravitational waves originate from accelerated masses. The problem is also one of language here - by medium one usually means a mechanical medium, something like how sound moves through the air. By a wave, we of course need something to 'wiggle' and we have been saying more-or-less from the start that we usually think of wave solutions to some field theory. For example, a gravitational waves is a little 'wiggle' in the gravitational field - which we understand to be the local geometry as described by a metric tensor.

I dedicate this to someone who was special - you know who you are.

I can imagine that as theoretical physics advances some metaphysical questions will evaporate - but only to be replaced with others!

" ... In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this: as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ... " Albert Einstein, "Geometry and Experience", 1921

But there is no problem of time as time is inherent in mathematics, right? In a sense I think you are right. Physics deals with mathematical models and matching them with nature. Physics does not really say much about what 'exists', what is 'real' and so on. Physics is about what we can calculate and measure - and if we can measure it then it is 'real'. But this definition I am sure will fall flat on its face if we think about it too hard!

We have all been saying this all along...

Physics at the time of writting of the old testament had no idea how fast light travels - if you could not see the projectile in flight then did it more faster than 'sight'? Anyway, the paper is total trash in a really stupid journal. Publishing it was not fair on the guys who wrote it - they actually think they have done something meaningful. Now, rejection I doubt would have changed their minds on this.

In a sence you are right - but this need not be a mechanical medium. We don't need some rubber sheet or chains of particles or anything like that. Electromagnetic waves are ripples in the electromagnetic field (the potential A) and this field itself is 'the medium'. Gravitational waves are ripples in the gravitational field (so the metric in the standard understanding) and this field itself is `the medium'.

Yes, friction creates fireballs.

We all see that it becomes confusing very quickly, this is the nature of metaphysics

Yes, if the object is moving at speeds near the speed of light with respect to the Earth. But large objects in our Solar System don't move that fast.

Something the 'referees' missed...

Basically yes - I am not sure what a deeper meaning of 'real' is. This starts to get into metaphsyics. But again yes, the electromagnetic field is just as 'real' as space-time or the curvature thereof.

Just thinking that quacks and crackpots seem to be the most closed minded. I once read - for giggles - a paper in a predatory journal that discusses how David's slingshot must have accelerated the projectile to speeds greater than the speed of light if it were to kill Goliath! Well, the paper was rubbish and based simply on not understanding rotating objects in special relativity - it was a rehash of the old rotating arm faster than light thing. Anyway, I was told about this paper by one of the authors - I cheated on science forums and used another forum, there is no need to bring this other forum into it. I regret it and now live in shame. - and amazingly he told me that the Bible is full of science and should be read as such! No way to change his mind - I tried.

In physics one builds mathematical models and see if they match nature well. As the mathematical notion of space-time works so well - and Gravity Probe B is part of the evidence for this - people often speak as it space-time is real. But I am not fully sure how much is just philosophy and how much is physically real. I mean, any calculation and experiment needs to be conducted and then interpreted within a physical theory. Really separating what one 'sees' from mathematics is not so clear. Anyway, the usual thinking is that space-time is a mathematical construction - but how different is this to other notion in physics?

Well, we tried... not sure if I will bother next time.

Okay, so what about the other things you have raised? Why are you avoiding my questions on what you understand by the 'science of religion'?

You tell us - I have a feeling it is either as a troll or to preach. Either way you seem to avoid real discussion of some of the points that you have raised.

Simon - you just seem to be preaching now and avoiding my questions. I am willing to engage with you, but you have to work harder at your communication skills. ---------------------------- Wow, I have used up all my negative rep points for today. That really is a first as I don't like dishing them out!

Simon please stop this and just address what I asked about the scientific method and religion. You claim that there is a science to religion but have not explained what you mean by that. Please help us understand.

This is just BS - nothing to do with my questions to your remarks. Please try to address what I asked about the scientific method and religion.

It is the scientific method that really tells us that the two should be separate. One is looking for objective evidence of predicted phenomena - it is this objectiveness that really keeps personal ideas of gods out of the mix. In what sense? For sure people study religious practices and how this effects societies and individual people from a scientific perspective. But if you mean there is evidence, real objective evidence that God exists, then you are mistaken. You will need to explain this to me carefully. I don't see that science is a 'religion without a god'. But you are mistaken here. Or not explaining yourself well. Where does the scientific method come into religion?

Though, generally you do not seem that interested in discussing science. You are wrong here. If you want to discuss science then it is best to leave religion out of it. You have in now way had your science ideas (not that I have noticed many) criticized because of your religion. Do you realise how silly that sounds? Anyway, okay you don't want to talk about your realisation on a theory of everything. Great, so lets move on. Well, you don't want to share - and if you are talking about your thread on cellular automation then you stopped early and did not show anyone that you have some further ideas to add. Shame really. Share or not share, you are acting like a troll and I am sorry to say, a bit of a crackpot. If you do not like this forum, then you are free to leave at any time. Newton would be another example, as would anyone from that period. We once lived in much more religious times. Still, I do know scientists and mathematicians that are religious. As they tend to keep science and religion separate few problems with publishing occur.

If that is the Jesus I think you mean, then assuming he was real and a single person, is dead. Anyway, what the heck has this got to do with anything about creationism, big bang cosmologies and life in the Universe? Methinks you are a troll...