Originally posted by @deepthoughtThat is what I thought. This is why I told sonhouse a while ago that even if my theory was right it would be very difficult to prove with mathematics. I went on to say that I would have to take into account all movement from the spin of the earth at the 45th parallel where I live, the orbit of the earth around the sun, the sun moving through the galaxy, the movement of our galaxy and then there is the "background dependence" problem, how do you know how fast you are moving when you are moving relative to everything else?
A frame is a reference frame. A frame of reference is a coordinate system natural to a particular observer. A frame dependent quantity is one that is different in different reference frames. Background dependence tends to be a property of theories more than objects within them, but roughly, yes.
Is that reply to sonhouse in another thread a good example of what you are talking about?
Originally posted by @metal-brainhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/how-does-earth-move-through-space-now-we-know-on-every-scale/#2a119156861f
That is what I thought. This is why I told sonhouse a while ago that even if my theory was right it would be very difficult to prove with mathematics. I went on to say that I would have to take into account all movement from the spin of the earth at the 45th parallel where I live, the orbit of the earth around the sun, the sun moving through the galaxy, ...[text shortened]... se?
Is that reply to sonhouse in another thread a good example of what you are talking about?
We in fact DO know on the largest scales what Earth's (and the solar system and the milky way galaxy) trajectory through space actually is.
You are just a bit behind in that area.
Originally posted by @sonhouseThat is interesting but I am still skeptical. If what the link says is possible it should eliminate the problem of background dependence altogether and I doubt it does. A major complaint about string theory is that it has the background dependence problem, yet they are still committed to string theory like a religion according to many physicists.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/how-does-earth-move-through-space-now-we-know-on-every-scale/#2a119156861f
We in fact DO know on the largest scales what Earth's (and the solar system and the milky way galaxy) trajectory through space actually is.
You are just a bit behind in that area.
If background dependence stopped being a problem I must have missed that news.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainRead this book, "The trouble with physics' by Lee Smolin.
That is interesting but I am still skeptical. If what the link says is possible it should eliminate the problem of background dependence altogether and I doubt it does. A major complaint about string theory is that it has the background dependence problem, yet they are still committed to string theory like a religion according to many physicists.
If background dependence stopped being a problem I must have missed that news.
He doesn't agree with that assessment that string theory is THE theory.
Besides, most reputable scientists know full well the weaknesses of ST.
Here is the report of a convention of physicists about the issue:
https://www.google.com/search?q=How+valid+is+string+theory&rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS654US667&oq=How+valid+is+string+theory&aqs=chrome..69i57.5714j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
And this:
http://discovermagazine.com/2016/june/7-fall-and-rise-of-string-theory
Stominger thinks ST may not be the one, but may underline new physics that point to the real deal.
Originally posted by @sonhouseI read that book years ago. That is the source of my information on string theory.
Read this book, "The trouble with physics' by Lee Smolin.
He doesn't agree with that assessment that string theory is THE theory.
Besides, most reputable scientists know full well the weaknesses of ST.
Here is the report of a convention of physicists about the issue:
https://www.google.com/search?q=How+valid+is+string+theory&rlz=1C1CAFB_enUS654 ...[text shortened]... ominger thinks ST may not be the one, but may underline new physics that point to the real deal.