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

quote:

---

Simple, we know as much about gravity as we do power, energy and momentum. All of these are intimately connected. However, the level of understanding required to appreciate this is immense... far far beyond any layman's guide or popular book, or indeed any undergrad course.

---

Know about as much about how it works, or also what really causes it, and it's actual nature? I can know how to turn on a light by flipping the awitch, and that it will shine so brightly, unless we stick an umbrella right by the bulb, where it would throw less light, etc. It seems we can predict how gravity will operate, but I have heard some say we have our limits to understanding it. You seem to indicate we have some elite knowledge of this, not available to the average man, and, apparently, not able to be explained simply, even to those with years of education. In other areas of life, I found that those who can't explain something, usually really don't really understand it. Guess we'll have to take your word here.

quote:

---

If you push the "why"s far enough you get down to mathematics. We don't have anything else.

---

So it's a number game here. In this forum, God has no number, I wonder if He has one in the math that 'explains' what gravity really actually is, and comes from?

quote:

---

Where I fail to grasp at what is going on is at such a fundemental level that it is not worth talking about outside of the professionals working in that area, other than to say we have trouble quantising gravity, it is an active area of research at this time, and we have several very promising ideas.

---

It is the fundamental level that relates to the creation/evolution debate. Glad you have some ideas that you think are 'promising', you're not the only one.

Funny you should say this. While it is true that people have always knew God was behind it, (admin- I'm just answering a question here, I didn't bring this up this time) they didn't know the way exactly this was. As I look at our physical universe, I see limits to our understanding, for example, not really knowing at all what gravity really is!!! (I looked up a search with the guy's name you gave in the other thread last night,even though the kink was broken thanks, & I got lots of ammo now)
Understanding the physical universe as best we can is fine, and takes years of study, true. But if this physiacl universe is not infinite, but has limits, then we could refer to it as a box. Your statement, therefore only applies to the box, inside the box. But this box is only so big, and if there is more, then it is the limits of the box that take on a greater importance than the box itself. The question then, is not how long it takes to understand the box, but how to understand where it ends, and what may be beyond it.
Your guesses, and beliefs as to where if at all, this might be, I don't doubt, would be solely based on how the box itself works! These assumptions only hold true if there was nothing else but this physical universe, or, the box. But, like the disparity beween relativity, and Quantum science, most people on earth have found that there are evidences that there is definitely more than just the physical at work. (Hope this forum isn't so allergic to explanations involving a spiritual reality, they try to suspend me here, unlike they seem to do over at Error | Christian Forums)

I don't need to read it to make that statement. Also, I don't buy the stuff about not being able to explain things unless you throw a good part of your life away!"Exactly why two masses separated in space have a gravitational attraction to one another remains largely unknown, despite much research and various (Click link for more info and facts about theories) theories. "
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/...lopedia/g/gr/gravity.htm
Now that didn't take so long, did it?This message has been edited by simple, 10-12-2005 11:40 PM

The claim was that they didn't really know what gravity itself was, but how it worked, exactly, what caused the force. I have seen similar claims elsewhere. Before I go around, correcting a world of sites here, perhaps you could demonstrate we do know this? Or do you when the dust settles, as I supect, agree, but think you have some point that the site I got it wasn't quite up to snuff?Now as far as math goes, remember that after all, it is just numbers!!! You alluded to how it was good in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction thing. Well, so what? It is good in the 2 + 2 = 4 thing as well. But it is pure belief to use numbers for something, say, other than a finite universe, if that was what we had. So, basically, as you get too far away, or too small, etc, all any numbers could be is an extension of your guesses! All fine and good in the box here, where they are meant to work.I could look at the expansion of the universe, and it's rate (someone just told me it has accelerated?)and it's present rate of expansion, come up with some numbers of how long ago it would have been the size of a tiny hot soup, but the numbers are only as good as the belief this is what happened. I don't care if someone spent 27 years learning how to count that high.The link you yourself gave me to check out, similar to what they say about gravity links I've seen, has this to say...
"It is important to realize that in Physics today, we have no
knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that
energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount.
It is not that way."Waiting to see what gravity is, since you hint you know.This message has been edited by simple, 10-13-2005 02:44 PMThis message has been edited by simple, 10-13-2005 02:45 PM

quote:

---

You see the main problem with this is that you're looking for a mechanism in the everyday sense.
Gravity is very well defined in physics and we certainly know what it is, but like a lot of nature, it's character is mathematical.
Any "word" description will be lacking something, no matter how hard somebody tries.
Tensors, metrics, Manifolds, e.t.c. are the fundamental ideas which express gravity, not any linguistic term.

---

So, you can't say it, or describe it. But you suggest that we know exactly what it is, and what causes it.
Why does something tell me a lot of your explanation would be theoretical? -If you actually could give one, and aren't just assuming if you stayed in school for another 20 years, you'd know! You say it's character is mathamatical, but what if the character beyond our known physical universe was deeper than that? I really don't believe it, sorry.

quote:

---

That's right, they would be guesses.
That's why we make observations.

​

Besides a theory doesn't have to have infinite applicability to be true.
Newtonian Mechanics is still correct regardless of the fact that it doesn't apply in the Quantum Realm.

---

True, of course, just as some theory you may have, or guesses, as you admit here, may very much have limits to it's being true!!!!!!

quote:

---

That's a very naive view of mathematics(and I'm not being a Platonist).
"It's just numbers" is one of the most overused simplifications of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics I've ever encountered along with "But it's just a theory".

---

That isn't my view of mathamatics at all, just to you're trying to project them beyond a physical universe. They can get us very far, but they are not almighty.

quote:

---

physics of the gravity requires a sufficient background in the mathematics to even have any sense of how gravity manifests.The everyday world is more complex than appears to our limited senses.

---

But no matter how complicated it may be, or you think it is, a lot of that complication exists as a matter of fact, only inside your heads. This is because, much of the math is directed towards guesses of what is beyond the known. As for the known stuff, which you claim gravity is, totally, I never asked how gravity manifests! That really is pretty simple, we fall to the ground, things attract each other, etc.! The question was, not how the force works, what paths it prefers between 2 objects, do we think it works the same in the quantum level, or etc. Only what is it exactly that causes gravity to exist, and "Exactly why two masses separated in space have a gravitational attraction to one another.."?This message has been edited by simple, 10-14-2005 12:34 AM

quote:

---

Not at all. The mathematics is Not guess work but a reliable means of being able to make predictions about the way things work. If the mathematics of the model are correct they will accurately describe a result that can be expected from an experiment.The experiment will reveal value for a given phenomena than can be checked against the predicted value.

---

Only in the limitations of the physical universe. Like Newton's gravity has it's place, so there is a limit to philosophical math. No one doubts it would work here on earth, within it's limits. We can't check whether there is more than a physical universe, we can't know a lot of things. Even some basics, all we know is how they work. Putting guesswork out of the range of normal men doesn't make it less guesswork, only less accessible guesswork.

quote:

---

But you can have no insight into that without having an understanding of the mathematics involved. Without understanding the language nature operates in how do you expect to realize how this really works?

---

I didn't ask for insight into it, just for you to tell us if you could if we know this exactly, and, then, if you could explain it. I also am not convinced nature doesn't speak more than one language!

quote:

---

Do you understand Quantum mechanics?

---

Not much, do you?

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Right, more than the things that you said people were brain bleeding over. But of those things, space and time, I'll ask you as well, do you know what time is exactly? If not, there goes one of the two. In the veiw of some scientists, even the space bit needs to go, so whats that leave you?
"Most perplexing of all, spin nets and spin foam cannot be thought of as existing in space and time. They reside on a more fundamental level, as a deep structure that underlies and gives rise to space-time."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 ." http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/GrainySpace.html
As for you energy, I think it was you who gave simple the link that admitted it also is not known what it really is. Add gravity to the list, although some claim they know, in the elite higher knowledge of advanced math, but it would take years to explain! With all these limits to our actual knowledge, I think that those who portray a high priest attitude, and pretense of knowing everything (not that you do) should be taken to task, and knocked down a few pegs. I never sensed that attitude much from einstein, or Feynman, or many others, but some, on this forum wreak of it. Yet, would likely be the first to decry things like the unseen forces on earth at work and known by most men since time began. Making a few thousand loaves and fishes from a couple little loafs, and a fish are taboo, but making a universe from nothing, and expanding from less than the size of a proton, to a grapefruit in a fraction of a billionth of a second is science.
[quotes] 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.[/quote] Any subtle magnificance of nature there may be would not need to be explained by tryin to insult people, rather than demonstrate some perceived point.

quote:

---

.. What precisely leads you to assume there is more than this if you do not have evidence of it?

---

Evidence of what kind? The kind you could practice math on? The kind you could fit in a tube? Surely you have heard there have been evidences of more than the natural among most people on earth? Besides, I could give yo evidence of energy, time gravity, etc., does this mean you can explain it?

quote:

---

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.

---

Good, you admit that there is a restriction of understanding. As for any new physics, we really don't know if or what they will be, replace, or cause a rethink to anyhow. I wouldn't hold my breath.

quote:

---

though I did inform him that he had no idea of the construct of the universe as science has revealed it to be

---

I must've missed that, so you informed him of the restricted understanding, then.

quote:

---

The structure of nature is not in simple terms.

---

How would you know? Get by the restrictive bottlenecks, and get a grip on the core concepts. like time, and then maybe you can tell us something. It would be better to say something like 'our current understanding, or lack therof, of nature, indicates it is so complicated, it would take years to explain, and it could,'t be in english anyhow'.

quote:

---

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

---

So have you found the it that took nothing and produced the hot soup that gave us our universe? Have you found the real nature and cause of many forces, like time, etc? Have you determined the finiteness or not of the universe, or many other things? Yet, what, you think you can turn around, and tell us that say, ghosts are not real? What even is 'real'? A universe from nothing is real, but something like non physical entities seen actually by millions are not real? Why, because you can't touch them? Can you touch a quark, or a Plackt unit?

quote:

---

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?

---

How fast? And in which diection? No, of course we know great strides are being made in many areas, and for this we are happy. It doesn't mean that it all isn't within limits, though. I see no evidence that there is nothing else besides a physical universe at all, do you? If there is, we haven't scratched the surface of what wonders we may yet explore, somewhere, over the rainbow.