Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

reply to post by mbkennel


I would offer that gravity is potentially weaker then the other forces because the nature of the force fields. It could be that since it is supposed there exists multiple fields overlapping one another (em field, gravity field, higgs field,), hmm its hard to explain but I will try to ramble my thoughts out anyway... what we know of as space obviously has something to do with gravity, and this same space, is where all the other fields exist too. So its as if there is one field, seperated into different densities, with different relationships in regards to differing physical attributes to the 'particles' which exist in the field/as the field. So if the existence of space is directly related to everything else about the universe, its energy density, the movement of particles and galaxies, then gravity having the energetic extent it has, is a direct and unavoidable result, of 'exactly what matter is' being exactly as it is, that is having qualities of mass, and moving through/in space. Gravity is then the result of mass traveling through space, it has the exact energetic space displacement as it should giving the nature of nature, I dont see why its so surprising why its so weak? In a non new agey way, everything is connected, all the values and motions, qualities and quantities, are related in some balanced proportion tautologically as to allow the exact universe that exists to exist.

why is it surprising to you that 'gravity' is weak?

Gravity is a weak force, but it is the direct product of mass. So with huge concentrations of mass comes huge gravity. In that sense, yes, gravity drives the universe. Gravity is why a star doesn't explode from all that energy it's releasing, or why the Earth is round, or why I would fall and die if I step off a cliff.

Electric Universe twists and dumbs down things to the point of unrecognisability. Yes there are electromagnetic forces, but they come from separation of charges and have limited reach. A magnet will stick to your fridge, defeating Earth's gravity, but try holding it a few centimeters from the fridge and let go of it.

This thread exposes the Myths of Pseudoscience.

reply to post by wildespace


So, are you a proponent of dark matter?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Dark matter is just a loose and general term, used to describe an unknown concept, that must be the answer to a mysterious question.

After viewing the behavior of spiral galaxies and other cosmological events, there were discrepancies in the amount of mass that could be detected in a galaxy, and the rate at which the stars in the galaxy traveled. It was not known how the stars at the outer edge of the galaxy could stay in formation, and continue rotating, if according to equations, there was not (Detected) sufficient amount of mass in the galaxy.

This led physicists to say, 'there must be mass that we cant detect'. And so that is why the idea of dark matter exists.

To a proponent of EU, is there no mystery as to how the spiral galaxies and stars on the outer edge of them behave?

imafungi
This led physicists to say, 'there must be mass that we cant detect'. And so that is why the idea of dark matter exists.

The point of this thread is the need for science to re-evaluate accepted science when the need arises, which it has with the concept of gravity in the cosmos, rather than saying there must be because of an assumption that what's in the textbooks has to be right. All theories and laws are human constructs that need to change if warranted. When evidence keeps piling up there comes a point when scientists need to pause and reconsider, even if it's embarrassing, frustrating, and confusing.

Mary Rose
reply to post by wildespace

 

So, are you a proponent of dark matter?

Can you participate in a discussion in a more meaningfull way other than just throwing accusational questions like this?

Dark matter is a hypothesis. Science offers a hypothesis as a possible explanation to the observed reality, then tries to find evidence to support the hypothesis, hopefully turning it into a scientific theory (i.e. the accepted explanation or model that is supported by evidence).

I am a proponent of science. Some of the current ideas may be wrong, or in need of refinement, but science will always find the way to the truth, by using scientific method.

P.S. you make a whole lot of assumptions about the scientific community. They do review valid scientific findings, and accept them if they can be verified and found to be correct. Have Talbott or Wallace found that Newton's equation of gravitational force is wrong? If so, and they can conclusively prove it, they'll be up for the Nobel Prize, I think. But if the equation is correct, then huge bodies of mass will influence the behaviour of themselves and bodies around them, making gravity the king.

I'll repeat, gravity is the direct product of mass. Electromagnetism only involves separation and motion of charged particles, and matter on the whole tends to be electrically neutral.

If electricity drives everything, why am I not getting constant shocks?

ImaFungi
reply to post by mbkennel

 

So if the existence of space is directly related to everything else about the universe, its energy density, the movement of particles and galaxies, then gravity having the energetic extent it has, is a direct and unavoidable result, of 'exactly what matter is' being exactly as it is, that is having qualities of mass, and moving through/in space.

Excellent. In fact, the precise nature of this phenomenon is described by coupled partial differential equations which give the response of space time to forcing in the stress-energy tensor, commonly called the Einstein field equations. So far, some quite remarkable experiments have found no deviation.

Gravity is then the result of mass traveling through space,"
it has the exact energetic space displacement as it should giving the nature of nature, I dont see why its so surprising why its so weak? In a non new agey way, everything is connected, all the values and motions, qualities and quantities, are related in some balanced proportion tautologically as to allow the exact universe that exists to exist.

I don't know what that means, but there appears to be a fundamental coupling constant as far as we can tell. In the future if we ever have a lower-level mechanistic theory of gravity---one which explains from an underlying theory where the EFE come from, then maybe we'll understand why G is what it is. So far there is no deeper explanation which is commonly accepted and justified by experimental facts.

why is it surprising to you that 'gravity' is weak?

If it is a fundamental force (i.e. nothing underneath), it is surprising because it would take some kind of peculiar mechanism in the ur-physics (the true unified something theory which presumably is underneath everything) to make its coupling so far in orders of magnitude different from the others.

Gravity somehow does seem to be different. There are a number of proposals that macroscopic gravity is an emergent property somehow in large particle number (thermodynamic) limits, related to holographic theories (where operations in dim N space are governed by the physics on some N-1 dimensional manifold on the 'edge' of the universe or something strange like that).

Consider van der Waals chemical forces. These are moderately weak---the reason being that they are a 'residual' force from slight imbalances of the much more powerful electromagnetic forces which are the really fundamental ones. Gravity as we know it might be a residual effect on the large scale of some so far unknown deep microscopic mechanism which works on particles/strings/whateverons which has a typical strong coupling constant, but which is nearly completely cancelled in practical situations---just the slight imbalance which doesn't cancel turns into Einsteinian gravitation.

This is good for science-fiction too. If regular gravity is really just a near cancellation of a much more powerful force, if you have some way to twiddle that underlying physical property just a bit more than happens naturally then suddently you can engineer gravity and warp space with your starship size'd engines instead of a star-sized hunk of mass.

wildespace
Can you participate in a discussion in a more meaningfull way other than just throwing accusational questions like this?

More meaningful?

So, you must think that dark matter is not a meaningful thing to be a proponent of.

Another screenshot:

Mary Rose

imafungi
This led physicists to say, 'there must be mass that we cant detect'. And so that is why the idea of dark matter exists.

The point of this thread is the need for science to re-evaluate accepted science when the need arises, which it has with the concept of gravity in the cosmos, rather than saying there must be because of an assumption that what's in the textbooks has to be right. All theories and laws are human constructs that need to change if warranted. When evidence keeps piling up there comes a point when scientists need to pause and reconsider, even if it's embarrassing, frustrating, and confusing.

science does this every single day. Believe it or not scientists don't follow your outdated high school text books, they are constantly finding new data and pondering how it all fits together. However, once something becomes a prevailing theory via peer review and independently verifiable results, you then must provide extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims. just because something new pops up and looks good to you is not the same as it being good science. It doesn't make it bad science either, it simply doesn't have the supporting data yet.

reply to post by peter vlar


You need to change that to college textbooks.

Science is dragging its feet big time when it comes to the role of gravity in the cosmos.

Mary Rose
reply to post by peter vlar

 

You need to change that to college textbooks.

Science is dragging its feet big time when it comes to the role of gravity in the cosmos.

Science isn't dragging its feet. The preponderance of evidence for a new paradigm is lacking. You can't blame "mainstream" science when the proponents of EU just don't have the data to back it up. At least not yet. Blame the EU proponents for not providing credible data to support their thesis.

Mary Rose

wildespace
Can you participate in a discussion in a more meaningfull way other than just throwing accusational questions like this?

More meaningful?

So, you must think that dark matter is not a meaningful thing to be a proponent of.

Dark matter can be one's "pet hypothesis", like mine is the hypothesis that our universe is just one of many. But it's all about personal preferences and opinions. The only thing that counts in the end is physical evidence and theories or models based on it.

But all I was referring to is your replies like "so you think gravity is the king" or " so you're a proponent of dark matter". I could do the same to you - so, you're a proponent of the "Electric Universe theory" but that doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.

reply to post by mbkennel


Thanks for the very thoughtful reply!

So physicists recognize and envision that when they peer into the area between the sun and earth, and peer in the area between the milky way and other galaxies, those apparent black expanses are actually some sort of physical manifold? And so the problem is how is this physical field connected through space, so connected that relatively large areas of it can be bent and distorted and curved. The natural analog to this discovery was that space was some kind of fabric, tightly woven and taut material that because of its interconnected nature (though it being closer to 2-d then 3, even though it needs 3 dimensions for a fabric to have a curve in it) can have some strange properties when a different type of material is introduced, when that is energetically more compact for example, and/or exotic in structure, like a rock.

So it is agreed that space is some type of material that has the property of being able to be curved or locally displaced, which results in phenomenon such as differing bodies of material, being able to ride the curves, more massive bodies create. So physicists searching for the particle of gravity, they are trying to find the material of most fundamental space itself, for if the sun is creating a massive curvature in space, which the planets ride around, there must be 'points' in space and time, where the material of the sun, its presence of mass, 'touches' at least by force, the material of space? The point of touching would be termed the particles of gravity,gravitation?

One problem I think of is how/why space was created as it was in the big bang, if it was a related manifestation of energy as all other energy, why it turned out so different, why and how it was so fundamentally all pervasive?

ImaFungi
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply!

So physicists recognize and envision that when they peer into the area between the sun and earth, and peer in the area between the milky way and other galaxies, those apparent black expanses are actually some sort of physical manifold? And so the problem is how is this physical field connected through space, so connected that relatively large areas of it can be bent and distorted and curved. The natural analog to this discovery was that space was some kind of fabric, tightly woven and taut material that because of its interconnected nature (though it being closer to 2-d then 3, even though it needs 3 dimensions for a fabric to have a curve in it) can have some strange properties when a different type of material is introduced, when that is energetically more compact for example, and/or exotic in structure, like a rock.

So it is agreed that space is some type of material that has the property of being able to be curved or locally displaced, which results in phenomenon such as differing bodies of material, being able to ride the curves, more massive bodies create. So physicists searching for the particle of gravity, they are trying to find the material of most fundamental space itself, for if the sun is creating a massive curvature in space, which the planets ride around, there must be 'points' in space and time, where the material of the sun, its presence of mass, 'touches' at least by force, the material of space? The point of touching would be termed the particles of gravity,gravitation?

Roughly, yes. Since the early 1920's we've had a good macroscopic theory of gravitation (General Relativity) which relates space curvature as a physical effect (it is responsive and not just a substrate for other stuff) as generated by macroscopic amounts of mass & energy & electromagnetism. This is why gravitational waves have been predicted. The slowing of pulsars as a result of dissipation through gravitational radiation has been confirmed experimetnally and won some professors a Nobel Prize (in fact one of them took off overseas in the middle of my undergraduate class to his observing telescope---I was annoyed but I guess a N.P. is worth it).

The unification between GR and the known particle physics of Standard Model has not been accomplished despite many decades of work.

One problem I think of is how/why space was created as it was in the big bang, if it was a related manifestation of energy as all other energy, why it turned out so different, why and how it was so fundamentally all pervasive?

Right, you and a few thousand of particle cosmologists who do it for a living. This is the biggest unsolved problem in fundamental physics. There's been quite a bit of work on it already and is extraordinarily difficult and technical and I don't have much of a background in it. It's known that general relativity and quantum mechanics rule the universe but what that truly means is still open, and there could be other "stuff" in there.

From "Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe" by Wal Thornhill:

. . . We missed a chance to include electricity in astronomy in the early 1900s. Birkeland was performing his electrical ‘little Earth,’ or Terrella, experiments in Norway, and Gauss and Weber were discovering the electrical interactions of matter. Today, physicists labour under misconceptions about the nature of matter and space; the relationship between matter, mass and gravity; the electrical nature of stars[2] and galaxies; and the size, history and age of the universe. So when astrophysicists turn to particle physicists to solve their intractable problems and particle physicists use it as an excuse for squandering billions of dollars on futile experiments, neither party recognizes that the other discipline is in a parlous state. . . .

mbkennel

The unification between GR and the known particle physics of Standard Model has not been accomplished despite many decades of work.

But isnt the particle physics of standard model thought/predicted to be in a very similar likeness to that of gravitation? As in, (I admit I wish I comprehended this field theory better) particles are merely locally excited states of a universally encompassing material field, and wouldnt gravitation be the same? There are gravity fields near sufficiently massive objects, and these gravity fields could be considered excited states of the universally encompassing gravity field, which is of a different manner when sufficiently far from any massive body?

I think a problem may be the thinking that all space is equally the same, when we have only been biasedly able to measure spaces nature within our galaxy, and perhaps within our solar system. Is it thought that a massive body (magically placed for thought experiment sake) in the middle of an expanse of space in the universe that is furthest from any galaxy, that this body will...fall? I think it very well may be that the nature of 'thined space' in the case of gravity, or curved and distorted space like which pervades the area of a galaxy, is (of the same nature in that originally it is the same stuff, and perhaps the same field) different then the space in between galaxies, and this difference is known as dark energy and gravity. Dark matter may be some unique and novel activity which occurs at the threshold where outer galactic dark energetic space meets the edge of a galaxies massive gravitational distortion.

A screenshot from a talk by Wal Thornhill:

Mary Rose
Dark matter was conceived in order to make gravity work as advertised.

See the list in the OP. Dark matter is the most obvious one, I think. Not enough matter to account for gravity so have to make it invisible but there.

Look, this dark matter hate is absurd. It's like this:

I have $100 in my wallet. I write down how much I spend, and when I am doing my budget later I see I spent $10 on lunch, $5 on coffee, and $5 on snacks = $20 spent. I check my wallet and discover there are $70 in it. But $100 - $20 = $80. Oh no! What happened?

Which of these scenarios are the most likely to account for the missing money?
1. I did not really start with $100.
2. I accidentally lost $10 somehow.
3. I forgot to write down something I spent.
4. Electricity.
5. Subtraction does not work like it should.
6. Sure, your THEORY of budgeting says that, but my theory based on the Universal Harmonics of Platonic Dollar Bill Energy Vorticies says that this is exactly what should happen, and in fact, it also finally explains the unexplained mystery of why my computer sometimes crashes. All I have to do is work out the details, and then, viola, free energy! And, also, I'm the next Einstein.
(Hint: they are already ranked in terms of likelihood!)

Well, let's say I took a bunch of pictures of my money at the start of the day, so I can verify I had $100 to start with. Possibility 1 eliminated.

According to my accounting of when I bought what, I had at no point a $10 bill, two $5 bills, ten $1 bills, or five $1 bills and one $5 bill. Therefore, I could not have possibly lost $10 because that amount of money could never have fallen out of my pocket. Possibility 2 eliminated.

Possibilities 4-6 are totally insane, so possibility 3, that something somehow escaped my accounting, is therefore the most likely. Note that this error in accounting in no way affects the validity of excluding #1 or #2.

This is the same kind of reasoning used to understand dark matter, and the "alternative" proposals suggested constantly on these forums are no less insane than the alternatives suggested for the missing $10.

mbkennel
Since the early 1920's we've had a good macroscopic theory of gravitation (General Relativity) which relates space curvature as a physical effect (it is responsive and not just a substrate for other stuff) as generated by macroscopic amounts of mass & energy & electromagnetism.

I think you've understated part of the point here. We don't just understand gravity, we've understood it for a century. There is almost no one alive on this planet who was born in a time when gravity was not thoroughly understood.

The unification between GR and the known particle physics of Standard Model has not been accomplished despite many decades of work.

Well, it more-or-less has, it's called string theory, and it's been known since the 1970s. And the main point has been understood since as early as Kaluza and Klein in the 1930s. The interesting thing is not the "unification" per se, but the constraints that a fully understood fundamental theory would impose on the low energy spectrum of particles. Of course, this is what physicists mean when they say "unification", but I think it is an important point missed in popular discussions.

The interesting thing is not the combining of the two theories, but of the constraints that a third, more fundamental theory would place on a specific model inside that theory which contains the Standard Model.

Anyway, the point is, these things are very well understood. We've had a century of very smart people thinking about this.