Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: graham.d on 28/11/2009 13:22:20
-
It seems to me that things were looking good in the world of physics that belonged to the likes of Galileo and Newton. They postulated laws that were part of what was believed to be revealing God's work and it turned out to be relatively easy to understand and visualise. The 20th century has somewhat changed that view and, for those that believe in a supreme being, it seems that He moves in more mysterious ways than anyone would have imagined. It was once possible to visualise the universe, the immense and the minute, as extensions of how we perceive the world in which we live, but the reality is that we have no mechanisms built into our brains that can allow us to fully and intuitively grasp these worlds. We are simply not equipped to deal with the four dimensions of space-time and the possible multiple dimensions of the quantum world. The possible visualisations are only by analogy or simplistic reductions; the only real representation is mathematical and abstract.
Of course this does not mean that the various theories cannot make predictions - the true test of a theory - but it seems very hard to get any insight of the underlying structure. A good example is the recent work by Garrett Lisi. I would urge a viewing of this YouTube video of a talk for TED:
This illustrates both the beauty of his mathematical theory and also the difficulty in relating it to the reality that most mortals perceive.
However, I like to think that it may be a matter of familiarity and that when we are taught, for example, about the mathematics of Lie Groups at an early age we may develop insights which today we find difficult.
What do you think? Will Physics become easier for people to understand in future or will it become increasingly specialised, even at a fundamental level, so that very few will have any grasp of the basic concepts?
-
No, I don't think. String theory is the play of math to unify with 4 fundamental forces of Nature.
Let them have it.
so what ??
theory of Everything can't be everything.
we can't prove it. Physics always tries and believes in experiments.
I don't agree even if they have made the Elegant theory.
I BET Physics is missing lots of basics.
When I said basic... It's missing a lot ...
I still did not understand why they are trying to unify all forces of nature ??
Why ?
it's Ok with Electromagnetism
it's Ok with Strong and weak nuclear force.
I don't agree it for gravity.We still did not understand Gravity fully.
Finally some quantum mechanics. Nothing is truly understood in it.
no one really know true nature of Quantum...
If you are really pro in math and genius you can unify any thing... X=Y.... X+1=Y+2-1 .. LOL.
I did not understand why Math and physics agree with each other fully.
But than, I respect what they did for understanding our Universe.
I am going to cover some GAPS in Physics that needed to complete this puzzles.
This is why I study Physics.
they are missing a lot !! LOL
GAPS are ...
There are still some unknown forces in LARGE scale fulling galaxies and stars.
there are still some stuff need to be discovered.
If any one funds me I take string theory course too.
-
Most people know the famous equation E=mc^2. I understand the equation and what its implications are to some extent, certainly more than my wife (who has a degree in history), but I would not say I fully understand it. I think the more you know about a subject the more you realise how little you know. Knowing a bunch of equations and being able to manipulate the maths to give answers is not the same as understanding, even though the familiarity can lead to some insights.
-
Most people know the famous equation E=mc^2. I understand the equation and what its implications are to some extent, certainly more than my wife (who has a degree in history), but I would not say I fully understand it. I think the more you know about a subject the more you realise how little you know. Knowing a bunch of equations and being able to manipulate the maths to give answers is not the same as understanding, even though the familiarity can lead to some insights.
I admit it I know little.
I know what I have learned.
I am always a student.
I am always a learner.
I may not be knowing whole string theory but I know some facts in it.
-
Most people know the famous equation E=mc^2. I understand the equation and what its implications are to some extent, certainly more than my wife (who has a degree in history), but I would not say I fully understand it. I think the more you know about a subject the more you realise how little you know. Knowing a bunch of equations and being able to manipulate the maths to give answers is not the same as understanding, even though the familiarity can lead to some insights.
YOU can't say that our discoveries or math stuff can solve all...
We have Whole Universe to explore ..
Nature is NOT fool to give very easy puzzles.
nature or Creator of our Universe is not fool to give it easy way.
WE ARE STILL MISSING LOTS OF STUFF ....
how can you say it's gonna end like this...
If we have unified everything and we understood everything in Universe without EXPLORING it how boring and Rude our universe would be ??
-
Most people know the famous equation E=mc^2. I understand the equation and what its implications are to some extent, certainly more than my wife (who has a degree in history), but I would not say I fully understand it. I think the more you know about a subject the more you realise how little you know. Knowing a bunch of equations and being able to manipulate the maths to give answers is not the same as understanding, even though the familiarity can lead to some insights.
OK !
you are telling as if I am IGNORANT and you have explored every corner of Universe???
I know the true taste of Puzzles in Nature.
Never ending Knowledge.......
never ending Desire ....
This is Our creator.
tell me who set the CONSTANTS in Nature or in this Universe ??
Some laws may not work in some areas in this universe.
try to understand this MAN ...
I got company ... ALL experts and scientist all.... are Ignorant !!
Everyone of us. no one really knows any thing OK..
We are trying to do something called research which can lead us to FALSE conclusions and True conclusions..
NO WAY TO PROVE STRING THEORY..
NO WAY TO PROVE IT IS WRONG...
CERN LHC is still one its way..
could not find Higgs and Gravitons escaping to higher dimensions.
-
It seems to me that things were looking good in the world of physics that belonged to the likes of Galileo and Newton. They postulated laws that were part of what was believed to be revealing God's work and it turned out to be relatively easy to understand and visualise. The 20th century has somewhat changed that view and, for those that believe in a supreme being, it seems that He moves in more mysterious ways than anyone would have imagined. It was once possible to visualise the universe, the immense and the minute, as extensions of how we perceive the world in which we live, but the reality is that we have no mechanisms built into our brains that can allow us to fully and intuitively grasp these worlds. We are simply not equipped to deal with the four dimensions of space-time and the possible multiple dimensions of the quantum world. The possible visualisations are only by analogy or simplistic reductions; the only real representation is mathematical and abstract.
Of course this does not mean that the various theories cannot make predictions - the true test of a theory - but it seems very hard to get any insight of the underlying structure. A good example is the recent work by Garrett Lisi. I would urge a viewing of this YouTube video of a talk for TED:
This illustrates both the beauty of his mathematical theory and also the difficulty in relating it to the reality that most mortals perceive.
However, I like to think that it may be a matter of familiarity and that when we are taught, for example, about the mathematics of Lie Groups at an early age we may develop insights which today we find difficult.
What do you think? Will Physics become easier for people to understand in future or will it become increasingly specialised, even at a fundamental level, so that very few will have any grasp of the basic concepts?
Yes, i do believe that science is becoming more incomprehensible. As we exhaust theories which do not match reality, we are needing to explore all scenario's... and there's an infinity of them.
-
What do you think? Will Physics become easier for people to understand in future or will it become increasingly specialised, even at a fundamental level, so that very few will have any grasp of the basic concepts?
In the near term I think it's likely to get a lot harder. It might eventually get simpler, but I suspect that's unlikely.
Someone said "The average quantum mechanic is as philosophical as the average mechanic." To some extent I think that those who delve into Physics can't get too philosophical about it if they want to get something done. They focus on one area and try to do rigorous analysis in that area without worrying too much about the "big picture".
The only thing that seems to hold true about Physics is that if the answer to a problem appears obvious, it's probably wrong!
-
...It was once possible to visualise the universe, the immense and the minute, as extensions of how we perceive the world in which we live, but the reality is that we have no mechanisms built into our brains that can allow us to fully and intuitively grasp these worlds. We are simply not equipped to deal with the four dimensions of space-time and the possible multiple dimensions of the quantum world...
It isn't true, graham. We do have the mechanisms, it is possible to visualize the universe, and we can intuitively grasp the world. It's really simple, with insight galore. Physics will become much much easier for people to understand, easier than you ever thought possible. But for some, it's horribly easy, and this undermines their status, so it won't happen overnight.
-
Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise.
The true nature of the universe is really very simple. It is the theories about it that are complex. The quote is from John Wheeler. When you know that the principle that Wheeler sought is:
The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
It all makes sense. We have known this for about two hundred years BTW. Einstein wrote that it originated with Maxwell; others say it originated with Newton. There has never been even one piece of evidence that would suggest that the bolded statement is not reality.
-
The true nature of the universe is really very simple. It is the theories about it that are complex. The quote is from John Wheeler. When you know that the principle that Wheeler sought is:
The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
It all makes sense. We have known this for about two hundred years BTW. Einstein wrote that it originated with Maxwell; others say it originated with Newton. There has never been even one piece of evidence that would suggest that the bolded statement is not reality.
What about the weak and strong forces?
-
The weak and strong forces are easily demonstrated to be electromagnetic. It is only prejudice that prevents us from accepting those facts as reality.
Source Code (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
-
The weak and strong forces are easily demonstrated to be electromagnetic. It is only prejudice that prevents us from accepting those facts as reality.
Yes, it is that scientists are prejudiced towards things that can be established by evidence and that they are prejudiced against personal fantasy that prevents them from accepting that the weak and strong forces are electromagnetic.
-
What Vern says is no fantasy. It is backed by scientific evidence. The evidence is there in proton-antiproton annihilation. Then all the quarks and gluons have gone, and what you see is electromagnetic waves, plus electrons and positrons that can be annihilated to release more:
Antiproton-Proton Annihilation into Electron-Positron Pairs and Gamma-Ray Pairs (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v184/i5/p1415_1)
The result is might be mesons:
Antiproton-proton annihilation at rest into two mesons (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVB-470F9XP-TC&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1128541872&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1a15529a67a224c71d4122c5bb9673e6)
But mesons decay. A neutral pion decays into two gamma photons:
Table of mesons (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Particles/meson.html#c1)
The weak interaction is an aspect of electromagnetism, which is why they're unified as the electroweak interaction. The strong force is described as the force that holds a proton together, but is omitted from the description of the electron, or the photon. And these things are electromagnetic.
-
Yes, it is that scientists are prejudiced towards things that can be established by evidence and that they are prejudiced against personal fantasy that prevents them from accepting that the weak and strong forces are electromagnetic.
It is just the opposite. We don't have to accept anything except reality. We can't do that.
-
Yup...
I don't trust math as describing Nature fully.
-
Yup...
I don't trust math as describing Nature fully.
You're right. Nature never depended on math as much as math actually does depend on our interpretion of reality :) That is the truth. :)
-
What Vern says is no fantasy. It is backed by scientific evidence. The evidence is there in proton-antiproton annihilation. Then all the quarks and gluons have gone, and what you see is electromagnetic waves, plus electrons and positrons that can be annihilated to release more:
Antiproton-Proton Annihilation into Electron-Positron Pairs and Gamma-Ray Pairs (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v184/i5/p1415_1)
The result is might be mesons:
Antiproton-proton annihilation at rest into two mesons (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVB-470F9XP-TC&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1128541872&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1a15529a67a224c71d4122c5bb9673e6)
But mesons decay. A neutral pion decays into two gamma photons:
Table of mesons (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Particles/meson.html#c1)
The weak interaction is an aspect of electromagnetism, which is why they're unified as the electroweak interaction. The strong force is described as the force that holds a proton together, but is omitted from the description of the electron, or the photon. And these things are electromagnetic.
It's not absolute fantasy.. I agree with the photon charge in a bent geodesic - but i find it hard to agree with vern with everything he conjectures - just as much as i expect people to find many things i say - so what does that tell us??
-
I believe that we are missing lot in this universe.
we are missing basics in physics still hiding.
HOW on earth without knowing the every corner of this universe. just predicting with math ??
this is the foolish thing I have every seen..!!
Math is fooling Physics.
Geometry is Ok but not other areas of math.
-
I was told of my lecturer that in the next 100 years the laws of physics are going to change dramastically before any unified theory is even universally-accepted.:)
-
What Vern says is no fantasy. It is backed by scientific evidence. The evidence is there in proton-antiproton annihilation. Then all the quarks and gluons have gone, and what you see is electromagnetic waves, plus electrons and positrons that can be annihilated to release more:
But this says nothing about the nuclear forces really being electromagnetism. It doesn't address any of the ways that we actually measure the nuclear forces. Again you go to some sources that has nothing to do with the science involved because you know nothing about the science involved. The papers you cite assumes that the nuclear forces are not electromagnetic forces.
The weak interaction is an aspect of electromagnetism, which is why they're unified as the electroweak interaction. The strong force is described as the force that holds a proton together, but is omitted from the description of the electron, or the photon. And these things are electromagnetic.
You could say that everything is electroweak. Do you know the difference between electroweak interactions and electromagnetic interactions? Do you know why they have different names?
-
I quite like the idea that we are still discovering how physics works, its like a puzzle that has not been solved yet, and once we solve it then all the fun will be gone and it will become boring.
-
Yes!
-
Vern's quote of John Wheeler is the basic truth that we need to work with, everything boils down to EMR.
-
It is a quote - but it needs a lot of mathematical-convintion.
-
But this says nothing about the nuclear forces really being electromagnetism. It doesn't address any of the ways that we actually measure the nuclear forces. Again you go to some sources that has nothing to do with the science involved because you know nothing about the science involved.
I know plenty about the science involved, and I give sources and a rationale. All you give is abuse.
You could say that everything is electroweak. Do you know the difference between electroweak interactions and electromagnetic interactions? Do you know why they have different names?
Yes. But that's a red herring. There's no escaping that after proton-antiproton annihilation, what we're left with is not quarks and gluons. All trace of your concept of strong force has gone. What we're left with, is photons. So you owe Vern an apology. Now stop spoiling the discussions and make a reasoned contribution instead.
-
It's not absolute fantasy.. I agree with the photon charge in a bent geodesic - but i find it hard to agree with vern with everything he conjectures - just as much as i expect people to find many things i say - so what does that tell us??
That we should discuss physics, and attempt to improve our understanding by sharing opinion, information, and evidence.
I believe that we are missing lot in this universe. we are missing basics in physics still hiding. HOW on earth without knowing the every corner of this universe. just predicting with math ?? this is the foolish thing I have every seen..!! Math is fooling Physics. Geometry is OK but not other areas of math.
I share your sentiment to some degree. Mathematics is a vital tool for physics, but it is not a science. Many "theoretical physicists" are effectively mathematicians rather than scientists, they pay lip service to the scientific method, and they respond with dismissive and aggressive hostility to the scientific evidence that challenges their assertions and their current dominance.
-
But this says nothing about the nuclear forces really being electromagnetism. It doesn't address any of the ways that we actually measure the nuclear forces. Again you go to some sources that has nothing to do with the science involved because you know nothing about the science involved.
I know plenty about the science involved, and I give sources and a rationale. All you give is abuse.
You get "abuse" because you simply do not give either evidence or rationale. You merely claim, over and over, to give these things. Whenever anyone points out that you have not given evidence or rationale, you call this "abuse".
You could say that everything is electroweak. Do you know the difference between electroweak interactions and electromagnetic interactions? Do you know why they have different names?
Yes. But that's a red herring. There's no escaping that after proton-antiproton annihilation, what we're left with is not quarks and gluons. All trace of your concept of strong force has gone. What we're left with, is photons. So you owe Vern an apology. Now stop spoiling the discussions and make a reasoned contribution instead.
You always say that the facts are a red herring. For once, it would be nice to see you actually address the way that systems actually work and the actual predictions associated with the different forces that you discuss. But, as usual, you dodge any question about the specifics that physicists care about.
-
I share your sentiment to some degree. Mathematics is a vital tool for physics, but it is not a science. Many "theoretical physicists" are effectively mathematicians rather than scientists, they pay lip service to the scientific method, and they respond with dismissive and aggressive hostility to the scientific evidence that challenges their assertions and their current dominance.
You have never, ever presented any evidence in favour of your position. Physics is a heavily mathematical discipline and you have repeatedly admitted that you cannot do the mathematics. Therefore you lack the ability to actually assess the relevant evidence.
-
Here's the evidence: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27075.msg288980#msg288980. Where's yours? I haven't "repeatedly admitted that I can't do the mathematics". I've repeatedly refused to allow mathematics be used to dismiss scientific evidence. That's what you do, repeatedly, and you've done it yet again. Please respond to this evidence instead of putting up a smokescreen of outrage and abuse and retreating behind a mathematics that does not adequately describe annihilation.
-
Here's the evidence: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27075.msg288980#msg288980. Where's yours? I haven't "repeatedly admitted that I can't do the mathematics".
Interesting ideas, but without maths how can you make predictions that can be tested against real-world observations?
-
Interesting ideas, but without maths how can you make predictions that can be tested against real-world observations?
Exactly. The entire history of physics from Galileo is one of accurate description through mathematics. The reason why people believe certain physical theories over others is because of how well they match the mathematical details of our observations. Farsight ignores about four centuries of evidence by refusing to do any mathematics and refusing to look at any measurements. By refusing to do any mathematics whatsoever, he is providing absolutely no evidence for his theories.
-
Interesting ideas, but without maths how can you make predictions that can be tested against real-world observations?
By understanding the fundamentals. For example you consider the proton to be a trefoil configuration, then you look at a table of knots and predict a stable pentaquark. But note that I'm not saying we shouldn't use maths at all. You'd want to put some rigor into your prediction and say what the mass is going to be. It's a question of getting the balance right, and not allowing mathematics to obscure the scientific evidence that's there.
Get it wrong and the result can be speculative hypotheses that remain unsupported for decades, along with a hostility to any scientific evidence that poses a threat to those hypotheses. In physics today that seems to be where some are, hence New Scientist repeats the adage string theory is the only game in town. Hence papers like http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 are "studiously ignored" despite the mathematical content. Hence we see dishonest abuse that is intended only to discredit, and distract from the fact that scientific evidence has been dismissed and no counter-evidence offered.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff0%2FKnot_table-blank_unknot.svg%2F360px-Knot_table-blank_unknot.svg.png&hash=d331ea407fa87f72da1a7c324beb0da6)
-
Farsight
Just a few words to the potentially-wise.
Physics was earliest-based on the vigour of mathematics. Without it, physics would be a ghost, shadowing absolutely nothing but conjecture and not of any directional importance.
-
We need mathematics, Mr Scientist. It's like water. Water is good for you, but drink too much and you die. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
-
In moderation, which gives us as a human being-like race the ability to know when to stop.
-
We need mathematics, Mr Scientist. It's like water. Water is good for you, but drink too much and you die. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
Drink absolutely none, and one gets into problems as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration
It can lead to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium
-
No one suggested drinking none. Your response was a joke?
-
No one suggested drinking none. Your response was a joke?
Farsight does actually suggest drinking none, metaphorically. Even when he claims that the "correct" interpretation of general relativity will get rid of the need to posit dark matter, he refuses to actually address the related mathematics. And make no mistake: all the evidence about dark matter relates to very specific measurements, so any theory that seeks to get rid of dark matter has to show why we get the measurements and predictions that we do--a mathematical claim. To make such a claim and refuse to back it up with the mathematics is to enter the realm of either lies or the realm of delusion.
-
No one suggested drinking none. Your response was a joke?
Farsight does actually suggest drinking none, metaphorically. Even when he claims that the "correct" interpretation of general relativity will get rid of the need to posit dark matter, he refuses to actually address the related mathematics. And make no mistake: all the evidence about dark matter relates to very specific measurements, so any theory that seeks to get rid of dark matter has to show why we get the measurements and predictions that we do--a mathematical claim. To make such a claim and refuse to back it up with the mathematics is to enter the realm of either lies or the realm of delusion.
At the risk of dragging a large and rather smelly red herring into the room, there is no denying (at least I'm not about to) the scientific observations and the mathematical analysis that points to the existence of a lot of matter that we cannot observe. However, I don't think that necessarily proves that such matter actually exists. It's a reasonable bet that it does, but there could be other explanations.
Math can only prove that a model is valid. It does not immediately exclude other models. However, those models will also have to be supported by math.
-
Math can only prove that a model is valid. It does not immediately exclude other models. However, those models will also have to be supported by math.
Here, here Geezer! (off-topic: ever wondered why the Brits truncate mathematics to maths and not math?)
We need mathematics, Mr Scientist. It's like water. Water is good for you, but drink too much and you die.
I'd love to see the headline "Man dies of maths poisoning"!
-
Farsight does actually suggest drinking none, metaphorically.
No I don't, I've made that quite clear.
Even when he claims that the "correct" interpretation of general relativity will get rid of the need to posit dark matter, he refuses to actually address the related mathematics.
I refuse to be distracted by a deliberate red herring. What's important is the scientific evidence, and it's you refusing to address it, not me. You're using mathematics as a smokescreen, and you still offer no evidence to counter the evidence I provided earlier.
And make no mistake: all the evidence about dark matter relates to very specific measurements, so any theory that seeks to get rid of dark matter has to show why we get the measurements and predictions that we do--a mathematical claim. To make such a claim and refuse to back it up with the mathematics is to enter the realm of either lies or the realm of delusion.
There is no "evidence" for dark matter. We observe gravitational anomalies. Dark matter is just one hypothesis that attempts to explain them, along with MOND and STVG and TeVeS. And there is no delusion in inhomogeneous space. That's what Einstein said a gravitational field is. That's general relativity:
"According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic.."
And since the universe expands whilst galaxies are gravitationally bound, the result has to be a shell of inhomogeneous space around every galaxy. It explains why dark matter has remained undetected since 1933. You merely hide behind mathematics because you know you have no defence against this simple logic. I use scientific evidence to make the world of physics comprehensible. And as you've amply demonstrated, you hide behind mathematics because you can't face up to the scientific evidence, and because you want to keep the world of physics incomprehensible.
-
Farsight - no wonder people loose patience with you. I'm starting to feel it too. Enough of these sporadic attempts to mislead on your own whims. I'm sure if any scientist here read your posts would agree to great certainty.
-
I'm not misleading anybody, Mr Scientist. I give the scientific evidence, the references to general relativity, and the simple logic - none of which is countered by similar evidence/reference/logic. So I think people will be able to work out for themselves who's trying to mislead people, don't you?
-
Even when he claims that the "correct" interpretation of general relativity will get rid of the need to posit dark matter, he refuses to actually address the related mathematics.
I refuse to be distracted by a deliberate red herring. What's important is the scientific evidence, and it's you refusing to address it, not me. You're using mathematics as a smokescreen, and you still offer no evidence to counter the evidence I provided earlier.
The scientific evidence is in the form of actual measurements of rotation curves and actual predictions of rotation curves, plus actual measurements and predictions of gravitational lensing, plus actual measurements and predictions of background radiation fluctuations, plus actual measurements and predictions of galaxy clustering profiles. You claim that all of this can be done away with with a correct interpretation of relativity theory. so let's see you take on even one example from this collection of scientific evidence. You will not because you cannot.
And make no mistake: all the evidence about dark matter relates to very specific measurements, so any theory that seeks to get rid of dark matter has to show why we get the measurements and predictions that we do--a mathematical claim. To make such a claim and refuse to back it up with the mathematics is to enter the realm of either lies or the realm of delusion.
There is no "evidence" for dark matter. We observe gravitational anomalies. Dark matter is just one hypothesis that attempts to explain them, along with MOND and STVG and TeVeS.
And most scientists believe dark matter and not MOND and not STVG and not TeVes because of how these theories actually deal with the various predictions. You have never, ever addressed how any of these theories deal with the available measurements. You have been challenged to show how "inhomogeneous space" makes any difference to the prediction of a rotation curve of a galaxy or any of the other evidence for dark matter. You always cravenly back away from this challenge with some whinge or another.
And there is no delusion in inhomogeneous space. That's what Einstein said a gravitational field is. That's general relativity:
"According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic.."
I note that you do not finish this quotation. Like always, you cherry-pick. (In this case, anyone who searches for the passage you cited can see your specific cherry-picking.) If you finished the quotation, it would show that what Einstein was discussing was a specific mathematical claim about physics. It is this claim that you cannot understand, otherwise you would use the gravitational potentials Einstein discusses to prove your claim about dark matter.
And since the universe expands whilst galaxies are gravitationally bound, the result has to be a shell of inhomogeneous space around every galaxy. It explains why dark matter has remained undetected since 1933. You merely hide behind mathematics because you know you have no defence against this simple logic.
There is nothing logical in what you have written. Please demonstrate, using Einstein's theory, that an expanding universe leaves "a shell of inhomogeneous space around every galaxy" that results in the anomalous rotation curves that we observe. Your demonstration must include a specific prediction of what these rotation curves should be.
I use scientific evidence to make the world of physics comprehensible. And as you've amply demonstrated, you hide behind mathematics because you can't face up to the scientific evidence, and because you want to keep the world of physics incomprehensible.
Physics is not incomprehensible. The stuff you write is incomprehensible, but only by virtue of the fact that there is nothing there to comprehend.
-
We seem to have drifted off topic, and some of these posts are becoming rather personal.
-
Even when he claims that the "correct" interpretation of general relativity will get rid of the need to posit dark matter, he refuses to actually address the related mathematics.
I refuse to be distracted by a deliberate red herring. What's important is the scientific evidence, and it's you refusing to address it, not me. You're using mathematics as a smokescreen, and you still offer no evidence to counter the evidence I provided earlier.
The scientific evidence is in the form of actual measurements of rotation curves and actual predictions of rotation curves, plus actual measurements and predictions of gravitational lensing, plus actual measurements and predictions of background radiation fluctuations, plus actual measurements and predictions of galaxy clustering profiles. You claim that all of this can be done away with with a correct interpretation of relativity theory. so let's see you take on even one example from this collection of scientific evidence. You will not because you cannot.
And make no mistake: all the evidence about dark matter relates to very specific measurements, so any theory that seeks to get rid of dark matter has to show why we get the measurements and predictions that we do--a mathematical claim. To make such a claim and refuse to back it up with the mathematics is to enter the realm of either lies or the realm of delusion.
There is no "evidence" for dark matter. We observe gravitational anomalies. Dark matter is just one hypothesis that attempts to explain them, along with MOND and STVG and TeVeS.
And most scientists believe dark matter and not MOND and not STVG and not TeVes because of how these theories actually deal with the various predictions. You have never, ever addressed how any of these theories deal with the available measurements. You have been challenged to show how "inhomogeneous space" makes any difference to the prediction of a rotation curve of a galaxy or any of the other evidence for dark matter. You always cravenly back away from this challenge with some whinge or another.
And there is no delusion in inhomogeneous space. That's what Einstein said a gravitational field is. That's general relativity:
"According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic.."
I note that you do not finish this quotation. Like always, you cherry-pick. (In this case, anyone who searches for the passage you cited can see your specific cherry-picking.) If you finished the quotation, it would show that what Einstein was discussing was a specific mathematical claim about physics. It is this claim that you cannot understand, otherwise you would use the gravitational potentials Einstein discusses to prove your claim about dark matter.
And since the universe expands whilst galaxies are gravitationally bound, the result has to be a shell of inhomogeneous space around every galaxy. It explains why dark matter has remained undetected since 1933. You merely hide behind mathematics because you know you have no defence against this simple logic.
There is nothing logical in what you have written. Please demonstrate, using Einstein's theory, that an expanding universe leaves "a shell of inhomogeneous space around every galaxy" that results in the anomalous rotation curves that we observe. Your demonstration must include a specific prediction of what these rotation curves should be.
I use scientific evidence to make the world of physics comprehensible. And as you've amply demonstrated, you hide behind mathematics because you can't face up to the scientific evidence, and because you want to keep the world of physics incomprehensible.
Physics is not incomprehensible. The stuff you write is incomprehensible, but only by virtue of the fact that there is nothing there to comprehend.
You're not much better either physbang. Two people fighting each other, and niether can live up to their own convictions.
-
THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
Using personal insults or attacks in this forum - ANYWHERE in this forum - will not be tolerated. Any further inflammatory remarks will result in an immediate and permanent BAN on the poster of such a ban. Some of the above persons discussing this thread have been warned before on other forums, then banned on these for continued discourtesy in these other forums. It has happened before. It WILL happen here if one more insult is hurled.
This forum has an acceptable use policy all agreed to when registering that will result in the actions being taken.
For those who will bother, the Acceptable Use Policy for this Forum can be found at
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
JimBob - Moderator
-
I'm afraid that truth will only be discovered after everything else has been proven wrong. In other words I don't think we want to know the truth.
-
I think we do, butterworld. That's why people contribute to these discussion forums, because we have this burning desire to find that truth, using anything we can to home in closer to it. It isn't easy, these things take time, but I really do think the internet is making thinks comprehensible. By the way, I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427381.100-stephen-wolfram-im-an-information-pack-rat.html
-
Farsight I liked that paper too. It is a very interesting idea (Hubius Helix)even though it builds on something 'trapped' in a cavity as I understands it. The problem is that you also need to explain the idea of the cavity as well as the 'entrapment' of light but it did give me a lot of nice ideas. I think he may be closer to the truth than what we can see today.
As for if Science is becoming gibberish for us more 'unscientific'?
Well, Einstein said that if you can't explain it in words you're wrong.
And I agree.
So it seems to hang upon the imagination of those having their new revelations. To make it understandable.