If the light bends how can you trust what you see?

Quote from: LukeB on May 11, 2014, 01:19:26 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 01:16:32 PM

Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.

In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?

Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale.  That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.

Actually dark matter was theorised (and later proven) because the Universe was observed to be expanding faster and faster, suggesting there was additional repulsive energy coming from somewhere. In all fairness though, how is "inventing" dark matter any different to inventing Aether?

Vaxhaull: Please read my post prior to the above

I will admit that universal acceleration and aether do not explain time dialation. But that doesn't mean gravity does.


Your post doesn't even answer my question, which is: why?

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 01:21:32 PM

Quote from: LukeB on May 11, 2014, 01:19:26 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 01:16:32 PM

Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.

In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?

Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale.  That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.

Actually dark matter was theorised (and later proven) because the Universe was observed to be expanding faster and faster, suggesting there was additional repulsive energy coming from somewhere. In all fairness though, how is "inventing" dark matter any different to inventing Aether?

Vaxhaull: Please read my post prior to the above

As markjo already pointed out, you people are confusing yourselves about the meanings of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on May 11, 2014, 01:08:34 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 11, 2014, 11:59:41 AM

Where is gravity coming from?
 Mass?

Yes.

Quote

If so, why?

Don't know.

Next.

And this is an acceptable answer while aether is not?   

It better fits our observations.  Believe it or not, there are more detailed explanations out there and lots of well developed hypothesis on why mass causes gravity.  For the sake of brevity, and not to use any more of the internets up with our inane prattle, I  summarised the position.

You will thank me for it, maybe not now, but when you are a little older and wiser.  Though you might not.  I don't know for sure.

I will admit that universal acceleration and aether do not explain time dialation. But that doesn't mean gravity does.


Your post doesn't even answer my question, which is: why?

Sure, that's understandable. Getting into the "why" though is in reality right at the forefront of science, so there is no universally accepted answer, yet there are many theories behind it. It's the same as asking why do two magnets actually attract each other; we know it happens - we can see it - but the actual cause is still mysterious. My personal belief is that magnetism and gravitation are related; i.e. a magnet has the ability to concentrate the force because of it's "flexible" (simplification) atomic structure. I would hazard a guess at the strong/weak nuclear forces being the root cause (the forces which hold atoms together). The key point is though, as theories go, a theory which describes the most of something is the generally accepted one, and the FE theories have many more holes and exceptions than the RE one does.

Quote from: LukeB on May 11, 2014, 01:26:55 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 01:21:32 PM

Quote from: LukeB on May 11, 2014, 01:19:26 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 01:16:32 PM

Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.

In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?

Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale.  That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.

Actually dark matter was theorised (and later proven) because the Universe was observed to be expanding faster and faster, suggesting there was additional repulsive energy coming from somewhere. In all fairness though, how is "inventing" dark matter any different to inventing Aether?

Vaxhaull: Please read my post prior to the above

As markjo already pointed out, you people are confusing yourselves about the meanings of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Why do you keep saying "you people"? Are you trying to be discriminative through generalising over 7 billion unique people? I also asked a question which you missed

Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale.  That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.

Incorrect.  Gravity works just fine at the galactic scale.  Dark matter was invented to account for the mass of galaxies that is not directly observable.

markjo, the only things outside of our solar system that we can directly observe are stars and similarly large objects, up to but not including black holes.  Are you claiming that everything else in the universe is dark matter? 

I suppose that depends on how you define "everything else".  According to the current standard model of cosmology, the universe is thought to be made up of 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.  But if you're talking just mass, then the estimate is that 84.5% of the matter in the universe is dark matter.

I have seen photos of objects behind the horizon. There are no photos that restore more of the objects with more zoom.

I'm not sure if you're lying or if you simply haven't seen them. I can't imagine that you haven't seen sil's photos any of the times they have come up, ergo ...

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 01:21:32 PM

Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale.  That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.

Incorrect.  Gravity works just fine at the galactic scale.  Dark matter was invented to account for the mass of galaxies that is not directly observable.

Because without this imaginary mass which is completely unobservable, gravity does not work "just fine".   

Quote from: markjo on May 11, 2014, 08:34:16 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 01:21:32 PM

Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale.  That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory.

Incorrect.  Gravity works just fine at the galactic scale.  Dark matter was invented to account for the mass of galaxies that is not directly observable.

Because without this imaginary mass which is completely unobservable, gravity does not work "just fine".   

Actually, dark matter is observable by its gravitational interaction within and between galaxies.

That is true only if we assume that globularist's models of gravitation are correct. Since this is the very thing in doubt, I hope you can see why your assertion is silly.


Inversely, "Gravity" only works on the galactic scale if we assume large amounts of hypothetical and otherwise unobserved and unpredicted matter. Just as jroa stated.

Sure, dark matter is only a working title for whatever's going on out there that isn't predicted by current theory. So what? The current theories explain everything, perfectly, right up until we hit that scale (which is pretty big), at which point they need a single, simple assumption: "There's something we can't see which otherwise acts like matter, just there." before the predictions are accurate again.

There's no formulation of FE that's in the same ballpark for predictive power, none that's even playing the same sport. In fact, to my knowledge, there are no FE ideas that have any predictive power whatsoever. If there are, I would love to hear about them.

Sure, dark matter is only a working title for whatever's going on out there that isn't predicted by current theory. So what? The current theories explain everything, perfectly, ...

Current theories explain everything? Are you kidding me?

Explain yawning.

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 16, 2014, 12:39:53 PM

Sure, dark matter is only a working title for whatever's going on out there that isn't predicted by current theory. So what? The current theories explain everything, perfectly, ...

Current theories explain everything? Are you kidding me?

Explain yawning.

Nice job in cutting that quote. Anyway, dark matter is the only working theory we have to explain gravity at galactic scales, so I'm not sure what we're discussing here. There are no other answers.

How does that explain yawning? 

They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.

Nice job in cutting that quote. Anyway, dark matter is the only working theory we have to explain gravity at galactic scales, so I'm not sure what we're discussing here. There are no other answers.

I cut your post as a convenience for others who read my posts. I don't like looking at quote pyramids. Do you?

Anyways, this doesn't explain yawning and it certainly doesn't explain how your theory "explains everything".

Quote from: sokarul on May 09, 2014, 05:53:24 PM

I have seen photos of objects behind the horizon. There are no photos that restore more of the objects with more zoom.

I'm not sure if you're lying or if you simply haven't seen them. I can't imagine that you haven't seen sil's photos any of the times they have come up, ergo ...

You said you were going to find the pictures. I'm still waiting.

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 16, 2014, 12:39:53 PM

Sure, dark matter is only a working title for whatever's going on out there that isn't predicted by current theory. So what? The current theories explain everything, perfectly, ...

Current theories explain everything? Are you kidding me?

Explain yawning.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/

Seeing is how the RET isn't limited to books from the 1800's there just so happens to be a new study out on yawning.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/

Seeing is how the RET isn't limited to books from the 1800's there just so happens to be a new study out on yawning.

I read the article. It gives no evidence for any of the ideas presented. The article actually refers to the "you yawn because your brain is hot" as an "idea" not a "proven theory".

I'll give you one more chance to explain yawning, but either way... we are talking about Clown's "theory of everything", his mumbo-jumbo theoretical physics that somehow explain everything in our universe. This "Yawn because your brain is hot" theory does not fit into that at all.

They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.

Predict? That's the wrong word.
Regardless, your crackpot theory of everything works provided you add made up shit like dark matter and dark energy into the equation. There is no tangible evidence, no proof at all, for dark matter or dark energy. Until your theory doesn't have to make things up to explain "everything", then it really explains nothing.

Quote from: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 04:28:49 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/time-yawn-brain-hot/

Seeing is how the RET isn't limited to books from the 1800's there just so happens to be a new study out on yawning.

I read the article. It gives no evidence for any of the ideas presented. The article actually refers to the "you yawn because your brain is hot" as an "idea" not a "proven theory".

I'll give you one more chance to explain yawning, but either way... we are talking about Clown's "theory of everything", his mumbo-jumbo theoretical physics that somehow explain everything in our universe. This "Yawn because your brain is hot" theory does not fit into that at all.

You have to read the actual study. What I linked to was just an article about the study.

I thought you would know this.

They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.

We were discussing the breakdown of the explanatory power of universal gravitation and relativity at certain scales, I was pointing out that they work perfectly up to that point. Naturally, we then moved on to yawning.

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 16, 2014, 04:13:23 PM

They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.

We were discussing the breakdown of the explanatory power of universal gravitation and relativity at certain scales, I was pointing out that they work perfectly up to that point. Naturally, we then moved on to yawning.

Did you post on the wrong alt again?

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 16, 2014, 05:05:11 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 16, 2014, 04:13:23 PM

They predict everything they claim to. What a relevant detour that was.

We were discussing the breakdown of the explanatory power of universal gravitation and relativity at certain scales, I was pointing out that they work perfectly up to that point. Naturally, we then moved on to yawning.

Did you post on the wrong alt again?

Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?

Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?

Of course not, sokarul. I just ignored it because it was off topic. Theoretical physics do not explain yawning. Also, I cannot find this "study" you speak of? Link please.

Quote from: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 05:16:18 PM

Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?

Of course not, sokarul. I just ignored it because it was off topic. Theoretical physics do not explain yawning. Also, I cannot find this "study" you speak of? Link please.

There was a link to it in the article I posted. You didn't look very hard.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784

Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?

Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?

I'm sorry, are you upset about something?

Have you read the entire study?  I don't see anything about theoretical physics explaining why we yawn.

Quote from: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 05:24:59 PM

Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?

I'm sorry, are you upset about something?

I'm not upset. I just figure, since you wanted a link to a study when you were already given a link to the study, that science may be tough for you. It's ok.

Have you read the entire study? 

No.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 05:21:56 PM

Quote from: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 05:16:18 PM

Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?

Of course not, sokarul. I just ignored it because it was off topic. Theoretical physics do not explain yawning. Also, I cannot find this "study" you speak of? Link please.

There was a link to it in the article I posted. You didn't look very hard.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784

Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?

According to that paper, would not a sigh "cool the brain" better than a yawn?  Sounds to me that someone had some extra grant money that they needed to justify.