Replies

"There are theories expressed in mathematical terms which work to predict observed results. That's called "physics.""

Thanks for proving my point. There is a difference between theoretical physics and applied physics. Some theories work out, some don't. Copernicus was correct about the planets orbiting the Sun, but was wrong about it being the center of the Universe and motionless. Newton's theories proved correct. Maybe you should look up the definition of theory. If you don't want to google websters or oxford, I'd be happy to do it for you.

I do have an open mind, I've just seen so many theories proven wrong in my 68 years just on our own rock. Ever hear of the Ice Age theory of the 70's? How about the over-population that would kill much the world's population? What ever happened to the disappearing ozone layer that would devastate all life on Earth? The unproven Alcar scare that hurt the apple farmers for a couple years.

Then there is the moronic theory (Nature vs Nurture) that said both genders are the same unless given a Barbie or a Toy soldier. Except for the few it was proven wrong even by the sociologists who first claimed it and that any parent could see. I clearly remember the experiments that show boy toddlers trying reach over a short barrier to Mom, and the girl toddlers sitting and crying. All theories. Need I go on?

>So what's the latest theories on dark matter? On dark energy? On gravity? On the singularity? Expansion or contraction of the Universe? Don't give me math, explain to me in layman's terms. BTW, is String Theory still around? Seriously.

"There are theories expressed in mathematical terms which work to predict observed results. That's called "physics.""

Don't give me math, explain to me in layman's terms.

It's the math that makes it real. It's the math that make is compelling. Without the math, you have arm waving and emotion, and if someone 'still doesn't believe' then nothing can change it.

Time: Einstein's equations predict that time will vary for different observers - and a prediction of how much can be made using a formula (math) he developed. It works. As an example, time passes differently for those deep in a gravity well than for those in lesser gravity. As a result, they have to periodically reset clocks on satellites to match those on the ground - and by the precise amount (math) predicted by Einstein's formula. If you reject the data (math) then it doesn't matter if the data are predictable by more math. But the reason that time is treated as a dimension in Einstein's formula is that the formula provides predictions that are confirmed by observational measurements (math). It works.

Dark matter: The motions of stars in galaxies do not comply with either Newton's (which - by the way - was not proved correct; thus Einstein's formula) or Einstein's method of calculating (math) their paths. This is also true for the paths of light around galaxy clusters, etc. Since whatever is causing it acts like matter (has an effect which warps space-time just like matter does) and can't be seen, it was labeled "dark matter." The math/measurements are clear that something is going on. Matter we can't observe ("dark matter") is the simplest - and therefore preferred - explanation, even though we have not discovered the specific "matter" that would have the observed properties. Call it "purple unicorn farts" if it makes you feel better, but the effect is observed gravitational effects (math) greater than all the observed matter can generate.

Dark energy: Measurements (math) of the expansion of the universe show that the number is higher today (for the last several million year) than it was several billion years ago. For matter to move faster takes energy. We can't see the source of the energy, so it is "dark energy." Where is comes from is still being investigated, but the observational data (math) are real.

Rejecting the math - and explanations based on math - is rejecting physics. Rejecting a math-based explanation because one cannot follow the math, or directly observe the "whatever" is causing an effect, is analogous to someone who is blind denying that there is such a thing as light. Just because one can't perceive it directly does not mean it doesn't exist.

String theory was a mathematical construct that attempted to link the standard model of physics that works well for the very small (by the way, I doubt you have ever seen an atom - do you think they exist?) with Einstein's formula which works well for the very large. There is a belief on the part of most scientists that our universe is regular enough that there is some way to express both the nature of the very large and the very small in a compact, cohesive, set of mathematical expressions. So far, no one has done that in a compelling way.

On some of the other points (coming ice age, etc.) one has to look at the math to determine what is correct. Are global temperatures climbing beyond the level of uncertainty in the measurements (uncertainty is another mathematical topic), or falling? One thing to watch for - which does not apply to the current existence of what has been called dark matter or dark energy - is extrapolation beyond our current data set. A good theory makes testable predictions. Most of the topics you raised that are 'theories proven wrong' are dominated by people with an agenda - people who don't want to be given the math.