What's wrong with physics?

[Native]

The problem I see with physics is that it just can't
get things right the first time. It took so long for Newton
to come up with gravitaiton. Then they had to invent
new things like "precession" to explain observed phenomena.
And then the speed of light turned out to be wrong, depending
upon how it was measured. All that led to someone inventing
"space time".
Physics is a failure because it just can't ever get anything right.
Just a series of swings & misses...requiring continual tweaking
to get theories to fit reality. (Note that tweaking differs significantly
from twerking, which is yet another unexplained phenomenon.)

Congratulations! You got the OP thread correct and spot on

 

[Revoltingest]

Congratulations! You got the OP thread correct and spot on

Well, I did attend a large public school.
And I have much experience in designing
gear trains.

 

[Polymath257]

This is a typical answer from a *gravitationalist*: "There are huge EM forces at play at galactic centers, but they don´t have anything to do with the formation in galaxies".

Excuse me but you have to do better than such ignorant and disconnected statements.

How is it disconnected. Yes, around black holes there are strong E&M fields. Those dissipate as you move away from the black hole. And, at the distance of *thousands of light years*, the magnetic fields are *small* and have little effect on the motions of stars.

May I remind you that your *occult agency force* is by far the weakest one? How much of your weak force is needed in order to rotate galaxies compared to the stronger EM forces?

May I remind *you* that while gravity is the weakest force, it is always additive, while E&M tends to cancel out because it has two polarities. This means that gravity is *far* more important for large bodies, like planets (and more so, for stars and galaxies). The more mass, the more gravity.

You like to focus on gravity being 'occult' (whatever that means), while denying that it *actually works* to explain observed motions in a vast majority of the cases. E&M, on the other hand, *completely fails* to explain even the motion of planets in the solar system.

yes, yes, I know. You will claim that the 'overall galactic rotation' is conveyed into the solar system. It's a nice claim. Now provide *details*. Why for example, does Mercury take 88 days to circle the sun while the Earth takes 365? You may assume the distances from the sun are known and use whatever *measured* electric and magnetic fields you want in your explanation. Why, if the motion is because of the galactic rotation, do we get those numbers?

 

[Native]

Now do this: Cosmological science will not grow if *alternate ideas* aren´t taken interestingly and treated politely.

Me: What if we can't make a coherent physical theory of everything? I.e. they as your "they" can't do it, but neither can you?

UPS, sorry for this delay. No worry, you just have to get back to our ancestors and read their numerous Stories of Creation in a modern way and then you got the Theory of Everything in where LIGHT is the prime force of creation.

 

[Polymath257]

Try to convince the atoms of that.

No need to. Most atoms are electrically neutral. Try using a refrigerator magnet to affect the motion of a nitrogen atom, for example. The field from the refrigerator magnet is *far* too small to have any measurable effect. And the magnetic field of the galaxy is far, far smaller than that of a refrigerator magnet.

 

[Polymath257]

Congratulations! You got the OP thread correct and spot on

You don't recognize sarcasm do you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

UPS, sorry for this delay. No worry, you just have to get back to our ancestors and read their numerous Stories of Creation in a modern way and then you got the Theory of Everything in where LIGHT is the prime force of creation.

Yeah, that is an idea worth testing. But that doesn't mean it is correct.

 

[Native]

May I remind *you* that while gravity is the weakest force, it is always additive, while E&M tends to cancel out because it has two polarities. This means that gravity is *far* more important for large bodies, like planets (and more so, for stars and galaxies). The more mass, the more gravity.

Try to EXPLAIN this old gravity ghost before you´re take it for granted and insert it in scientific theories. What kind of a force is it? Does it work by rubber strands between objects? By teleportation?

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't recognize sarcasm do you?

Technically, "sarchasm".

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Congratulations! You got the OP thread correct and spot on

You don't recognize sarcasm do you?

Of course I do - but apparently you didn´t

 

[Revoltingest]

Native said: ↑
Congratulations! You got the OP thread correct and spot on

Of course I do - but apparently you didn´t

Don't underestimate Poly.
He knows pi to many more digits than I.

 

[Native]

Yeah, that is an idea worth testing. But that doesn't mean it is correct.

I can´t be much worse that the wild speculations far out in space in modern science

 

[Native]

Don't underestimate Poly.
He knows pi to many more digits than I.

I don´t underestimates *Poly*. I just estimate.

 

[Polymath257]

Try to EXPLAIN this old gravity ghost before you´re take it for granted and insert it in scientific theories. What kind of a force is it? Does it work by rubber strands between objects? By teleportation?

Nope. The gravitational field is produced by mass and energy in a way analogous to the way that the electric field is produced by charges.

For modern physics, gravity is actually a curvature of spacetime.

You want a more fundamental mechanism? Why? No rubber bands. No teleportation.

Just curvature of spacetime produced by mass and energy (or a field produced by mass). Other things move in the curved spacetime along geodesics (or in the field).

Let me ask if you can give an explanation of E&M forces. How do *they* work? By rubber bands? By teleportation? How are the fields made?

 

[Polymath257]

Don't underestimate Poly.
He knows pi to many more digits than I.

At one point, I knew it to 200 places. Now, my feeble memory only manages 50.

 

[Revoltingest]

At one point, I knew it to 200 places. Now, my feeble memory only manages 50.

I use 5 places.

 

[Polymath257]

I use 5 places.

Better than 22/7. But not as good as 355/113.

 

[Revoltingest]

Better than 22/7. But not as good as 355/113.

Rounding down to 3 is sometimes good enuf to
determine pipe size (when I don't have a pi tape).

 

[Polymath257]

Rounding down to 3 is sometimes good enuf to
determine pipe size (when I don't have a pi tape).

Hey, it's nice and Biblical!

 

[metis]

As it is now, this initial "dark matter" in galaxies is hypothesized all over in the observable Universe - only and just because the scientists don´t understand what is going on.

How often do you have to be told that a scientific hypothesis is not just a process of "don't understand"?