5 ms·

> "Observations of astronomical bodies under gravity do not show this decrease, and so far there is no sign that G varies in space" Correct me if I'm wrong, bu

> "Observations of astronomical bodies under gravity do not show this decrease, and so far there is no sign that G varies in space" Correct me if I'm wrong, but observations do show there's a significant problem with the equations, which led to the invention of "dark matter" and "dark energy". Aside from that, is there any connection between the universal constants of physics and mathematical constants? It would be nice to be able to say, "The Universe is the way it is because circles."

dogma1138 11y ago
Dark matter and energy are there to solve an issue with the cosmological constant which is a "value" that was introduced by Einstein to make his general theory of relativity work with the back was accepted as a static universe, basically it's the energy density of the vacuum in space. This constant was then "abandoned" after Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, it was still there but it's value was (assumed to be) zero. When the scientific consensus reached a point where it was agreed on that the universe is accelerating the cosmological constant came back into play because with it you can explain the accelerated expansion, the problem is that we can't account for the additional energy needed to account for the acceleration so dark energy was introduced as a concept. Dark Matter was introduced to solve another issue, one that can be seen on much smaller (or own galaxy) scales, basically if we look at the motion of stars and the rotation of galaxies we seem to be lacking mass, and quite a bit of it (although not nearly as much as dark energy) so again a place holder device was introduced in the form of dark matter Now normally you would say well when you need to introduce additional doodads to account for something in your theory not in 1 instance but in 2 and maybe in many others your theory sucks. The problem is that we've sorta proven that gravity works for the most part as we think it does, and if we go into weird stuff like localized gravitational constants well they don't account for the observations that required dark matter or energy, oh and they kinda break the universe. The force of gravity and hence the gravitational constant has been proven to be "correct" in from the smallest (even atom level) observations and calculations to the macro and universal scales, and while it's true that we might be wrong, if we are we are wrong by not a mile but probably several parsecs this means that relativity and other current accepted gravitational theories are more wrong than the "Ether Theory".
- zamalek 11y ago
  > more wrong than the "Ether Theory". They are locally correct, just like Newton's theories were correct up until we observed Mercury. That being said I'm 99% in agreement with mainstream science: Einstein's work just makes too much sense to be wholly incorrect. Where I'm in strong disagreement with mainstream science is outright hacks where they turn dark matter/energy into real things (e.g. WIMPs). Non-constant G is a more worthwhile avenue than that IMO.
  - imglorp 11y ago
    The curious thing is the trouble spots have been mapped. There are filaments and voids where the gravitational effects of unseen matter/stuff are plainly observable: something is there pulling on stuff. MOND is not enough to answer that.
    - zamalek 11y ago
      Possibly I didn't make my arguments correctly. > MOND I'm not saying that MOND is correct at all, I'm saying that we believed that classical Newtonian dynamics was seen as correct at one point - just like SR is seen as correct now. My opinion is that it's highly unlikely that SR is incorrect (or partially incorrect), however, I do see it as a remote possibility. > There are filaments and voids where the gravitational effects of unseen matter/stuff are plainly observable Another way of looking at it is a map of the sum of things that we don't know. Again, using Mercury as an example, we were able to calculate the [sum of] force the was "wrong." The dark matter map is incredibly cool because it's the same thing done on a unbelievably massive scale. There were certainly people who believed that this unaccounted-for force on Mercury was a single force with a trivial explanation. We now know that this was not the case. That is, in my opinion, the same mistake we are now making - simply because we can calculate a map of the effect does not mean that it's actually a map of real stuff. Although I'm in disagreement with MOND I do think it does something right: the μ function. "This is something that we don't know." In the same way it is in my opinion that dark matter and dark energy are merely unknown functions and not "real matter" and "real energy." I certainly think that Turner and Zwicky had the same thought pattern when they coined the terms.
78666cdc 11y ago
The problem with "the universe is the way it is because circles" is that our understanding / development of mathematics is based on ways of perception formed based on seeing the universe around is. It becomes a chicken and egg issue.

dogma1138 11y ago

Dark matter and energy are there to solve an issue with the cosmological constant which is a "value" that was introduced by Einstein to make his general theory of relativity work with the back was accepted as a static universe, basically it's the energy density of the vacuum in space. This constant was then "abandoned" after Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, it was still there but it's value was (assumed to be) zero. When the scientific consensus reached a point where it was agreed on that the universe is accelerating the cosmological constant came back into play because with it you can explain the accelerated expansion, the problem is that we can't account for the additional energy needed to account for the acceleration so dark energy was introduced as a concept. Dark Matter was introduced to solve another issue, one that can be seen on much smaller (or own galaxy) scales, basically if we look at the motion of stars and the rotation of galaxies we seem to be lacking mass, and quite a bit of it (although not nearly as much as dark energy) so again a place holder device was introduced in the form of dark matter Now normally you would say well when you need to introduce additional doodads to account for something in your theory not in 1 instance but in 2 and maybe in many others your theory sucks. The problem is that we've sorta proven that gravity works for the most part as we think it does, and if we go into weird stuff like localized gravitational constants well they don't account for the observations that required dark matter or energy, oh and they kinda break the universe. The force of gravity and hence the gravitational constant has been proven to be "correct" in from the smallest (even atom level) observations and calculations to the macro and universal scales, and while it's true that we might be wrong, if we are we are wrong by not a mile but probably several parsecs this means that relativity and other current accepted gravitational theories are more wrong than the "Ether Theory".

zamalek 11y ago
> more wrong than the "Ether Theory". They are locally correct, just like Newton's theories were correct up until we observed Mercury. That being said I'm 99% in agreement with mainstream science: Einstein's work just makes too much sense to be wholly incorrect. Where I'm in strong disagreement with mainstream science is outright hacks where they turn dark matter/energy into real things (e.g. WIMPs). Non-constant G is a more worthwhile avenue than that IMO.
- imglorp 11y ago
  The curious thing is the trouble spots have been mapped. There are filaments and voids where the gravitational effects of unseen matter/stuff are plainly observable: something is there pulling on stuff. MOND is not enough to answer that.
  - zamalek 11y ago
    Possibly I didn't make my arguments correctly. > MOND I'm not saying that MOND is correct at all, I'm saying that we believed that classical Newtonian dynamics was seen as correct at one point - just like SR is seen as correct now. My opinion is that it's highly unlikely that SR is incorrect (or partially incorrect), however, I do see it as a remote possibility. > There are filaments and voids where the gravitational effects of unseen matter/stuff are plainly observable Another way of looking at it is a map of the sum of things that we don't know. Again, using Mercury as an example, we were able to calculate the [sum of] force the was "wrong." The dark matter map is incredibly cool because it's the same thing done on a unbelievably massive scale. There were certainly people who believed that this unaccounted-for force on Mercury was a single force with a trivial explanation. We now know that this was not the case. That is, in my opinion, the same mistake we are now making - simply because we can calculate a map of the effect does not mean that it's actually a map of real stuff. Although I'm in disagreement with MOND I do think it does something right: the μ function. "This is something that we don't know." In the same way it is in my opinion that dark matter and dark energy are merely unknown functions and not "real matter" and "real energy." I certainly think that Turner and Zwicky had the same thought pattern when they coined the terms.

78666cdc 11y ago

The problem with "the universe is the way it is because circles" is that our understanding / development of mathematics is based on ways of perception formed based on seeing the universe around is. It becomes a chicken and egg issue.