Does gravity have mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If one knows, how does dark matter and energy “figure in” to the Big Bang?

THANKS!
 
I’ve watched some Science Channel shows about this before. How The Universe Works is a great show that discusses everything we are talking about here.
 
JUST AN IDEA!

I am of the opinion that we cannot get to the essence of gravity and other laws or forces of nature.

I know that some great scientists have held the idea that math runs the universe.

I hold the idea that math is a product of our ability to reason, just life other forms of logic.

Prudence, wisdom and justice are also products of our ability to reason.

Math does not run biology, prudence, wisdom, justice, fortitude or logic.

Math is a tool that helps us measure, but it does not run the universe.

Math did not run evolution, micro or macro evolution.

Math is impotent at getting to the essence of human nature and the essence of gravity and the forces of nature.

JUST AN IDEA!
 
My understanding is that the presence of mass causes space to curve in accordance with the amount of mass. Objects in space follow the curvature of space, i.e. gravity!
 
No one knows what gravity is. It has never been shielded so it my actually be God’s hand at work governing the universe. And of course, there would be nothing unusual in the fact that we can detect the effects of gravith. After we are God’s effects as well and we can certainly detect ourselves. Every thing is an effect of God’s power and we can detect just about everything that exists in the universe.

This should keep things going :D.

Linus2nd
 
Universal gravity has been a mystery. NASA use to have a page up explaining how little they knew about it. Its not up anymore. We are more likely to be talking about what its does or its effects, then we see how its progressed with Kepler, Newton and further Einstein with space-time, and on we go. Space-time …

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QqQIwAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.news.yahoo.com%2Fphysicists-prove-time-travel-possible-sending-particles-light-135610147.html&ei=aaKoU7y4IYqhyATd8YKoDg&usg=AFQjCNH5jgNUmA9Y70_lCp7Ml7iqSgo9uQ
 
Jim_Baur said:
JUST AN IDEA!

I am of the opinion that we cannot get to the essence of gravity and other laws or forces of nature.

…]

Math does not run biology, prudence, wisdom, justice, fortitude or logic.

Math is a tool that helps us measure, but it does not run the universe.

…]

JUST AN IDEA!
Click to expand...
Yea… I think I catch your drift. Here are some more zen-like phrases that many philosophers of science somehow miss.

The map is not the territory/Don’t reify abstractions

The “laws of nature” are the “laws of natures” (from Oderberg)

*The “laws of nature” are descriptive, not prescriptive *

The formal object of modern science is number-measure (from de Koninck)
 
*he “laws of nature” are descriptive

*I agree. This is a concise way to phrase it.

In addition, we do not know the essence of the laws.
 
Jim_Baur said:
*he “laws of nature” are descriptive

*I agree. This is a concise way to phrase it.

In addition, we do not know the essence of the laws.
Click to expand...
If we knew the essence of the laws of nature, it would no longer be science–science does not reach the essence, but only a descriptive model, always subject to future refinement.
 
bmonk

Awesome

I never saw the interconnection of those two principles!!!

THANKS!
 
Jim_Baur said:
bmonk

Awesome

I never saw the interconnection of those two principles!!!

THANKS!
Click to expand...
Yes, essence, nature, and form are used more or less interchangeably. Philosophy studies the essence, nature or form, science studies the physicality, behavior and properties of a thing. But these physicalities flow from the nature, essence, or form which cannot be seen. We see a horse with its behavior and properties, but we don’t see what makes this thing a horse, we do not see its " horseness " or essence/mature/form.

Linus2nd
 
JimG said:
My understanding is that the presence of mass causes space to curve in accordance with the amount of mass. Objects in space follow the curvature of space, i.e. gravity!
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the mental picture that Einstein used to come up with General Relativity. Then he described it mathematically.

Now we calculate the motion of galactic arms and it doesn’t fit, it’s such a great theory and no one can come up with a better one. Therefore, the discrepancy is called Dark Matter it is mass that must be distributed just so throughout a galaxy to make all it’s parts move correctly.

Then we see far off galaxies and measure that gravity isn’t slowing them down, but pushing them apart and accelerating them! Then to explain this they came up with Dark Energy they can’t say what it is at all except it is whatever is overpowering gravity to push galaxies apart.

At first, instead of Dark Energy, there was some talk of a term that Einstein just set to zero. The cosmological constant maybe it wasn’t zero, but nobody could get that to work out. Dark Energy doesn’t have a working model either, but it’s the name that caught on for that part of the theory that just doesn’t fit the current accepted theory.

And why Dark? because no one can actually find any.
 
wmw said:
Yes, this is the mental picture that Einstein used to come up with General Relativity. Then he described it mathematically.

Now we calculate the motion of galactic arms and it doesn’t fit, it’s such a great theory and no one can come up with a better one. Therefore, the discrepancy is called Dark Matter it is mass that must be distributed just so throughout a galaxy to make all it’s parts move correctly.

Then we see far off galaxies and measure that gravity isn’t slowing them down, but pushing them apart and accelerating them! Then to explain this they came up with Dark Energy they can’t say what it is at all except it is whatever is overpowering gravity to push galaxies apart.

At first, instead of Dark Energy, there was some talk of a term that Einstein just set to zero. The cosmological constant maybe it wasn’t zero, but nobody could get that to work out. Dark Energy doesn’t have a working model either, but it’s the name that caught on for that part of the theory that just doesn’t fit the current accepted theory.

And why Dark? because no one can actually find any.
Click to expand...
Space does not curve, that is a mathematical equation, it is not reality. The reality is that it is light that bends because of the effects of gravity. Nothing mysterious about that.

Linus2nd
 
wmw
What are the explanations of dark matter and energy?

Please forgive my lack of knowledge and time.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Space does not curve, that is a mathematical equation, it is not reality. The reality is that it is light that bends because of the effects of gravity. Nothing mysterious about that.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
That may be a difference without a distinction. And it would invalidate the current view of the universe as a positively curved four dimensional sphere.

A person living in the middle of Kansas may be convinced that the space he is occupying is flat. Yet if he walked, drove, flew or otherwise traveled in a straight line for 25,000 miles he would find himself back at his starting point, having circumnavigated the globe, with it’s spherical surface.

Similarly, if a person set out in a straight line in any direction in a spaceship with unlimited fuel supply, after some billons of light years of travel he would find himself back at his starting point, (though there would be some adjustment, since the universe, unlike the earth, is expanding.) At least, that’s the current theory. (If the space of the universe is flat, there would be some physical indications of that as well, and cosmological theory would need to be revised.)
 
Please forgive the amateur, and I honestly mean that.

Can there be a theory of the past if we are unable to examine and test, retest, and publish the results for peer evaluation?

What are the distinctions of hypothesis, theory and law?

Are dark energy and matter hypothesis, theory or law?

THANKS!
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Space does not curve, that is a mathematical equation, it is not reality. The reality is that it is light that bends because of the effects of gravity. Nothing mysterious about that.
Click to expand...
If space didn’t curve then the bending of light near stars would be completely mysterious, since light has no mass.

But space (more correctly, spacetime) does curve in the presence of matter. Light follows the shortest path between two points in space. If the space is curved then the shortest path is also a curve. Simple.

The math is the reality. The math is built into GPS, and without it GPS would get positions wrong by many kilometers. See, for example, physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

The curving of space-time in the presence of matter explains lots more, including why gravity can’t be shielded or reversed. It may seem weird at first, but God is not limited by what we think is weird.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Please forgive the amateur, and I honestly mean that.

Can there be a theory of the past if we are unable to examine and test, retest, and publish the results for peer evaluation?

What are the distinctions of hypothesis, theory and law?

Are dark energy and matter hypothesis, theory or law?

THANKS!
Click to expand...
I’ll give it a go:

An hypothesis is a posh name for an educated guess that tries to explain how or why something happens. In science, it must be capable of being proved false.

A theory is an hypothesis which, despite everyone’s best efforts, has not been proved false.

Some theories specify rules saying that if certain conditions apply, a particular thing will always happen. If the theory is very well tested then the rule is called a law.

Dark energy and dark matter are none of the above. They are labels given to observed phenomena which were never predicted by any theories. There are several competing hypotheses trying to explain each of them, that have not yet been ruled out by testing. So one of the hypotheses may be correct, or no one has yet made a good enough guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top