beecee

My point is scientific theories are models describing what we observe and according to experimental results. Reality and truth you talk about, and whether they exist at all, are not the objective of scientific theories, but obviously as time progresses, as technology and instruments improve, our results become more accurate.eg: when we finally have a validated QGT. That most probably will answer more questions and be "closer" to any of this vague reality and truth you seem obsessed with. We are enormously successful at this time, with simply being able to describe gravity. Of course it is true, in that it exists. Dawkins'makes a very valid point, to anyone doubting gravity exists. Not really, since by the very nature of ID, it falls outside of science and into the mythical category. The spiritual, supernatural and paranormal are by definition unscientific. I'll stick with the scientific method as Richard Dawkins does.

Of course I understood that, and a shame. Really this is as unbelievable as Trump ever getting elected! How long before the Texas Governor needs to have elections?

Depends under what model you are operating, and how much accuracy you require for a correct answer. remembering of course that Newtonian is near exclusively used on Earth, and afaik, also in all space endeavours, including the Voyagers and there close encounters with the four outer gas and ice giants. As designated by the scientific methodology...via the collection of data through observational and experimental data, and the testing of hypothesis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274872618_Physics_reality Abstract Editor's Note: There is probably no modern scientist as famous as Albert Einstein. Born in Germany in 1879 and educated in physics and mathematics at the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, he was at first unable to find a teaching post, working instead as a technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office from 1901 until 1908. Early in 1905, Einstein published “A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions,” a paper that earned him a Ph.D. from the University of Zurich. More papers followed, and Einstein returned to teaching, in Zurich, in Prague, and eventually in Berlin, where an appointment in 1914 to the Prussian Academy of Sciences allowed him to concentrate on research. In November of 1919, the Royal Society of London announced that a scientific expedition had photographed a solar eclipse and completed calculations that verified the predictions that Einstein had made in a paper published three years before on the general theory of relativity. Virtually overnight, Einstein was hailed as the world's greatest genius, instantly recognizable, thanks to “his great mane of crispy, frizzled and very black hair, sprinkled with gray and rising high from a lofty brow” (as Romain Rolland described in his diary). In the essay excerpted here, and first published in 1936, Einstein demonstrates his substantial interest in philosophy as well as science. He is pragmatic, in insisting that the only test of concepts is their usefulness in describing the physical world, yet also idealistic, in aiming for the minimum number of concepts to achieve that description. In 1933, Einstein renounced his German citizenship and moved to the United States, where he lived until his death in 1955. A recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, he was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 1924.

So there's no way this can be successfuly nullified by Federal intervention/laws? So what does a female do if needing or requiring an abortion? Can she move to another state? In that case, what could happen on her return?

Even in Newton's day it wasn't thouhght to describe reality....Newton himself said words to the effect, that why it happened [the attraction between masses] no one knew...didn't he insinuate the spiritual? Not really, as I just illustrated. You appear to be reading something into factual accounts, that just isn't there. It can, as I said, but that isn't the primary goal of physics and scientific theories. eg: we still do not know the true reality of gravity, other then feelings its effects when spacetime is curved in the presence of mass. And of course the question why mass/energy should curve spacetime.

To bring us closer and closer, yep agreed and what I just said dude. But that doesn't change the fact that Physicists including Weinberg model observational and experimental data, and the success of those models is reflected on its successful predictions. Again, Physicists/scientists are not primarilly searching for reality and/or truth, whatever that is, but if it should accidently be found, then all well and good...no problems at all!

A good account is in Steven Weinberg's book, "The First Three Minutes" And don't forget that monkeys originally were born in the belly of stars.

Is this the same as "virtual particles" that pop in and out of existence but fail to become real because they annihilate before a Planck instant?

In reality, and as others have explained, it is not an opinion, and it is not anti-realist, whatever slur that'ssupposed to project. We model what we see and what experiments define for us. Newtonian as successful as it was and is, was found to not be all inclusive...GR extended those bounds of explanation and gives it in far more accurate details...GR itself is not the be all and end all of knowledge. It fails us at t+10-45th seconds after the BB, and fails us at the core of BH's. We do not know why mass/energy bends/warp/twists spacetime. We can only describe the effects of warped spacetime, and we know that effect as gravity. The simple answer that you appear to see the need to reject, is that we still do not know the true nature of gravity. I read Steven's book, "The First Three Minutes" and he also expressed his views that in time we may find a final theory of everything, but as yet that has not happened. Again physics models what we see and its success is in making successful predictions...eg: GR. Physicists/scientists are not searching for reality and/or truth, whatever that is, but if it should accidently be found, then all well and good...no problems at all! And there are always Mavericks in every profession...some still reject GR, some reject the BB...Fred Hoyle comes to mind, an otherwise great astronomer/scientist, but wrong on this point. Christian/religious philosophers and pretend scientists still argue against the theory of evolution. Einstein was also wrong [his greatest blunder] on his static universe model, despite his model telling him that wasn't the case...hence the CC. With your reference, this is in regards to the HUP, is it not? I'm sure the great man if he was around today, would also admit error in that view.

Same here, shooting from the hip that is.... I like Professor Lawrence Krauss' educated speculation. Perhaps the quantum foam from which the universe/space/time [as we know them] arose, needs to be redefined as nothing. Perhaps that's as close [to the perceived nothing most of us envisage] that can ever be...it effectively maybe nothing. I see that has far more likley and reasonable then some dynamic, all knowing omnipotent spiritual being. Afterall, didn't we also see at one time "space" as nothing?

Sydney and Melbourne are in current lockdown. The following video is doing the rounds, primarilly because of the pretentious idiots conducting protest marches etc, claiming it a violation of their rights. If you are offended by colourful language [just one sample] do not watch.

Heard something about this last night...Shit! it's nearly as unbelievable as Trump getting into power. Hopefully, it can be dismantled or otherwise hindered by your Federal law processes. And yes, we also have an emergence of such extreme right nonsense in Australia, known as "Ünited Australia Party" guess what there motto is? Make Australia Great!!!🤮

And that has been answered...many times. But because you're a nice bloke, here is another definition...... https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/justice.htm Justice Justice is a concept of moral rightness based ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice. According to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought." Justice can be thought of as distinct from benevolence, charity, prudence, mercy, generosity, or compassion, although these dimensions are regularly understood to also be interlinked. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Adding of course, as I have said many times, no system is perfect and all the virtues of justice as defined are not always met. And of course any justice system is based on what a reasonable democratic society demands, which further supports what I said, about that's how a democratic society works, standing with the majority, rather then that noisy minority....eg: The dickheads that are attempting to defy health orders during Sydney's and Melbourne's current lockdown, claiming violation of their personal rights and freedom of movement. Thankfully due to Police surveillence and intelligence, the ring leaders have been rounded up, and kept behind bars, some for 11 days so far, before their court appearences.

What were you getting at?

Sorry, that's how a democratic society works, standing with the majority, rather then that noisy minority.... It's just rather sad that you seem to brush over the fact that it takes all kinds to make up a society, good, law abiding, religious, indifferent, incorridgibley evil and inhumane....they all exist my friend, and while they all exist, we will need prisons for some of them. Did you vote for him? Thankfully, your society saw the error of their ways and threw him out again, correct? You seem to be highlighting a sad inhumane part of Australia's regretable history? I'm pretty sure I covered all that previously in this or the "torture" thread. That wasn't me you understand? That was 200 years ago. We now as a society are trying to repair some of that harm, with still some way to go. No distraction at all, simply facts put to you that don't fit with your philosophy. And once again, pointing out another error in your thinking, I have never really said that your definition is wrong, just that it is unrealistic. A reasonable justice system does three main things...punish, protect and rehabilitate. Just as punishment can take many forms, so to is the degree of evil and inhumane acts parts of any society may perpetrate. A few facts for you. If you do the crime [serious] be prepared to do the time. Not sure who said that, but it is appropriate. Let me also comment on your philosophy that jailing anyone is about revenge. To some extent, you are probably right. Perhaps the little girl that was tied up, raped and tortured, by an animal that was given a lifeline and on parole, along with her poor parents, would be glad to see this excuse of humanity jailed. In their case, his probable dysfunctional upbringing, circumstances, and whatever he experienced in his childhood, matters not. In their case, it is probably and understandably about revenge. Thankfully, I have never been the victim of a violent serious crime, nor has any of my close family. I seriously doubt that I would turn the other cheek, and forgive such a person. I would want justice done. If you see that as revenge then so be it. Have you ever been in such a situation as this little girl's parents? Do you, condemn them because they are probably satisified that the perpetrator of this inhumane crime, is now jailed for life? Are you concerned with the consequences of the little girl herself, later in life, when she feels like raising a family? You see the problem here is that probably no amount of psychological councelling and/or medical help, will ever change things for this little girl for the rest of her life. My sympathies unashamedly lie with her, her parents and close family. But on the other hand, in the view of a justice system in any reasonable society, it is not about revenge...it is about the simple fact that the person has commited a serious offence and jail has been desiganated by that system. For otherwise good people who have made a mistake but have got caught, it probably teaches them not to do it again. Sadly, most criminals are not good people who simply make mistakes. I would guess in many cases, prison is a dehumanizing solution, but also in many cases, the perpetrators of violent, serious crime are already dehumanized evil animals. They will never be rehabilitated. Luckily in most reasonable democratic societies, we do have alternatives for less severe crimes, and first timers of petty crimes...things like suspended sentences, parole, home detention, ankle tracking bracelets, house arrests, etc....but hey! I have mentioned all that before.

Not at all. I'm speaking generally, although thankfully my country is up there some where. Or was that just sarcastic wit?

Most scientific theories are models that match what we observe, aligns with the results of our experiments, and makes validated predictions. The longer in time that they continue to be sucessful, the more certain they become and probably closer to this reality you speak of. At the pinnacle of scientific theories is the theory evolution, an incontrovertible fact that organisms change, over time.

yes, the standard reasonable society, as dictated by an orginization, involved and fanatically tied up with mystical and mythical beliefs and supernatural nonsense, with equally fanatical, so called moral values etc. Society today, thankfully is more scientifically inclined as dictated by the scientific method and less fanatically religious, with far more reasonable moralistic values. We have a lot to be thankful for.

No supposing, we don't know why mass/energy makes spacetime curve, except that it is part of the model we call GR. We see the effects of gravity when spacetime is curved/warped/twisted. Yes we can then answer that gravity is geometry, but why? What is spacetime? It is simply the framework within GR, where we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant, or it does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion. In GR, gravity is described in terms of curvature of spacetime. GR has made incredible predictions, that are now validated...BH's, gravitational waves. But it still has its limitations and cannot therefor be taken literally. It fails us at the quantum/planck level in the first instant after the BB, and also fails us at the heart of BH's. The $64,000,000 question is will a validated QGT tell us what gravity is? Are gravitons [the theoretical particle that transmits gravity] real? If so, then there is the answer! I think. Scientists imo anyway, mostly simplify things for public consumption...not sure if that is entirely a good thing. They talk of gravity being a force, but forget to metion, only in the Newtonian concept. They talk about it as curved spacetime or geometry, when briefly explaining GR and relativity in general. Did you watch the video? only 7.5 minutes long, and sort of explains what I'm having difficulty with. In essence the facts are while we [scientists] are accurately able to describe and predict gravity, we still do not understand the deeper meaning of what it actually is. What is space? What was there before space and time evolved at the BB, are similar metaphysical questions at this time, although some scientists have made educational guesses and speculated on what such things are.

String theory [misappropriatly named] is a QGT that remains hypothetical because we are totally unable to observe or experiment at such quantum/planck levels. It is though said to be a "beautiful picture" of what could/might be. The same sort of speculation is talked about by Lawrence Krauss in his book, "A universe from nothing" I personally differentiate it from any run-of-the-mill speculation by referring to it as educated speculation...same of course applies to string theory and its derivitives. I think you are trying to see problems where there is no problem. Other then of course we do not really know what gravity is, and I don't believe we ever will until you can tell me, [as I mentioned previously] why does mass/energy make spacetime curve? Again, we have two extraordinary correct models of gravity that work well, each within their zones of applicability. There are also other models that do not work as well as GR....MOND, Vector 4 Gravity and probably others. At this time I might raise one of my favourite short videos by a well respected Physicist that I believe applies here .... But hey! I'm not a physicist, so perhaps you have a point. I just fail to see it at this time.

Because it's society's definition of punishment, [as part and parcel of a reasonable justice system] at least in any reasonable westernised society. This is actualy the second time I've asked this with regards to one of your questions/answers: Are you serious? I have given you in this and the torture thread, more then one example of inhumane or if you like inhuman actions. The most obvious one of course, and one which the overwhelmingly majority would agree with as being inhumane is Hitler. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inhumane inhumane: cruel and causing suffering to people or animals: cruel to people or animals in not caring about their suffering or about the conditions under which they live: We have a responsibility to protect animals from inhumane treatment. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: or if you like...... https://www.google.com/search?q=inhuman&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&sxsrf=AOaemvIaLT-WdQ78NJhofVlMS76weC-ztQ%3A1630529900201&ei=bOkvYdPUC-HWz7sP7tGAqA4&oq=inhuman&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgjECcyCgguELEDEIMBEEMyCggAELEDEIMBEEMyBAgAEEMyCggAELEDEIMBEEMyCwguEIAEELEDEIMBMgYIABAKEEMyBAgAEEMyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDoHCCMQsAMQJzoHCAAQRxCwAzoHCC4QsAMQQ0oECEEYAFDLGljLGmC_H2gBcAJ4AIABoAGIAaABkgEDMC4xmAEAoAEByAEKwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjTuvyb1d7yAhVh63MBHe4oAOUQ4dUDCA8&uact=5 inhuman: lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric. "the inhuman treatment meted out to political prisoners" I'll repeat again as it should be and in its entirety.... But it's not my definition of punishment. It's a definition of appropriate punsishment, in line with a reasonable westernised justice system and society. It's a philosophical stance by a justice system in any reasonable society, when anyone in that society crosses the line to indulge in violent, cruel inhuman behaviour, and that they deserve punishment befitting the crime, that they need to be separated from that society, for the protection of that society, and that all means available be implemeted to try and rehabilitate. Wasn't that a period in human society, where the church was the accuser, the judge, and the executioner? I reject the supernatural. You?

I never said we can never improve, only that you there will always be the need for prison and punishment, protection of victim and society and rehabilitation. No not completely, improvent in that area also necessary.

We have two useful models of gravity......Gravity as a force in Newtonian, and gravity as spacetime curvature in GR...both give the same answers in the less accurate domain of Newtonian. If you call gravity a force, you are essentially in the Newtonian domain and the most well known and used domain with everyday run of the mill calculations. If you call gravity as geometry, specifically spacetime geometry, then you are in the GR domain, and essentially when high accuracy is the goal. Not unless you are ignorant of what Newtonian and GR are doing...essentially modeling the effects we see. In Newtonian we observe an attraction between masses that falls of as the inverse square of the distance...In the far more accurate model of GR, we see that attraction explained by the curvature of spacetime in the presence of mass, spacetime also being a metric model. In Newtonian, we are unable to say why different masses attract...they just do. In GR, we are unable to say why spacetime geometry in the presence of mass, should curve and warp, It just does. Scientific theories/models are based on observational and experimental support. In that respect GR has passed all tests thrown its way, so it is overwhelmingly supported by scientists, and incidently why it was formulated to explain what Newtonian could not. Yes, agreed, but tell me why does spacetime curve in the presence of mass/energy. We talk of the "force of gravity" all the time, probably firstly most don't understand GR, and secondly, because we all work in the Newtonian system. As GR is the superior [more encompassing] model, it is more correct to say gravity is spacetime curvature, but again essentially, we don;t know why..it just works tremedously well

We model gravity as I believe I said. What it actually is, I'm not sure we really know, other then an attraction between masses. If we check WIKI we get this.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity Gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight'[1]), or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass or energy—including planets, stars, galaxies, and even light[2]—are attracted to (or gravitate toward) one another. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects, and the Moon's gravity causes the tides of the oceans. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing and forming stars and caused the stars to group together into galaxies, so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe. Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become weaker as objects get further away. Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, more at link................... So even WIKI says GR "describes" it not as a force but spacetime curvature...still no closer though to revealing what it actually is...and as a "natural phenomenon"

No I'm not a Physicist. What needs to be noted is the fact that we near exclusively use Newtonian mechanics in all Earth based measurements and all space shots as far as I am aware. In Newtonian we treat gravity as a force and get sufficiently accurate "correct" answers to all everyday problems on Earth and even our space endeavours. We could though if we chose, use the GR concept if we like. That would give us more accurate answers, but accuracy we do not really require, and in essence a burden due to the far more complicated mathematics involved. So we just use it for those scenarios where that accuracy is required, [such as the perhelion shift of Mercury] or the lense Thirring effect of a spinning Earth. Both are models that work within their zones of applicability...