MigL

Yes. Knowledge is information. Information changes in quality and quantity. I ask you, sir, what will you say is 'true' and 'real' when our understanding of the universe's mechanisms change ( as in the previously mentioned Holographic Principle ), or perhaps, you can tell us what is 'true' and 'real' at the Quantum level ( maybe you can compare to the trajectory of that cannonball ).

Eise wears two hats; he is both a Physicist and a Philosopher. It seems to me Philosophy has appropriated the word 'knowledge' to have a specific meaning to Philosophers, aside from the meaning us lay-folks give it. You could say that the cannonball and its trajectory are true and real, but what if we eventually discover our universe acts as a holographic projection ? Or that we actually live in the 'Matrix'? Will your definitions then change ? This is by no means a fault of Philosophy. Physics does it also. Maybe we should ask Eise about the difference between 'force' and 'geodesic deviation', as it pertains to gravity, and which is 'true' and 'real'.

I know what you mean. Sometimes questions are asked on this site, and members are all too quick to jump on them with claims of 'hidden agendas' and accusations of 'denial'. I prefer giving the benefit of the doubt, and I've often been wrong, but sometimes peple just come to a science site to get the opinion of scientifically minded people. Why waste an opportunity to change the opinion of someone who's not thinking clearly ? Not that I'm accusing anyone of doing so, but sometimes the most important discussions, pertaining to climate change, race and gender relations, gun control, etc., are shut down by such accusations before they even begin. Unfortunate because these are discussions that need to happen

Philosophy, at least as I understand it, pertains to everything. But I have to ask ... What happens when the ball is dropped, and the bell stops ringing ?

I suggest we all re-read the OP. He's asking if a 'little bit' of something bad could actually turn out to be good. If a global temperature increase as we have witnessed over the last several decades, could actually be beneficial. The problem, of course, would still be stoppng further temperature increases which will lead to the scenareos presented by other members. That would be 'too much' of something bad.

When it is no offense, what is it? Gymnastics ( mental or otherwise ) are not useless. Mental gymnastics sharpen the mind and help refine our thought processes. ( I have alluded to this in a previous post ) Are we heading towards the conclusion that Philosophers use the word 'knowledge' to mean justified true beliefs, while the rest of us ( Physicists included ) use it to mean a commonly accepted, evolving, body of information ?

Again, you are equating 'reality' ( the eart is NOT flat ) with the working theory ( mistaken ) of the people who proposed it. Didn't we already have 8 pages of this discussion ? Are we going to re-hash it all, so you can come to the conclusion that the word knowledge conveys a different meaning for a scientist ( an evolution of commonly accepted information ), than that from your quotes of Philosophers ( the absolute 'truth'; whatever that is ).

Really Davy_Jones ?? An awful lot of people know things which are simply untrue. But I like how you included justified beliefs as modifiers of 'truth' in your standard ( ? ) definition.

Our knowledge of the way things work, the mechanisms of the universe, is increasing; I don't know what that has to do with 'truth'. My initial comment may have been slightly disparaging towards Philosophers, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'mental gymnastics'. Someone who I consider a friend has taught me the value of Philosophy. It teaches us HOW to think. According to Eise, Philosophy can help direct the thought process in order to solve a Physics problem, and, as such, is a valuable discipline. I must say that your thought processes, in equating expanding knowledge of the mechanisms of the universe, with approaching 'truth', are a little confused ( for someone who claims to be a Philosopher ). Maybe you should ask a Philosopher to help guide your thinking 😄 😄 . es

Which were a result of discrepancies between observations and existing theories.

Don't sell yourself short... This has been one of the most interesting discussions in quite a while. It even brought Markus out of 'retirement'. They say that the first step on the path to better oneself is recognizing one's shortcomings. You're on your way to becoming a much better Physicist. 8 pages of ( very informative and interesting ) discussion, and that is your conclusion ? That sometimes Physicists ( and people in general ) sometimes use inappropriate words to describe things/effects ? You're only back briefly, and already we are learning and ggaining new interests.

One is based on evidence/observation; the other on mental gymnastics. ( no offense meant, Eise )

Flight of fancy ,indeed. The observable universe has an 'edge', but it recedes as you move closer to it. ( it is always at the same distance ) Correspondence of points is a useful tool when dealing with infinities. That doesn't mean areas are equal. So why would you need to prove it ( physically or otherwise ) ?

You've always been famous on ScienceForums.net 😄 .

That bolded question was answered, at which point it 'evolved' to which model, force or geometric, is true or real

The original Physics question, as I understood it, asked which of the two models of gravity is 'true', and accurately describes 'reality'. ( yes, I have a problem with both of those words ) We know for a fact that neither is 'true' or 'real'. The Newtonian concept of a force fails on many levels ( not to undermine its usefulness ), such as discrepancy between force and acceleration ( free fall ), direct observation ( Mercury's orbit ), or even instantaneous information tranfer between masses. GR, on the other hand, fails at scales of energy ( large ) and separation ( small ), while being exceedingly accurate in between these extremes. Invoking A Einstein, and his quotes, doesn't help the situation, as he didn't know about Black Holes, nor about gravitational effects on approaching Planck scales. So I don't see the point of quoting A Einstein, and his beliefs, nor about expecting one theory or the other to fully describe 'reality' or be 'true'. Obviously neither is, and we are faced with two prospects ... 1 - We don't have a full description of 'reality' yet. 2 - We may never be able to fully describe 'reality. Good to hear from you Markus ...

Maybe the meaning of 'discovered' also needs some clarification. What is actually discovered is the effect these so called particles have on other particles. Does that make the particles 'real', or is it simply the effect that is real and verifiable ? Hence, models/theories describe effects ( mechanisms/interactions ), and are not concerned with the particles themselves. I wasn't aware of this. I'll look it up. I find it very intellectually enticing. Thanks a lot. We had a mathematical Physicist member, AJB, whose primary area of research was fibre bundle theory of fields. Fiber bundle - Wikipedia He still posts very interesting stuff in our Blog section, but hasn't contributed to the forum in a couple of years. It would have been interesting to get his take on the present subject.

... and NOT an explosion!

It may help the explanations if Dagl1 was to express his opinions/misconceptions of what a frame ( inertial or otherwise ) is. I get the impression he thinks it is something other than the accepted definition.

subquantum = below a quantum of action = virtual

The fact that private citizens can sue abortion providers ( or anyone involved ) should have no effect on the Judiciary. Why can't judges simply dismiss these lawsuits according to case law ? IOW, are judges controlled by the bat-shit crazy Texan Republicans ?

'True', and 'truth' are subjective, and R Dawkins would be the first to agree. ( and the reason I use the scare quotation marks you previously asked about ) You seem to continuously want to steer the discussion in the Philosophy direction. I am not well versed in Philosophy, but I have deluded myself into thinking I know a little Physics; and that is guiding the opinion I'm giving you. My ( subjective ) 'truth', you might say.

I'm sure you're lying, @zapatos Did they not wish you a Happy Birthday ? Did they not give you a hug, or a big smile on your special day ? You would have to define that as 'nothing'. I wouldn't. Yup !

Descriptions are verbal models and, as such, some are applicable in some circumstances, and some are not. If I were discussing Gravity with someone versed in GR, I would certainly use the curvature of space-time description. If I were talking to a high-school student, I would use the force description. Words are a tool, just like math is, and both can be used to describe ( model ) Gravity. Math is much less subjective and ambiguous, however, and usually doesn't lead to these kinds of discussions.

As my opinions and thoughts on the nature of Gravity have been split-off from a thread appropriately entitled "Is Gravity a Force ?", I have to wonder ... What does the ideology of scientists, and the purpose of Science, which is being discussed at some length, have to do with the nature of Gravity ???