Replies

"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.

I should have never replied to this thread since I barely got through Algebra 101. With your long explanation that I have little brain power to comprehend, I still key in on your quote, "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."

"Observer" supports my idea of time being a human mind construct to establish our linear lives in an acceptable order for our fragile grasp on the Universe.

Again, mathematics have been proven wrong time and again. Didn't Stephen Hawking disprove or given serious consideration of some Einstein theory? I could have that wrong. Also, hasn't one or two of Hawking's theories been considered questionable by current mathematicians?

My main point was no matter how correct the math works, it still doesn't explain gravity nor the singularity before the big bang. Other than the math equation for gravity according to size and locality, is their an equation that explains what gravity is? Is there an empirical way to prove such an equation?

Thank you for your reply to someone who has no understanding of advanced math or physics. Sorry to waste your time. However, I always go back to the big picture - the singularity and the fact that math and understanding of physics has changed through out my life of 68 years.

BTW, as much as I would like after reading sci-fi novels and watching movies, I don't believe in time travel. However, if there is such a thing as parallel universes, it could explain much of the unexplainable on our planet as in legitimate UFO sightings by reputable people. Sorry, another topic.