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

solid?~99% empty with very tiny little thingies zooming around inside (or fighting over who has the best seat at the center) and which are also composed of tinier little thingies ....Has QM ever figured out why we see solid surfaces between some {chemical\molecular} interfaces and not between others? Is it a horizon problem? (too big scale for QM)Don't know as I've ever seen a good explanation of what makes a surface seem to be a surface.As you can see, my little peeve with gravity has been posted before.

---

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.

what makes some things "solid" and some not. there is nothing stationary in either rock or water.Coulomb repulsion? That explains the repulsion between molecules but not the solidness.the rest is a reply to simple\cosmo

---

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.

oh that helps ... photons? or is this a typo for protons? and the {temperature\pressure\density} environment. everything is really {plastic} just to different degrees in different {temperature\pressure\density} regimens.it's more a question of the perceived discretizing of experience and why is there so little interchange beteen {objects} in contact. kind of a one hand clapping thought. Well see now, the {honest?} thing (for physics) to say is that we don't know, this is our best guess, but we have no corroborating evidence yet, and we're checking into it. Reading all the books, articles, etc it seems more to be accepted as gospel without question. That's dangerous. time will tell, eh?read an article last weekend titled "wheres the other half?" or some such, about the 'missing' anti-matter. not well written, didn't give me much of any new ideas except for one item: it mentioned a geiser of antimatter that seemed to be eminating from a black hole. this leads to two thoughts:1 an easy place to have antimatter is inside a black hole: perhaps the anti-holes formed first leaving 'normal' stuff out in the cold2 an easy way to obliterate a black hole is to pour in anti-stuff, letting it anhilate the stuff at the core until it no longer has the {gravity\density} to be dark. would it outplode (not explode but the reverse of implode)?this doesn't solve the dark-stuffs issue because it's not enough stuff One of my paridigms (see signature) is that "we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand"new ideas depend on the foundation of old ideas but also on a new understanding, new ways of looking at old informations.cultural diversity is a good way to generate different views of the same information, and I've heard that physics is 'easier' from a buddhist view than a christian (generalizing on purpose). fundies talk about dogmatic scientists, and there is an observable tendency in that direction. we could also be seeing science becoming more 'globalized' due to rapid {communication\internet} sharing so that there actually be less diversity of {ideas\approaches} in all sciences. you get to quantum mechanics and why are some things "solid" and what is friction ... {I think I came in here ...}thanks.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*11*2005 09:51 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.

yep ... according to the way the math works out ... Of course this also brings to mind an image of an hourglass where the narrow waist is the {BB\Inflation} event and one end is the {uncle-matter\forward time} while the other end is {anti-matter\backward time}. That would certainly account for the major proportions of matter observed, while on-going process could cause new anti-matter racing backwards towards the waist (and beyond?).I'm cool with the rest.

---

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.

what's your take on this site?Relativity: Einstein's theory of relativity in animations and film clips. Einstein LightIt was given a Science and Technology Award by Scientific American

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

are you saying scientists are hired to provide backing for a specified viewpoint?rather than determine what their viewpoint is?

---

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.

interplay between people of different beliefs based on the same data is different from those paid to make data seem to support something other than it does.does the glove fit?of course not, blood makes leather shrink. only the original size can eliminate the hands too big to fit (but fitting doesn't prove wearing either).is global warming happening?
is it caused by humans?two different questions with two different answers.can we do anything about it? do we want to? both debatable.

---

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.

But the disagreement would be about the cause not the fact of rising temperatures. This is not arguing about the evidence, but what it means. Part of any skeptic application of scientific data.As to the lawyer prompted specialists: their job is to obfusticate - is nicotine, but is the link to cancer\addiction clear and is it only from the nicotine? (You are pushing this one because now you are back in the courts where they only allow you to anwswer specific prepared questions. You are also using technicians hired specifically to do for tobacco companies what "creation scientists" do for AiG and the like: start with a premise and fill in the facts to fit. This is not science in either case, but pseudo-science.)When it comes to honest disagreement over the evidence it occurs in all sciences. You see this with the physics data too - dark matter vs ekpyrosis vs MONDE\PA acceleration systems etc.I agree that there is disagreement, I disagree that scientists are by and large bought and paid for servants of some conspiracy of information. They disagree freely based on their own opinions.

---

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.

hello again ark.There is a difference between disagreeing over evidenceAnd denying evidence that exists.AND with making up endless lists of what ifs.Enjoy.

---

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.