Everyone wants gravity. It keeps me in my bed so I can sleep at night. It is a force I know. It tells me which way is up, as long as I don't think to hard about my limited perspective.
Dark matter, or "the matter still not found" can account for an over abundance of attracting energy in this universe acting between objects with seen and unseen masses. Why do I need it? Just to keep my position on the behavior of energy and objects already observed in this universe?
That is all energy except for dark (undefined) energy which is needed to very ungravitationally repulse:p the big bang universe out in to nowhere where there is nothing else beyond. Also, maybe I just can't measure any of this accurately.
Sounds like Flatland. Not that all this isn't fun for the math it provides, but it does sound epicyclic. I am not saying it can't work, but it also looks like an over abundance of math to explain contrary observations all made from one general reference point. We can't even see very well through time. Sub atomic stuff is zoo-y. I mean we haven't even seen that much underwater and we've lived here a while. Is there a problem believing we will need new scientific nomenclature for the greater framing of our known universe?
It doesn't seem so. Huckamania just posted a universal refference point that some like to throw numbers at: The collision of multi-dimensional universes that we have named the Big Bang. Doesn't that seem like a more realistic goal as far as mathematics goes? It's better than constantly fine tuning a single universe. Slap a prime or a one on it, and get ready to start all over, defining dimentions and universes. Good or bad as that sounds I just don't believe the math has an end.
It's like everyone getting excited to see all the numbers flip on 2000's eve. But math keeps going. You will not run out of concrete things to count. If you do look somewhere else. What is concrete is arbitrary. In math the empty set defines our unit value for one. [0] = 1 It depends on what you want to do.
Perspective by its nature broadens. To believe beyond the need for perspective and instead toward the attainment of the final oneness of truth is what leads to things like religion, geonocide, love, and poetries like this sentence.
If you want to work at the edge of known timespace you will have to define that which WAS unknowable. Matter that exists multi-dimensionally therefore attracting across dimensions, beguiling it's mass, taking up more time or more space while producing visible effects in this universe. Sounds like there is solid progress to be made there. Then you go on from there. Not as intuitive as finding the earth's circumfrence by measuring the noontime sun, but someone noticed that. At least you won't have to have "dark" anything. I'm going to sleep now.
"And here I am, using my legs, LIKE A FOOL" - H. Simpson
IMHO the greatest loss in modern thinking is the regularity and linear nature used in regards to time. People did not always uses such arbitrary notions of order for time. If perspective is the great truth, why was Ptolemy so wrong? It is just easier looking at a sun centered solar system. Especially early on. Earth centered is not totally incorrect, just more difficult. Why are we all not taught the theories of a galacticly centered solar system? That would be some fun, but not immidiately usefull for working out realitively local planetary motions. Give me infinite mater (dark, regualr, and unleaded) infinite space (true nothingness runs out of space to fill?) and the only thing I need is the time to exist, time to expand, time to repell or attract or how ever you want to look at energy transfer. Instead of new dark energy, is there not a perspective in regards to time that would more easily allow for the same or similar eneries to act differently? In that case would the universe end instead when we ran out of time to use energy in?
"Rookie shut up! Your giving me a headache!" -Church, RedvsBlue.com
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone wants gravity. It keeps me in my bed so I can sleep at night. It is a force I know. It tells me which way is up, as long as I don't think to hard about my limited perspective. Dark matter, or "the matter still not found" can account for an over abundance of attracting energy in this universe acting between objects with seen and unseen masses. Why do I need it? Just to keep my position on the behavior of energy and objects already observed in this universe? That is all energy except for dark (undefined) energy which is needed to very ungravitationally repulse :p the big bang universe out in to nowhere where there is nothing else beyond. Also, maybe I just can't measure any of this accurately.
Sounds like Flatland. Not that all this isn't fun for the math it provides, but it does sound epicyclic. I am not saying it can't work, but it also looks like an over abundance of math to explain contrary observations all made from one general reference point. We can't even see very well through time. Sub atomic stuff is zoo-y. I mean we haven't even seen that much underwater and we've lived here a while. Is there a problem believing we will need new scientific nomenclature for the greater framing of our known universe?
It doesn't seem so. Huckamania just posted a universal refference point that some like to throw numbers at: The collision of multi-dimensional universes that we have named the Big Bang. Doesn't that seem like a more realistic goal as far as mathematics goes? It's better than constantly fine tuning a single universe. Slap a prime or a one on it, and get ready to start all over, defining dimentions and universes. Good or bad as that sounds I just don't believe the math has an end.
It's like everyone getting excited to see all the numbers flip on 2000's eve. But math keeps going. You will not run out of concrete things to count. If you do look somewhere else. What is concrete is arbitrary. In math the empty set defines our unit value for one. [0] = 1 It depends on what you want to do.
Perspective by its nature broadens. To believe beyond the need for perspective and instead toward the attainment of the final oneness of truth is what leads to things like religion, geonocide, love, and poetries like this sentence.
If you want to work at the edge of known timespace you will have to define that which WAS unknowable. Matter that exists multi-dimensionally therefore attracting across dimensions, beguiling it's mass, taking up more time or more space while producing visible effects in this universe. Sounds like there is solid progress to be made there. Then you go on from there. Not as intuitive as finding the earth's circumfrence by measuring the noontime sun, but someone noticed that. At least you won't have to have "dark" anything. I'm going to sleep now.
"And here I am, using my legs, LIKE A FOOL" - H. Simpson
IMHO the greatest loss in modern thinking is the regularity and linear nature used in regards to time. People did not always uses such arbitrary notions of order for time. If perspective is the great truth, why was Ptolemy so wrong? It is just easier looking at a sun centered solar system. Especially early on. Earth centered is not totally incorrect, just more difficult. Why are we all not taught the theories of a galacticly centered solar system? That would be some fun, but not immidiately usefull for working out realitively local planetary motions. Give me infinite mater (dark, regualr, and unleaded) infinite space (true nothingness runs out of space to fill?) and the only thing I need is the time to exist, time to expand, time to repell or attract or how ever you want to look at energy transfer. Instead of new dark energy, is there not a perspective in regards to time that would more easily allow for the same or similar eneries to act differently? In that case would the universe end instead when we ran out of time to use energy in? "Rookie shut up! Your giving me a headache!" -Church, RedvsBlue.com