I Don't Believe in Gravity!

[LegionOnomaMoi]

From UniverseToday.com
Our understanding of gravity breaks down at both the very small and the very big: at the level of atoms and molecules, gravity just stops working. And we can’t describe the insides of black holes and the moment of the Big Bang without the math completely falling apart.

Perhaps you have an explanation?

1) The only reason we have any basis for asserting there existed "the Big Bang" is the success of our best theory of gravitation (general relativity)
2) The math doesn't "break down". More precisely, the math is the only thing that informs us that we should speak of black holes as such or that there was a big bang at all. It is, rather, difficulties combining mathematical structures.
3) Gravity doesn't just stop working at either the very small or very big. There exists certain phenomena that we often adequately describe in terms of a gravitational force which we know is a useful fiction. It has an effective domain of validity as a tool. For those who seek to understand in a consistent manner the nature of the fundamental structures and constituents of reality, gravitational force is simply a guide- it gives us constraints and parameters for progress because any successful theory must be at least as successful as was Newtonian gravitation. General relativity doesn't break down and quantum theory even less so. It is simply that we don't know how to unify the two frameworks, and most of the theories that we have of some sort of quantum gravity are ill-formed and all are completely untested (and we don't even know how they might be tested because in many cases all we have is some general idea of what such a theory might be like).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

scientific hypotheses are unproven. All scientific theories are proven, to varying degrees. What is your explanation for the force that holds you to the surface of the earth (please provide evidence for your own theory that is equal in quantity and quality)

Proof is for mathematics. Even when we have proofs in physics or the sciences more, such as is the case with e.g., Bell's theorem, we can't typically agree on what is being proved because reality doesn't come with axioms given to us. All proofs rest upon assumptions. In mathematics, we can define these into existence in various ways and ignore whatever we like. In the sciences, we are seldom in a position to formulate any kind of theoretical framework that can rest on anything remotely resembling a proof. While this can be a weakness, it usually isn't. Empirical testing constrains the theoretical frameworks within which scientific research is conducted. In the sciences, theories are much, much, much richer than the theorems proved in mathematics. They are often more like fields in and of themselves, guiding research and progress. They are not singular statements which can be proved or disproved but rich frameworks which can be modified, extended, etc., thanks to empirical findings.
Proofs are nice in that, providing one understands the mathematical systems/structures and language used, one cannot help but either reject logic or accept the proof. But they rest ultimately upon defining assumptions to be true. In the empirical sciences, we temper assumptions using reality and are guided by it. One can, of course, reject any and all scientific research by asserting, for example, that it rests upon assumptions that cannot be proven or taken axiomatically, such as that we aren't in the matrix or that the entire universe wasn't created a few seconds ago or that anybody or anything exists except your mind. But as long as you continue to act as if there exists an external world and that one can use the same logic used in mathematical proofs when one investigates it, you are tacitly acknowledging the power of scientific theory over and above the proofs you demand from it.
If you doubt the power of the scientific endeavor because it doesn't and can't supply proofs, then consider what would be involved in say proving that an oncoming train or similar vehicle headed straight for you does, in fact, exist (let alone that it is headed towards you and what that will mean for your mortality, which you would then have to define rigorously so that it too might be proved). You'd die before starting.
So, again, proof is for mathematics.

 

[bobhikes]

1) The only reason we have any basis for asserting there existed "the Big Bang" is the success of our best theory of gravitation (general relativity)
2) The math doesn't "break down". More precisely, the math is the only thing that informs us that we should speak of black holes as such or that there was a big bang at all. It is, rather, difficulties combining mathematical structures.
3) Gravity doesn't just stop working at either the very small or very big. There exists certain phenomena that we often adequately describe in terms of a gravitational force which we know is a useful fiction. It has an effective domain of validity as a tool. For those who seek to understand in a consistent manner the nature of the fundamental structures and constituents of reality, gravitational force is simply a guide- it gives us constraints and parameters for progress because any successful theory must be at least as successful as was Newtonian gravitation. General relativity doesn't break down and quantum theory even less so. It is simply that we don't know how to unify the two frameworks, and most of the theories that we have of some sort of quantum gravity are ill-formed and all are completely untested (and we don't even know how they might be tested because in many cases all we have is some general idea of what such a theory might be like).

1)
The is no guarrenty there was a big bang. It is just the favorite theory right now.
2)
I didn't check the math, the article did but apparently from what you said and the fact that the big bang is still not proven. The math is clearly not a proof
3)The way gravity is explained and understood must not be right then. Gravity is shown as the result of warping spacetime. Roll heavy balls on a stretched rubber platform and you can see a visual way gravity works. Anything that does not have the mass to bend spacetime should not exhibt gravity. This could be wrong but then science should explain it properly then.

 

[Polymath257]

1)
The is no guarrenty there was a big bang. It is just the favorite theory right now.

A lot depends on specific definitions here. As most cosmologists use the term, 'Big Bang' means that the universe was once much hotter and denser, to the point that nuclear reactions formed the light elements, and that the universe has been expanding since then. This version of 'Big Bang' is established science.

Alternatively, the term 'Big Bang' can refer to the initial singularity that happens in the mathematics of general relativity when applied to the universe as a whole. Since GR is not a complete theory, it is possible that quantum effects (for example) will 'smooth out' such a singularity. So, it is possible that the 'Big Bang' in this view did not happen.

HOWEVER, even in the situation where there is no singularity, there would still be a time of maximum density and *that* is often pointed to as the start of the BB in such scenarios.

2)
I didn't check the math, the article did but apparently from what you said and the fact that the big bang is still not proven. The math is clearly not a proof

The Lambda-cold dark matter description of the universe is *by far* the best we have ever had *and* the testable consequences have been verified. That means, at the least, we have a valid theory after about a micro-second into the current expansion phase.

3)The way gravity is explained and understood must not be right then. Gravity is shown as the result of warping spacetime. Roll heavy balls on a stretched rubber platform and you can see a visual way gravity works. Anything that does not have the mass to bend spacetime should not exhibt gravity. This could be wrong but then science should explain it properly then.

IN GR, 'gravity', in other words spacetime curvature, is produced not just by mass, but also by energy, and momentum density. Even massless photons have those properties.

 

[Milton Platt]

Proof is for mathematics. Even when we have proofs in physics or the sciences more, such as is the case with e.g., Bell's theorem, we can't typically agree on what is being proved because reality doesn't come with axioms given to us. All proofs rest upon assumptions. In mathematics, we can define these into existence in various ways and ignore whatever we like. In the sciences, we are seldom in a position to formulate any kind of theoretical framework that can rest on anything remotely resembling a proof. While this can be a weakness, it usually isn't. Empirical testing constrains the theoretical frameworks within which scientific research is conducted. In the sciences, theories are much, much, much richer than the theorems proved in mathematics. They are often more like fields in and of themselves, guiding research and progress. They are not singular statements which can be proved or disproved but rich frameworks which can be modified, extended, etc., thanks to empirical findings.
Proofs are nice in that, providing one understands the mathematical systems/structures and language used, one cannot help but either reject logic or accept the proof. But they rest ultimately upon defining assumptions to be true. In the empirical sciences, we temper assumptions using reality and are guided by it. One can, of course, reject any and all scientific research by asserting, for example, that it rests upon assumptions that cannot be proven or taken axiomatically, such as that we aren't in the matrix or that the entire universe wasn't created a few seconds ago or that anybody or anything exists except your mind. But as long as you continue to act as if there exists an external world and that one can use the same logic used in mathematical proofs when one investigates it, you are tacitly acknowledging the power of scientific theory over and above the proofs you demand from it.
If you doubt the power of the scientific endeavor because it doesn't and can't supply proofs, then consider what would be involved in say proving that an oncoming train or similar vehicle headed straight for you does, in fact, exist (let alone that it is headed towards you and what that will mean for your mortality, which you would then have to define rigorously so that it too might be proved). You'd die before starting.
So, again, proof is for mathematics.

Yes, I was using the word "proof" colloquially.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I was using the word "proof" colloquially.

The word "prove" has various different definitions and standards. We all know that theories are not rigorously proven in the sense that a mathematical theory can be. But one can easily say that gravity, or evolution, or the claim of a spherical Earth, have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standard of "proof" used for a criminal trial. You meaning was fairly clear, to me at least.