Modernism v. Postmodernism, Absolute v. Relative Truth

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

A couple more that I have some contempt for but for which the descriptor “contemptible” might be over the top are…

“The Structures of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn.

Paradigm shifts might have a dramatic effect in the softer sciences but I think it misses the mark in the case of the harder sciences for which there is an irrefutable accumulation of hard evidence. The effect of this work by Kuhn which I have most often seen is an excuse to be dismissive of the findings of science.

“Process and Reality” by Alfred North Whitehead.

The aim of this work looked to me like an attempt to resurrect Plato’s idealism by making it reductionist. I found this quite repulsive.

But I confess that in both of these cases there are redeeming aspects of their work. The idea of the paradigm in Kuhn’s work is both apt and useful. And the shift of focus to process is worthy aspect of the work of Whitehead and frankly the main reason I think people have valued it.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

Not a whole lot different than this picture of gravitational lensing:

Spacetime is malleable, as shown by gravity bending spacetime and light following what is a straight line in its frame of reference.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Kendel

Terry, I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at

• Not surprising, if you think I was addressing your post.

[Terry_Sampson]

Malleable? LOL!

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Terry_Sampson

Malleable? LOL!

Then I take it you reject the basic foundations of relativity?

A crucial feature of general relativity is the concept of a curved manifold. A useful way of measuring the curvature of a manifold is with an object called the Riemann (curvature) tensor.

This tensor measures curvature by use of an affine connection by considering the effect of parallel transporting a vector between two points along two curves. The discrepancy between the results of these two parallel transport routes is essentially quantified by the Riemann tensor.
Mathematics of general relativity - Wikipedia

[Terry_Sampson]

@T_aquaticus

Then I take it you reject the basic foundations of relativity?

• I’m surprised; I thought you’d have known or figured it out a long time ago. Completely apart from that, … since when is spacetime malleable? elastic, like a rubber sheet, maybe; but malleable? Guess, I’ll have to check my dictionary or consult a wordsmith.
• Typical relativist, bury the crank in $25.00 words and figure you’ve done your duty. You’ve got the wrong crank.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Terry_Sampson

since when is spacetime malleable? elastic, like a rubber sheet, maybe; but malleable?

According to Einstein’s theory, space and time are not the immutable, rigid structures of Newton’s universe, but are united as spacetime, and together they are malleable, almost rubbery. A massive body warps spacetime, the way a bowling ball warps the surface of a trampoline. A rotating body drags spacetime a tiny bit around with it, the way a mixer blade drags a thick batter around.
Physics - Finally, results from Gravity Probe B

Another interesting find is a galaxy that can be seen 4 times due to gravitational lensing, an Einstein cross.

The four supernova images captured by Hubble appeared within a few weeks of each other in November 2014. Scientists predicted the lensed region of space would cause additional images of the supernova to appear sometime in the next five years. They found it on Dec. 11.

“We used seven different models of the cluster to calculate when and where the supernova was going to appear in the future. Remarkably, all seven models predicted approximately the same time frame.” physicist Tommaso Treu, with the University of California at Los Angeles, said in a statement.
Hubble's 'Einstein Cross' Supernova Strikes Back | Space

Due to the malleability of spacetime we can see a galaxy simultaneously at 4 points in its history.

[Terry_Sampson]

@T_aquaticus

According to Einstein’s theory, space and time are not the immutable, rigid structures of Newton’s universe, but are united as spacetime, and together they are malleable, almost rubbery.

• I’m not surprised, although I still consider “malleable” an odd choice of words to describe spacetime. What I do find odd is that a reference frame is, presumably, as malleable as spacetime, The Minkowskis typically portray them as rigid, not floppy like boiled spaghetti. But no big deal. When in Wonderland, you’re stuck with what others put on the table.
• Maybe you ought get out there and clean-up the language of other relativists instead of mansplaining relativity to me, … unless of course you’re earning travel miles for your efforts to stifle me.
  • Specifically, I have in mind the young author of An interactive Minkowski diagram / spacetime diagram who wrote:
    • “Conclusion: the travelling twin ages slower! This is of course not really a paradox: The stay-at-home twin is staying in the same inertial reference frame but the travelling twin is switching reference frames at the turn around point. This can also be seen from the fact that the worldline of the stay-at-home-twin is continuous (vertical both times) but the travelling twin has two different worldlines with - in this case - an angle of about 74o.”
    • “The traveling twin is switching reference frames” and “has two different worldlines”? In what world/spacetime?. Neat trick!
      You’re wasting your time in this thread. I’m not caving nor interested in wrestling you to the floor.

[Kendel]

I wasn’t sure. That’s why I asked.
I haven’t been able to keep up with all the directions this thrad has gone, and wanted to make sure, since it was posted to the thread, rather than as a reply to someone specific.
Sorry to have agrivated you — this time as any other.

[Kendel]

I’ve heard the titles and authors, but am not in the areas they addressed. So, it’s foreign territory. But the idea of taking what is useful from them and making use of it for other purposes appeals to me in all sorts of ways.

[Kendel]

Thank you, Terry.
There is a different matter I still hope to talk with you about privately, if you would be willing. I don’t believe I’ve been able to reach you; I have had no indication that I have been able to. If you’re willing, would you reach me via the last PM thread between us?
Thanks
Kendel