Gravity Threads are Real

Science & Technology Physics and Mathematics
21

5 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Again the point is not who is the author of the theory or whether anyone believes it but whether and why it is valid or invalid.

Well, the provenance of a theory helps a lot. It helps to trace where the ideas come from, which people influenced its development, and how much theoretical development it has gone through. I agree, knowing why something is invalid is important. But it is much easier to evaluate someone’s reasoning if they can discuss their inspirations and foundations. And even to think about how much evidence is available. 

Just on a meta level about theories, the validity and support for any theory is improved when there are people who stand before you. But even the newest theories will in some way refer to previous thinkers. At the very least, you would be countering the claims of some theorist by addressing explicit shortcomings of another theory. Even Aristotle did that. Speaking of which, these gravity threads simply sound like a reformulation of Aristotle’s impetus idea. Certainly, Galileo made mistakes. Doesn’t mean that we have to revert back to Aristotle to talk about physics.

So, it’s not so much that what you said is invalid, it’s that it sounds way too thin when you haven’t stated any modern theories that are insufficient, or when you haven’t mentioned empirical evidence that calls previous theories into question.

22

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

The math leads to Galileo’s experiments with projectile motion, right? The parabola is therefore a relational existent between the object and its trajectory. A gravity thread represents the reification of a relational existent that has been separated from its object. Without the cannonball flying through the air, there is no objective basis for the parabola’s existence.

Why?  Isn’t it possible the Gravity Threads are real?  I mean they match exactly what the paths are…?  Isn’t it valid to conclude the paths exist as existents?  Why should one refrain from taking that next simple step… formula of the path -> real thing being the path?

23

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

So, it’s not so much that what you said is invalid, it’s that it sounds way too thin when you haven’t stated any modern theories that are insufficient, or when you haven’t mentioned empirical evidence that calls previous theories into question.

Way too thin for what? If it doesn’t fall short of the standard for validity what other standard does it fall short of?

What do you mean by “valid” if a theory can be valid but also way too thin?

Also, why should the fact that the theory does not contradict the math be seen as a flaw?  Shouldn’t consistency with existing knowledge be counted in the theory’s favour rather than it’s not calling other theory into question, counted against it?  The adds to the knowledge of how things fall by explaining why things fall by positing the existence of new things responsible for it?

What errors  of logic or errors  of conceptualization are involved here?

24

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

The basis for the involute is a spool (cylinder) from which an actual thread endpoint could be used to ‘describe’ an arc as it is unwound, shifting the ‘gravitation thread’ into a different context. It would take a pretty short portion of a parabola to superpose it on an involute and identify it as visually indistinguishable.

Math is derived from reality. And like many other concepts learned, having used them for many years without issue, the initial formation of one, two, three, is lost back in childhood, and even with the guidance of a Pat Corvini, can be difficult to reclaim a clear notion of the relationships involved, and more difficult to explain to others. As math moves beyond the measurement of straightforward counting, the ‘what’ gets harder to separate from the “how”.

Pat Corvini… interesting.  Might I suggest Robert E Knapp as well.

Neither platonic forms of platonism nor the symbolic games of nominalism leads one to an objective view of math.  One must reject tendencies toward all of concrete boundedness, rationalism (which Peikoff identifies as the most problematic of pitfalls for earnest thinkers), and subjectivism.  Understanding objectivity, is not easy… abstractions are not out there but they are about what is out there.

25

16 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Why?  Isn’t it possible the Gravity Threads are real?  I mean they match exactly what the paths are…?

To say something is possible means that you have some evidence for its existence. I don’t see any evidence for gravity threads. There is clear observational evidence of various individual falling objects creating parabolic paths through the air. And the fact that everything free falls back to Earth suggests a force coming from the Earth. But where is the evidence that Earth creates gravity threads? When I asked about this, you said it hasn’t been discovered how Earth creates them, but we know about them because of the way things move. Isn’t this arbitrary? Why not imagine projectile elves that live in every object and guide it according to elven magic, which happens to make parabolas that fit with the math? That seems just as possible as gravity threads which mysteriously emerge from the Earth.   

2 Likes
26

6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Way too thin for what? If it doesn’t fall short of the standard for validity what other standard does it fall short of?

Falls short of any modern physics.

I don’t think a thin theory is valid. Thin implies minimal explanatory power. But my focus was on thinness, because I think that is the bigger issue than simply being invalid.

The only reason to throw out a theory is if the theory does not sufficiently describe and predict reality. You would offer a new theory if the old one contradicted reality in some way, or if there literally was no other theory about the topic. Another option is to improve the old theory, by taking its weaknesses, and then improving upon those. But if you are improving a theory, you would be able to cite what you are improving.

I mean, isn’t the stuff pretty straightforward? I imagine if you have 2 degrees in physics, one of them would be a masters. 
 

 

27

32 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Falls short of any modern physics.

I don’t think a thin theory is valid. Thin implies minimal explanatory power. But my focus was on thinness, because I think that is the bigger issue than simply being invalid.

The only reason to throw out a theory is if the theory does not sufficiently describe and predict reality. You would offer a new theory if the old one contradicted reality in some way, or if there literally was no other theory about the topic. Another option is to improve the old theory, by taking its weaknesses, and then improving upon those. But if you are improving a theory, you would be able to cite what you are improving.

I mean, isn’t the stuff pretty straightforward? I imagine if you have 2 degrees in physics, one of them would be a masters. 
 

 

For clarity the purpose, and the only purpose, of my questions was to get a clear idea of what it was that you meant.

28

On 4/21/2019 at 2:18 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

What’s wrong with the theory?

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.

1 Like
29

Excellent.

Between the lot of you we have at least touched on:

  1. Reification of abstraction i.e. rationalism in the form of conflating mathematics with reality.

  2.  Distinction between unnecessary pure speculation armchair physics and observation based theorizing to resolve a necessary problem.

  3.  related to 2 that theory with no evidence nor any possibility of verification is problematic and arbitrary.

I really would have loved to see Rand’s razor mentioned as it is invaluable as an inoculation against rationalism run rampant.

To close this out I would like to invite some further comment in the abstract answering the following:

Is superfluous explanation valid, although absent evidence, absent any independently verifiable prediction, if it helps a person to grasp what’s going on?  Is reification of math or relationships between entities ever justifiable on the basis that it is easier to “see it that way”? 

IF true Gravity Threads would seem as valid as the reified space-time we hear of so often.

 

30

Also, the idea that some entity must play the role to mediate the interaction between the object and the Earth, inevitably leads to an infinite regress,  as by the same logic some mechanism (read entity)  must be required for the interactions between the Thread and the object …eg attaching means of some kind… and between the Thread and the Earth … eg spool causing the emergence of the Thread… 

at some point one should accept and be happy with an action-interaction-relationship simply being directly between two things without any further invocation of extra entities.

31

21 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Also, the idea that some entity must play the role to mediate the interaction between the object and the Earth, inevitably leads to an infinite regress,  as by the same logic some mechanism (read entity)  must be required for the interactions between the Thread and the object …eg attaching means of some kind… and between the Thread and the Earth … eg spool causing the emergence of the Thread… 

at some point one should accept and be happy with an action-interaction-relationship simply being directly between two things without any further invocation of extra entities.

Is there anything actually wrong about an infinite regress? It seems only to apply to monism, and I don’t think Oism posits a monist conception of reality. Things can be divided infinitely. Or at least, there’s no reason to say things can’t be divided infinitely in principle. If there were an absolute end, I think that would be evidence for reality being a simulation, or the existence of God. 
 

32

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…

1 Like
33

12 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

To close this out I would like to invite some further comment in the abstract answering the following:

Is superfluous explanation valid, although absent evidence, absent any independently verifiable prediction, if it helps a person to grasp what’s going on?  Is reification of math or relationships between entities ever justifiable on the basis that it is easier to “see it that way”? 

 

34

13 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Is superfluous explanation valid, although absent evidence, absent any independently verifiable prediction, if it helps a person to grasp what’s going on?  Is reification of math or relationships between entities ever justifiable on the basis that it is easier to “see it that way”? 

If a figurative or metaphorical explanation is presented as literal truth, I think that can be disastrous, on par with religious myths that people faithfully believe. But metaphor presented as such can be useful in understanding difficult concepts.

Also, I considered arguing that “gravity thread” is an anti-concept, until I realized what you were doing and that there was no real epistemological issue to fix. Even if there were, it is risky to begin by accusing someone of rationalism. I prefer addressing the cause of the conceptual error, which is the original misidentification of the existent in question.

1 Like
35

21 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

If a figurative or metaphorical explanation is presented as literal truth, I think that can be disastrous, on par with religious myths that people faithfully believe. But metaphor presented as such can be useful in understanding difficult concepts.

Also, I considered arguing that “gravity thread” is an anti-concept, until I realized what you were doing and that there was no real epistemological issue to fix. Even if there were, it is risky to begin by accusing someone of rationalism. I prefer addressing the cause of the conceptual error, which is the original misidentification of the existent in question.

True enough that the onus is on he who asserts the positive … and that the concept of Gravity Threads as real, although consistent with the math, is an arbitrary concept which also is an unnecessary and superfluous concept.  

What are your thoughts about the relationship between Rand’s Razor and Arbitrary concepts (and anti-concepts)?

36

17 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What are your thoughts about the relationship between Rand’s Razor and Arbitrary concepts (and anti-concepts)?

Perhaps we could do a new thread on this, because it’s an interesting question on its own. My initial thought is that Rand’s Razor is a tool of cognition while the arbitrary is an absence of cognition. We use the razor to identify mistakes in concept-formation, but the arbitrary is not a mistake, it’s not even trying. It’s just barfing up words without knowing their meanings. So how would you use the razor on that? At least with an anti-concept it is supposed to mean something, which makes it particularly destructive to the real concept it’s replacing. The idea of a “flat planet” is no threat to cognition, until you apply it to the shape of the Earth.     

37

On 4/21/2019 at 4:51 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Knowing THAT something is invalid is impossible until you actually know WHY it is invalid, until then you can only merely suspect that something is invalid.

This probably depends on what you mean by “invalid.” But it reminds me of the discussion about experience and logic. It’s impossible to separate the two. Logic is our method of experiencing the world. So whenever we gain some knowledge, we already have the “why” it’s true, even if we can’t fully explain it in words. Usually, even a child can give you the basic reason: “because it is.” That’s the first attempt at explaining the law of identity. Sometimes you’ll hear, “because I said so.” Then you know you have a problem on your hands.