Recent content by Geo

I misused the word in the way that Nugatory explained. I would rephrase my question to that: Is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass something that is bothering the scientific community or explaining it as: "that's the way the universe works" is all we got and there is no evidence...

Anthropic reasoning is at least relevant as long as cosmology and/or string theory are relevant. Anthropic reasoning is not a metaphysical construct, is logical reasoning and as such is used in scientific papers and theories by scientists. (Witten and Susskind to mention two who at least have...

Yes i am familliar with goedels theorems and that's why i ve stated that completeness is impossible. But that is irrelevant because i didnt meant it in goedels terms. Physics as a whole is not a formal system so the word completion can be used in a way that don't have to meet goedels criteria...

In my view It is. The fact that is unachieavble doesn't matter. Tha fact that you don't get there even with infinite steps doesn't matter. Completion as an impossible state is irrelevant but the steps towards it is partly how science is built within the mathematical framework from axioms to...

My claim wasn't that completion as a state is what matters like a switch, if it was expressed that way my bad. My claim is that the hunt for completion and each step towards it is something that matters. So by saying a theory is incomplete the issue that arises is not why a theory should be...

Seeing the bigger picture and searching for it when it is possible isn't enough of a reason to do science?

It solves the problem of progress i think, if you can see a bigger part of the picture you can make better guesses that will turn out to be confirmed by experiments. And after all as Feynman may have said (or may not actually couldn't find source) "physics is like sex sure it may give some...

I should have posted on beyond the standard model or general relativity. It is just seems to me paradoxical for a theory to postulate an axiom that is subject of the microscopic and at the same time offer no bridge from the microscopic to the larger scale. Also the equivalence of inertial mass...

Doesn't the postulation of the inertial and gravitational mass equivalence suggest that GR is not a complete theory? (since it also cannot be explained as a neccessity by the anthropic principle)

As we know the universe is expanding. Could this accelerating expansion contribute or cause black hole evaporation given that the strength of the gravitational force does not depend directly on time, while the distance of two given points in space increases with time? Sorry if my approach is...