Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)

14. Umm...matter does.

Reply to tiny elvis (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 02:06 AM

Jun 2012

This was actually worked out nearly 100 years ago.

While it's pretty obscure, you may have heard about it. It's called General Relativity and it was worked out by one of the lesser-known scientists of the 20th century--Albert Einstein.

To be fair, most physicists don't even know much general relativity or Einstein. It isn't like it won the Nobel Prize and transformed our view of the universe.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Professor Chomsky Presents a Problem for Empiricists, Positivists, Materialists [View all] tiny elvis Jun 2012 OP

I generally find myself agreeing with Chomsky struggle4progress Jun 2012 #1

Chomsky is a problem for everyone. jeepnstein Jun 2012 #2

is there a positive corollary to prof chomsky's negative argument? tiny elvis Jun 2012 #3

"The 17th century scientific revolution reached its highest peak..." Humanist_Activist Jun 2012 #4

what bends space and time into fields of influence? tiny elvis Jun 2012 #13

Umm...matter does. laconicsax Jun 2012 #14

matter, gravitation are not superior answers to the answer that god did it tiny elvis Jun 2012 #15

They are vastly superior answers. laconicsax Jun 2012 #19

Yes, they are superior muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #20

As laconix said, matter does... Humanist_Activist Jun 2012 #16

You can find the quote here; it seems to mean that forces acting at a distance are needed muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #5

I like your assessment. daaron Jun 2012 #6

Chomsky recognizes that today's science doesn't exclude action at a distance. Jim__ Jun 2012 #7

A question. eqfan592 Jun 2012 #8

Rather than give my understanding, I'll refer you to 12:20 - 13:00 of the video. Jim__ Jun 2012 #9

He talks about an artisan constructing a physical model muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #21

"For Galileo real understanding requires a mechanical model,that is a device that an artisan can ... Jim__ Jun 2012 #22

RE: intelligibility of models in modern physics. daaron Jun 2012 #23

Have you watched the video? Jim__ Jun 2012 #25

I watched the part referred to. daaron Jun 2012 #26

If you want to discuss what Chomsky said, you really need to listen to what he said. Jim__ Jun 2012 #27

Sorry. Didn't realize this was a Chomsky-only thread. Nevermind. nt daaron Jun 2012 #29

He never mentions a lowering of the standard of proof, tho. At least not in that segment or... eqfan592 Jun 2012 #32

Yes, I acknowledged that in post #22. - n/t Jim__ Jun 2012 #33

Ooops, my bad, I missed that. eqfan592 Jun 2012 #34

No problem. Jim__ Jun 2012 #35

Mysterian? skepticscott Jun 2012 #10

u da man tiny elvis Jun 2012 #12

Hm. Either Chomsky doesn't quite understand our common understanding --> daaron Jun 2012 #17

By "common understanding" Chomsky was referring to our innate capabilities. Jim__ Jun 2012 #24

I get it. I just don't get it. daaron Jun 2012 #28

They *thought* that a mechanical model demarcates what we can completely understand muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #30

I agree that any claim about the limit of our innate capacities is subjective. Jim__ Jun 2012 #31

Also Einstein tama Jun 2012 #36

Hm. Is there a point in there, somewhere? nt daaron Jun 2012 #37

good digging, ms. v tiny elvis Jun 2012 #11

'deprives it of much significance' is a subjective opinion muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #18