*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Something odd about magnets
« on: August 25, 2021, 11:30:21 PM »
This question isn’t specifically about the Flat Earth or Round Earth debate, but ties into a common argument, namely the existence of gravity. Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity. The most common alternate explanation involves a universal accelerator. However, while gravity is difficult to demonstrate due to its comparative weakness, I can give several examples of invisible forces that are observable on a small scale and lack truly complete explanations in both theories. I’m talking about magnetism and static charge. Gravity, as I said before is a comparatively weak force. This can be seen through the action of a fridge magnet- this tiny chunk of ferrous material has enough power to overcome the full gravitational force of the earth. We’re all taught how magnets supposedly work, of course- there’s a magnetic field, emitted from the magnet’s north pole to the south pole. Opposite poles attract each other, while like poles repel. This is known. What we don’t really know is how. It’s not like the opposite poles want to be together. They aren’t sentient. They have no agency, no means of moving together. There’s no visible interaction or subatomic interaction. They just, through an invisible and baffling force, move together. I’m sure there are explanations, but I challenge you to find one that doesn’t in some way involve invisible forces. So anyway. I await your answers.
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Online xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8063
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2021, 11:50:39 PM »
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.
Do they? Do you have a source for this?

There’s no visible interaction or subatomic interaction.
Incorrect. The Standard Model, accepted by most physicists for decades, explains the electromagnetic force as being carried by virtual photons. You are correct that these are invisible, but they are certainly subatomic.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2021, 08:26:47 AM »
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.
Do they? Do you have a source for this?
Isn't your Wiki the source for that? If you look up gravity in your Wiki the first page you get is the UA one

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Which starts:

Quote
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center. According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground.

There is a nod to an alternative:

Quote
However, not all Flat Earth models dismiss the theory of gravity. The Davis Model proposes that the earth is an infinite plane exerting a finite gravitational pull (g), which is consistent with Gauss's Law.

But UA is clearly presented as the prevailing one.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2767
    • View Profile
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2021, 09:31:25 AM »
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.
Do they? Do you have a source for this?

You didn't ask me, but;

YouTube is a beanfeast of Flat-Earthers who deny the existence of gravity. I can show you them if you really want me to.

For "many FEers" in the above quote, you could read "many FEers outwith this small subset at TFES"
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Online xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8063
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2021, 04:01:06 PM »
Isn't your Wiki the source for that? If you look up gravity in your Wiki the first page you get is the UA one

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
This page says nothing about an invisible force. I wasn't contesting the rejection of conventional wisdom regarding gravity, but the reason for its rejection.

For "many FEers" in the above quote, you could read "many FEers outwith this small subset at TFES"
We can't answer for FEers elsewhere. That only makes this thread even less relevant in the FET board than it already is.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13676
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2021, 05:13:26 PM »
YouTube is a beanfeast of Flat-Earthers who deny the existence of gravity.
How did you establish that they're FE'ers? Do you just take the word of anyone with a YouTube channel for granted?

For "many FEers" in the above quote, you could read "many FEers outwith this small subset at TFES"
Ah, yes, if you set aside the tiny subset of the majority of FE'ers worldwide, many of them hold a different view! Christ almighty, and you lot wonder why the world is having issues with critical thinking.

Here's a suggestion: if you want to ask those people about their alleged views, and debate their beliefs, perhaps you should consider asking them, not us? I'm not too fussed about you wasting your time on this, but you're also wasting ours, and that's not great.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2021, 05:17:49 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2021, 08:05:05 PM »
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.

Sort of.  The foundation, arguably, of the modern flat earth movement was introduced along with a general approach for studying the world - dubbed zeteticism.

Zeteticism is very similar to the traditional scientific approach but highlights a fundamental difference. In zeteticism, you strictly study what is, and endeavor to let that organically lead you to an understanding of how/why.  You try and let nature suggest the hypotheses by carefully watching/studying it.

Gravitation is perhaps the quintessential example of something that was theorized to exist without evidence for it.  Rather than allow the study of the natural world to lead US to answers, an answer was mathematically contrived and then forced upon reality.

Newton understood what he was doing at the time (invoking unscientific, philosophically unsound "magic" to solve a math problem), but subsequent students weren't taught well about it.  This is one of the reasons that he didn't even bother to feign a hypothesis for what gravitation is or how it works.  No gravitation has ever been discovered/measured - it is not known to exist except in a theoretical/mathematical context.

Many things are real AND invisible to us.  It is not the invisibility that is the issue, it is the lack of reality!

Quote
The most common alternate explanation involves a universal accelerator.

That may be the most common here, but not outside of tfes.

Quote
We’re all taught how magnets supposedly work, of course

I would argue that none of us are.  We learn some of the things they do, and some ideas for how they may possibly work.

Quote
What we don’t really know is how.

That's why they don't (and can't) teach us that! It is a similar situation with gravitation - we can spend a long time learning about the effects, but none on the cause.

Quote
I’m sure there are explanations, but I challenge you to find one that doesn’t in some way involve invisible forces. So anyway. I await your answers.

Most speculative/theoretical explanations for magnetism and gravitation involve theoretical particles/waves/entities.  Xasop mentioned one with "virtual photons".  Personally, I am a monopolist.  In any case, though magnetism is clearly not understood - it is orders of magnitude more understood (and most importantly, USEFUL!) and demonstrably real than gravitation.  Gravitation has no demonstrable reality beyond equation whatsoever, magnetism and static have boatloads of it!

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2767
    • View Profile
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2021, 10:29:41 PM »
How did you establish that they're FE'ers? Do you just take the word of anyone with a YouTube channel for granted?

If they claim to be Flat-Earthers, have a channel or a number of video titles with the words "Flat Earth" in them, and regular argue that the Earth is Flat, then what else should I take them to be?    Dog-groomers?  Telephone hygienists?

They openly state what they want to be known as, and regularly argue as such, so why would I take them for anything else?


Here's a suggestion: if you want to ask those people about their alleged views, and debate their beliefs, perhaps you should consider asking them, not us? I'm not too fussed about you wasting your time on this, but you're also wasting ours, and that's not great.

I'm not asking you anything about them. I didn't ask you or anyone else anything about them above. 

I'm already active over there. I don't need to be told whether or not I should, or want, to engage with them.

Regicide said "Many Flat Earthers", xasop asked for the source for this, and I suggested that it could be read as I stated above, that the "many" includes numbers outwith your group here. 

I didn't ask you or anyone else anything about it.


I realise full well you folks want to be seen as a breed apart from the "run-of-the-mill flat-earthers" that inhabit YouTube and other places, but you might just have to accept that in the eyes of the general populace, you're all one generic group ....
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2021, 01:26:25 AM »
Regicide, you  raise a good point about seemingly "invisible" forces being credited for this and that without any evidence of any of it.

However like Xasop said, magnetism is a force that can be observed on a sub-atomic level as being the result of atoms being attracted to one another if their charges are opposite (meaning one has electrons to share and another electrons to store)...

I personally believe Gravity is all Magnetism.   The Earth emits a negative magnetic charge and attracts objects to its surface.   Gravity measurements increase around volcanoes...  is this because theres more mass or more magnetic material?

« Last Edit: August 27, 2021, 01:29:51 AM by MetaTron »
Truth doesn't pick sides.

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2021, 01:54:59 AM »
Quote
Gravitation is perhaps the quintessential example of something that was theorized to exist without evidence for it.  Rather than allow the study of the natural world to lead US to answers, an answer was mathematically contrived and then forced upon reality.

You have the sequence of events backwards.  Einstein didn’t start with a theory of gravitation and work backwards. Special relativity contradicted Newton’s “instant action at a distance”. He developed GR as a way of reconciling that problem.  It was exactly the study of the natural world that led to GR.  And since then, all kinds of experimental evidence supports it.

*

Online xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8063
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2021, 08:55:21 AM »
However like Xasop said, magnetism is a force that can be observed on a sub-atomic level as being the result of atoms being attracted to one another if their charges are opposite (meaning one has electrons to share and another electrons to store)...
That is not what I said, nor is it correct. You seem to be confusing at least three different things. Electrons are electrically charged, not magnetically charged, and an atom has zero net electric charge by definition.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2021, 08:58:02 AM by xasop »
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2021, 04:44:34 PM »
You have the sequence of events backwards.  Einstein didn’t start with a theory of gravitation and work backwards.

You seem to be a little confused.  Newton came long before einstein, and is the one generally credited for inventing gravitation.

Quote
Special relativity contradicted Newton’s “instant action at a distance”. He developed GR as a way of reconciling that problem.  It was exactly the study of the natural world that led to GR.

I don't see it this way.  Einstein came up with relativity, in part, specifically to try and make gravitation an actual part of physics (for the first time)

Quote
And since then, all kinds of experimental evidence supports it.

You are conflating things. We are talking about gravitation, not relativity.

There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2371
    • View Profile
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2021, 05:31:37 PM »
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).

People seem to do gravitation experiments all of the time. Here's a recent one where it looks like they developed a Cavendish-like set-up using ever smaller source masses:

Measurement of Gravitational Coupling between Millimeter-Sized Masses
"Here we show gravitational coupling between two gold spheres of 1 mm radius, thereby entering the regime of sub-100 mg sources of gravity. Periodic modulation of the source mass position allows us to perform a spatial mapping of the gravitational force. Both linear and quadratic coupling are observed as a consequence of the nonlinearity of the gravitational potential. Our results extend the parameter space of gravity measurements to small single source masses and small gravitational field strengths."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.09546.pdf

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9097
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2021, 05:41:29 PM »
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).

People seem to do gravitation experiments all of the time. Here's a recent one where it looks like they developed a Cavendish-like set-up using ever smaller source masses:

Measurement of Gravitational Coupling between Millimeter-Sized Masses
"Here we show gravitational coupling between two gold spheres of 1 mm radius, thereby entering the regime of sub-100 mg sources of gravity. Periodic modulation of the source mass position allows us to perform a spatial mapping of the gravitational force. Both linear and quadratic coupling are observed as a consequence of the nonlinearity of the gravitational potential. Our results extend the parameter space of gravity measurements to small single source masses and small gravitational field strengths."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.09546.pdf

Too bad it keeps changing, invalidating the premise - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment
« Last Edit: August 27, 2021, 05:50:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2371
    • View Profile
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2021, 05:45:13 PM »
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).

People seem to do gravitation experiments all of the time. Here's a recent one where it looks like they developed a Cavendish-like set-up using ever smaller source masses:

Measurement of Gravitational Coupling between Millimeter-Sized Masses
"Here we show gravitational coupling between two gold spheres of 1 mm radius, thereby entering the regime of sub-100 mg sources of gravity. Periodic modulation of the source mass position allows us to perform a spatial mapping of the gravitational force. Both linear and quadratic coupling are observed as a consequence of the nonlinearity of the gravitational potential. Our results extend the parameter space of gravity measurements to small single source masses and small gravitational field strengths."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.09546.pdf
\

Too bad it keeps changing, invalidating the premise - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

How has it "changed" in the study referenced?

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2021, 06:18:17 PM »
However like Xasop said, magnetism is a force that can be observed on a sub-atomic level as being the result of atoms being attracted to one another if their charges are opposite (meaning one has electrons to share and another electrons to store)...
That is not what I said, nor is it correct. You seem to be confusing at least three different things. Electrons are electrically charged, not magnetically charged, and an atom has zero net electric charge by definition.

I'm sorry.  I wasn't aware of the Standard model and how it deviates from my comment above, nor of your objections to mine... I'll look into it more.. 
Truth doesn't pick sides.

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2021, 07:15:30 PM »
Quote
You seem to be a little confused.  Newton came long before einstein, and is the one generally credited for inventing gravitation.

What I meant was that Einstein didn’t set out to explain Newton’s theory or come up with some new theory.  His goal was to make what was already observed about gravity consistent with relativity.

Quote
I don't see it this way.  Einstein came up with relativity, in part, specifically to try and make gravitation an actual part of physics (for the first time)

How you see it is irrelevant.  The historical record says otherwise. There is all kinds of source material out there.  You might try reading some of it.

Newton’s gravity was already an established part of physics.  GR was Einstein’s effort to merge the theory of relativity with what was already understood about gravity...that inertial and gravitational mass were equal and that all objects fall with the same acceleration. The problem, as I mentioned before, was that instantaneous action at a distance of Newton gravity conflicted with relativity.  Remember that one of the postulates of SR is that all of the laws of physics take the same form in inertial frames.  He had already shown how thermodynamics, electrodynamics and the mechanical motion of bodies could be incorporated into relativity. GR was his effort to incorporate gravity.

Quote
You are conflating things. We are talking about gravitation, not relativity.

You can’t separate the two.  The way that Einstein incorporated gravity into relativity was to generalize special relativity, aka “general relativity”.

 
Quote
There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).


There is a rigorous definition of what gravitation is.  It is the movement of bodies consistent with spacetime curvature.  Spacetime curvature has been measured, predicted and observed to be consistent with the field equations dozens of times.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13676
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2021, 08:57:24 AM »
Lord, give me patience.

If they claim to be Flat-Earthers, have a channel or a number of video titles with the words "Flat Earth" in them, and regular argue that the Earth is Flat, then what else should I take them to be?
You seem to have this problem rather regularly. Someone says something on the Internet, you like what's been said, so you present it as verified information. You do it in politics, and you do it in RE vs FE.

The fact that someone claims to represent a certain group is hardly relevant if they actively and overtly try to undermine that group. You're not actually stupid, so you know this. You've seen it many times during political discussions - an obvious example would be "concerned Labour voters" who patiently explain why they're voting Tory on TV.

Dog-groomers?  Telephone hygienists?
Both of these options are more sensible than your current approach. A low bar, for sure, but you are improving. Let's go with "telephone hygienists" whilst you work on more accurate descriptors.

They openly state what they want to be known as, and regularly argue as such, so why would I take them for anything else?
Well, there are only two possible reasons why you would take them at face value:
  • You might be stupid. But, again, we know you aren't.
  • You might be intentionally deceptive.

So, by negation, we can see why you'd take them for something else: we know you're not stupid, so the only question is whether you choose to be deceptive. If you do, it's a double-edged sword. If you take every idiot on YouTube that said "erth flat" at some point and uphold them as "many Flat Earthers" or "most Flat Earthers" when describing general FE beliefs, then you need to be prepared for the argument to swing both ways. For example:
  • Many Round Earthers believe that a constantly accelerating body will eventually exceed the speed of light. We know this isn't the case. The Earth is therefore not round.
  • Many Round Earthers struggle to understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. How could we possibly take Round Earth seriously when many Round Earthers are quite so delusional?!
  • Many Round Earthers do not understand the difference between arguments which are backed with evidence and arguments which make them feel good. We totally, definitely, should not trust Round Earthers.

This is why your post is the pile of trash I decried it as. You took someone's misunderstanding of FET, and, rather than help them correct it, you chose to double down by pointing out that some unverified idiots somewhere said stupid things. It doesn't help the discussion, and it sure as hell doesn't help your side of the discussion. As is usually the case with you: if you have nothing useful to say, you should seriously consider the possibility of just saying nothing.

I'm not asking you anything about them. I didn't ask you or anyone else anything about them above.
Yeah, yeah, you're pretending you don't know how to parse English. "Oh noooooo I am Tumeni and what is an indefinite you? I am just soooooo lost." Get in the sea.

I'm already active over there. I don't need to be told whether or not I should, or want, to engage with them.
Congratulations. I'm sure you're doing as good a job at defending RET there as you are here.

the "run-of-the-mill flat-earthers" that inhabit YouTube and other places
You're doing it again. You're taking a handful of idiots you've found on the Internet and attempting to rebrand them as the default. I won't tolerate that - if you want to argue here, do so in good faith. If you can't bring yourself to that extremely basic baseline standard, take your hot takes to AR where they belong.

but you might just have to accept that in the eyes of the general populace, you're all one generic group ....
I don't have to accept that at all, for numerous reasons. Firstly, when you say "general populace", what you really mean is "people who reach similar conclusions to you". In neutral terms: people you find convenient to bring up right now. In less neutral terms: stupid and/or deceptive people. This is a problem you keep having - you gravitate towards arguments and people that make you warm and fuzzy inside, and you present them as if they were prominent or relevant.

Secondly, the idea that social groups have to "just accept" that people will unfairly compartmentalise people into boxes is moronic. I really shouldn't need to explain things this obvious. You're an adult, for Christ's sake.

Do Muslims have to accept that, in the eyes of the "general populace", they're all part of the same group, and therefore they just have to accept that they'll be identified as terrorists? Do Catholics just have to accept that they share a title with many prominent paedophiles? Do Labour voters just have to accept that many Labour members are anti-Semites?

No, of fucking course we don't have to accept that, and you can shove this kind of sophomoric rhetoric up your arse. Your logic is bad, and you should feel bad.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2021, 09:11:27 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2021, 04:05:58 PM »
What I meant was that Einstein didn’t set out to explain Newton’s theory or come up with some new theory.

One of the primary motives for creating relativity was to FINALLY explain/describe gravitation (for the first time in history).  Of course, due to the ongoing scourge of aether-mcarthyism the effort was a failure - but it was a major driving factor in the creation of relativity.  Newton defined the mechanism of gravitation as (the judeo-christian) god's will - this unscientific blunder (regretted by most all competent physicists for centuries by the time of einstein) had left physics in a sorry broken state ever since and was one of the things that relativity was created to fix!

Quote
How you see it is irrelevant.

Perhaps.  And perhaps how you learned it was!  History is an extremely subjective field, and requires reading multiple sources and between the lines to understand.

Quote
The historical record says otherwise.

Which one?

Quote
You might try reading some of it.

Good advice!

Quote
The problem, as I mentioned before, was that instantaneous action at a distance of Newton gravity conflicted with relativity.

Almost.  The problem, known for centuries by competent physicists since newton, is that instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" conflicted with REALITY and was anathema to physics writ-large.  It was (and still is) a MAJOR problem in physics that relativity aimed (and failed) to address.

Quote
You can’t separate the two.

On the one hand, that is exactly my point - relativity attempts to make gravitation a real/describable mechanism in physics (not chocked up to god's divine intervention, as newton concluded) for the first time in history.

On the other hand, gravitation was invoked by newton in the 1700's.  Gravitation is separate and distinct from relativity - it is generally attributed to newton.  Our discussion is about gravitation, an unscientific/religious concept that einstein attempted to fix with relativity.

Quote
There is a rigorous definition of what gravitation is.

Nope!  Never has been, and most likely never will be. There is a MAJOR difference between describing what something does/causes and describing what it is (and how it does/causes it)!

Quote
It is the movement of bodies consistent with spacetime curvature.

This is both meaningless goblety-gook and a mere description of gravity (the real phenomena we observe, and natural law millennia old).  Gravity is what gravitation DOES.  What gravitation is, and how it functions is undefined now as it was when newton first invoked it.

Quote
Spacetime curvature has been measured

Don't be silly! Space time can't even be defined, let alone measured.  Spacetime is a concept, not an actual thing in material reality that has any demonstrability/tangibility whatsoever.

Quote
predicted and observed to be consistent with the field equations dozens of times.

Again, you are conflating.  Relativity isn't at the heart of this discussion, gravitation is.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2021, 04:13:13 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: Something odd about magnets
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2021, 06:35:20 PM »
Quote
Perhaps.  And perhaps how you learned it was!  History is an extremely subjective field, and requires reading multiple sources and between the lines to understand

Luckily, we have a comprehensive record of nearly everything Einstein ever wrote or published including his own autobiography, so we don’t have to rely on third party subjectivity. 
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B081J1DV8J/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/

Maybe you can show me where in any of the things he wrote he says anything like what you claim. 

Quote
Almost.  The problem, known for centuries by competent physicists since newton, is that instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" conflicted with REALITY and was anathema to physics writ-large.  It was (and still is) a MAJOR problem in physics that relativity aimed (and failed) to address.

How can something that appears to happen in nature conflict with nature?  And it wasn’t  the “action at a distance” that conflicted with relativity.  It was the instantaneous action at a distance of Newton’s gravity. SR showed that nothing can propagate through space faster than the speed of light, including gravity. Newton assumed gravity acted instantaneously, so relativity was incompatible with that.  Relativity solved that by showing that gravity doesn't act instantaneously. 

Quote
There is a MAJOR difference between describing what something does/causes and describing what it is (and how it does/causes it)!

That’s true.  The challenge is coming up with a theory of cause is that it is consistent with the effects we perceive.  The effects of gravity that we see are that inertial and gravitational mass are the same and that neglecting air resistance, all bodies fall with the same acceleration.  Taking relativity into account and that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, the spacetime curvature theory meets all the criteria for explaining how bodies (and light) move.  That’s the mark of a viable theory, if it explains observed phenomenon as well as make accurate predictions for what we may not have yet observed. GR hits all the marks on that, at least so far.
If GR works the way we think it does, then there should be a measurable differences in how light and bodies move through space and those differences should be consistent with the field equations.  So far so far good on that point.  GR predicts motion of bodies and light perfectly, at least so far.

Also, if GR works the way we think it does., we should be able to measure the physical differences in the space itself, that determine how light and bodies move  GR is a geometric interpretation of gravity, so we should be able to find evidence of geometric differences or changes in spacetime that are consistent with what we would expect according tot he field equations.  Again, we have been able to measure those geometric differences and they are consistent with the field equations.

http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/12/27/measuring-the-curvature-of-spacetime-with-the-geodetic-effect/

Here’s a cool animation of the same thing.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/Media/Rel_gyro_expt-anima-flash.html

Spacetime curvature can also be measured by testing how the gravitational field changes as over distance.  Kind of the same way you can determine the shape of any physical object by measuring it at different points.  If all sides are equal and perpendicular you know you are dealing with a square.  If the gravitation field is weaker at higher elevations and stronger at lower, you know that the shape of the field is curved downwards.  The difference in the measurements can tell you how much it curves.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/16/ask-ethan-how-can-we-measure-the-curvature-of-gravity/?sh=54095661134f