SSM Plebiscite

[PaulP]

No PaulP, that is a very rough and incorrect summary of events, you have misappropriated events and facts.

...................

There is no evidence of dark matter or dark energy. You can conduct any google search you like. I could post a gazillion links, but it would not make a difference. If those anomalies I referred earlier were not noticed, no one would be discussing dark matter or energy.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scien...rk-matter/

[PaulP]

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/the-dark-universe

A partial article only, but you get the gist.

[northernblue]

There’s plenty of evidence that something is causing a difference between observation and predictions, what we call it doesn’t matter

[PaulP]

There’s plenty of evidence that something is causing a difference between observation and predictions, what we call it doesn’t matter

Isn't it possible, just ever so slightly possible, that the reason the observations and predictions don't match is that the predictions (i.e the model) is flawed ?

[LP]

There is no evidence of dark matter or dark energy. You can conduct any google search you like. I could post a gazillion links, but it would not make a difference. If those anomalies I referred earlier were not noticed, no one would be discussing dark matter or energy.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scien...rk-matter/

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/the-dark-universe

A partial article only, but you get the gist.

Both posts make the same error, you assume because they do not have "evidence for what it is" that it is doesn't exist, that there is not yet an understanding of something is not evidence for it's absence. But I don't blame you it's a commonly arrived at erroneous conclusion that results from cursory investigations.

Your argument is very basic, like saying the object tripped over in a dark room doesn't exist, despite the pain, bruise and embarrassment!

Being hung up on the Dark labels is meaningless, especially given they were deliberately chosen to deride the original data, but the evidence is real in the indirect measurements of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and in the detection of gravitational effects in the form of things like Einstein Rings. But that evidence still doesn't tell us what they are, just that they are, no belief or faith required.

Eventually we will know what these things are as well, because they are observable, measurable and testable. They are not things invented by humans, even though a hypothesis might be a model created by humans to try to explain them. The weakness in the system is the human.

[PaulP]

Both posts make the same error, you assume because they do not have "evidence for what it is" that it is doesn't exist, that there is not yet an understanding of something is not evidence for it's absence. But I don't blame you it's a commonly arrived at erroneous conclusion that results from cursory investigations.

Your argument is very basic, like saying the object tripped over in a dark room doesn't exist, despite the pain, bruise and embarrassment!

Being hung up on the Dark labels is meaningless, especially given they were deliberately chosen to deride the original data, but the evidence is real in the indirect measurements of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and in the detection of gravitational effects in the form of things like Einstein Rings. But that evidence still doesn't tell us what they are, just that they are, no belief or faith required.

Eventually we will know what these things are as well, because they are observable, measurable and testable.

You assume because science tells you it's true then it must be. Tripping produces a tangible result, and when you turn the light on you can see that. Maybe the reason they have no evidence after decides of searching, is that it actually doesn't exist.

You assume that because religious types (which I am not by the way) have no evidence that God exists, then that also does not exist ?

[northernblue]

How would you measure a god ?

[LP]

You assume because science tells you it's true then it must be. Tripping produces a tangible result, and when you turn the light on you can see that. Maybe the reason they have no evidence after decides of searching, is that it actually doesn't exist.

You assume that because religious types (which I am not by the way) have no evidence that God exists, then that also does not exist ?

Paul, you keep making the same erroneous argument.

The evidence exists, it's a final or unequivocal explanation of that evidence that doesn't yet exist! The question being asked is not is it there, the question being asked is what is it?

Science gave us the electric light that provides the answer, no belief or faith required!

By the way, in science there can never be an unequivocal explanation, only a theory that gets refined whenever new evidence or data arise. But the predictions and hypothesis do match quite nicely, within our measurement capabilities many of the predictions have been matched to many tens of decimal places.

[PaulP]

How would you measure a god ?

The same way you measure dark energy.

Paul, you keep making the same erroneous argument.

The evidence exists, it's the final unequivocal explanation of that evidence that doesn't yet exist! By the way, in science there can never be an unequivocal explanation, only a theory that gets refined whenever new evidence or data arise. But the predictions and hypothesis do match quite nicely, within our measurement capabilities many of the predictions have been matched to many tens of decimal places.

There is no evidence. I repeat. There is no evidence.  I repeat. There is no evidence.

[northernblue]

We know they exist the way we knew that the Higgs Bosun existed before we were able to detect it.