SSM Plebiscite

[northernblue]

That’s the point that you’re missing, we can see the shadow on the wall, but we are looking for the light and the hand making the shadow...
I think you’ll like the second link I just added, I’ll put it here again:

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo...ark-energy

Ps I’ve read enough of your dribblings to know that dumbo you are not... ditto for LP ????
????????

[LP]

Ps I’ve read enough of your dribblings to know that dumbo you are not... ditto for LP ????
????????

More info would soak in if I took the tinfoil off!

[northernblue]

More info would soak in if I took the tinfoil off!

The tinfoil might actually be keeping some in ????

A site well worth reading both for its science which starts very basically and then goes nuclear ???? and it’s philosophical bent is

www.phy6.org

[PaulP]

Well that isn't surprising.

But even your Comos article doesn't support your claims, it's not debating the existence of those things(dark or light) whatever they may be, it's debating the explanations and understanding of them, and that is exactly what science is about!

I know you realise none of this affects your religion, science is not an attack on religion, it never was and never will be. But you cannot claim science is dogmatic or a religion if a scientists asks you for proof, that is a religious perspective imposed on science.

You cannot prove religion by disproving science, it's a false premise.

I haven't been anywhere near a church for over 30 years, save for the odd wedding (getting rarer) and the odd funeral (getting more common). I can assure you I'm not religious.

Let me give you my understanding of this cosmological boob job that we're discussing.

The idea that the amount of matter and energy is conserved is originally a theological and philosophical idea, from the Ancient Greek materialist philosophers, who like their modern counterparts were atheists, and thus had no need for God. In their eyes, there was no mystery, no funny buggers, no weird forces, everything was just matter. This idea was taken up in the 17th Century scientific revolution, when it was proposed that the Universe was made up of a fixed amount of matter, put there by God at the beginning, and therefore unchanging. As for energy, the idea was that God basically started the whole universe going by pressing the start button and so all movement that we observe and all energy is unchanging because it is divine and god given. There is in fact no evidence anywhere that matter and energy in the universe does not change. This is an assumption. This assumption is just a part of science and is not really questioned.

In the 1980's, it was noticed that the stars of certain galaxies were revolving around the centres of those galaxies much too quickly based on the amount of matter within them, and certain galaxies were attracting each other far too strongly for the amount of matter present. AT this point there are two options :
1. the theory of gravity / galaxies is wrong and there may be other explanations
2. there must be some other extra matter there that we can't detect i.e dark matter.

Why was the first option never investigated ?

Following on from this, now that we have all this extra matter in the universe, it follows that the forces of gravitation must also be much stronger. According to the calcs, this extra gravity meant that firstly the rate of the expansion of the universe should slow down, and then once its stops expanding it starts to contract and becomes smaller and smaller and eventually ends up as the big Crunch. Around the year 2000, it was discovered that galaxies at the edge of our universe were not slowing down as the model expected, the rate of expansion was in fact speeding up. So once again, rather than looking at alternative explanations for this mismatch, physicists said there must be some form of energy that is pushing against all this extra mass to keep the universe expanding, and we'll call it dark energy. Once again, no evidence for this at all.

I can tell you, in all honesty, I really want there to be dark matter and dark energy, because if it's true it means that the universe has a deep dark subconscious that controls the bits we can see, just like us. An idea that I find incredibly appealing.

"Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest."

[northernblue]

I haven't been anywhere near a church for over 30 years, save for the odd wedding (getting rarer) and the odd funeral (getting more common). I can assure you I'm not religious.

Let me give you my understanding of this cosmological boob job that we're discussing.

The idea that the amount of matter and energy is conserved is originally a theological and philosophical idea, from the Ancient Greek materialist philosophers, who like their modern counterparts were atheists, and thus had no need for God. In their eyes, there was no mystery, no funny buggers, no weird forces, everything was just matter. This idea was taken up in the 17th Century scientific revolution, when it was proposed that the Universe was made up of a fixed amount of matter, put there by God at the beginning, and therefore unchanging. As for energy, the idea was that God basically started the whole universe going by pressing the start button and so all movement that we observe and all energy is unchanging because it is divine and god given. There is in fact no evidence anywhere that matter and energy in the universe does not change. This is an assumption. This assumption is just a part of science and is not really questioned.

In the 1980's, it was noticed that the stars of certain galaxies were revolving around the centres of those galaxies much too quickly based on the amount of matter within them, and certain galaxies were attracting each other far too strongly for the amount of matter present. AT this point there are two options :
1. the theory of gravity / galaxies is wrong and there may be other explanations
2. there must be some other extra matter there that we can't detect i.e dark matter.

Why was the first option never investigated ? why do you think it wasn’t investigated ?
The answer is that it was investigated but without a satisfactory conclusion. The models keep building upon the previous editions to explain the observed world.

Following on from this, now that we have all this extra matter in the universe, it follows that the forces of gravitation must also be much stronger. According to the calcs, this extra gravity meant that firstly the rate of the expansion of the universe should slow down, and then once its stops expanding it starts to contract and becomes smaller and smaller and eventually ends up as the big Crunch. Around the year 2000, it was discovered that galaxies at the edge of our universe were not slowing down as the model expected, the rate of expansion was in fact speeding up. So once again, rather than looking at alternative explanations for this mismatch, physicists said there must be some form of energy that is pushing against all this extra mass to keep the universe expanding, and we'll call it dark energy. Once again, no evidence for this at all.

I can tell you, in all honesty, I really want there to be dark matter and dark energy, because if it's true it means that the universe has a deep dark subconscious that controls the bits we can see, just like us. An idea that I find incredibly appealing.

"Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest."

[PaulP]

That’s the point that you’re missing, we can see the shadow on the wall, but we are looking for the light and the hand making the shadow...
I think you’ll like the second link I just added, I’ll put it here again:

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo...ark-energy

Ps I’ve read enough of your dribblings to know that dumbo you are not... ditto for LP ????
????????

The shadow on the wall could be produced by a few different things, like those folks who do brilliant shadow puppets with their hands - is the shadow produced by a real bird, or is it a hand, or something else ?

The fact that after nearly 100 years, physicists are still "studying shadows", should set alarm bells ringing.

[northernblue]

The shadow is real, we can measure it.
How long did it take us to catch the Higgs Bosun ?
We knew “it” was there we just hadn’t seen it until last year.

[PaulP]

why do you think it wasn’t investigated ?
The answer is that it was investigated but without a satisfactory conclusion. The models keep building upon the previous editions to explain the observed world.

Sheldrake talks about a chat he had with Lord Rees (aka Martin Rees, the current Astronomer Royal) regarding the multiverse. As an aside, most western world cosmologists now believe in the multiverse, for which there is no evidence. Anyway, Sheldrake made the point that this was a good example of Ockham's Razor, and that the science community was making a rod for its own back, by creating an infinite number of entities that it cannot and may never be able to explain. Rees said something like "wellI agree it's a bit of a problem, but this way, we can get rid of God !" Sheldrake then asked "so you would prefer to have quadrillions of unexplained universes to God ?" To which Rees replied "yes, it's much better, it's more scientific."

And there you have it.

[PaulP]

The shadow is real, we can measure it.
How long did it take us to catch the Higgs Bosun ?
We knew “it” was there we just hadn’t seen it until last year.

I know nothing about the Higgs Boson, so I can't comment. Although Nick Cave has a terrific song called Higgs Boson Blues, which I take to be a tableux about spiritual collapse. 

[Baggers]

why do you think it wasn’t investigated ?
The answer is that it was investigated but without a satisfactory conclusion. The models keep building upon the previous editions to explain the observed world.

Sheldrake talks about a chat he had with Lord Rees (aka Martin Rees, the current Astronomer Royal) regarding the multiverse. As an aside, most western world cosmologists now believe in the multiverse, for which there is no evidence. Anyway, Sheldrake made the point that this was a good example of Ockham's Razor, and that the science community was making a rod for its own back, by creating an infinite number of entities that it cannot and may never be able to explain. Rees said something like "wellI agree it's a bit of a problem, but this way, we can get rid of God !" Sheldrake then asked "so you would prefer to have quadrillions of unexplained universes to God ?" To which Rees replied "yes, it's much better, it's more scientific."

And there you have it.

That statement is incomplete and you cannot possibly draw any logical conclusion from it (ooo, there's another one to add to science, spirituality and philosophy - logic!). Why? It begs the question, 'What is Rees' definition/understanding of what God is?"

If Rees was talking about an Old Testament fire and brimstone malevolent man in the sky with a long white beard, well, then you can understand his comment. Better complex, mind-boggling options than that God. However, if he was talking about God as a metaphor for some mysterious, omnipotent, intelligent energy of some sort, then he's a goose. We just don't know until he clarifies what God is to him... didn't Sheldrake or someone else think to ask him this question?