About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
David,
I’ve had a little time to return to your earlier point about evaluating hypotheses and grandness of vision.
You wrote: “If we are to be able to unify that which is described by our, arguably, two greatest theories (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics); or if we are to ever hope to create methods of traveling (effectively) faster than the speed of light (or, in other words, if we are to ever hope to visit any of the wondrous places in our vast universe, outside out very restricted, parochial experience in and near this rock upon which we reside), then we need thinkers that can handle a far greater range of circumstances than what we have locally.... Unfortunately, Jim, you are showing yourself to be insufficient to the task. Your "real world" is far too restricted. (I, and others, have no problem explaining all that lies within your "real world". So I most certainly don't mean that your "real world" is too "restrictive". The difference is I, and others, have a viewpoint [or viewpoints], and theories, that can extend far beyond your "real world" to encompass much more that is possible, to say nothing of that which has been, and will yet be observed within our universe.)â€
Regarding the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, if gravity is recognized as nothing more than a property of mass, rather than a force, there’s no need for unification, the task of QM becomes much simpler, and therefore more promising.
You believe you and others “have no problem explaining all that lies within [my] ‘real world’â€, yet you haven’t explained how -- if in controlled, local experiments, gravity (the noun) is nothing more than a geometric distortion of spacetime, and gravitation (the verb) is nothing more than geodesic motion in a gravitational field -- larger-scale or hypothetical gravitational phenomena become (presto) manifestations of force and energy.
Your aspirations are commendable, but sometimes one has to choose between aspiration and devotion. Am I limiting myself by insisting on building upon elementary empirical principles, or are you restraining yourself by your devotion to a flawed paradigm that could only spin fictional hypotheses? That seems to be the ultimate question between us.