Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy (tc) wrote:Which brings me back to my original question. Does Matter/Gravitons/Higgs Boson, absorb space and time?

No.

Everywhere I go, Scientists describing "Time" flowing like a river. Where is that river going?

It's an analogy, and not a good one. Don't get too focused on it. Time is not like a river. Not at all.

There are to many markers that point me in that direction. The size of the Universe being one of them. The whole of space expanding from every point in space time. Is space being stretched?, Or is new space time being quantum mechanically beamed into every point? Unless space and time was always there, always expanding and is nothing to do with the big bang?

but you say, "There was no "Time" before the big bang", Therefore it has to have been created at t=0, Therefore space time has been manufactured in some way. And is still been manufactured. At an accelerated rate. What is feeding this?

tc

swainy (tc) wrote:There are to many markers that point me in that direction. The size of the Universe being one of them. The whole of space expanding from every point in space time. Is space being stretched?, Or is new space time being quantum mechanically beamed into every point?

Space, time, and space-time aren't "things" that get created or destroyed.

swainy (tc) wrote:Everywhere I go, Scientists describing "Time" flowing like a river. Where is that river going?

tc

Musicians describe time as flowing.

swainy wrote:swainy (tc) wrote:
Everywhere I go, Scientists describing "Time" flowing like a river. Where is that river going?

To the end of It's journey.

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy (tc) wrote:There are to many markers that point me in that direction. The size of the Universe being one of them. The whole of space expanding from every point in space time. Is space being stretched?, Or is new space time being quantum mechanically beamed into every point?

Space, time, and space-time aren't "things" that get created or destroyed.

Chris, Your going to tell me, Its all by Magic Huh ? The Mass of the Sun, "distorts" - "Something", ( that was never created), that keeps us (Planet Earth) in Orbit. (And At, "t = 0") It did not exist.

Magic.

tc

swainy (tc) wrote:Chris, Your going to tell me, Its all by Magic Huh ? :shock: The Mass of the Sun, "distorts" - "Something", ( that was never created), that keeps us (Planet Earth) in Orbit. (And At, "t = 0") It did not exist.

No magic is required.

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy (tc) wrote:Chris, Your going to tell me, Its all by Magic Huh ? The Mass of the Sun, "distorts" - "Something", ( that was never created), that keeps us (Planet Earth) in Orbit. (And At, "t = 0") It did not exist.

No magic is required.

Along with no explanation.

tc

Mark, I asked earlier, didn't get an answer, so ask again: aside from the BBC videos, what other resources have you used to aid your understanding? Did you watch the lectures available here on Asterisk? Read the suggested Wikipedia articles? Read a textbook or two? Take a class, either traditional or online?

There are five questions there. In an earlier post, you claimed the math does not add up. What math? For that matter, how much math do you know? It might help if you establish the baseline for your understanding.

owlice wrote:Mark, I asked earlier, didn't get an answer, so ask again: aside from the BBC videos, what other resources have you used to aid your understanding? Did you watch the lectures available here on Asterisk? Read the suggested Wikipedia articles? Read a textbook or two? Take a class, either traditional or online?

There are five questions there. In an earlier post, you claimed the math does not add up. What math? For that matter, how much math do you know? It might help if you establish the baseline for your understanding.

I can't answer your question in this thread "owlice" Because my answer would take me off thread. I can say, They all understand what I am talking about, where math (Does Not Add Up ) is concerned !

Why Would I want to watch things, like lectures ?

Been there got the tee shirt. got board waiting for the next top news, got to go find it myself.

tc

The Code wrote:Why Would I want to watch things, like lectures ?

To learn. You claim to be after answers; you'll find the answers to some of your questions in lectures.

owlice wrote:

The Code wrote:Why Would I want to watch things, like lectures ?

To learn. You claim to be after answers; you'll find the answers to some of your questions in lectures.

I Know There Answers ! I do Not Believe Them. ( Some Of ) Because of changes of minds. One Day, We Have A Fact, The Next, We Are Not So Sure. Huh. Its on going.

tc

The Code wrote:Along with no explanation.

Not so. As noted previously (several times), the explanation is found in GR.

The Code wrote:

owlice wrote:

The Code wrote:Why Would I want to watch things, like lectures ?

To learn. You claim to be after answers; you'll find the answers to some of your questions in lectures.

I Know There Answers ! I do Not Believe Them. ( Some Of ) Because of changes of minds. One Day, We Have A Fact, The Next, We Are Not So Sure. Huh. Its on going.

That is the nature of science. Science is not a book of answers, and if someone has lead you to believe that, they've done you a disservice. Science is the process of learning, and any such process requires rethinking what used to be the perceived wisdom. There's nothing wrong with rethinking and there's nothing wrong with learning what others think.

Rob

Chris Peterson wrote:

The Code wrote:Along with no explanation.

Not so. As noted previously (several times), the explanation is found in GR.

Chris

GR Is like the weather forecast, it means nothing to most folk. And will be up dated. ( Did I Say Wrong,,, No ! )

tc

Mark, you appear to be looking for unscientific answers to your questions, as you don't like the scientific ones. This is not the place to look for unscientific answers. There are plenty of other online forums that will tell you whatever it is you want to believe (since you appear to have little interest in science).

And this type of comment -- "GR Is like the weather forecast, it means nothing to most folk." -- doesn't belong here. There are many things that mean nothing to people; so what? If you don't understand GR, no harm in that. But if that is what answers your questions, you will either need to learn to understand GR or trust those who do. (I doubt the weather forecast is something that "means nothing to most folks," as you claim; if people weren't interested in weather forecasts, commercial radio and television wouldn't offer them either every 10 minutes or around-the-clock, as happens in many media markets. These outlets broadcast weather forecasts because people ARE interested in them.)

Owlice, since you r admin, I must refrain from speaking. I will never comment again. Good Bye.

The Code.

The Code wrote:GR Is like the weather forecast, it means nothing to most folk. And will be up dated. ( Did I Say Wrong,,, No ! )
tc

GR is rigorous science which is well understood. If you don't understand it, there's not a lot I can do. If you have specific questions about it, there are people here able and willing to try answering them. But you'll need to be precise in your questions. "Does matter absorb space time" is not a precise question; indeed, it isn't a scientific question at all.

Chris Peterson wrote:

The Code wrote:GR Is like the weather forecast, it means nothing to most folk. And will be up dated. ( Did I Say Wrong,,, No ! )
tc

GR is rigorous science which is well understood. If you don't understand it, there's not a lot I can do. If you have specific questions about it, there are people here able and willing to try answering them. But you'll need to be precise in your questions. "Does matter absorb space time" is not a precise question; indeed, it isn't a scientific question at all.

There are times, when I think, you guys, do not understand GR Seriously.

tc

Mark, I'm a moderator here, not an administrator. But I'm also a participant, so I get to ask questions and make comments just as any other participant does.

I don't know what your background is, how much math you know (it would not be difficult to know more math than I do; I'm not asking to be smarmy), how much science you've studied, nor at what level. That's why I'm asking what you've already done to advance your understanding; your comments and questions do not provide much information, and some of the questions you are asking are philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Others just are difficult to parse; they are unclear, imprecise, and it would be helpful if you made your questions more precise.

If the problem is simply that you don't believe what the science shows, then unless you can float a theory and propose experiments to test that theory, you are on the wrong board. It's silly to ask questions on a science board if you are looking for unscientific answers.

owlice wrote:... (I doubt the weather forecast is something that "means nothing to most folks," as you claim; if people weren't interested in weather forecasts, commercial radio and television wouldn't offer them either every 10 minutes or around-the-clock, as happens in many media markets. These outlets broadcast weather forecasts because people ARE interested in them.)

MAXINE wrote:Oh, the weather outside is frightful. So if you're one of those jerks who need to hear the latest weather every five minutes, there you go.

I am going to say one more thing in this thread, and that's me done. If you do not have all the facts, Then your picture of the Universe will be distorted. We Must open all the Doors. And explore all "Or" We may miss something. Do Not, Tell me that you have opened all them Doors, Because I know, You Haven't.

Mark

The Code wrote:I am going to say one more thing in this thread, and that's me done. If you do not have all the facts, Then your picture of the Universe will be distorted. We Must open all the Doors. And explore all "Or" We may miss something. Do Not, Tell me that you have opened all them Doors, Because I know, You Haven't.

Nobody completely understands the Universe. But I believe that some have a more distorted view than others, and it is the view through a lot of those "Doors" that is causing the worst distortion!

Good day

Thanks to Chris and Mark for providing a very interesting conversation . I think Mark tries to ask the questions that question the basic concepts . Our understanding about Gravity is not complete . We have only observed the “effects of Gravity” and from that understanding we are making use of the Gravity. But the “origin” and “the way it works” are still being explored. The proposed theories are not satisfactory and that is why we are not able to solve many areas related to Gravity. For any problem, if we don’t understand the concept exactly, we can not reach the solution (OR) if the concept is incorrect, in that case also we can not reach the solution. We are building our theories based on the already proposed theories . I think its time to reexamine those theories . I think Mark tries to question the basic concepts . Am I right Mark?!!

Thanking you
Kannan krishnaswamy

kannan krishnaswamy wrote:Our understanding about Gravity is not complete :!: . We have only observed the “effects of Gravity” and from that understanding we are making use of the Gravity. But the “origin” and “the way it works” are still being explored. The proposed theories are not satisfactory and that is why we are not able to solve many areas related to Gravity.

What "areas related to Gravity" are we not able to "solve"?

I agree with you that our understanding of the subject is not complete. But that doesn't mean that our understanding isn't substantially accurate- I think it is. As a rule, a theory which is good, but not necessarily complete (which is how I'd describe gravity) is seldom improved by developing entirely new concepts. Our advances in knowledge are almost always evolutionary, rarely revolutionary.

For any problem, if we don’t understand the concept exactly, we can not reach the solution (OR) if the concept is incorrect, in that case also we can not reach the solution. We are building our theories based on the already proposed theories :?: . I think its time to reexamine those theories.

I consider that approach unscientific, and therefore very unlikely to produce any gains in our knowledge. We do best when we don't start with "concepts" at all, but only observation. From the observation, we create explanatory theories. We don't blind ourselves by asking "why?" and we only ask "how?" in a very restrictive sense. The reality is, our existing fundamental cosmological theories do a very good job of explaining our observations. There's no indication that reexamination is needed, beyond the natural reexamination that always occurs during the scientific process.

Thanks Chris for your apt reply .
“Our advances in knowledge are almost always evolutionary, rarely revolutionary”
That is very accurate . I do not find fault with our predecessors but want to stress that any deviation from the correct approach (or) continuing an incorrect approach will land us nowhere. Any new visions should not be ignored . In the space any heavenly body is living inside the “Gravitational field” of another body. Planets, stars, galaxies all these bodies are bathing in a pool of gravity. The entire Universe is filled with this force without a gap. So all events that are happening inside this pool can be understood only if we can understand the true nature of this force. Out side our atmosphere, we often encounter aberrations in our existing cosmological theories . I believe we‘ve gone wrong somewhere in understanding this force. That is why we struggle to link the Macro and Micro cosmos . As you’ve rightly said ‘let us wait for the evolution to happen taking its own time’ .
Thanking you
Kannan krishnaswamy