Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AlexL

Regulars
  • Content Count

    217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

AlexL last won the day on April 23

AlexL had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About AlexL

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Switzerland
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Alex Leibovici
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    M.Sc. Physics
  • Occupation
    Retired

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Fribourg, Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

3858 profile views
  1. Oh, I see!!! Your „gravity threads theory“ wasn’t for real, you intended it as an exercise in philosophical detection! Possibly in the context of the discussion in the thread “Fundamentally, is there only ‘spacetime’?", which I did not follow...
  2. 1. I’ll begin with the most serious mistake and continue with the less serious ones. The premise of your “theory” is that the possible trajectories an object can take in free fall are in fact real. You call them “gravity threads”. In your view, an object follows a path by “attaching” itself to the “thread” corresponding to the object’s velocity. Until and unless the reality of the gravity threads is established, any speculations about details, e.g. how it would work in different circumstances, are absolutely useless. In the absence of a solid justification of your premise, your “theory” is neither true nor false, it is simply arbitrary. This essential objection was already made by MisterSwing - but you failed to comment on it, which is unfortunate... Besides, yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - at most ! 2. You did not justify the necessity of revising the classical Newtonian theory of as applied to free fall: non-concordance with observations, possible gaps in the theory and so on. In the classical theory the various trajectories are potentialities, only one will be taken in reality, depending on the initial velocity (value and direction) and the strength of the gravitational field. 3. You say nothing about how it would be possible to prove the reality of the “gravity threads”. 4. If the trajectories/“gravity threads” are real, it should be possible to observe them. For this they should interact with our senses or instruments, and thus they probably have to possess some energy. Because you postulate an infinity of such “gravity threads”, you have an obvious problem: one will need an infinite energy to create them (at least a continuum infinity of the 6-th order!!) 5. I will also mention one of the least important mistakes. You write that “in space above the Earth and within the Earth's influence, Threads all follow parabolic arcs”. This is false: even in the absence of any other force beside the Earth gravity (such as air resistance), the parabolic arcs (y=Ax+Bx2) are only approximations - namely second order approximations. Even in the ideal case, the true trajectories are (almost) never parabolas. Details – on demand. PS: wrong is also your question addressed to the audience: “What’s wrong with the theory?”. This question is wrong from the point of view of the onus of proof rule.
  3. My (preliminary) questions are perfectly legitimate, with no shade of ad hominem. Now I know that the “theory” is YOURS and I understand that what you wrote under the title “Gravity Threads - A Theory” is ALL that is about this “theory”.
  4. Again: Are YOU the author of this "theory”? This IS important for me to know, because if it is yours, then: - you obviously agree with it - and you know everything about it and should be able to answer any questions. If it is NOT yours and you are simply interested in collecting opinions about it, please specify the link where it is systematically developed - its object, motivation for a yet another theory (in addition to Newton’s), its assumptions, concepts, results, applications, etc.
  5. This "theory" is a joke, sorry. E.g. “SOMETHING out there needs to be guiding objects as they fall…” Are you the author of this "theory” ? Besides, reminds me strongly of the disastrous Theory of Elementary Waves by Lewis D. Little, enthusiastically embraced, then abandoned, by some Objectivists. It assumed that “something” is guiding particles, namely mysterious but ubiquitous “elementary waves”. So – here we go again…
  6. I see... It appears that the Kindle version was available for a short time ... There still exist traces of it - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44169225-keeping-it-real
  7. According to Amazon the book has 512 pages... And no Kindle version, only paperback...
  8. The article is very interesting and useful. There is, however, a point which could be misleading - at least, but with no impact on the rest. The author writes: [Einstein's] Special Theory of Relativity ... applies only to objects that are either at rest or are moving in a straight line at a constant speed — not accelerating or changing direction. In fact, the Special Theory of Relativity (SR) does apply to objects moving at variable velocities and on any trajectories, as does the Newtonian mechanics, of which SR is an extension for velocities comparable with the speed of light. If it were otherwise, SR would be largely useless!
  9. Keith Lockitch published on the ARI site a two part article explaining the gravitational waves: part 1 and part 2
  10. Portrait generator: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ (refresh for a new image; still some visible glitches...) Non-technical explanation: https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2019/2/15/18226005/ai-generated-fake-people-portraits-thispersondoesnotexist-stylegan https://bigtechquestion.com/2019/02/14/online/thispersondoesnotexist-com-is-this-the-most-terrifying-website-ever-created/ Technical details: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.04948.pdf
  11. Yaron Brook Reviews Mr Sunshine: see here.
  12. A 2018 South Korean TV series (Netflix). The first 1-2 episodes might be somewhat difficult to follow, but it is worth it! Warmly recommended !
  13. Here is an excerpt from Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks & White Liberals", namely its Chapter 3, The Real History of Slavery. Highly recommended !
  14. 1. If I were asked what will happen to an object which is left free to fall, I will NOT appeal to Newton’s theory of gravity. I will appeal to the recognition of the fact that an object, left free, will always fall, unless something else – another force - prevented it. This fact is itself a premise of Newton’s theory, and it would be wrong to consider it a consequence of the theory. 2. However, I will have to appeal to Newton’s theory of gravity proper in case I need to compute the speed and position at different moments in time; I will also have to make use of Newton’s theory of motion – 2nd Law. 3. Also, I won’t say that it is “very likely” that it will fall to the floor. You write: If a body of knowledge arrives at the stage of an established (vs. a tentative candidate for a) theory, its applications to specific instances is not a hypothesis any more, yet to be checked, it is a certainty (contextual, of course). 4. Indeed, a theory is used for predicting the behavior of objects, in particular in technology. One will not construct a bridge based on the theory of mechanics of materials in order to test this theory, that is to see if the bridge does or does not collapse at the end! Similarly, one does not send a mission to the Moon in order to test the various theories involved, one uses them in order to achieve the end result. Of course, human errors are possible when applying established theories.
×
×
  • Create New...