GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}

simple You have responded to the wrong person in the wrong thrad here simple. This was a website I gave you over in the general relativity thread, to which I still have not got a reply.The lack of understanding about what energy is does not apply to the gravity topic.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

simple You have any presentable evidence that there is a universe that is not physical? I do not understand your objection here. Are you disagreeing that the laws of gravity are universal? If we cannot check then why asssume? Which specific things can we not know? What more do you want to know about things? If you are not willIng to learn the language then how do you expect to understand. Add to this that the language does not have a simple translation because nature does not provide a roseta stone for this.
You can believe that there are more than one language but that does not make it so yet if you do not take the time to acquaint yourself with the language we do have then how can you expect to learn of any others? Not much, do you?No one does yet it is the single most successful theory in terms of accuracy of theoritcal prediction values to experimentaly obtained values ever. The things it shows us about the world are counter-intuitive and correct.Nature is pretty weird and the fact that you do not understand the workings of quantum mechanics is no problem but our understanding of how it operates is also dependant upon the mathematics.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

quote:

---

You seem to think that you know a great deal about how we do things.

---

Not from anything you said.
AS far as the bit about our guesses on things unknown, the math is simple there. All math gusessing the unknown is only in the mind, if it goes beyond the limits of the natural physical universe. Funny with the advanced cosmo types, like eta, and you, the attitude is so self righteous it astounds me.

quote:

---

The lack of understanding about what energy is does not apply to the gravity topic

---

Nor the lack of understanding of quantum mechanics? Nor acceleration of expansion, and why this happens, and etc? Unless you demonstrate that we do know about gravity, and why it attracts exactly, etc. then it is somewhat of an unknown, and to be grouped as such is not unapplicable.
What can you offer here to show that any deep explanation of gravity at all levels you may have is not guesses?

quote:

---

You have any presentable evidence that there is a universe that is not physical?

---

Yes, but it would take you so many years to get up to snuff to be able to begin to undestand it, you know not what you ask! Ha. Two can play at that game. The evidence that exists on earth is of a type that science is not yet able to deal with, and here, in reality, they are nowhere near up to snuff!!

quote:

---

I do not understand your objection here. Are you disagreeing that the laws of gravity are universal?

---

Well, this forum is too restricted to discuss the routine overriding of the finite universe present gravity guidelines! The question remains, however, what is the 'universe'? Is it just time and space, and what we have discovered, or is there more? They are already sensing shortcomings in present knowledge, and talking about a "new physics" on the horizon! My personal view is that the entire universe you can see, and maybe then some, is presently in a phase, or stage, that is accelerating to it's end, where a new final stage will unfold. Again, this forum is too restricted to flesh it out here. Bottom line, though is there is more than we now see, and I would call what we see the physical only universe. And yes, gravity, far as we know does cover the whole physical only universe, as a force.

quote:

---

If we cannot check then why asssume? Which specific things can we not know?

---

I was told not to perue that line of thought by the thought police.

quote:

---

What more do you want to know about things?

---

Are you kidding? What more would we want to know about a light switch than, all we do is flip it, and the light goes on?! Some want to know more than how it works.

quote:

---

You can believe that there are more than one language but that does not make it so yet if you do not take the time to acquaint yourself with the language we do have then how can you expect to learn of any others?

---

You can believe your math is the only language, that don't make it so either. Any language that takes decades to learn couldn't hold the true secrets of the universe anyhow. Sounds like those that learn it can't explain it in english, and generally don't really understand a whole lot anyhow, about a whole lot of things. No wonder they need new physics. You ain't deep, you just ain't clear!

quote:

---

No one does yet it is the single most successful theory in terms of accuracy of theoritcal prediction values to experimentaly obtained values ever. The things it shows us about the world are counter-intuitive and correct.Nature is pretty weird and the fact that you do not understand the workings of quantum mechanics is no problem but our understanding of how it operates is also dependant upon the mathematics.

---

OK, so let me get this straight. We don't understand it, nobody does. OK got it. Now, all this understanding we don't have is based on math. OK, got it.

What do you mean?
"Maths is all in the mind, if it goes beyond the physical universe?"
When do we use Math to go beyond the physical universe?Math can express what gravity is and how it works.
Whether there is a spiritual universe or not doesn't effect this. I can't explain it in English because English isn't suited to it, just like I can't express a poem in mathematics. Look, Physics is expressed in terms of mathematics, this mathematical framework called physics has experimental predicitons.
The important frameworks like General Relativity (which explains gravity) have been supported by a load of observations, which match their experimental predictions.

I think we can see that your level of maturity and willingness to learn is not up to participating in the science forums.I'll start by removing your privileges from Big Bang and Cosmology. Others will follow if needed.

There is a load of corroborating evidence for Dark Matter, this is why it is considered the leading explanation.
Take the large Magellanic clouds searches, as I mentioned earlier.

You appear to be asking a metaphysical question, and seeking a metaphysical answer.The proper answer is that science does not do metaphysics. A scientific explanation has to do with making reliable predictions.Kant said that we cannot know the world in itself. We can only know the world as it appears to us. Or, in other words, there cannot be an answer to metaphysical questions. I am inclined to think that Kant was correct.

you're kanted in that direction?

what we have is an observation that rotation of large galactic systems does not match the predicted rate of rotation that we get from the physical equations that we currently know and use.from that we have one hypothesis that this is cause by matter that we eo not know and have not seen anywhere else, matter that we call "dark matter" because like "dark africa" it is unmapped, and unknown.using observations of other galactic systems rotation does not corroborate dark matter, it corroborates the observation that the rotation of large galactic systems does not match the predicted rate of rotation that we get from the physical equations that we currently know and use.what we have is a load of observations that corroborate an anomaly exists, not what is causing the anomaly.{abe}
I also understand that most theories of dark matter involve their existence in intergalactic space rather than within, and that the pioneer anomaly refutes this position.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*14*2005 04:37 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.

The Galactic Rotation curves are what gave rise to the Dark Matter hypothesis.
The hypothesis itself has observational evidence outside of that.
Like the Large Magellanic Cloud observations. No, most Dark Matter involves MACHOS, which are definitely within Galactic space.

Which is still just more observation of the same effect. ah, so we've seen MACHOS?What you need for validation of dark matter is a prediction that is validated, not just a pile of observations that all follow the same pattern and an acronym for a new hypothetical particle for a hypothetical mass to explain a mathematical anomaly.

---

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.

No, it isn't.
If that was all the evidence nobody would support it.
Look at the lensing searches that ran from 1978-1996 and then from 1998-present.
(Although the first didn't really get going until 1983.) There is a prediction which was validated.
Again, look at the lensing searches.
And there is other evidence outside that.And,.....
(1)MACHOs are not hypothetical particles, they're baryonic,
(2)not for hypothetical mass, but baryonic mass,
(3)It isn't a mathematical anomaly.

are you saying that most dark matter is baryonic, or have I misunderstood you here?PEabe: added http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0008495This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-15-2005 02:25 AM