![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 2, 3:17*pm, dlzc wrote:
As I have pointed out, it has serious problems in describing anything larger than the Earth -Moon system. *But if you want to settle on an obviously incorrect model, it is your mistake to have to grow beyond. General relativity also have problems ( dark energy and dark matter ). Perhaps it is also just a model that works only for a limited system and not for the universe as a whole, just like Newtonian mechanics. The only different being that general relativity works for a somewhat lager system than Newtonian mechanics. We are just a bunch of apes I guess, and who knows if our brains even are capable of conceptualizing how the universe works in reality. Our brains has evolved to survive in our local environment on earth, not to understand how the universe works as a whole. If we were no bigger than atoms I guess quantum mechanics would seem very logical to us, but we are not quantum beings, nor are we galactic beings. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Messages disappearing | Boris Nogoodnik | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 5th 08 07:46 PM |
What is the term for a nearly spherical celestial body? | John Freck | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | August 28th 06 01:26 AM |
Sol 199: amazing disappearing pebbles | Paul Morris | Astronomy Misc | 2 | August 17th 04 04:43 AM |
The N Body Problem of Celestial Mechanics | Bill Clark | UK Astronomy | 2 | January 16th 04 07:32 PM |
A book source disappearing | Christopher P. Winter | Policy | 0 | November 10th 03 05:18 AM |