Measuring Existence

[JSS]

GR predicts that the galaxies should be gravitationally bound and yet calculations show that they don't contain enough mass to bind them in the way that theory predicts.

This is just wrong, Leo. GR simply predicts that all matter attracts all other, it does not make any claim about how much mass there is in any galaxy.

Formal GR includes the exact constants so as to predict exact quantities. That is an error in its formation, but it does attempt exact calculation, not merely conceptual theory.

The English language is more my forte and thus I know that the term "Intelligence Design" is an oxymoron. It it's intelligence then it hasn't been designed.

You need another dictionary, Leo.

[Obvious Leo]

GR simply predicts that all matter attracts all other,

This is not strictly speaking true either. Gravity both attracts and repels, depending on the referential frame of the observer. The comet on its highly eccentric orbit is attracted by the sun for half of its orbit and repelled by the sun for the other half. "Space" contracts on the inward leg, and expands on the outward leg, if you want to use the cockamamie language of physics.

[Obvious Leo]

Obvious Leo wrote:
The English language is more my forte and thus I know that the term "Intelligence Design" is an oxymoron. It it's intelligence then it hasn't been designed.


You need another dictionary, Leo.

No I don't. You need a tutorial on the nature of intelligence because intelligence cannot be programmed. Intelligence is self-programming.

[JSS]

GR simply predicts that all matter attracts all other,

This is not strictly speaking true either. Gravity both attracts and repels, depending on the referential frame of the observer. The comet on its highly eccentric orbit is attracted by the sun for half of its orbit and repelled by the sun for the other half. "Space" contracts on the inward leg, and expands on the outward leg, if you want to use the cockamamie language of physics.

Emmm... huh?

Gravity ONLY "attracts" (in reality, it merely migrates mass). It is the comet's momentum that carries the comet away (as well as any solar wind). And no matter the reference frame, the story is the same, merely distorted a little.

[JSS]

You need another dictionary, Leo.

No I don't. You need a tutorial on the nature of intelligence because intelligence cannot be programmed. Intelligence is self-programming.

What? You never heard of "designing something to be intelligent?"

Intelligence is the ability to resolve "problems" or "seek specified goals". Machines, people, and organizations can be "designed" to have more of that ability.

[Obvious Leo]

Formal GR includes the exact constants so as to predict exact quantities.

Of course it does but what is the origin of these so-called "constants"? They are simply derived from observation so how could the theory then do other than make accurate predictions? This is a cheat which even Newton was aware of when he invented G. The constants make the entire model a tautologous confection held together with sticky tape and string.

[Obvious Leo]

What? You never heard of "designing something to be intelligent?"

I hear a lot of bullshit from Newtonian troglodytes in my line of work.

[JSS]

Formal GR includes the exact constants so as to predict exact quantities.

Of course it does but what is the origin of these so-called "constants"? They are simply derived from observation so how could the theory then do other than make accurate predictions? This is a cheat which even Newton was aware of when he invented G. The constants make the entire model a tautologous confection held together with sticky tape and string.

I largely agree .. but then .. not entirely.

And speaking of constants, how in the hell do you suppose that anyone could take a few measurements of limited accuracy and then predict and proclaim a constant in the range of 10^-35 (or -31, whatever it is this year) ??

A measurement might be as accurate as 10^-7 at an extreme case. And every calculation done upon that, reduces the accuracy even lower. And yet today you have all of these people accepting the absurd nonsense that Plank calculated a constant based upon measurement down to 10^-35 .. WHAT???

It is nonsense.

[Obvious Leo]

The very fact that constants are needed to make these models work is a sure proof that the models are bollocks. Incidentally this stance is nowadays accepted as mainstream by most theoretical physicists who understand that a true cosmological model must explain why these constants have the value that they have rather than some other value.

[JSS]

The very fact that constants are needed to make these models work is a sure proof that the models are bollocks. Incidentally this stance is nowadays accepted as mainstream by most theoretical physicists who understand that a true cosmological model must explain why these constants have the value that they have rather than some other value.

Yes, and that is what my RM: Affectance Ontology is for. It makes no presumptions of constants, yet reveals why they emerge (along with the "laws" and behaviors).

[uwot]

So you are assuming that the "points" are being emitted by the Earth?

For every "point" being emitted, there must be a point being absorbed (conservation of the mass). I think that would cancel the effect that you are talking about.

Then I haven't explained myself properly. I am assuming a simple model of the big bang; I've no idea where it came from, or who put it there, but once upon a 13.78 billion years ago, there was a tiny speck and now there's a bloody great universe. The two are the same thing.
If something like that is true, then without any fear of contradiction one can say that tiny speck has a mind-boggling capacity for expansion. More contentious is my assumption that the speck is 'material', it is big bang stuff, and that any point in the speck of big bang stuff is expanding and exerts a pushing, repulsive force on its co-expanding neighbours. I'm sure that is as clear as mud, but 'points' are not emitted as such, they are just any rapidly expanding geographical location in a rapidly expanding speck.
In the turbulent mayhem of the early universe, it came to pass that some of the maelstroms were self propagating and others symbiotic, and verily, these became 'particles'. Note that particles are, according to this story, concentrated big bang stuff, hence the refractive source of gravity, but big bang stuff keeps expanding and below an entirely ad hoc threshold, the push overcomes the pull. Hey presto, dark energy.
Anyway, the mass of a particle is a basically how tightly it is wound, so no, points are not absorbed.

[uwot]

Formal GR includes the exact constants so as to predict exact quantities.

Of course it does but what is the origin of these so-called "constants"? They are simply derived from observation so how could the theory then do other than make accurate predictions? This is a cheat which even Newton was aware of when he invented G. The constants make the entire model a tautologous confection held together with sticky tape and string.

Guys, I have to say that deriving these so-called "constants" from observation seems like a good idea to me.

[JSS]

So you are assuming that the "points" are being emitted by the Earth?

For every "point" being emitted, there must be a point being absorbed (conservation of the mass). I think that would cancel the effect that you are talking about.

Then I haven't explained myself properly. I am assuming a simple model of the big bang; I've no idea where it came from, or who put it there, but once upon a 13.78 billion years ago, there was a tiny speck and now there's a bloody great universe. The two are the same thing.
If something like that is true, then without any fear of contradiction one can say that tiny speck has a mind-boggling capacity for expansion. More contentious is my assumption that the speck is 'material', it is big bang stuff, and that any point in the speck of big bang stuff is expanding and exerts a pushing, repulsive force on its co-expanding neighbours. I'm sure that is as clear as mud, but 'points' are not emitted as such, they are just any rapidly expanding geographical location in a rapidly expanding speck.
In the turbulent mayhem of the early universe, it came to pass that some of the maelstroms were self propagating and others symbiotic, and verily, these became 'particles'. Note that particles are, according to this story, concentrated big bang stuff, hence the refractive source of gravity, but big bang stuff keeps expanding and below an entirely ad hoc threshold, the push overcomes the pull. Hey presto, dark energy.
Anyway, the mass of a particle is a basically how tightly it is wound, so no, points are not absorbed.

Well if you are speaking of points as locations, it only makes sense for them to move if you are a relativist. Relativists have no excuse for why spacetime is bending nor why such a bend would cause gravitation (spinning or not).

[uwot]

Well if you are speaking of points as locations, it only makes sense for them to move if you are a relativist. Relativists have no excuse for why spacetime is bending nor why such a bend would cause gravitation (spinning or not).

Tell that to a relativist. My problem with general relativity is that it is dualist; it is predicated on two substances, spacetime and matter/energy. These two are supposed to affect one another, but there is no description of the mechanism that produces that affect. I have already said that I think the best explanation for gravity is refraction, so although I don't believe that GR explains how gravity works, it does a really good job of saying how much.

[JSS]

Well if you are speaking of points as locations, it only makes sense for them to move if you are a relativist. Relativists have no excuse for why spacetime is bending nor why such a bend would cause gravitation (spinning or not).

Tell that to a relativist. My problem with general relativity is that it is dualist; it is predicated on two substances, spacetime and matter/energy. These two are supposed to affect one another, but there is no description of the mechanism that produces that affect. I have already said that I think the best explanation for gravity is refraction, so although I don't believe that GR explains how gravity works, it does a really good job of saying how much.

I agree that gravitation is caused by a type of refraction. My concern is that I am uncertain what you personally mean by "refraction".