Gravity in a Nutshell is too chatty, would like something else

In summary, the conversation revolves around finding a suitable book on relativity for a project involving the evolution of the gravitational field of an object with mass. The initial book chosen, "Gravity in a Nutshell" by Zee, is deemed too chatty by the individual and they are seeking recommendations for a more concise and advanced book with explicit math examples. Suggestions such as Hartle's "Gravity" and Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry" are given, along with the reminder to consider the individual's preferred learning style. The conversation also briefly touches on the concept of relative velocity being larger than the speed of light and the potential for confusion in understanding this.
  • #36
I see, so each science has its dead bodies in the basement ;-)). Anyway, math can be very weird, particularly in view of Goedel's results, which has killed Hilbert's hope for a fully self-consistent axiomatic approach in the sense that you cannot prove the consistency of any sufficiently interesting axiomatic system within this system itself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
vanhees71 said:
I see, so each science has its dead bodies in the basement ;-)).
Yes, except that I would put it differently. I would say than any science XYZ has questions about XYZ which cannot be answered within XYZ, leading to a need for philosophy of XYZ.
 
  • #38
Hm, but than it's not science anymore. A real paradox, after all!
 
  • #39
vanhees71 said:
Hm, but than it's not science anymore. A real paradox, after all!
The real paradox is that there is no strict boundary between science and philosophy, yet most scientists think they know exactly where the boundary is.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Demystifier said:
The real paradox is that there is no strict boundary between science and philosophy, yet most scientists think they now exactly where the boundary is.
Many, if not most, would say that the boundary is precisely where the boundary of their interests is. If they are doing it, it is real science, if they are not interested, then it is useless philosphy.
 
  • Like
Likes robphy and Demystifier
  • #41
Demystifier said:
The real paradox is that there is no strict boundary between science and philosophy, yet most scientists think they know exactly where the boundary is.
I don't know it, but I clearly feel when science becomes philosophical, when I see it ;-)).
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #42
martinbn said:
Many, if not most, would say that the boundary is precisely where the boundary of their interests is. If they are doing it, it is real science, if they are not interested, then it is useless philosphy.
Or the other way: Philosophers often are interested in philosophy only and don't care about the science. What I dislike is that nevertheless they make "philosophy of science" about the science they are not intersted in! SCNR.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
461
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
16
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Back
Top