Quote:
Originally Posted by pickled_heretic
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You're not getting it. If a finite mass resides in an infinite space, it is infinitely insubstantial. It no longer exists in the sense we think of. Our physical definitions of existence are not adequate for the extremes in the universe, only for states of matter that we can observe that are very close to our own.
Likewise for the singularity. No physicist can step through the singularity and theorize what things look like on the other side because the conventional laws of physics (and thus, the laws of all matter and energy) break down at that point. "I don't know" is the best explanation and anyone who says otherwise is a self-important assclown.
|
I think it's cool that the calculated pull between galaxies is too small to account for the observed gravity. They justify this discrepancy by referring to dark matter and/or dark energy as the culprit.
That to me is basically admitting we don't know.
Another example is the orbit time of stars with respect to their distance from the galactic center. When they made the observations it did not correlate with their calculations. Keep in mind that "calculations" means current, cumulative science. If science is unable to predict what's later observed, that puts into question whether the science is even valid. They then proceed to add to the theory or revise it, but the whole affair makes me doubtful that we're 100% correct. Any theory only has to be correct for what's currently known. None of the theories work perfectly in all matters. Whether we're talking about quantum or classical physics, or future observations that don't jibe with our expectations, either way, nothing has 100% explained everything.
Other issues i've seen are the seeming lack of great portions of anti-matter. Where is it? There're supposed to be anti-matter galaxies, but i don't think we've seen them, yet. We have a lot to learn.
If a theory is 99.999999999999% percent correct or it accounts for 99.999999999% of observed phenomena, that's actually very poor. Why? Because even if it accounts for 99.99999999999999% of what's observed, that leaves out millions of years of future advancement and future observation in space/time. We have only seen a small portion of our universe yet we pretend to know almost 100% of it. Great minds in the past made the same mistake. They were right probably 99.99999999% of the time about the observed universe. They assumed that meant that they were close to 100%. We're doing the same thing anytime we say we're close to 100% since our theories account for 99.99999999999999999999999% of observations over time and space.
I'm not saying we should stop researching it. Science, i believe, is the greatest expression of being. It's the language of the universe. It's incredibly important to our survival and growth. I'm only saying that certainty about theories seems to be so commonplace. I don't feel equally certain, but I do think theories are worthwhile. Our theories help us to function well within the known universe, and for that they're necessary.