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

Your analogy is poor. But I will stretch it a little in the hope of clarifying the role of math.There are lawyers who try cases (the trial lawyers). There are other lawyers to win election to Congress and to the senate - let's call those legislative lawyers.The work of the legislative lawyers is fully integrated into the rules by which government operates. The work of the trial lawyers is more of an add-on as needed.The role of mathematics better fits that of the legislative lawyers. It is fully integrated into the scientific methodologies of the astronomers and cosmologists. It isn't merely the kind of add-on trial lawyer aspect that you think it is.

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.

These lawyers who take the side of the government, do not agree with layers who may be hired say, at the moment by democrats, or special interests, who have lawers that say whatever they are paid to defend.

What has that got to do with what he said.
He wasn't talking about what is right, he was refering to the fact that anything you quote from John Baez or others, isn't going to suprise him or be a mental bombshell, because it used to be his job to read that stuff. This paragraph strongly indicates that you don't understand how theoretical physics operates.
You are refering to specific intial conditions problems rather than a theory problem. "Time is the direction in which Stress-Enrgy must be extended due to the geometry of Lorentzian manifolds."
There is the actual answer from General Reltivity.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 10-16-2005 03:59 PMThis message has been edited by Son Goku, 10-16-2005 04:07 PM

Mathematics can't just say what you want with complete freedom, especially in physics.

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.

Let's not try to carry this analogy too far.My point was simply that the mathematics is built into the methodology, so it cannot be dismissed as simply as you would like. If you want to criticize the methodology, then you first need to learn a lot of astrophysics, so that you can understand fully what you are wanting to criticize.

quote:

---

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.

---

The limits of science from whatever theory or perspective would be the relation there. Generally GR has to do with the operation of the known universe, so it would only come into question if it approached the unkown, like what is the fate of the universe, or in relation to quantum thinking at the moment. Does GR tell us that the nothing became a hot soup, for the big bang? Or is it just used after the fact to try to be applied? Does it tell us there is just a physical universe, or is it just applicable to most of it? Does it tell us black holes can be used in the production of stars, or can it just be adapted to the concept? Does it tell us what gravity and time are? No, it has it's limits.

quote:

---

Just because a single case example is monotonous doesn't mean the theory hasn't interesting intellectual depth.

---

Of course not, it is amusing, among a host of interesting things we could know about the world, and the universe.

quote:

---

They're all a hundred years old, hardly "de jour".

---

In the big picture, a century is quite a little time.

quote:

---

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.

---

Righto, and bully for us, ra ra ra, and all that, chap, darn, we are good. Who would question that?

quote:

---

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.

---

Thank you. God as well, no doubt. So let's not ommit the unseen as a likely influence on the seen.

quote:

---

However look into what we know and you'll see how much we've accomplished.

---

Yes, a little pat on the back now and then is always in order, don't just sit there gawking in a mirror all day!

quote:

---

General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, tell us things about the world we couldn't have ever made up in our strangest fictions

---

Yes, too bad they don't agree.

quote:

---

to dismiss that knowledge because it is limited makes no sense to me.

---

Why dismiss it? Add them to the list of theories that can't expain everything, and prove we have a long way to go.

Global warming, for example will have some on both sides of the issue! Like lawyers. Doesn't mean all play for pay, but then we get into the mixed bag of pet theories, and each one will have scientists who usually support them, while all the while, some of the theories are at odds with other ones. No doubt most are honest, and, despite the limitations, and not knowing, whichever side turns out to be the wrong one, the sci guys in the other theory will only have been honestly mistaken!

No, it has it's limits too.

quote:

---

Let's not try to carry this analogy too far.
My point was simply that the mathematics is built into the methodology, so it cannot be dismissed as simply as you would like. If you want to criticize the methodology, then you first need to learn a lot of astrophysics, so that you can understand fully what you are wanting to criticize.

---

Hey, you picked up the ball, and tried to run with it there, don't blame me!
As far as criticize something, and learning a lot about astrophysics, I think looking at the core assumptions may be a good start.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Right, but it is done. Tobacco companies may have an expert testify and the testimony is different from the other side, and the scientist, or expert they purchased. The Manhattan project was scientists tring to make a weapon to kill as many people as possible. The pure persuit of knowledge there, it would seem to me might be a bit of a lame claim!
By people of different beliefs, I take it you are talking about scientists looking at the same evidence, but coming up with different things as to what it means?

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, I might ask Bill Wattenburg the question, and get a different answer than if I asked someone say, greenpeace hired. Yet each would lay claim to science.
So, looking at the universe, we might have some who believe it is several different ways than each other.

Yawn When did you last chat to Einstein or Feynman about your ideas about their fields? I unfortunately never got to meet Feynman, but a couple of my friends knew him well... from what I understand, he would have had about a thousandth of the patience with you that I have. Funny, it was the other way around this morning at church. But then my church has always been rather heavily creationist.

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.