Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: anti-gravity? [OT]
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 13:57:16 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <v08b7e$1kkcr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v01ii2$3tno2$1@dont-email.me>
 <1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
 <v05u24$10qfa$1@dont-email.me> <uq2d2jtk0t2lk9hte8btiuckbbtgbbfprn@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:57:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8fa3ab296f509cd23d847cdf2d9bfa28";
	logging-data="1724827"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1JOk4PI319CLjvNHFz3Nuy7LHSsyguOQPgv2Zul9D1w=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:c2m/CQovY6OX17C8dt06yxROZ3I=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <uq2d2jtk0t2lk9hte8btiuckbbtgbbfprn@4ax.com>
Bytes: 2673

On 22/04/2024 17:11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs

>> So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
>> or other relativistic effects.

+1

The trouble is that simple *wrong* answers appeal to a lot of people.
The "Einstein was wrong" brigade have been going ever since he first 
published the special theory of relativity.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/

His repost to "A hundred authors against Einstein" was that it would 
only take one iff they were actually correct. That is true of all 
science. It doesn't matter how elegant the theory is it can still be 
refuted by an experimental test where it predicts the wrong answer.

>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
> 
> Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
> Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
> 
> (That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
> world?)

Invariants of motion are a higher level version of the classical 
conservation laws that can be formulated in general relativity.

Mathematical notation is just our best way so far of ensuring accuracy, 
logical consistency and precision in our description of things.

Hand waving with "just so" stories can only get you so far. Natural 
language is far too ambiguous and flexible to be effective for science.

-- 
Martin Brown