Yeah, which is why I’m always wary of everything you say.
Seriously James, you’re kinda putting me between a rock and hard place. If every Google hit I get tells me that yes, indeed, photons exert gravity, and you tell me they don’t, who am I supposed to believe? I’m not about to make a special trip to the local university just to talk to a professor or do research, and I’m certainly not going to start conducting experiments on photons, just to make a point on ILP (particularly to you). I only trust that if the truth is really out there–amongst the “real” scientific community you speak of–then I should at least be seeing a few Google hits about their work/discoveries, some effort on the internet to correct the misconception. So when I see none of that, I’m left with, in your words, “philosophical numbnuts” and you. And I’m not sure I should be making a distinction here.
Why should I believe you.
Ok, forget about gravity waves for a second. This theory about photons interacting and creating rest-mass, is it yours? Is it the actual theory the scientific community believes in (which you say is not that photons exert gravity)?
Are we playing the I’m-not-going-to-answer-your-question game?
Seriously, I would have accepted “It’s not black and white like that, gib,” or “I’m something else entirely, gib,” etc. if that’s the case.
Anyway, you seem like an objectivist, and you wouldn’t say that’s a lie, so I’ll continue to assume that about you.
Oh man, I expected so much worse from you. I practically gave you that one–you could have said: It’s not my fault you’re always wrong.
I prefer that. I cherish scrutiny of my acumen (although I prefer it to be reasonably self-examined).
If you can see that it is a published paper/article and you take care to not make assumptions concerning what specialized words imply (such as “having mass” = “having gravity”), you won’t find many articles that I disagree with. The greatest error in common use is merely the misunderstanding of the language along with extended false implications.
One pop-sci article that I remember talked about “The First Time Machine”. The author was merely referring to a crystal that rotated back to its original position and called that “going back in time”. Silly shit like that is very common online in pop-science sensationalism. Online forums tend to get a lot of actual physicists who never took a single philosophy course and have no idea how susceptible the field of physics is to rhetoric conflations and mind games. So now and then you will find a “real physicist” who is actually seriously misled within his own field, merely because of language issues that he never caught, yet he is the “expert”.
An example is that almost NO physicists realize that the relativity theory is merely a different language/ontology for the same thing as classical physics. It is not an issue of one being right and the other being wrong. That would be like saying that French is wrong and English is right. They both have their errors and thus both are actually “wrong”, but wrong in different ways.
Why shouldn’t you?
Actually it is only because I bother to explain as much detail as you can take … and usually more. The devil is in the details. Presumption is the seed of all sin. So try not to presume. And I will try not to mislead.
Well yes, the fact that photons interacting causes gravitational fields is mine. But still the scientific community does NOT promote the idea that photons exert gravity. I was explaining the relationship between photons and gravity - what they have to do with each other such as to behave as science reports. The nonsense that photons exert gravitational pull is merely someone of a shallow mind assuming that because photons are related to gravity and can be flooded into a container such as to cause rest-mass, that the individual photons must have a gravitational field of their own. No “real scientist” believes that regardless of sci-political alignment and would laugh or frown at anyone claiming such a thing.
Are we?
I don’t think that you realize what being an “objectivist” is, so you are not actually qualified to ask the question.
And I am pretty certain that Bigus, and now you, are referring to a “moral objectivist”, not merely an objectivist.
But my response is still the same - neither of you realize what you are talking about, so neither are qualified to ask the question (hence: “You don’t know what you are saying”).
The relation of intentionality6 to consciousness had had a semantic evolution grom Brentano to Husserl Heidegger through Merle Ponty in the continental tradituon and Russel and Frege in the positivist viennese circke traditions. Without7going into thr various moded of thinking, suffice here to say that the intentional content, or what the intention consists of is at matter here
Consciesdness can be seen as relating to an intentional act or a presrntation of re-presentation of a content of consciousness.
Some take the view that the act as a presentation is different from a re presentation , the later this re presentation implies a transcendrnt content, fir mire modern thinkets as Merle Ponte this is not the case.
So yes other minds are not excluded in ghe more recent thought, since the vlaim that the content is not divisive between the two kinds of intentionality. If this is followed, then the singular and many forms of consciousness is not a matter for discussion because tjere is a link between them in the first place
I reviewf this just know between hopping on a train, i hope its sufficient if not let me know
He sounds like he’s trying to be scrupulous in terms of being accurate in his statements, being sure to be clear on what happens to be considered proven and what is his opinion. What he says about electromagnetic radiation is that, though he doesn’t know of any direct empirical tests, he feels it is very unlikely that electromagnetic radiation would not exert a gravitational pull (otherwise “discrepancies” would have most likely shown up in CMB observations).
This sounds like if there is any reason scientists restrain themselves in saying that photons exert gravity, it’s because it technically hasn’t been proven (and only for radiant photons); but at least Crowell seems pretty confident that photons do exert gravity, so I get the impression it isn’t such a ridiculous matter that the scientific community would laugh at anyone suggesting so. Sounds like they’re expecting it to be true.
But that’s just Crowell. What’s your take on him? Is he obviously misled in your view? Is he making blatant mistakes that stand out like a soar thumb in your view? Is he one of the pop-science experts or one of the “real” experts?
He does link to this article here, which in turn links to this book here:
If you look at the book cover, it’s written by Crowell and the description below says “This is a textbook on general relativity for upper-division undergraduates majoring in physics…”
^ So would this pass as one of your “published paper/article” that you rarely disagree with?
Not bad. Not bad at all. Particularly in accounting for dark matter.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a theory of dark energy as well?
I know what objectivism is–moral objectivism is one type of objectivism, the one Biggy is most concerned with, but objectivism in general is the position that ultimate reality is objectively real, and that there are objective facts, in a way that doesn’t depend on one’s opinion or way of experiencing things.
When you say “semantic evolution”, do you mean that, in philosophy, the meanings of these terms–intentionality, consciousness–and how we understand their relation to each other have been changing over the years?
I agree with you: the intentional content is at matter here.
I think I understand: you’re saying that consciousness can be seen as being connected to the outer world directly (through its intentionality) or it could be seen as being connected to “perceptions” directly, and the outer world only indirectly (the Cartesians would have it that the perceptions actually shield us from the outer world, which leads the idealists to say perceptions are all we can rightfully claim to know). How intentionality works in the latter case is the sticky part–why some, like Searle, think it’s incoherent–what things would be related through intentionality? The self and the perception?
I have a whole other take on this myself–I’m an idealist–which we could get into if you want.
But first, did I understand you correctly?
Yeah, I’ve always found that term a bit confusing–“transcendental”–particularly the way Kant uses it. It just means “beyond perception” doesn’t it?
Not exactly sure what you mean here, but I think I get how you’re tying this back to other minds. With the view that consciousness is intentionally related to the outer world directly (what I call the “window to reality” model of consciousness), then at the very least, other people are real. Standing between us and their minds is the “problem of other minds” as they call it, but if the perception of other people could somehow involve a sense of other people’s consciousness, their being alive and awake, ready for you to engage them, then one could get away with merely positing the existence of other people’s minds without solving the other minds problem philosophically. And I think the brain does this. I think there are several neural centers involved in the perception of living, breathing, thinking beings (and not just humans) and how to react to or engage with them. I don’t think it’s just a cognitive inference, as a good Cartesian would say.
Do you think this is how most existentialists see it?
But as others have pointed out, you’re assuming experience is substantial matter/energy rather than a process or an ordering of matter/energy. I don’t see any reason at all to accept that, and several pretty good reasons not to.
If you can measure the mass of experience, or its effect on the stress-energy tensor, or its role in QEM equations, then you’ve got an argument worth having. Otherwise, you’re applying a scientific principle (conservation of mass/energy) to a subject that is totally irrelevant.
Reading guys like that is a bit annoying. His views are filled to the brim with presumption from which he ladles on speculation and often condemnation.
A) He thinks that he knows what the CMB is (he is wrong).
B) He thinks that there was an “early universe” (he is wrong).
C) He thinks that the CMB would behave differently if EM did not “gravitate” (He didn’t even know what he said).
D) You think that he said that EMR exerts gravity. That isn’t what he said.
I really don’t care what they expect. But so far, I haven’t seen anything to say that any actual scientist is expecting to find that photons exert gravity. They expect to find that photons “GRAVITATE” - “are affected by gravity”. And they would be morons to think otherwise.
No. That is a book trying to teach WHY the universe does what it does in Relativity Ontology terms (realize that “Relativity Theory” is merely a different ontology than Classical Physics. They could both be right or actually both be wrong). I was speaking of actual observation reports from statistical analysis of data. An example of one that I do disagree with would be the hubbub about CERN discovering the graviton. That was just publicity. There is no graviton as QM fantasizes one to be. Although given enough time, they will redefine what they fantasize a gravton to be into something that they can find or have found. There is far, far too much publicity in science reports merely because they long to be the new one world religion.
Sarcasm? Who do you think your are talking to? “Dark-matter” is merely a quite expected higher density affectance field, “more dense space”. It is statistically and logically required to exist. It could never be avoided. Or in Relativity terms, it is a “warp in the fabric of spacetime” (by unknown cause) unassociated with particulate mass. They don’t bother with what “fabric of spacetime” really means because it doesn’t really exist. There is no “fabric” to space. It is merely a visual prop but now is taught as ontological existence and holy truth.
The opposite of an objectivist is not a subjectivst, but a solipsist. Objectivity includes subjectivity and excludes solipsism. Solipsism includes subjectivity and excludes objectivity. Get it?
Both you and Bigus are objectivists. You both believe that there is an objective reality out there. He goes around ranting about “those evil objectivists” when he is one. What he means is “those evil moral objectivists”.
There is an objective reality out there. The fact that it can be subjectively interpreted does not compromise it as it is still objective. If you disagree with
this what about it when it was incapable of subjective interpretation because there were no subjects to observe it? It could not be anything but objective
Well, again, from my perspective, it’s just your word against his; I’m not sure who’s more credible.
Well, if we’re going to be as precise as possible, here’s what Crowell said:
“…static electromagnetic fields produce gravitational effects…”
“…if EM waves didn’t gravitate…”
So you want to split hairs between “produce gravitational effects” and “exert gravity”, and between “gravitate” and “exert gravity”, huh?
I think I see what you’re getting at, but more on that below.
D’uh, that’s because they’ve known that for quite some time–you’re not saying anything about what they think of photons exerting gravity.
Yep, that I can agree with.
Now, here’s as good a place as any other to address what I think you’re getting at: you said you were interested in “actual observation reports from statistical analysis of data.” ← the raw data itself. This is the pre-interpretation phase of a scientific experiment. The raw data tells us very little as such. One must interpret the data in order to say anything meaningful about it. In science, this usually takes the form of “the data supports my theory because…” or “the data falsifies my theory because…” and you go on to explain what the data means in your interpretation.
But when one has a competing theory, it’s tempting to bring that interpretation back to its source, back to the raw data, and say that it’s not the only way to interpret the data. If your competing theory fits the data just as well, if not better, then you can suggest, in that context, an alternative interpretation.
I think this is what you’re going on about with Crowell and the rest of the scientific community. Seeing as they’re jumping onto the “light gravitates” band wagon, which is a competing theory to your “temporary rest-mass” theory (which again, ain’t that bad ← no sarcasm), you wish to show that their theory is just one out of possibly many interpretations that fit the data more or less equally.
One could say the same of your “affectance”.
I realize that forms of subjectivity can exist in an objectivist’s world, but the way I’m using the term “subjectivist” is as one who believes reality is, at base, subjective, whereas an objectivist is one who believes reality is, at base, objective. A subjectivist is not necessarily a solipsist, though understandably this is hard to see. So long as the subjectivist believes in an extension of existence beyond his own experiences, which may be rooted in other beings’ experiences, he is not a solipsist. And just as subjectivity may exist in an objectivist’s world, objectivity may exist in a subjectivist’s world.
Some dimwit might be thinking that, but actual scientists aren’t. And nothing that you have quoted is implying otherwise. You are reading it wrong. And actually the only explanations that I have heard concerning photons migrating have been from the Relativity geeks referring to “proof that spacetime is warped” (not that photons have gravitational force - there is no gravitational force in Relativity). They know not to espouse that photons would be affected by “gravity” because that would infer that photons had rest mass, which they clearly do not have and that gravity was an actual real force, which denies the spacetime warp ontology. And nothing can exert gravitational effects unless and until it has rest mass or at least “warps the spacetime” surrounding it.
In RM:AO, a mass particle is merely a traffic jam of ultra-minuscule EM pulses, “Affectance”. That traffic jam spreads out to form what is known as a “gravitational field” because although much less dense than the particle, the surrounding region is also somewhat of a traffic clutter of affectance and retards the motion of anything passing through it (including light). The density of that field beginning from the center of the mass particle out to infinity is predictable as a derivative of what is known as the Lorentzian Function.
That retardation is what causes things to migrate toward the mass where the density is much higher. Two masses close together form a much more dense region between them and that is what is causing the masses to “attract”. There is no actual “force” involved at all. Down on the ultra-minuscule scale, there is no pushing or pulling … and certainly not extending from a photon which is merely a puff of affectance all heading in one direction.
Realize that there is actually no “raw data” stage. Even when someone is merely counting the electrons or measuring the speed of stars, they are assuming many things. But I accept what they are saying as being minimally interpreted as honest observation. They are not always seeing what they think that they are seeing. Even they acknowledge that such things happen.
True. And you seek data that could possibly prove your theory wrong (such as coming onto an internet sight with a bunch of hateful people trying to shoot you down in any possible way, sane or otherwise). When neither you nor your diehard enemies can find any such flaw, you know that you’re on the right track. But even without enemies, there is a standard for truth that dictates what can be regarded as truth and what cannot (Coherency, Comprehensiveness, and Relevance). RM:AO exactly matches that standard, whereas the others ontologies do not.
And that is exactly what RM:AO does on the most fundamental level of physics, as well as psychology, sociology, and economics.
I still don’t see anyone claiming that photons exert gravitational force.
Not at all. But one would have to listen and learn in order to know the difference. Affectance necessarily exists. There is no option for it to not exist (and I can show why). But it is not a “fabric”, it is more of merely a “stuff” or “substance” akin to what they were calling “aether”. Science never actually claimed that there was any “fabric” to space. The term was merely used as a pictorial and graphical image for explanation’s sake. It was never proposed as an actual ontological existence until recently as people merely assumed it into being.
The problem with that is that the existence and behavior of “another being” would merely be a subjective assessment to your “subjectivist” and thus anything perceived by that other being is still within the solipsist’s ontology. You are conflating the two.
Again, Bigus is talking merely about moral subjectivity, not universal subjective ontology or solipsism.
If I told you, how would you verify it? Such would imply that you actually know what you mean. :-"
This definition makes absolutely no sense in the context in which Crowell is speaking. We’re not always bound to dictionary definitions. He is clearly answering the question “Do photons create gravity?”. What would a photon (or EM waves) falling towards a source of gravity have to do with that? Furthermore, it’s a well known fact that light bends in the direction of gravity, so why would he say: if EM waves didn’t gravitate…?
First of all, that’s wrong. Rest mass is not the only thing that can create gravity; energy can too, as per E=mc^2. ← That’s how the photon does it.
Secondly, I don’t care whether we say gravity is a “force” or not. Yes, I realize that according to GR, gravity is technically not a force, and QM adherents are expecting it to be. But that’s a red herring. Unless calling it a “force” makes a real difference, you can assuming I just mean gravity, whatever it turns out to be.
Third, who are “they”? You keep talking about these “real” scientists who would never say such a ridiculous thing as “photons exert gravity” (I mean, how crazy is that?!?!). Where are they? I can’t find them on the internet. Maybe you can help me? Have any links? Sources? Or do you simply toss scientists into the “philosophical numbnuts” box when they say such things and into the “real scientist” box when they only report on the raw data and remain silent on interpreting it according to this or that theory?
I don’t get it. How does a region of space dense in affectance particles end up mimicking gravitational effects?
And I take it photons definitely do not exert gravity according to RM:AO.
^ This is how I interpret you. If you have a competing theory to explain a set of well known phenomena, you would look upon your competition as being unscientific (“pop scientists” and “philosophical numbnuts”) for they have done more than simply report on the data they have observed and measured. They have overstepped their bounds as scientists and started spewing off their theory as if it were an established fact. ← That’s definitely not scientific. No, a “real” scientist would only speak of that which he knows to be true–the observations and measurements of the raw data only–and he certainly wouldn’t say that photons exert gravity, especially when there are alternate ways to interpret the data that haven’t been ruled out, ways that do not say that photons exert gravity.
This reminds me of myself when I think about materialists and their claims that we know what causes consciousness.
That’s because you’re looking for those exact words.
Yes, I’m aware of that (although the implications that the effects of gravity can be described as if there were a fabric to spacetime that warped in the direction of the center of gravity suggests that there might be a fabric that we cannot see or touch). But in any case, to say that affectance exists is just to say that things affect other things. That doesn’t make affectance a “thing” itself. I remember we had this conversation once, and I granted you the claim that affectance can be thought of as a thing on the grounds that scientists do the same thing with spacetime. Really, it’s just an abstraction, like harmony or war or weekends–these aren’t literal things. But sometimes it’s useful to think of them as things in order to build new models of existence or things therein, and so I’m not always vehemently opposed to such a move.
No, it would not be. The truth that the other being is experiencing this or that (thereby making the reality of what he experiences dependent on that experience) is rooted in the subjectivist’s beliefs (and it may be rooted in anyone’s beliefs if they believe it), but what the other being is experiencing need not be rooted in the subjectivist’s experiences.
Quit beating around the bush. Do you or do you not think I’m a morally righteous prick?
The word “gravitate” means the same in physics as it does anywhere else (with the possible exception of your head). And please learn what the word “static” means at least in physics.
Show me where any publication uses the wording that you just used (in red), concerning photons CREATING gravity or more precisely, as you have stated it “EXERTING gravity”.
That equation merely tells of how much energy is within a mass particle. It is NOT saying that energy IS mass. Mass is a specific form of energy and anything that forms a gravity field IS a “rest mass” (and that includes “dark-matter” - which is why they called it “matter”).
“Exerting” requires a “force”. You can claim that a photon "bends (actually compresses) spacetime, but that is only true at its precise location, not at all surrounding it. The combination of crisscrossing photons can and will develop a mild traffic jam which will spread if maintained long enough. That is what a gravity field and dark-matter is - merely random ultra-minuscule EMR )aka “Affectance”) interfering with itself as it propagates through space (and in and out of mass particles).
Affectance is the “stuff” that a gravitational field is made of. Affectance is not particulate, but mass-particles are also made of that same stuff. That is why gravity is associated with mass particles. Affectance can be extremely thin, as in outer space, or it can be extremely dense, as in the form of a particle. The entire universe is made of nothing but the varied densities of affectance. Affectance is the one field that all physicality is derived from. All fields spoken of in physics are merely variations of the affectance field. And their association is very exactly defined and explained (not merely declared). And a “photon” is merely a “puff” of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction (which is why it is NOT directly associated with gravity - scrambling and randomizing must occur to form the gradient gravity field).
Yes. Wow, how did you ever derive that merely by me saying in front of you.
