Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Regiomontanus]

Yes there are lots of speculative consensus all around. No one knows what gravity is and how it works causally. And as long as a force cannot be explained causally, it really isn´t scientific at all.
...

Hello. While we have yet to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics - a theory of quantum gravity is one of the great unsolved mysteries in physics - we know what gravity is; it is not a "force".

Peace

 

[Regiomontanus]

Of course they did too. Where do you think the ancient spiral symbols on Rock Carvings stems from? Or the Swastika symbols turning each way? Or the churning Ying Yang symbol?

Hello. With all due respect, that is a rather silly statement . Even the advent of the telescope was not enough for us to tease out the shape of our galaxy. That had to wait until well into the 20th century (heck we did not even know it is a barred spiral until 25 years or so ago; in Sagan's version of 'Cosmos' he had it depicted wrong, not as a barred spiral, for example). Unless you think ancient cultures could carry out velocity measurements of the stars (after having determined their distance from us!) then, no, sorry there is no way for them to have known that.

Peace

 

[Native]

You just showed that I did not.

But being conflated with @Polymath257 is quite the compliment. Thank you.

Agreed to the first sentense My fault

 

[Native]

Hello. While we have yet to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics - a theory of quantum gravity is one of the great unsolved mysteries in physics - we know what gravity is; it is not a "force".

According to the definitions i Hyperphysics it certainly is - Fundamental Forces

 

[Regiomontanus]

According to the definitions i Hyperphysics it certainly is - Fundamental Forces

Hello. We can *treat* it as as force and do calculations; Newtonian mechanics is still sufficiently accurate enough to plot trajectories for probes to, say, Mars. In a similar way, the Ptolemaic system (circular motion with epicycles, etc.) actually yielded accurate enough results for what it was used for. In fact it gave results on par with the Copernican model - so you could not really decide between the two models by the results they gave. So just because we can use a theoretical device to get results does not mean it reflects how things really are.

Peace

 

[Native]

Hello. With all due respect, that is a rather silly statement . Even the advent of the telescope was not enough for us to tease out the shape of our galaxy. That had to wait until well into the 20th century (heck we did not even know it is a barred spiral until 25 years or so ago; in Sagan's version of 'Cosmos' he had it depicted wrong, not as a barred spiral, for example). Unless you think ancient cultures could carry out velocity measurements of the stars (after having determined their distance from us!) then, no, sorry there is no way for them to have known that.

With all due respect, this is a silly reply, which derives from the lack of personal spiritual experiences of cosmos.

 

[Regiomontanus]

With all due respect, this is a silly reply, which derives from the lack of personal spiritual experiences of cosmos.

Hello. So you are saying that the personal spirtual experiences of members of ancient, pre-scientific cultures enabled them to infer things, such as the structure of our galaxy (since they could not use their senses to do it and had no way of measuring things)?

Interesting!

Peace

 

[Native]

So just because we can use a theoretical device to get results does not mean it reflects how things really are.

Agreed.

And this really says it all when it comes to modern science and their cosmological ideas. In this sense "gravity" is just as theoretical force, which doesn´t exist in the real world.

But it is per consensus definition a force non the less.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes there are lots of speculative consensus all around. No one knows what gravity is and how it works causally. And as long as a force cannot be explained causally, it really isn´t scientific at all.

Simply false. Our theories of gravity *are* causal theories: we link how matter and energy curves the local spacetime, changing the geodesics that things like planets follow.

But, there is also no requirement of causality to be scientific: quantum mechanics is a non-causal scientific theory that works incredibly well.

And yes, there is also a speculative consensus of the strange and contraintuitive "Big Bang" - compared to the natural and logical knowledge in ancient cultures of an eternal circuit of formation in the Universe.

On the contrary, it is a consensus obtained by a great deal of debate, observation, and testing. That is precisely what is required of a scientific theory. Yes, the ideas are counter-intuitive. So what? They agree with observations, even when the predictions go against intuitions. The 'natural and logical knowledge of ancient cultures' was neither logical or knowledge. In most cases, it was simply false. But, given their limited abilities to observe (no telescopes, for example), that is to be expected.

 

[Native]

Hello. So you are saying that the personal spirtual experiences of members of ancient, pre-scientific cultures enabled them to infer things, such as the structure of our galaxy (since they could not use their senses to do it and had no way of measuring things)?

Oh, but they DID use their senses, but the spiritual and intuitive ones.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m just claiming that our ancestors had an overall better understanding of the formative and human conditions in the local part of the Universe. You cannot of course NOT compare observations with modern technology to the intuitive knowledge of our ancestors.

Yes, of course, you can. You can see if their ancient intuitions (not knowledge) agrees with the modern observations. And the result is that the ancients did NOT have better knowledge: they were usually just plain wrong.

Our ancestors probably called the CMB for the Primeval Waters and they surely didn´t care of its exact temperatures at all.

Such is your claim. The more likely view is that your ancestors simply didn't know about the CMBR at all. Why would they? They had no ability to detect microwaves.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, but they DID use their senses, but the spiritual and intuitive ones.

Can you demonstrate a 'spiritual' sense? Intuition is known to be absolutely wrong in most cases that go beyond the typical human experience.

These 'senses' are bunk.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Agreed.

And this really says it all when it comes to modern science and their cosmological ideas. In this sense "gravity" is just as theoretical force, which doesn´t exist in the real world.

But it is per consensus definition a force non the less.

Peace

 

[Native]

Simply false. Our theories of gravity *are* causal theories: we link how matter and energy curves the local spacetime, changing the geodesics that things like planets follow.

Fine! Show me for instants the gravity force between the Earth and the Moon, then.
Free me from the Einstein rubber lattice example of "curved spacetime" in cosmos. This is just rediculous and highly speculative.

 

[Polymath257]

Fine! Show me for instants the gravity force between the Earth and the Moon, then.
Free me from the Einstein rubber lattice example of "curved spacetime" in cosmos. This is just rediculous and highly speculative.

No, it is detailed and predictive. We can measure with high accuracy the gravitational effect of the Earth on the moon. For that matter, we can measure the gravitational effect of a mountain on a plumb.

 

[Native]

Can you demonstrate a 'spiritual' sense? Intuition is known to be absolutely wrong in most cases that go beyond the typical human experience.
These 'senses' are bunk.

I´m sure they are to you, but for those who are spiritually - or just naturally - develloped, they are real and precise.

Spiritual senses and spiritually travelling in other cosmic realms was the natural norm in ancient Shamanism as it is today for sensitive individuals who doesn´t stick their noses in textbooks all the time.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Fine! Show me for instants the gravity force between the Earth and the Moon, then.
Free me from the Einstein rubber lattice example of "curved spacetime" in cosmos. This is just rediculous and highly speculative.

Hello. I know this was not directed to me but, for what it is worth:

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment | Science Mission Directorate

And it is behind the phenomenon of gravitational lensing:

Gravitational lensing


Peace

 

[Native]

No, it is detailed and predictive. We can measure with high accuracy the gravitational effect of the Earth on the moon. For that matter, we can measure the gravitational effect of a mountain on a plumb.

At least you thought so but in fact it can be different things you really are measuring, mostly the different atmospheric pressures in these cases.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least you thought so but in fact it can be different things you really are measuring, mostly the different atmospheric pressures in these cases.

I'm curious....
Do you have links supporting this claim?

 

[ecco]

Part of your post is a quote and part is your own commentary.

What are you quoting, the ancients?

On what do you base "when heated up, a central light (Electromagnetic Force) is turned "?

On the base of the Egyptian creation myths where "a fiery light" is created when all elements came together, naming this light Amun-Ra.

I followed your link and found no reference to "fiery light". You really defeat your own arguments when you link to sites that do not support your arguments.

You also really defeat your own arguments when you skip questions like:

Part of your post is a quote and part is your own commentary.
What are you quoting, the ancients?
​

So, again, what were you quoting?