Is gravity an emergent phenomenon?

[alt]

Cahill is not a scientist.

Lol .. Is that it ? Who said elsewhere of another contributor ..

"an incredibly empty statement lacking important, key elements" ?

You could have as easily inferred I used the term in a broad sense, befitting the following fine definitions;

thefreedictionary.com
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods

Wordweb;
A person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences

World English Dictionary
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods

Dictionary.com
an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.

Wikipedia
A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.

 

[zhermes]

Who said elsewhere of another contributor ..

I certainly appreciate the detective work; I was trying to imply an obvious finality to the statement. I still can't say I understand why it even needs to be backed.

[/U]a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods

All of your definitions here are just tautologies, effectively: 'a scientist is an 'ist' of science'.
The key is that what Cahill does, is far from science. Ignoring all evidence in desperate reaches for overly forced explanations is a far cry from any type of scientific method. Every one of his ideas is systematically built on conjecture and---I'd dare say---a personal desire for a particular solution, instead of physical motivation.

But, as you already pointed out, this is flimsy and subjective. More objective is that most of his work isn't rigorously (if at all) peer-reviewed. In just about all of his 'articles' his only citations are to his other articles. He never has coauthors who behave any differently. He never has a single shred of empirical evidence to motivate his standpoint as apposed to a simpler, more accepted explanation. (While 'accepted' doesn't mean correct, Occam's razor suggests that he needs to work a little harder when he's fighting against 'accepted'--he doesn't).

A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.
[/I]

Cahill, in my opinion, is in no way searching for knowledge. Often, on physicsforums (e.g.), people post wild ideas to explain already solved problems. They're not looking for 'knowledge', they're looking for gratification. Cahill does the same, on a larger scale. Instead of learning the 'knowledge' of science, he attempts to fabricate it. What Reginald T. Cahill does is an insult to ever true scientist, or person who authentically strives to be a scientist, out there.

 

[alt]

I certainly appreciate the detective work; I was trying to imply an obvious finality to the statement. I still can't say I understand why it even needs to be backed.


All of your definitions here are just tautologies, effectively: 'a scientist is an 'ist' of science'.
The key is that what Cahill does, is far from science. Ignoring all evidence in desperate reaches for overly forced explanations is a far cry from any type of scientific method. Every one of his ideas is systematically built on conjecture and---I'd dare say---a personal desire for a particular solution, instead of physical motivation.

But, as you already pointed out, this is flimsy and subjective. More objective is that most of his work isn't rigorously (if at all) peer-reviewed. In just about all of his 'articles' his only citations are to his other articles. He never has coauthors who behave any differently. He never has a single shred of empirical evidence to motivate his standpoint as apposed to a simpler, more accepted explanation. (While 'accepted' doesn't mean correct, Occam's razor suggests that he needs to work a little harder when he's fighting against 'accepted'--he doesn't).


Cahill, in my opinion, is in no way searching for knowledge. Often, on physicsforums (e.g.), people post wild ideas to explain already solved problems. They're not looking for 'knowledge', they're looking for gratification. Cahill does the same, on a larger scale. Instead of learning the 'knowledge' of science, he attempts to fabricate it. What Reginald T. Cahill does is an insult to ever true scientist, or person who authentically strives to be a scientist, out there.

Detective work ? Hardly. I frequent that forum more than any other.

I disagree a great deal with your last paragraph, but am hardly in a position to try to defend RTC. As you say, much is subjective.

 

[baywax]

Is all that we can observe/calculate and imagine emergent?

 

[Feullieton]

Is all that we can observe/calculate and imagine emergent?

I guess the question here is about the correct way of talking about physical properties.

In the age of alchemy they didn't refer to formulas of chemical reacions, instead is was all about the reaction and how it appears to us. When we use formulas, we say that what appears as chemical reaction is actually emerging from more fundamental interactions of molecules. We write these interactions as chemical formulas. Still, the first thing we know is the apearance - that what we observe.
In general science goes like this: after we have made observation, we propose our hypothesis. Then using our hypothesis we calculate to predict further observations and observe again to test that. If all goes as planed and predictions succeed, we have developed a theory, which states law. And now we say: our observable phenomena is emerging from this law, which we call law of nature.

So referring to our general thread question, gravity is emergent as far as we are working with consistent theory which derrives gravity from more fundamental phenomena.

My personal point of view is that gravity as emergent phenomena is a road worth pursuing. We have spent too much time stuck with two inconsistent theories of nature, without any good success making sense out of it. So unless they find graviton particle, it would be favourable to see consistent and rigorous research in gravity emerging from universe entropy or quantum statistics.

 

[baywax]

I guess the question here is about the correct way of talking about physical properties.

In the age of alchemy they didn't refer to formulas of chemical reacions, instead is was all about the reaction and how it appears to us. When we use formulas, we say that what appears as chemical reaction is actually emerging from more fundamental interactions of molecules. We write these interactions as chemical formulas. Still, the first thing we know is the apearance - that what we observe.
In general science goes like this: after we have made observation, we propose our hypothesis. Then using our hypothesis we calculate to predict further observations and observe again to test that. If all goes as planed and predictions succeed, we have developed a theory, which states law. And now we say: our observable phenomena is emerging from this law, which we call law of nature.

So referring to our general thread question, gravity is emergent as far as we are working with consistent theory which derrives gravity from more fundamental phenomena.

My personal point of view is that gravity as emergent phenomena is a road worth pursuing. We have spent too much time stuck with two inconsistent theories of nature, without any good success making sense out of it. So unless they find graviton particle, it would be favourable to see consistent and rigorous research in gravity emerging from universe entropy or quantum statistics.

Very interesting! My understanding of the unit "graviton" is that it is just that, a unit of measurement designed to make the study of the phenomenon gravity easier. This is much the same as the unit "photon".

 

[Feullieton]

Very interesting! My understanding of the unit "graviton" is that it is just that, a unit of measurement designed to make the study of the phenomenon gravity easier. This is much the same as the unit "photon".

I just might want to note that your statement of graviton being unit of measurement is not quite correct if regarded as statement about nature. What you might have wanted to say or state is statement about our method - that notion of graviton is a means to measure certain physical property. Technically it is not quite correct either - for if we stay in the realm of those theories (that state the existence of graviton) we have to recognize how this notion is used in particular theory - and it is not used as measurement unit - the measurement unit stays unit of mass - kilogram or whatever fancy mass unit they use (electronvolt/c^2).
Graviton and photon is that which is measured and therefore observed. They are the physical property itself.

Correct understanding of what we know and are able to know is very important!