Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 41 (177339)
01-15-2005 8:23 PM


for cosmo
this is a response to cosmo from the {Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)} forum. see this link for the post in question.
EvC Forum: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
cosmo writes:
Key word there - assumed. In other words we can come up with some arranging of what we know, to try to make it fit untold light years away. It is only natural to attempt to project our little reality far out, beyond our realm.
key phrase, key to the whole concept of science in all branches: if we can derive a simple answer then we do not need to look for more complcated answers. this is Occam's razor in action, and it is universal in science.
but this isn't just making stuff up, it is working out how it fits with known processes, fits observatons, makes predictions that are born out, is reproducible by others. the brunt of science in all fields is multiple redundancy of testing and evaluation of each and every bit that goes into these theories. if you look up on actual {physics\astronomy} for the theories of the universe you will see predictions made that have not been confirmed or invalidated yet, and they are noted as such. the WMAP had some predictions on it for what the satellite would see based on the current theories (see WMAP Cosmology 101: Inflationary Universe) -- they were observed. there is also a prediction about gravity that is made based on the 'brane theory that has not been tested yet, but which will go one way if the standard model is correct and a different way if the 'brane theory is correct. It hasn't happened yet, in part because we have to wait for {a way to do the test \ a time to observe the test} -- this is normal in physics: we had to wait years to see some of Einstein's predictions be validated.
and btw -- the 'brane theory eliminates the need for dark energy and matter, at the expense of needing extra dimensions.
The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? | Space
I would say that we have two bits of evidence that we do not understand gravity properly yet:
(1) the dark stuff. this is like adding epicycles to the standard theory to make the calculations work out, somehow making the math more important than the observations ... and
(2) the total failure to detect the gravity {force\wave\particle} at the quantum level ... no gravitons in spite of many years of looking and variety of ways to look for it.
To me this is no different than saying Newton works on the planetary level, but you need relativity beyond that ... it is just saying that there is another 'shell' out there that is making the stars move the way that they do.
And it doesn't take much of a correction to make the dark stuff go away: that has already been calculated, and it compares to Einstein's constant that he first applied to keep the universe from expanding and then later rejected as unecessary. This of course has other impications.
so I have to say again, "that we really just don't know enough to say at this point."
Enjoy.
{{edited to change title}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-16-2005 13:00 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by coffee_addict, posted 01-16-2005 2:49 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 4 by simple, posted 01-17-2005 10:34 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 41 (177560)
01-16-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by coffee_addict
01-16-2005 2:49 AM


Two gravitons? New Theory?
Personally I think a new theory on gravity will come from the quantum level and involve two {graviton} particles rather than one that operate much like the {strong\weak} forces, one is much stronger and easy to measure at even solar distances, the other very weak but persistent even to vast interstellar distances.
I say this as a rather obvious conclusion, by saying that the observed motions are correct and the current theory is {wrong\inadequate}.
I would also predict that the signature of a "graviton" would be different under such a concept and would result in new experiments to find {it\them}.
NOTE TO ADMINS: if you want to convert this into a topic on gravity that will be okay with me. We can discuss a better topic title and mods to the OT in that regard if you so wish.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by coffee_addict, posted 01-16-2005 2:49 AM coffee_addict has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 41 (178009)
01-18-2005 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by simple
01-17-2005 10:34 PM


Re: for cosmo
what makes it easy for me is that I don't require any specific preconditions on the universe to fit my beliefs. A 13.5 billion year old universe is not a problem, a 4.5 billion year old earth is not a problem, the existence of life on this earth for 3.7 billion years is not a problem, and the evolution of life from a {single\group} protocell formed in a primordial soup is not a problem.
I always wonder about people who claim that they are sure that the earth and the universe are created, but they are unwilling to take the evidence of the earth and the universe to understand how it was created.
To me the physicists that say that there must be dark matter and energy because their equations don't work out to match the observed motion of large scale extra-solar structures is just as absurd as someone who claims that the universe is wrong but a book is right.
I take a more empirical approach: what don't we know, and what is the best answer so far? and if there is something that we don't know, then be up front and say it.
But enough for now, I have a big day tomorrow at work.
enjoy.
{edited to correct typos in age of earth and life on it}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*09*2005 01:30 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by simple, posted 01-17-2005 10:34 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 1:54 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 41 (178065)
01-18-2005 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by simple
01-18-2005 1:54 AM


Re: real fluctuations, sensibly priced
cosmo writes:
Interesting. Seems like dark matter on the sites I came across was pretty much 'gospel'. I may have it wrong, but I think it is one of the big things that is used to explain why the CBR should be interpreted as temperature fluctuations
"Pretty much gospel" would be appropriate, IMHO . Remember that it is called "dark" because everyone is in the dark about what it could be ... (heh). They have no clue what it could be and have not been able to find any since dark matter was first introduced. Recently they have added "dark energy" to the mix. Both of these are introduced to "correct" the observed behavior of large cosmic systems (galaxies etc) to match the calculations based on (1) the standard theory and {relativity\gravity} and (2) the calculated mass and distribution of those systems. When this concept was first introduced there was high uncertainty about (2) and so the total mass and it's distribution was "adjusted" to make observation fit calculation. As far as I know there is no theory of what dark {matter\energy} ("DM\E") is or any predictions of how to verify it or invalidate it. The introduction of dark energy is recent, and to me parallels the additions of epicycles to epicycles in the theories used to explain the motions of the earth and the stars and the planets. That too was "gospel" if you recall.
Yes the background radiation matches the predictions made by the inflation theory according to Guth, and is touted as confirmation of it. What this means is that the theory is not invalidated yet (remember that little detail?). The same pattern is also predicted by the 'brane theory, the new kid on the block. The 'brane theory also does not need DM\E to explain the grand cosmic level motion, it just needs an extra dimension or two added to the universe (meaning there are parts that we would never see).
Only makes me think even more how flimsy my opposition really is. Like shifting sand, how can they build a house that will stand?
Yep, the next time you step out of the house you might fly off into the stratosphere, because our understanding of gravity is so weak it just won't hold you down eh?
Seriously, if you think it is weak, then step in and propose a theory that accounts for the observations and is scientifically compatable with everything that the standard model or the 'brane model account for at the lesser levels of motion. Ph.D.s are waiting to hear of any new good ideas. Seriously.
As noted, there is a third possibility in the mix: that the gravity calculations are wrong and the theory of gravity needs to be adjusted. When Einstein first introduced relativity he added a "cosmic" constant so that the calculations would not produce expansion of the universe. When that expansion was observed he took it out, and considered it his biggest mistake. That same constant (on the order of magnitude anyway) added to gravity makes the DM\E go away. Add to that, the observation that no confirmation of gravity has yet been observed at the quantum level (this is where the "graviton" comes in) and you have to wonder what is more likely - gravity is by the theory or gravity is by the observation corrected (cosmic constant added) theory?
My bet is on the latter.
But how uninteresting it would have been, if Jesus, or peter, took the evidence of the earth and simply drowned, rather than walking on water!
Didn't you know? They had just eaten, and were not allowed to go swimming yet. ("Lamb, the gospel according to Biff").
Again, that assumes that is absolutely correct and not a story on the scale of many myths about (not even supernatural) heros. There are many stories about people walking on water, so if you are going to be credible your guy has to do it too. Excuse my cynicism here but this is just exactly what I meant. Personally I would put my belief in such a story on hold until more was known.
... because they feel they have jumped to the head of the cue, sort of like cheating, and do know ...
And then feel that they know enough to criticize? Kind of like "Gee I don't know anything about the bible but I can tell you exactly how and where it is wrong?" Sorry. At best you can say that you need to develop a theory that matches your concept and the observed actuality of the universe or you're just not in the science field and have no basis for criticizing science. You are the one that needs to reconcile walking on water with the physics involved, not me.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 1:54 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 2:30 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 41 (178068)
01-18-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by simple
01-18-2005 2:49 AM


when you add up all the matter and energy and gravity the total comes out to a net balance of zero. nothing.
interesting eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 2:49 AM simple has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Raymon, posted 01-18-2005 3:44 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 41 (178330)
01-18-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by JonF
01-18-2005 4:17 PM


Re: Can you give me a source for this?
Thanks JonF, you saved me some google time.
I've bookmarked your sources for future use.
I hope this helps Ramon, if not I can contact my bro (astro-physicist) for more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 01-18-2005 4:17 PM JonF has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 41 (178361)
01-18-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by simple
01-18-2005 2:30 PM


Re: up in the attic
cosmo writes:
Seems like you are searching, and feel confident you will someday find what you are looking for.
Well, I think I am more likely to find it by looking than by just waiting around drinking lattes ...
I know it seems unfair for those who put so much work into trying to figure it all out by themselves. I figure it's like two very young brothers who want something from an attic, they can't reach, and have no ladder they are near or allowed to use.
But it is not a matter of {scientists} doing it on their own, but of standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before: a solution that two kids in my experience figured out.
Very easy. Just add in the Spirits involved.
I have no problem with that as long as you clarify at this point spirits stepped in or some other form of god-done-it and ... don’t call it science. I also think it should be preceded by I don’t really know but I believe ... but that may be asking a lot eh?
Wow. I am actually surprised. I think it's great. I'll have to chew on some of this stuff for awhile.
Thanks, enjoy it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 2:30 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 12:03 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 41 (178476)
01-19-2005 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
01-19-2005 12:03 AM


Re: up in the attic
cosmo writes:
And since that is sort of the way I feel about secular science, I guess we can't progress on the philospphical, oh well,
hmm ... what happened to seek and ye shall find? this also displays a slight problem: science is not philosophy and philosophy is not science ...
... make that two slight problems: it isn't "secular science" ... it is science, the study of natural phenomena. OR, as I said on another thread:
Think about as science asking what can I understand about the {life, the universe and everything} that doesn’t require a supernatural explanation? Think about {religion\philosophy} as asking what can I understand about the {life, the universe and everything} that requires a supernatural explanation? With this viewpoint you can see that they are not necessarily in conflict but can actually be complementary.
Adding secular to science is oxymoronic. All one needs to ask is what would religious science be?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 12:03 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 5:19 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 23 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 11:00 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 41 (179165)
01-20-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Raymon
01-20-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Can you give me a source for this?
first, why massive, why not just a lot of subatomic appearances and dissappearances? does the presence of a current universe prevent the subsequent inflation of another within it?
and second, how do we know there are not a lot of spontaneous appearances already?
take the issue of dark energy and matter ... what if they are "dark" because the appearances and dissappearances are so quick that the only effects are gravitational ones? that adds up to a lot of the universe (94%?)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Raymon, posted 01-20-2005 4:57 PM Raymon has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 41 (179456)
01-21-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by simple
01-20-2005 11:00 PM


Re: up in the attic and WAY off topic ...
cosmo writes:
It's like studying about what we think is in the attic, without actually taking a peek.
No because science is about studying the evidence, turning it over in your hand and wondering what it is and how it happened. Thinking about things like shadows in a cave is more the religious\IDist mode of operation.
No need to add religion to science in the least, but there is a need to add God, as a creator, and the record He gave us.
But science is studying the record. That is all that is required to understand the record. And adding god is adding religion, it is adding something that is supernatural.
but there is a need to add God
okay we’ll add mine.
Also, some said, no mammals, none, nyet, I think at dino time (?). A few days ago, another item in the news, where a mammal was found with a tasty little dino in it's belly. No, I say science without acknowleding God, is far inferior to science that does acknowledge Him.
No, there were mammals in the age of dinosaurs, just small and unable to take over ecological niches that were filled by the dinosaurs. The first mammal is a Therapsid where the mammal jaw evolved from the reptilian one and this is set at 200 million years ago, versus the 65 million year old end of the dinosaur age.
See Update Your Browser | Facebook
Megazostrodon is widely accepted as the first mammal. It was about 10cm long. Contrary to popular belief, mammals appeared on the earth almost as long ago as dinosaurs. In fact, tiny shrew-like animals such as Megazostrodon were alive throughout the entire age of dinosaurs

also see Megazostrodontidae: Megazostrodon(click), the source of the above picture, and The Therapsid--Mammal Transitional Series (click)
We need a new definition of science, and we will get one. The old kind, will eventually only be rememered as science falsely so called.
Why don’t you start a new topic on this issue to discuss it properly? This thread is getting badly off topic as it is: not a thing on gravity.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 11:00 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 9:45 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 41 (179648)
01-22-2005 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by simple
01-22-2005 1:35 AM


Re: exactly
cosmo writes:
I asked, because things were waxing philosophical,
yeah, it is pretty easy to get dragged off into those areas, and I am as guilty as the next person for making off topic comments and getting involved in side topics: that is, after all why this particular topic was started -- it was an offshoot from the {Falsifying a young Universe} topic.
I have noted before that gravity is probably the least understood mechanism in science. The mystery of mass, the dilemma of density.
And yes it is a pretty gray area on a causal mechanism, especially at the quantum level.
maybe some room for a fresh opinion. Or not.
Lots of room for fresh ideas (as there is in any science, that is how new theories start). But for them to have value in science, they have to be able to explain observed information in a new way and lead to the development of tests to see if they are right. Pure speculation is fun, but it is 'science fiction' and not science. Opinion implies that the mind is already made up before the evidence is in, and that is not the way to move science forward ... in my opinion ...
To me the proper approach to the gravity issue is to list what is not working:
Our current theories on gravity do not explain the observed motions of large scale cosmic systems; the rotation of galaxies is to fast to match up to the calculated mass density distribution theoretical rotation.
This means that either the {combined observations of thousands of man-years and millions of telescopes etcetera} or the {model of the large scale cosmic system} or the {theory\theories of gravity} are wrong.
(1) Observations: how can they be wrong?
Now it is pretty hard to conceive of any way that the observed rotational speeds could be wrong, because that is based on Doppler shift in the visible and invisible light - across the spectrum board, and it is entirely, completely consistent with observations here on earth and with the known behavior of very well known objects - human made and launched satellites. So we can assume a very high degree of confidence in the observed rotational speeds.
Likewise it is pretty hard to conceive of any way that the observed distribution of the objects within the system is wrong, as they are based on the visual evidence, so we can assume a very high degree of confidence in the observed distribution of the objects in the system.
What about the mass of the objects? Could they in reality be greater in mass than they are ‘observed’ to be (here in quotes because we do not directly observe the mass, but calculate it based on theoretical models of objects and how they behave based on size from planet to star, to neutron star to black hole and compare those models with the observed data)? The problem here are that there are a number of threshold masses like brown stars (just not big enough to generate light, but may give off heat ... Jupiter?) and black holes (so massive that light cannot escape) and that these thresholds also match the observations: we see {borderline-not-quite-black-hole-massive} objects but not over the border black holes, and we see weak small stars and even some possible brown objects. The observed individual characteristics match the theoretical characteristics for the spectrum of massiveness that is known. We can assume a high degree of confidence in the mass of the observed objects (down one notch from very high because of it being an indirect two-step process).
This gets us to the distance between us and those objects and the distances between objects in the large scale cosmic systems. The nearer large scale cosmic systems can be measured from one side to the other by the angle they take, and this relates strictly then to the geometry of similar triangles and proportionate sizes. An angle of 1o causes a y value of 17.455 feet after an x distance of 1000 feet, double x and y also doubles. This puts these objects on a jacob’s ladder of relative {distances\widths}.
Now the distance is usually related to that red-shift-light issue, but here we have an added wrinkle to that: the near and the far sides of the large scale cosmic objects can be independently measured for distance and that can be compared to the visible angular distance to see if there are any anomalies (keeping in mind that tilt causes an elliptical appearance that can also indicate relative {near\far} distances). In particular, if the distances were significantly closer in reality than the red-shift-light issue, then the large scale cosmic systems should be skewed into very elongated near far shapes that are incompatible with elliptical shapes generated by rotated circular systems, and all such systems would be pointing in the direction of observations. This is not seen.
There are also two and three body systems, where two or three stars orbit around a common point in close proximity, some close enough to measure their angular distances, and their behavior is consistent with the gravity calculations for such simple systems and their masses and their relative distances, similar to the calculations and mass distribution of the objects in the solar system. Keep in mind that their apparent separation distance (asd) is proportional to their calculated distance and that their rotational behavior is proportional to (asd)2 so the math should stand up and shout if there were any inconsistencies here as well. Here too, observation matches theoretical behavior and the model for distances on the cosmic scale. We can assume a {moderate\high} degree of confidence in the distances of the observed objects (down one notch from high because of it being another indirect process).
I think it is fair to say that the distance and mass distribution of the universe is pretty much defined by the observations and the calculations and the stunning consistency of matching observation to calculation. So it is hard to conceive that the observations are significantly wrong, say by a factor of two (at best you will get a few percentage points imho).
(2) The Model of the {Large Scale Cosmic System}: how can it be wrong?
As noted in the concept of dark energy and dark matter, it can be missing critical elements that contribute to the behavior of the system. Also as noted, it is logical to assume that there are plenty of objects that are not {seen\observed} because they don’t have sufficient mass to become visible in any of the electromagnetic spectrums available. There could be large swatches of cosmic dust that fill the void with distributed mass, affecting the rotational calculations more as a result (it’s that d2 thing again). There could be a pervasive subatomic particle field with particles popping in and out of existence all the time, invisible to observation, but affecting the mass rotation similar to the dust, and some could be massive point size particles (according to QM anyway). It is possible that there are a lot {more\bigger} black hole systems too that would also add mass to the total system without contributing to the observed spectrum of objects. And it is possible that there is matter in an extra dimension or two that we can’t see that contributes to the behavior of the observed dimension systems.
The model is a mathematical construction built on assumptions, some of them just possibly could be wrong. ... If you know how I feel about mathematical models representing reality, then you know that I do not trust them to NOT be based on {false\inaccurate\inadequate} assumptions at some level or other regardless of how carefully they are constructed. Imho a mathematical model can tell you what is wrong but it cannot tell you what is right.
We can assume a poor degree of confidence that the model is an accurate representation of the complete reality. There is room for improvement here. Note, however that this has been on the table for many years with a lot of good minds working on the task and still coming up short, but we will get to that after we cover .... (sounds of swelling music in the background ....)
(3) The {Theory\Theories} of the Gravity: how can {it\they} be wrong?
It could be missing a component that operates at large scale cosmic distances. This is entirely consistent with the evolution of any theory or theoretical system. Note that we freely talk about how Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravity (F=GmM/d2) works within small systems (and on earth is usually reduced to F=gm, where g=GM/d2, d being the average radius of the earth, for ease of calculations well within the needs of accuracy for most effects). When we get to stellar distance scales, though, this needs to be exchanged for general relativity. It is highly likely, imho, that there is a similar process going on when we talk about large cosmic scale systems, that general relativity can adequately model stellar scale interactions, such as light bending around stars and the rotational behavior of two and three body star systems, but is missing an element when describing the motion of the {large scale cosmic systems}.
Do a google on {Einstein cosmic constant} and you get a number of interesting articles about the issue of general relativity and tweaking the system. See:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/anthol/fudge.html
for a discussion of this constant and what it would take to make it work:
Among these internal fields, there may even be ones that we haven't yet discovered. Could the cosmological constant be the fingerprint in our universe of a new 'hidden' field in Nature? This new field could affect the likelihood of our universe just as a kettle of soup may contain unknown ingredients although we can still precisely determine the kettle's mass.
A series of mathematical considerations led Hawking to deduce that the weaker the hidden field becomes, the smaller will be the value we observe for the cosmological constant, and surprisingly, the more likely will be the current geometry of the universe.
Or, as I said in another thread, a strong and a (new) weak version of gravity.
You also get articles like Object not found! that are questionable ... the value of time changes? (That would mean that the farther away, the more the time value has shifted since the light left the system and there should be a relationship between distance and anomalous behavior of {large scale cosmic systems} that just isn’t seen). But this also gets into the issue of what time is, and how does that relate to the whole concept of the universe. We assume time is constant....
But back to the gravity of the situation: problems with the standard theory is that there is no theory for what dark matter is composed of, or how dark energy works, or ways to test for them. There are some indicators that are also significant: when the pioneer 10 satellite left the solar system, it’s motion was not quite according to Hoyle ... or rather Einstein ... it was behaving as if there were {{dark stuffs}} right here in River City, (and that means trouble ...). A little close to home, eh? See:
Pioneer 10 - Wikipedia
Analysis of the radio tracking data from the Pioneer 10/11 spacecraft at distances between 20 - 70 AU from the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of an anomalous, small Doppler frequency drift. The drift can be interpreted as being due to a constant acceleration of {{ap = (8.74 +/- 1.33) x 10-8 cm/s2}} directed towards the Sun.
See also Pioneer anomaly - Wikipedia for more information.
Because wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia it is {liable\likely} to be edited as more information becomes available, and in situations like this, likely to be pretty up to date on the status of the anomalous behavior.
We can assume a poor degree of confidence that the current {theory\theories} represent an accurate picture of the complete reality. There is room for improvement here. Note, that only recently has there been any question that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, and thus there is not the {depth\breadth\density} of study in this area that there is on the model issue.
Conclusions:
(1) "That we really just don't know enough to say at this point."
(2) There is work to be done, theories to be thought, experiments to be run, things to learn. Fun times are ahead.
Does that help?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 13:31 AM
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 22:15 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 1:35 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 3:30 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 5:44 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 41 (179697)
01-22-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by simple
01-22-2005 3:30 PM


Re: grist for my mill
thanks. it did come out better than I thought at first blush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 3:30 PM simple has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 41 (179995)
01-23-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-22-2005 12:27 PM


More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
One of the thoughts that I have had recently, is that what we are seeing as quantum level fluctuations are more like oscillations back and forth in time of the probability field matrix, and this ties us to close proximity with those other "time slices" thus acting much like multiple dimensions with the added benefit of the mass distribution closely matching the viewed time instant distribution.
the ghost of universe past and the ghost of universe future acting on the ghost of universe present.
If time really is a dimension then what does it look like? Long branching strings of everything from beginning to end? Would not that affect the gravity behavior of systems if there was {mass\energy} distributed along the time axis?
I would think that would provide a means to correlate minutes to miles ...
the only problem I see is that it makes the universe pretty deterministic, already written into the future yet to be revealed.
or the time link is only into the past, and the present is expanding like a supernova ... chaotically ...
(click)
and we are riding on the tsunami wave of time
or was that the Marrakesh Express?
I'm rambling ... enjoy.
{{edited to link picture to website}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-23-2005 17:47 AM
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-23-2005 17:50 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 12:27 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by simple, posted 10-09-2005 4:15 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 10-09-2005 2:44 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 38 by Son Goku, posted 10-09-2005 3:50 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 41 (250280)
10-09-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by simple
10-09-2005 4:15 AM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
Or that the spiritual is also at work here. As things get smaller, perhaps it gets into the door between the physical and spiritual?
Or, as the buddhists say, all is illusion, the only reality is the {being that is not being}
love the new avatar.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by simple, posted 10-09-2005 4:15 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by simple, posted 10-09-2005 3:57 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 41 (250288)
10-09-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by cavediver
10-09-2005 2:44 PM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
heh.
thought you would see this when it got bumped.
now just go find me two gravity particles and were off and running eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 10-09-2005 2:44 PM cavediver has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024