Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 106 of 205 (251913)
10-15-2005 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by simple
10-14-2005 2:50 PM


Re: Guesses, alright
simple
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!!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!!
You break my heart simple. You have nothing to present and you clothe it with an attire completely inappropriate. It is not a game that science deals with but with demonstratable evidence and models. You claim that science is not able to deal with evidence which you do not present.
If you wish to present demonstratable evidence that anybody anywhere can repeat and assess for themselves then by all means quit being vague and lay the cards on the table.
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?
Just Time and Space!!? JUST TIME AND SPACE you say!? Within those two phenomena physicists of every ilk have been bleeding brain cells and investigating and refining the tools of investigation and pushing the boundaries of the mathematical models for centuries and you speak of it as though it were vacuous drivel!
Of course there is more old man, great, voluminous reams of uncharted territory but we have made astounding discoveries that are bypassed by most people. That you press upon the ground with a certain force does not surprise you and yet it is a direct consequence of Newton's Laws that we realize the Earth "pushes" back in kind. That time moves slower for people in L.A. than in Denver is an understanding gleaned from relativty yet both these things are not obvious to the "common sense" of men. What "more" do you require?
Bottom line, though is there is more than we now see, and I would call what we see the physical only universe.
You would call it that by what dint of imagination? What precisely leads you to assume there is more than this if you do not have evidence of it? You have no idea of the construct of the universe as has been revealed through rigorous application of reason and logical insight yet you claim there is more. Give it up simple and show us reasonable explanations for your position.
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.
Fine. Then to what level of understanding do you wish to go? Do you want to understand the wiring of your electrical circuits? The infrastructure of nuclear and hydroelectric generating plants and their grids? The motion of electricity in copper wire of varying gauges and under varying conditions? Or how about the emission of photons as a result of the electrons dropping from a probabilty cloud of one energy to another of lower energy? Science can answer these and far more if you are willing to delve into it. All I can say is dig in your heels and put the gray matter to work by taking the courses you require to satisfy yourself.
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!
That is absolutely correct simple. Math may not be the only language yet I do not make the claim that this is so. Beat me into submission by presenting a language that does as well or better and that others can access if they put in the effort and we will see if it stands up to scrutiny. If it fails,it fails, so what? But if it holds together logically and can point out previously unknown phenomena that we can discover by the means your language points the way towards then have at her big guy. Just make sure it is capable of describing things at least as well as what we already use.
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.
No you don't got it but not for the reason of us not understanding what is happening but that what is happening as revealed by quantum mechanics is nuts. It makes no sense. If you have an hour or four check out this site for a lecture given by an icon of the field and see if you "understand" it better than anyone else.
Page Redirection
This would be a far more reasonable stance to assume than snips at thread context that you have not properly assesed.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by simple, posted 10-14-2005 2:50 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by cavediver, posted 10-15-2005 5:36 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2005 9:18 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 112 by simple, posted 10-15-2005 7:50 PM sidelined has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 107 of 205 (251922)
10-15-2005 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by sidelined
10-15-2005 3:38 AM


Re: Guesses, alright
Just Time and Space!!? JUST TIME AND SPACE you say!? Within those two phenomena physicists of every ilk have been bleeding brain cells and investigating and refining the tools of investigation and pushing the boundaries of the mathematical models for centuries and you speak of it as though it were vacuous drivel!
Thanks Sidelined. I really do not have the patience to teach those unwiling to learn (does it show ) That is why of the two of us, my wife will always be the far more effective teacher...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by sidelined, posted 10-15-2005 3:38 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 205 (251927)
10-15-2005 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Primordial Egg
10-15-2005 2:20 AM


Re: rambling thoughts
I should have been clearer.
What I mean is that most of the Dark Matter that is searched for and found is within galactic space and most of this is M.A.C.H.O.s.
Most of the rest of Dark Matter doesn't have a definite distribution associated with it.
One thing I should point out that it is only Dark Matter that is a hypothesis to explain observational anomalies.
Dark Energy is already contained within our theories, so it isn't really something which goes against them.
The only reason the accelerating Universe came as a suprise was because lambda was always set to zero in General Relativity as an assumption.
Of course I'm not even beginning to get into Dark Energy and Inflation, which seem to be unrelated sometimes, but probably are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-15-2005 2:20 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2005 9:22 AM Son Goku has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 109 of 205 (251938)
10-15-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by sidelined
10-15-2005 3:38 AM


Re: Guesses, alright
Just Time and Space!!
simple's cosmology includes spirit. when you accept that as part of his view his comments make more sense.
he may not have mentioned it here because we (he and I) have had this discussion before.
he is also banned from this thread for a while.

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 106 by sidelined, posted 10-15-2005 3:38 AM sidelined has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 110 of 205 (251939)
10-15-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Son Goku
10-15-2005 7:48 AM


Re: rambling thoughts
... Dark Matter that is a hypothesis to explain observational anomalies.
thank you. one down.

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 108 by Son Goku, posted 10-15-2005 7:48 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Son Goku, posted 10-15-2005 9:49 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 205 (251942)
10-15-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by RAZD
10-15-2005 9:22 AM


Re: rambling thoughts
Well of course it is.
I never denied that.
However, from observational evidence, it is much more reasonable that Dark Matter is the answer rather than a modification or replacement of General Relativity.
That's what I've being saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2005 9:22 AM RAZD has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 205 (252049)
10-15-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by sidelined
10-15-2005 3:38 AM


Re: Guesses, alright
quote:
If you wish to present demonstratable evidence that anybody anywhere can repeat and assess for themselves then by all means quit being vague and lay the cards on the table
Razd answered this, no need for a broken heart. It was the type ghostbusters can't see.
quote:
Just Time and Space!!? JUST TIME AND SPACE you say!? Within those two phenomena physicists of every ilk have been bleeding brain cells and investigating and refining the tools of investigation and pushing the boundaries of the mathematical models for centuries and you speak of it as though it were vacuous drivel!
If thats all you think there is, that is no surprise.
quote:
Just Time and Space!!? JUST TIME AND SPACE you say!? Within those two phenomena physicists of every ilk have been bleeding brain cells and investigating and refining the tools of investigation and pushing the boundaries of the mathematical models for centuries and you speak of it as though it were vacuous drivel!
So an insignificant time difference, and a partial understanding of gravity is all one should or could wish for? Uderstanding more tha the average common sense of man, I would agree could be interesting.
quote:
You would call it that by what dint of imagination? What precisely leads you to assume there is more than this if you do not have evidence of it?
What makes you assume there isn't if you have no evidence about it? Dint of imagination? Why for example would some talk of a new physics needed, and coming, if the dints of the old were sufficient, I don't care how much time they spent learning them?
quote:
You have no idea of the construct of the universe as has been revealed through rigorous application of reason and logical insight yet you claim there is more.
Do we know his idea of a constuct? How would you say he has no idea?
quote:
Fine. Then to what level of understanding do you wish to go?
Perhaps he would have prefered one that is honest in it's limits, and was available in his appaently spoken tongue of english
quote:
That is absolutely correct simple. Math may not be the only language yet I do not make the claim that this is so. Beat me into submission by presenting a language that does as well or better and that others can access if they put in the effort and we will see if it stands up to scrutiny.
Since you haven't found it, or them yet, how do you know if one shoed it or them to you, you would have anything able to scrutinize it with? Apparently, this isn't the place to even mention in passing anything that would be beyond physical! I read an article, that said they now need to rethink black holes, because it seems some gave birth to stars!!!! WE don't really know where these babies are popping out from, now do we?
quote:
Just make sure it is capable of describing things at least as well as what we already use.
On that score, it seems one of the major criteria would be to come up with three words. "I don't know"!
quote:
No you don't got it but not for the reason of us not understanding what is happening but that what is happening as revealed by quantum mechanics is nuts. It makes no sense.
It makes sense to me. But I'll take a look at the link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by sidelined, posted 10-15-2005 3:38 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Son Goku, posted 10-15-2005 8:55 PM simple has replied
 Message 119 by sidelined, posted 10-16-2005 11:22 AM simple has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 205 (252055)
10-15-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by simple
10-15-2005 7:50 PM


Re: Guesses, alright
?????
So an insignificant time difference, and a partial understanding of gravity is all one should or could wish for? Uderstanding more tha the average common sense of man, I would agree could be interesting.
What do you mean by an insignificant time difference?
Perhaps he would have prefered one that is honest in it's limits, and was available in his appaently spoken tongue of english
The problem is that General Relativity is too mathematical in character to be expressed in English and it's limits aren't related to its explanation of gravity above the Planck level.
It makes sense to me.
Hmm.
Thats all I'll say.
If it's true, then every physics department in the country should have one of you.
Again, similar to simple, your comments actually make no sense in relation to what theoretical physics is about.
It's like your arguing against a persona you've constructed yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by simple, posted 10-15-2005 7:50 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by simple, posted 10-15-2005 11:05 PM Son Goku has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 205 (252074)
10-15-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Son Goku
10-15-2005 8:55 PM


Re: Guesses, alright
quote:
What do you mean by an insignificant time difference?
"That time moves slower for people in L.A. than in Denver.." I don't find this some great significant difference. Not like people in the one city will live 40 years less because of this, now is there?
quote:
The problem is that General Relativity is too mathematical in character to be expressed in English and it's limits aren't related to its explanation of gravity above the Planck level.
The limits of the theory must be the universe. "
researchers in a discipline called loop quantum gravity have devised a theory in which space is constructed from abstract mathematical objects called spin nets. ...
That is the core of the matter," Dr. Rovelli said. "They don't live somewhere. They are the quantum space-time."
The universe, in this view, is conjured up from pure mathematics. And the old idea of space and time as the stage on which everything happens no longer seems to apply.
.....
As Dr. John Baez, a theorist at the University of California at Riverside put it: "There's a lot we don't know about nothing."
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/GrainySpace.html
quote:
Again, similar to simple, your comments actually make no sense in relation to what theoretical physics is about.
I took his point more as having to do with what is beyond what we know, than about what we think we know, according to one of the theories de jour!
"The mystery of dark energy leads to many other baffling questions, requiring cosmologists to rethink fundamental notions about the nature of the universe. Some of the new ideas are downright bizarre, like the implication that the universe we see is just a tiny piece of a much more vast universe, or just one of an infinite number of bubble universes constantly being born. Will fundamental physical laws explain what processes governed the formation and composition of our universe, or reveal it to be the result of one of many possible patterns? "http://astrobulletin.amnh.org/D/1/2/
Likewise will the math matter much from before the rethink here, that some couldn't explain anyhow?
"Were there many Big Bangs, or just one? Did anything exist before the Big Bang? We don't know nor do we know whether we'll ever find out" That I think touches the limits of what was refered to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Son Goku, posted 10-15-2005 8:55 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2005 11:12 PM simple has not replied
 Message 116 by cavediver, posted 10-16-2005 7:30 AM simple has replied
 Message 117 by Son Goku, posted 10-16-2005 7:48 AM simple has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 115 of 205 (252076)
10-15-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by simple
10-15-2005 11:05 PM


Re: Guesses, alright
We don't know nor do we know whether we'll ever find out
Healthy words to say in any science when something isn't on the books.

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 114 by simple, posted 10-15-2005 11:05 PM simple has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 116 of 205 (252115)
10-16-2005 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by simple
10-15-2005 11:05 PM


Re: Guesses, alright
You know, trying to argue with a scientist about his field, using information pulled from the internet or "popular" science publications just makes one look very stupid. From where do you think this information came in the first place before it was bastardised and distorted? John's (Baez) and Carlo's (Rovelli) work is just a part of what we do (or did in my case).
I took his point more as having to do with what is beyond what we know, than about what we think we know, according to one of the theories de jour!
"The mystery of dark energy leads to many other baffling questions, requiring cosmologists to rethink fundamental notions about the nature of the universe. Some of the new ideas are downright bizarre, like the implication that the universe we see is just a tiny piece of a much more vast universe, or just one of an infinite number of bubble universes constantly being born. Will fundamental physical laws explain what processes governed the formation and composition of our universe, or reveal it to be the result of one of many possible patterns?" http://astrobulletin.amnh.org/D/1/2/
You think this stuff is new to us? Do you think that this is "bizarre" to us? This is the bread and butter of theoretical physics. There is no rethink.
Likewise will the math matter much from before the rethink here, that some couldn't explain anyhow?
Do you have any clue as to the role of maths in all of this? Your question is non-sensical until you understand what you are asking. And once again, there is no rethink from the point of view of theoretical physics.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 10-16-2005 07:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by simple, posted 10-15-2005 11:05 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by simple, posted 10-16-2005 3:09 PM cavediver has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 205 (252120)
10-16-2005 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by simple
10-15-2005 11:05 PM


Re: Guesses, alright
The limits of the theory must be the universe. "
researchers in a discipline called loop quantum gravity have devised a theory in which space is constructed from abstract mathematical objects called spin nets. ...
That is the core of the matter," Dr. Rovelli said. "They don't live somewhere. They are the quantum space-time."
The universe, in this view, is conjured up from pure mathematics. And the old idea of space and time as the stage on which everything happens no longer seems to apply.
.....
As Dr. John Baez, a theorist at the University of California at Riverside put it: "There's a lot we don't know about nothing."
http://faculty.washingt
I understand what every word in this means, but how does it really relate to the limits of General Relativity.
You've just quoted a page on LQG thinking it relates to what I said.
"There's a lot we don't know about nothing"
That is certainly true, but how does it relate to the limits of GR above the Planck level.
"That time moves slower for people in L.A. than in Denver.." I don't find this some great significant difference. Not like people in the one city will live 40 years less because of this, now is there?
That's equivilant to saying:
"This wire has a Voltage 0.05 volts more intense than this wire.
What a boring fact, therefore all of electronics is boring."
Just because a single case example is monotonous doesn't mean the theory hasn't interesting intellectual depth.
The fact that somebody who is a meter above me has a clock that ticks almost infinitesimally faster than mine, isn't that interesting to me either.
However General Relativity is one of the greatest works of human thought I've ever encountered.
I took his point more as having to do with what is beyond what we know, than about what we think we know, according to one of the theories de jour!
They're all a hundred years old, hardly "de jour".
Besides, that's all fine and well, but what we know is immense.
I don't know how much we know amounts to, compared with all there is to know, however we still know a hell of a lot.
You can point out that there is something beyond what we know, but so what?
Of course there is something beyond what we know, of course we might not be able to understand it.
However look into what we know and you'll see how much we've accomplished.
General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, tell us things about the world we couldn't have ever made up in our strangest fictions and to dismiss that knowledge because it is limited makes no sense to me.
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 10-16-2005 07:49 AM
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 10-16-2005 07:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by simple, posted 10-15-2005 11:05 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by simple, posted 10-16-2005 4:12 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 205 (252146)
10-16-2005 10:29 AM


RAZD, if I can remember where I saw it, I'll get you a link where General Relativists and Cosmologists have come up with an idea that a large chunk of the galaxy rotation anomaly comes not from Dark Matter, but from the fact that we are using the Post-Newtonian approximation, rather than proper non-perturbative General Relativity.
So although the correct field equation is:
When we are trying to model systems in GR, this proper equation is far to difficult to use as it is non-linear, so we use its linear approximation:
However the Linear approximation could be correct at the Solar System level, but incorrect at the galactic level.
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 10-16-2005 10:43 AM

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 119 of 205 (252155)
10-16-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by simple
10-15-2005 7:50 PM


Re: Guesses, alright
14gipper
sidelined writes:
Just Time and Space!!? JUST TIME AND SPACE you say!? Within those two phenomena physicists of every ilk have been bleeding brain cells and investigating and refining the tools of investigation and pushing the boundaries of the mathematical models for centuries and you speak of it as though it were vacuous drivel!
If thats all you think there is, that is no surprise.
Not at all. There is far more than spce and time since we also have the enigma of mass energy.And those are simply the groundwork. The phenomena produced by the interaction of these gives rise to the world we exist in.And as for it being no surprise do you suppose you would care to qualify what you mean by that statement or do you just wish to be vague as well.
So an insignificant time difference, and a partial understanding of gravity is all one should or could wish for? Uderstanding more tha the average common sense of man, I would agree could be interesting.
What insignificant time difference are you referring to? A partial or total understanding of gravity is not the point of discovrery but the engaging of your mind to see the connections or patterns of nature and realize how subtle and magnificant they are.
simple writes:
Bottom line, though is there is more than we now see, and I would call what we see the physical only universe.
sidelined writes:
You would call it that by what dint of imagination? What precisely leads you to assume there is more than this if you do not have evidence of it? You have no idea of the construct of the universe as has been revealed through rigorous application of reason and logical insight yet you claim there is more. Give it up simple and show us reasonable explanations for your position.
14gipper writes:
What makes you assume there isn't if you have no evidence about it?Dint of imagination?
Bravo,14gipper, you precisely answered nothing about the question that was asked and at the same time managed to produce a meaningless question in response.
Why for example would some talk of a new physics needed, and coming, if the dints of the old were sufficient, I don't care how much time they spent learning them?
By new physics is not meant an abolishment of the old but a fresh perspective on the present model.Any presentation of "new physics" must answer not only that which the present cannot but also explain the bottleneck or restriction of understanding that the present is mired in.
Do we know his idea of a constuct? How would you say he has no idea?
? I did not ask his idea of a construct{whatever the heck that is} though I did inform him that he had no idea of the construct of the universe as science has revealed it to be.As to whether he has an idea or not I cannot say because he cannot say.
Perhaps he would have prefered one that is honest in it's limits, and was available in his appaently spoken tongue of english
Well cry me a river 14gipper,but the native language is not ours to whine about.The common tongue of english is wholly inadeqate to explain even basic concepts of science since precise meaning has long ago been tossed out the window. As for honesty what leads you to proclaim that we are not being honest? It is not lack of honesty on our part but a complete lack of willingness on simple's behalf to attempt to do the hard thinking necessary to see why we cannot explain it to him in simple terms. The structure of nature is not in simple terms.
sidelined writes:
That is absolutely correct simple. Math may not be the only language yet I do not make the claim that this is so. Beat me into submission by presenting a language that does as well or better and that others can access if they put in the effort and we will see if it stands up to scrutiny.
Since you haven't found it, or them yet, how do you know if one shoed it or them to you, you would have anything able to scrutinize it with? Apparently, this isn't the place to even mention in passing anything that would be beyond physical! I read an article, that said they now need to rethink black holes, because it seems some gave birth to stars!!!! WE don't really know where these babies are popping out from, now do we
Since I have not found it yet I do not know how or if I could do you? Of course you can claim "beyond the physical" but you cannot demonstrate it and thus any claim can be made however outrageous and be totally within that realm. This does not make it a valid area of endevour ,however, you are free to pursue whatever you wish my good man.
As to your reference to the article I can make no statement as I am not familiar with it for you gave no info.
sidelined writes:
Just make sure it is capable of describing things at least as well as what we already use.
14gipper writes:
On that score, it seems one of the major criteria would be to come up with three words. "I don't know"!
I am perfectly willing to admit I do not know but that does not mean science as a whole does not. You seem to find it difficult to differentiate between the level of understanding in science and the level of ignorance in the science.The level of ignorance is vastly greater than the level of understanding but do you have any idea of how fast the border between the two expands even hourly?
This message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2005-10-16 09:23 AM

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by simple, posted 10-15-2005 7:50 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by simple, posted 10-16-2005 3:52 PM sidelined has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 205 (252206)
10-16-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by cavediver
10-16-2005 7:30 AM


testing the metal
quote:
You think this stuff is new to us? Do you think that this is "bizarre" to us? This is the bread and butter of theoretical physics. There is no rethink.
Making money off of something doesn't make it right. As far as what you think, regarding the quetions from simple, at least, it's hard to know, as all you had on offer is a pompous attitude.
quote:
Do you have any clue as to the role of maths in all of this? Your question is non-sensical until you understand what you are asking. And once again, there is no rethink from the point of view of theoretical physics.
Maths would help to get from say, some smallest unit reality. to the bigger universe at large. But some math has it bubbles, or stings, or general, or such things, so it's not like the math does much more than fill a sort of laywers role. We hire the math to prove the case we prefer!
Math may help one imagine a way from some small point A to some big, far away point B, but not beyond. It also doesn't seem to explain where either point really came from. or much else than how it theortically works in various models!
The recent black hole that seems to help produce stars in our own galaxy, is forcing a rethink of some things, and there have been, and will be more rethinks on the horizon, no doubt. Quit trying to make it sound like you got it all sewed up!
Do you know what time is? People talk of time space, but I don't think you do? If so, do tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by cavediver, posted 10-16-2005 7:30 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nwr, posted 10-16-2005 3:19 PM simple has replied
 Message 136 by cavediver, posted 10-16-2005 8:12 PM simple has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024