Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bullgrit" data-source="post: 6639259" data-attributes="member: 31216">But those squiggles were not placed by nature/god/accident, and the elements (hobbits, etc.) are not theoretical within the world so described. &quot;Function&quot; was a poor word, perhaps. Properties? Functional properties? A hill has functional properties (i.e. water will move from one high spot to a low spot).I thought we had math for dark matter. I thought I've seen calculations of the actual &quot;size&quot; of dark matter. &quot;There must be this much dark matter in the universe.&quot;Isn't this the way all the math is determined? We see this phenomenon, we figure out the equations for it. If we see a new phenomenon, or the original shows to be slightly different, so we adjust the equations. From what I'm reading here, it seems that we have these equations based on what we've seen; the equations suggest something that we have no evidence for; so we theorize these things may exist -- rather than change the equations to match what we do have evidence for.For the record: I'm not arguing. I'm discussing to better understand the concepts.BullgritEdit: This whole post is not written as well as it probably should be. But I don't have time right now to straighten it out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bullgrit, post: 6639259, member: 31216"] But those squiggles were not placed by nature/god/accident, and the elements (hobbits, etc.) are not theoretical within the world so described. "Function" was a poor word, perhaps. Properties? Functional properties? A hill has functional properties (i.e. water will move from one high spot to a low spot). I thought we had math for dark matter. I thought I've seen calculations of the actual "size" of dark matter. "There must be this much dark matter in the universe." Isn't this the way all the math is determined? We see this phenomenon, we figure out the equations for it. If we see a new phenomenon, or the original shows to be slightly different, so we adjust the equations. From what I'm reading here, it seems that we have these equations based on what we've seen; the equations suggest something that we have no evidence for; so we theorize these things may exist -- rather than change the equations to match what we do have evidence for. For the record: I'm not arguing. I'm discussing to better understand the concepts. Bullgrit Edit: This whole post is not written as well as it probably should be. But I don't have time right now to straighten it out. [/QUOTE]

Verification