Do you believe in gravity?

[Dawkinsrocks]

You have spent hours and hours failing to engineer a single shred of credible evidence for the existence of god.

But don't be downhearted. Much cleverer people than you have failed too.

In fact nobody has ever succeeded.

 

[Lagboltz]

I was talking about COSMOLOGY.

When you say that there is 'experimental foundation' for spontaneous creation and annihilation of matter, you make it appear that it could happen in cosmological scales -- enough to explain an accelerating universe.

That simply isn't the case.

It is happening on cosmological scales. The vacuum fluctuation is happening all over the cosmos. This adds to the intrinsic energy density and, depending on the model, should have an effect at cosmic scales.

IF the total energy in the universe is zero, that means that the sum of the energy from gravity is equal to that of lambda. Since the first is a contracting tendency of space-time while the latter is a tensile/expanding tendency, you have a universe that is in a steady-state -- which this universe is NOT.

The computation that the total energy of the universe is zero comes from the balance of mass and potential energy that we now see. If you think in a comoving frame of reference, there is no problem.

We already know that the amount of gravitational energy is constant because the amount of matter is fixed. We already know that the gravitational energy contracts space-time on itself.

It's more complicated than that. There is matter disappearing from our comoving frame by slipping out through the event horizon.

....For space-time to expand at an accelerating rate, you need an increasing amount of whatever is countering gravity in the first place -- presumably, lambda. ....

It seems that you are worried about an increasing lambda, but it is a constant lambda that leads to acceleration. Lambda does not need to increase to affect that. Where this constant comes from is a subject of current research. It seems that you are worried about a different problem than cosmologists.

It is a branch of philosophy.

I know what it is, but I have not heard it applied to the universe. Google doesn't show any coherent discussion of the universe and an ontology argument.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The ontological and cosmological arguments were discredited years ago.

And as I have said, much more able minds than Num's have tried to prove them.

 

[numinus]

It is happening on cosmological scales. The vacuum fluctuation is happening all over the cosmos. This adds to the intrinsic energy density and, depending on the model, should have an effect at cosmic scales.

The computation that the total energy of the universe is zero comes from the balance of mass and potential energy that we now see. If you think in a comoving frame of reference, there is no problem.

It's more complicated than that. There is matter disappearing from our comoving frame by slipping out through the event horizon.

It seems that you are worried about an increasing lambda, but it is a constant lambda that leads to acceleration. Lambda does not need to increase to affect that. Where this constant comes from is a subject of current research. It seems that you are worried about a different problem than cosmologists.

Hmmm. That isn't even an imaginative response, and ultimately, WRONG.

So that you need not waste your time in skirting, instead of confronting the problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum.

This conclusion follows from dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory till the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of Mpl^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10^120. (Yep, that's 1 followed by 120 zeros)

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.

I know what it is, but I have not heard it applied to the universe. Google doesn't show any coherent discussion of the universe and an ontology argument.

Cosmology has always been in the domain of philosophy, up until einstein's relativity and the proliferation of the various big bang cosmological theories.

All big bang cosmological models start from a point of singularity -- a physical nothingness from which everything came to be. And that, in a nutshell, is what science and ontology have in common.

 

[numinus]

The ontological and cosmological arguments were discredited years ago.

And as I have said, much more able minds than Num's have tried to prove them.

Sigh.

If it were effectively discredited years ago, then it would be a simple matter to post the refutation -- instead of heaping nonsense, one on top of the other.

But you can't, can you? The best refutation you can think of, which is the ONLY available avenue for argument, is the claim that the first cause isn't god -- an argument that has as little merit as goat-herder logic. After all, what you call the first cause -- whether god, or a space-time singularity, or a coiled dimension wrapped along your anal passage -- makes no difference in its logical conclusion.

And yes, I can already imagine yourself farting dust trying to conjure more nonsense in response to this.

Duh?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Au contraire.

The argument merely replaces one logical problem with another.

It is just that you prefer the other logical problem because it suits your superstition.

And we all know that advocates of the argument arte just itching to state that it proves god's existence.

Which it wouldn't even if it was right.

Which it isn't.

 

[numinus]

Au contraire.

The argument merely replaces one logical problem with another.

It is just that you prefer the other logical problem because it suits your superstition.

And we all know that advocates of the argument arte just itching to state that it proves god's existence.

Which it wouldn't even if it was right.

Which it isn't.

As expected, more dust farted in the wind.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Which must be some strange engineered language meaning

'Yes Dawkinsrocks, you are abolsutely right and although I do not have the wherewithal to respond with fact and logic I will not accept your point because I am too stubborn'

 

[numinus]

Which must be some strange engineered language meaning

'Yes Dawkinsrocks, you are abolsutely right and although I do not have the wherewithal to respond with fact and logic I will not accept your point because I am too stubborn'

For somebody who hasn't endeavored even an intelligent guess as to what gravity is -- in a thread about gravity, no less, you have the cheek to claim you are absolutely right.

You must love the odor of your fart that much.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

No it isn't.

It is a thread asking if you believe in gravity.

I do.

Now, if your subtext is not, as I have indicated to show that gravity is a probablity that people believe in so why not also believe in the probability that god exists why don't you explain what it is.

Because if all you are doing is asking people if they believe in gravity this has got to be the dullest and most unnecessary posts that has ever disgraced this board.

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

No it isn't.

It is a thread asking if you believe in gravity.

I do.

Now, if your subtext is not, as I have indicated to show that gravity is a probablity that people believe in so why not also believe in the probability that god exists why don't you explain what it is.

Because if all you are doing is asking people if they believe in gravity this has got to be the dullest and most unnecessary posts that has ever disgraced this board.

Maybe if you reviewed the hundreds of other threads which already debates the exsitence of god and stopped derailing intrested groups in an unrelated (( well untill you came and derailed the conversation )) thread about gravity (( which yes .. requires faith .. however our goal here was explanations on what we think gravity is .. can you name even 1 theory ?!?! )).

Again Dawkins .. you show your arogance and egocentric behaviour by disregarding the fact that people .....
ONLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT SCIENCE!!!! and not your illogical views of religion... now while both religion and cosmology can very well be intertwined .. how about starting another thread to do so .. other then that .. keep it to the subject or again be reported for disrespecting your fellow posters...

Why is this so hard to sink in for you .... not everyone is always concerned about religion and what it has to do with EVERY subject out there ...

Your morbid fascination is growing quite old .. and if you haven't been banned completely yet .. your gaining more support from different users everyday with this routine.

Again .... stop derailing threads and stick to subject matter and answer one question for all of us..

WHAT THEORY OF GRAVITY DO YOU BELIEVE IN ?!?!?!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The question of this thread is do you believe in gravity?

It isn't 'what do you think of gravity?'

Numinus is a huge advocate of the existence of god for which he cites the most arcane pseudo science.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable of me to question the subtext of his points.

I am not a fan of his posts and I certainly am not a fan of your ill-conveived and thinly veiled threat.

But I wouldn't want to see either of you banned.

But then I am confident of my views and can back them up with fact and reason.

I don't need the crutch of censorship.

 

[Lagboltz]

Hmmm. That isn't even an imaginative response, and ultimately, WRONG.

I'm not trying to be imaginative, I'm just quoting what imaginative scientists have observed.

You didn't say what you thought was wrong.
Do you disagree that the vacuum fluctuation might have a bearing on cosmological scales?
Do you disagree that the energy of mass in the universe is significantly close to the potential energy?
Do you disagree that matter is disappearing through the event horizon?
Do you disagree that a constant lambda leads to an acceleration of expansion?

Yes I agree that a theory that can calculate the cosmological constant has not been found, and that the current state of the vacuum energy is totally unable to do that. But until proven otherwise, it is generally agreed that the vacuum energy has an important significance in the big picture.

Cosmology has always been in the domain of philosophy, up until einstein's relativity and the proliferation of the various big bang cosmological theories.

Yeah, like about 90 years ago? I don't understand your point.
Fire was in the realm of philosophy for thousands of years.
Philosophy let the earth be at the center of the universe for thousands of years.
Science came along and yanked many more philosophy phenomena like these and put them into solidly understood mathematical models.

All big bang cosmological models start from a point of singularity -- a physical nothingness from which everything came to be. And that, in a nutshell, is what science and ontology have in common.

Try looking at Linde's theories. Who knows if he is accurate, let alone correct. But at least there are a number of theories including his that take away the "sting" out of singularities and nothingness.

Do you want to give up on science and put cosmology back in the realm of philosophy? That is certainly a step backwards. Why would you want to do that? Current and planned research continue to discover many new things. Give it some more time, like maybe another 90 years or so.

 

[numinus]

The question of this thread is do you believe in gravity?

It isn't 'what do you think of gravity?'

Numinus is a huge advocate of the existence of god for which he cites the most arcane pseudo science.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable of me to question the subtext of his points.

I am not a fan of his posts and I certainly am not a fan of your ill-conveived and thinly veiled threat.

But I wouldn't want to see either of you banned.

But then I am confident of my views and can back them up with fact and reason.

I don't need the crutch of censorship.

Belief implies knowledge and vice-versa. If you wish to know the exact relationship between belief and knowledge, then you need to read up on epistemology -- if you're feeble mind is up to it.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

I'm not trying to be imaginative, I'm just quoting what imaginative scientists have observed.

You didn't say what you thought was wrong.
Do you disagree that the vacuum fluctuation might have a bearing on cosmological scales?

If by vacuum fluctuation you mean the spontaneous creation/annihilation of particles, then certainly not.

But indeed, vacuum energy needs to be increasing to make any sense of astronomical observations.

Do you disagree that the energy of mass in the universe is significantly close to the potential energy?

I assume you are using the word 'potential energy' as an analogy to the tensile tendency of lambda on space-time geometry.

Yes, they must be very close. It is the ONLY way to derive a flat geometry. More accurately, the ratio between the energy due to mass and lambda (omega) should differ by something like 10^-50 from 1.

Of course this is what is referred to as the flatness problem in big bang cosmology. To achieve that, you need to 'fine tune' the initial conditions of the nascent universe. Any infinitessimal deviation would result in either a big crunch or the universe escaping itself. No self-respecting physicist would accept a 'fine-tuned' anything.

Do you disagree that matter is disappearing through the event horizon?

By disappearing, do you mean being annihilated or being converted into something else entirely?

One would imagine that there is very little matter at the event horizon of expansion. Otherwise, it wouldn't be expanding, now, would it? Personally, I think it is being converted into lambda.

Do you disagree that a constant lambda leads to an acceleration of expansion?

I disagree, for reasons already stated.

Lambda and gravity are functions of space-time geometry -- if general relativity has anything to do with it. Their interaction defines the dynamics of what we call the cosmological fluid -- where molecules are analogous to an entire galaxies. I fail to see how your co-moving anything would explain an accelerated expansion.

Yes I agree that a theory that can calculate the cosmological constant has not been found, and that the current state of the vacuum energy is totally unable to do that. But until proven otherwise, it is generally agreed that the vacuum energy has an important significance in the big picture.

I'm not asking for a calculation of the cosmological constant, not even any experimental verification (such would be a luxury in cosmology, anyway) -- merely a consistent theory that explains the various cosmological riddles:

1. Horizon and homogeneity
2. Flatness
3. Lambda

You must admit that the leading theory, inflation cosmology, thought of by a particle physicist, allan guth, is very far from answering these riddles.

Yeah, like about 90 years ago? I don't understand your point.
Fire was in the realm of philosophy for thousands of years.
Philosophy let the earth be at the center of the universe for thousands of years.
Science came along and yanked many more philosophy phenomena like these and put them into solidly understood mathematical models.

Ah, but the thing is, science is also a philosophy -- complete with its own postulates and methods -- the invariance of c, conservation, etc. In fact, it is a very MATERIALIST world view. And just like any religion, its adherents could be very unforgiving to its members thought of as 'heretical'.

Try looking at Linde's theories. Who knows if he is accurate, let alone correct. But at least there are a number of theories including his that take away the "sting" out of singularities and nothingness.

I'll get back to this when I have the time to look into it.

Do you want to give up on science and put cosmology back in the realm of philosophy? That is certainly a step backwards. Why would you want to do that? Current and planned research continue to discover many new things. Give it some more time, like maybe another 90 years or so.

Absolutely not. Physical cosmology couldn't get back to philosophy even if anyone even wants it to.

Science has developed a highly rigid standard that, for all intents and purposes, works. However, one must know its limitations -- that science is NOT the end all, be all of human knowledge -- that some branches of the natural sciences are highly speculative -- and that its method are very much dependent on limited human perception.