Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[rrobs]

I know that it exist but I'm always puzzled by cases of selective perception (or selective memory).

I would think all perception is selective. Who's doing the perceiving will color the results.

 

[Left Coast]

Well without tying u the thread I will give a brief description.

First in the macro world we have a space time continuum and gravity. This is lacking in the Quantum World. Important note: The Quantum World has momentary time of individual Quantum particle behavior. Classic physics breaks down at the Quantum scale, and for example as we approach the beginning of the universe as a singularity.

Definition of space-time | Dictionary.com

" . . . space-time continuum. the four-dimensional continuum, having three spatial coordinates and one temporal coordinate, in which all physical quantities may be located. the physical reality that exists within this four-dimensional continuum."

More to follow . . .

I understand that classical physics breaks down at the quantum level. But all our observations of subatomic particles are still...within space and time. It would be incoherent to say we've ever observed something outside space and time. By definition, our observations, made with our eyes and processed with our brains, require space and time.

 

[rrobs]

Objective evidence can only be used to falsify 'positive' hypothesis an theories. Any other explanation would have to present 'positive' objective evidence for a hypothesis to support an alternate explanation. Without the objective evidence it is indeed an 'argument from ignorance.'

Think of it like this. Suppose the strength of gravity on the Earth went up by 10%. How would it affect things, given that everything else is the same?

And the answer is not much. Things would fall faster. We'd need to do some adjustments in some architecture and some engineering, but other than using a bit more support in some cases, even there the changes would not be huge.

A 10% increase in earth's gravity would have no effect on the moon? I'm not asking trick questions. I'm very curious about this. It's something new to me.

 

[exchemist]

Is there no science at all that would indicate ID? I know there is, so what is it that makes you accept some science that agrees with your ideas but reject that which goes against your ideas?

Not saying you are wrong, but any references on the falsehood of 10^60 being non-scientific that I can look at? Thanks.

There is no science that indicates ID. And there never can be, even in principle.

ID is not a scientific hypothesis, as it is incapable of predicting what we should be able to observe.

 

[Polymath257]

A 10% increase in earth's gravity would have no effect on the moon? I'm not asking trick questions. I'm very curious about this. It's something new to me.

The orbit would be a bit different: either closer and faster, or a bit further away. The tides would be a bit more. But nothing dramatically different. Mostly differences in timing and speed.

 

[shunyadragon]

A 10% increase in earth's gravity would have no effect on the moon? I'm not asking trick questions. I'm very curious about this. It's something new to me.

I do not consider it a trick question just meaningless. Of course if there is a 10% difference in earth's gravity our universe would not exist.

There at present no evidence that our physical constants are ant different than what they are any where else in a multiverse. It is possible, but no evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

I understand that classical physics breaks down at the quantum level. But all our observations of subatomic particles are still...within space and time. It would be incoherent to say we've ever observed something outside space and time. By definition, our observations, made with our eyes and processed with our brains, require space and time.

The observations from our perspective are in space time, but we can observe the Quantum world is without the space/time continuum we observe in the macro world, and no gravity as in the macro world.

 

[Left Coast]

The observations from our perspective are in space time, but we can observe the Quantum world is without the space/time continuum we observe in the macro world, and no gravity as in the macro world.

If our observations are in space and time, how could we ever determine that we're observing something outside of space and time? The very concept is incoherent. We can only observe things that take up some amount of space and/or some amount of time; otherwise we would have no way of observing them, because they'd be indistinguishable from...nothing.

 

[Heyo]

A 10% increase in earth's gravity would have no effect on the moon? I'm not asking trick questions. I'm very curious about this. It's something new to me.

The Orbital Speed of the moon would increase but not by 10% but only by about 5%. Depending on how fast the increase would occur, the eccentricity would also increase. The tides would increase even less than 5% since the increased inertia of the water would cancel part of the increased gravity.
(The same applies to other heavenly bodies.)

 

[shunyadragon]

If our observations are in space and time, how could we ever determine that we're observing something outside of space and time? The science of Quantum Mechanics is based on the objective evidence. \\

The very concept is incoherent. We can only observe things that take up some amount of space and/or some amount of time; otherwise we would have no way of observing them, because they'd be indistinguishable from...nothing.

What is observed in Quantum Mechanics is Momentary discontinuous time in terms of Quantum behavior in the Quantum World, and not the continuum of space time of the macro world.

The Chronon is the theoretical consideration of Quantum discontinuous time.

Chronon - Wikipedia.

"A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous."

Concerning macro world gravity it is just not observed in the Quantum World as it is in the macro world. Quantum gravity is a theoretical solution to the nature of Quantum behavior, and not an observed behavior.

 

[rrobs]

There is no science that indicates ID. And there never can be, even in principle.

ID is not a scientific hypothesis, as it is incapable of predicting what we should be able to observe.

That answers my question,
I take it that you don't have any references on the falsehood of 10^60 being non-scientific that I can look at.

Interesting that you predict what science may or may not discover in the future. I guess you think science has found the holy grail, that there's nothing more to discover. Did I misunderstand you?

 

[rrobs]

The Orbital Speed of the moon would increase but not by 10% but only by about 5%. Depending on how fast the increase would occur, the eccentricity would also increase. The tides would increase even less than 5% since the increased inertia of the water would cancel part of the increased gravity.
(The same applies to other heavenly bodies.)

At some point wouldn't the eccentricity become a straight line and the moon go off into outer space?

 

[rrobs]

The orbit would be a bit different: either closer and faster, or a bit further away. The tides would be a bit more. But nothing dramatically different. Mostly differences in timing and speed.

If the moon's orbit changed, would that not affect other heavenly bodies as well?

 

[Polymath257]

That answers my question,
I take it that you don't have any references on the falsehood of 10^60 being non-scientific that I can look at.

I'm inclined to believe it is a mis-intepretation. The closest thing I can find to something on this order has to do with the degree of cancellation required to produce the observed cosmological constant. But, again, the quote is from 1986, and there has been a LOT learned since then. In particular, the discovery of dark energy and the accelerating expansion rate was well after that date and quite relevant for the topic.

 

[rrobs]

That question has been answered by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia in 2005. There is no science indicating ID.

Kitzmiller has the final word on cosmology?

 

[Polymath257]

At some point wouldn't the eccentricity become a straight line and the moon go off into outer space?

Only if there is NO gravity at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Kitzmiller has the final word on cosmology?

Nope. Just on ID.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please read my post #27. Does that help, please?

Regards

I did. It doesn't help. You may "suppose" anything that you like, but without some means of testing your supposition, it isn't worth anything.

 

[Polymath257]

If the moon's orbit changed, would that not affect other heavenly bodies as well?

Not really. The Earth-moon system acts more like a unit.

An increase of the strength of gravity by 10% would change specifics, but nothing dramatically. It might make the sun run a bit hotter and change the length of orbits, but the same basic setup would still work.

There is certainly NOTHING even close to a 1 part in 10^60 tolerance on anything relevant to cosmology *except* when it comes to quantum gravity and the extent to which the cosmological constant is due to quantum fluctuations. That is purely theoretical, though. We *know* we don't understand quantum gravity.

 

[blü 2]

That's not how a coin toss is supposed to work.
You throw the coin up to force yourself to come to a conclusion. Then you do what you have chosen. Don't look at the poor coin, it was never meant to make the decision.

That's an alternative use, yes ─ but the original use can still come in handy, I assure you.