Philosophy Now Forum

Not in an absolute sense. Why? Because gravity can penetrate through any object. If the object were solid, then gravity wouldn't penetrate.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Not in an absolute sense. Why? Because gravity can penetrate through any object. If the object were solid, then gravity wouldn't penetrate.

PhilX

To a degree you are correct - not just necessarily because of the penetration of gravity - but the fact that all matter is in a continuous state of flux. However, scientists have definitions for what is solid\liquid\gas for the purpose of analysis of chemical structures within these boundaries.

I can add that a solid object doesn't change shape which contradicts SR as an object contracts in the direction it moves.

PhilX

I am quite sure that whole history (include "empty" space) is a solid. Thus gravitational field does not "penetrate" it, but forms its development, affects its condensation... (as well as electromagnetic field does). GTR is, I am afraid, devastating nonsense:(

Cerveny wrote:I am quite sure that whole history (include "empty" space) is a solid. Thus gravitational field does not "penetrate" it, but forms its development, affects its condensation... (as well as electromagnetic field does). GTR is, I am afraid, devastating nonsense:(

What are you referring to as being solid? The universe? If so, then how can the universe contain "empty" space?

Most physicists accept The General Theory of Relativity as it makes many useful predictions (including the recently discovered gravitational waves). Why do you find the theory unacceptable?

PhilX

Wrong conclusion based on a false understanding of gravity.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Cerveny wrote:I am quite sure that whole history (include "empty" space) is a solid. Thus gravitational field does not "penetrate" it, but forms its development, affects its condensation... (as well as electromagnetic field does). GTR is, I am afraid, devastating nonsense:(

What are you referring to as being solid? The universe? If so, then how can the universe contain "empty" space?

Most physicists accept The General Theory of Relativity as it makes many useful predictions (including the recently discovered gravitational waves). Why do you find the theory unacceptable?

PhilX

Empty (physical) space is just the most organised solid - the crystal. Elementary particles are certain structural defects in the (physical) space/vacuum... The Future does not exist (in our physical context) yet.
GTR really does not bring any useful advance in fact. On the contrary, its quantization is impossible, it cannot explain the motion of stars in galaxies, it cannot explain the lack of antimatter, it offers mad model (BB) of beginning of Universe...

Cerveny wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Cerveny wrote:I am quite sure that whole history (include "empty" space) is a solid. Thus gravitational field does not "penetrate" it, but forms its development, affects its condensation... (as well as electromagnetic field does). GTR is, I am afraid, devastating nonsense:(

What are you referring to as being solid? The universe? If so, then how can the universe contain "empty" space?

Most physicists accept The General Theory of Relativity as it makes many useful predictions (including the recently discovered gravitational waves). Why do you find the theory unacceptable?

PhilX

Empty (physical) space is just the most organised solid - the crystal. Elementary particles are certain structural defects in the (physical) space/vacuum... The Future does not exist (in our physical context) yet.
GTR really does not bring any useful advance in fact. On the contrary, its quantization is impossible, it cannot explain the motion of stars in galaxies, it cannot explain the lack of antimatter, it offers mad model (BB) of beginning of Universe...

And yet physicists say (or have been saying) that the Big Bang offers the best explanation on how the universe came to be, even though BB leaves open a lot of mysteries.

There are dozens of theories about the universe. Each has its pluses and minuses. I feel that our best shot at resolution are more powerful telescopes that will probe more deeply our universe and help to eliminate the theories that can't explain.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: And yet physicists say (or have been saying) that the Big Bang offers the best explanation on how the universe came to be, even though BB leaves open a lot of mysteries.
...
PhilX

...dictatorship of (physicists) proletariat;-)

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I can add that a solid object doesn't change shape which contradicts SR as an object contracts in the direction it moves.

That's not actually true. Hendrik Lorentz came up with the idea to explain the null result of Michelson-Morley, but in special relativity, it only relates to what an observer measures in a different inertial frame. It's mistaking the map for the territory.