Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[Into the Night]

All I said was that the the matter and energy of the universe behaves predictably and lawfully.

Because people wrote those laws after observing some phenomena in the Universe. Reversal fallacy.

It was you and your boyfriend ITN that started acting like ferrets in heat, and playing word games:

You can't blame your problems on anybody else, Sybil.

Humans have known for thousands of years that there is lawful design, order, and predictability underlying the universe.

There was no universe to them.
Just the stars, moving in unison as if on a crystal sphere, and the 'wanderers'...in Greek planetes...planets...and of course the Earth in the center of everything and not moving.

Aristotle knew there was a law of gravity even though he got the details wrong,

No, his theory was utterly falsified. Not the details. It was falsified by the first person that threw a rock.

and the authors of the Bible wrote about the lawful design of the universe thousands of years ago.

What 'lawful design'?

This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth."​

​

Jeremiah 33:25​

Earth is a planet. Heaven is often described as either a different planet or a parallel spirit world.
Neither is the Universe.

 

[Into the Night]

it is if you do human experimentation on the lesser races.

 

[Into the Night]

Gravity is generally agreed to be a "force" but not in the classical sense.

It is a force in the classical sense. See Classical Mechanics in physics.

We are not yet aware of any "mediator" of the force

A force does not require a 'mediator'. It simply exists.

like in most other forces (eg the photon mediating the electromagnetic force etc.)

The photon does not mediate anything. It simply exists.

and it is probably a spacetime curvature.

A particle is not a curve.

But it is still very common to refer to it as a force.

A particle is not a force. Gravity is a force.

Just look at pretty much every legitimate physics website and they will freely use the term "force".

Science is not a website, book, pamphlet, magazine, or journal.

It's perfectly reasonable to call gravity a "force"

Because it is.

but recognize that may not be like the other fundamental forces.

Who said it was?

There's a reason F=Gmm/r^2 starts with an "F".

You have NO idea how this equation came to be or why it takes the form it does, do you?

 

[Into the Night]

Okay, so you're saying me, NASA, and Einstein are wrong.... and you are correct.



The motion seen in a gravitational field is because of objects moving in geodesic paths in curved spacetime, not because some force is pushing them as in classical Newtonian mechanics.

A vector is not a curve, Sybil.

 

[IBDaMann]

gravity is not a curvature.

Correct. The math of Relativity is nonlinear, owing to the Maxim that the speed of light is the same for all observers. This caused mathematicians to begin referring to the curves involved as the "curvature" of the nonlinear system. Laymen interpreted this as empty space being "curved." The absurdity creates mystery that is too tantalizing for people like Cypress, who read that spacetime is "curved" and they simply regurgitate it without understanding it.

In case you are not aware, if you were aboard the starship Enterprise traveling at, say, 0.95 the speed of light for example, you would be in your own particular reference frame and physics applying to you would deviate from Newtonian mechanics in a non-linear way. It's that non-linear mathematical divergence that is the "curvature" of spacetime. It's just the math of the physics. It's non-linear. It's how the physics work, not how empty space is somehow "curved."

a curvature is a shape.

Spot on. Relativity should not be casually described as "curvature of spacetime." It should be described as the non-linear divergence from Newtonian Mechanics by a given reference frame.

 

[Into the Night]

Okay, so you're saying me, NASA, and Einstein are wrong.... and you are correct.

You aren't NASA. You aren't Einstein. You don't get to speak for anybody but you.

The motion seen in a gravitational field

There is no 'motion of a gravitational field', Sybil.

is because of objects moving in geodesic paths in curved spacetime, not because some force is pushing them as in classical Newtonian mechanics.

A vector is not a curve, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

What Cy is trying to say is that it is likely NOT a force in the same sense as the other fundamental forces are.

Nobody said gravity is the same as any other force, GM.

All of those are mediated by particles

A force does not require 'mediation'. It simply exists.

(the photon mediates the electromagnetic force,

The photon does not mediate anything. It simply exists.

the gluon mediates the strong nuclear force,

The gluon does not mediate anything. It simply exists.

a couple of bosons mediate the weak nuclear force).

Bosons do not mediate anything. They simply exist.

Gravity appears to be curvature of space time and doesn't have a mediator.

A force does not require a mediator. It simply exists.

But you are still correct: it is generally considered a "force".

Because that's what it is.

In fact if you look at just about any and every physics website they will call it a force. There's some newer articles out there that question the claim it is a force but they appear to be leveraging the same type of argument.

Science isn't a website, GM.

It's a force just not in the classical sense of the other fundamental forces.

It is a force in the classical sense. ALL of the fundamental forces are forces in the classical sense.

 

[Into the Night]

The strictly correct and modern conception of gravity is by Einstein's field equations,

Nope. Einstein did not falsify Newton.

not Newton's 17th century inverse square equation.

Einstein's field equation doesn't use the F symbol.

Gμν+Λgμν=κTμν

Einstein figured out that the solution to gravity was in geometry of spacetime, not in the classical forces of Newtonian mechanics.

You don't understand anything about this equation either, I see. You discard both of them.

Now, it is true that Newton's 17th century universal law

Newton never wrote anything called the Universal Law.

still gives excellent approximations,

Newton's theories have not been falsified. They are completely accurate.

as long as your not dealing with extremely high masses or extremely high speeds.

Makes no difference.

 

[Based Chad]

Correct. The math of Relativity is nonlinear, owing to the Maxim that the speed of light is the same for all observers. This caused mathematicians to begin referring to the curves involved as the "curvature" of the nonlinear system. Laymen interpreted this as empty space being "curved." The absurdity creates mystery that is too tantalizing for people like Cypress, who read that spacetime is "curved" and they simply regurgitate it without understanding it.

In case you are not aware, if you were aboard the starship Enterprise traveling at, say, 0.95 the speed of light for example, you would be in your own particular reference frame and physics applying to you would deviate from Newtonian mechanics in a non-linear way. It's that non-linear mathematical divergence that is the "curvature" of spacetime. It's just the math of the physics. It's non-linear. It's how the physics work, not how empty space is somehow "curved."


Spot on. Relativity should not be casually described as "curvature of spacetime." It should be described as the non-linear divergence from Newtonian Mechanics by a given reference frame.

I know.

the math describing the force is not the force itself.

 

[Cypress]

The first two are correct. Your third assertion is bogus. Gravity is a force, not motion. Motion, i.e. kinetic energy, is caused by classical force accelerating a mass. Relativity has something to say about the amount a body is accelerated based on its velocity, but the resulting motion is caused by classical application of a force.

You're about 50 years out of date.

Classical forces have been replaced by quantum field theory. Fields tell objects how to move, not classical forces at a distance.

The acceleration due to a gravitational field is because of the curvature of spacetime, not because there is a classical force pushing or pulling on an object.

 

[Into the Night]

Time in Ohio runs slightly differently than time does in high Earth orbit.

Nope. Time is just another vector.

That's why GPS satellites have to be programmed with relativistic corrections.

Nope. They don't. Receivers are, and only the really accurate industrial ones.

Otherwise your GPS location would incrementally incur errors and would be way off within a few hours or days.

Nope. You cannot time travel that way. As the satellite passes, the correction must also be reversed (if it's applied at all!). Most receivers don't bother to correct. +- 100ft is good enough. Due to the number of satellites in the system, accuracy is typically about +- 20 ft now horizontal, and +- 100ft vertical, using comparative signals.

There was never a promise made to you that physics would be easy.

Physics is really pretty easy. You just want to try to BS your way through your illiteracy with buzzwords.

A good basic knowledge of the framework of physics are only available to people who had some physics background in college, or those who are well read in popular science books and science journalism.

Science isn't a school, college, university, degree, license, certification, book, magazine, journal, website, pamphlet, government agency, the news service, or any other sanctification.

You routinely deny theories of science, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

C'mon, dude, this is understood by everyone. GPS involves relativistic calculations.

No, it doesn't.

Don't be an idiot. EVERYONE except you seems to know this.

You don't get to speak for everyone, GM. Omniscience fallacy.

Everyone has seen the experiment where they put an atomic clock on a jet and flew it to prove that time dilation exists.

So? GPS is not a jet aircraft and the satellites do not contain any atomic clock. They use a modified NTP.

 

[Into the Night]

Dude, c'mon, you just look like a moron when you take these "anti-science" positions. I get it. It's a game you are playing, you are playing "edge lord" today but you picked the wrong thing to be an edgelord about.

Might as well argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4. You would look exactly as intelligent.

Slow your roll, pick your battles and try to have a decent conversation. All of JPP is nothing but a cess pit and these science conversations are literally the ONLY place someone can speak for more than 2 posts without it being stupid. You always fuck up every thread you enter for the same reasons.

Sit this one out please?

Lame. Surely you can come up with insults more creative than this! Maybe not...

 

[Into the Night]

general relativity has no bearing on telemetry calculations.

Telemetry isn't a calculation.

 

[Based Chad]

Telemetry isn't a calculation.

and has nothing to do with general relativity.

 

[IBDaMann]

Gravity is generally agreed to be a "force" but not in the classical sense.

There is no such thing as "general agreement" or "consensus" in science. Gravity is a force in the classical sense. Relativity adds non-linear relationships to keep the speed of light the same to all observers. This means that forces accelerate masses per Newton's model but modified per Einstein's corrections derived from the reference frame.

We are not yet aware of any "mediator" of the force like in most other forces (eg the photon mediating the electromagnetic force etc.)

There is no such thing as a "force mediator" except as a purely fabricated construct to make the math of unknown systems "work out." Otherwise, no "force mediator" has ever been demonstrated, only conveniently "invented."

and it is probably a spacetime curvature.

Nope.

But it is still very common to refer to it as a force.

All forces, to include gravity, are still referred to as forces.

Just look at pretty much every legitimate physics website

Nope. Only look at Relativity. Anything that disagrees with Relativity is erroneous.

and they will freely use the term "force".

If they do, then good on them.

It's perfectly reasonable to call gravity a "force"

... because it is.

but recognize that may not be like the other fundamental forces.

It accelerates masses just like every other force. Verify for yourself. Drop something.

There's a reason F=Gmm/r^2 starts with an "F".

Correct. Note: the correct equation is F=Gm1m2/d^2

 

[Into the Night]

So, a lot of words, but simply no refutation of three summary points I made:

The behavior of matter and energy are lawful and predictable​

Because people wrote the law.

The fact that gravity is understood to be lawful and predictable has been known at least since Aristotle.​

Aristotle's gravity theory was falsified as soon as someone threw a rock. He had no concept of how gravity behaved.

Gravity is motion caused by curvature/geometry of spacetime, not by any classical force.​

A vector is not a curve.

Chanting your same old nonsense will get you nowhere, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Good thing you're not an engineer tasked with designing and maintaining satellites.

Both special relativity and general relativity have to be taken account of in GPS satellites because of time dilation due to motion and time dilation due to gravity.

Nope. The satellites orbit just fine without any such calculations.
Time dilation is not due to gravity.
There is no such thing as 'motion dilation'.

 

[Into the Night]

and has nothing to do with general relativity.

Correct.

 

[Into the Night]

I know.

the math describing the force is not the force itself.

Quite right.