Another nail in the coffin of dark matter and dark energy.

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Another nail in the coffin of dark matter and dark energy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Unlike religion, when

 Unlike religion, when scientists disagree, labs are where the arugments are settled.

I think this person disagrees with the article above. 

 

https://backreaction.blogspot.de/2017/11/astrophysicist-discovers-yet-another.html?m=1

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I have had a discussion

I have had a discussion previously, I forget the users name on this forum, but I told him I thought that the unaccounted mass and energy of the Universe could be 1) a miscalculation in math or 2) an example of what happens when you have empty space coming in to contact with space (meaning that before the expansion of the Universe (big bang) you had empty space with no energy or matter.

Empty space has an influence on matter much like a vaccum has an effect on smoke when you open the vaccum. The empty space equalized the pressure on the interior of the "tube" sucking in the smoke and other material until the pressure is equal on the inside and the outside.

So you have empty space with a negative pressure with an expanding Universe of positive pressure. The matter and energy inside the Universe is being influenced by the negative pressure outside the Universe.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 BTW Vastet, I was not

 

BTW Vastet, I was not arguing with you, I simply ran accross this article. There might not be a huge consensus on this right now. It is perfectly normal for scientists long term to disagree, and they long term compete over time and prior knowledge gets tweeked and updated. Just like there was a time when scientists thought our galaxy was the extent of the universe. 

 

Point is, who knows what will change in the future. But this counter article is not in agreement with your article. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There are a majority who

There are a majority who believe in dark matter and energy, so it is not surprising. However, I've seen multiple papers that combined absolutely discredit the possibility. There was one just a year or so ago that showed all the stars in all the galaxies move as they should move, and nothing dark is necessary to explain anything.

You have to understand that dark matter and energy both are the result of people thinking that there isn't sufficient mass to explain galactic rotation, and too much for universal expansion. Both forces were invented to explain appearences. But neither force is necessary if galactic rotations are as they should be and the universe is not expanding. There is just as much evidence now for and against dark matter and energy. It is possible I'll be wrong and they'll find it. It is likely that will never happen.

The observable universe may be less than 1% of the universe, in which case all observations on expansion are instantly null and void. The entire hypothesis of dark energy rests absolutely on the assumption the observable universe is the universe, which is quite possibly the most arrogant scientific assumption humanity has yet to make. Take away dark energy, and suddenly you don't need dark matter to hold a galaxy together. Both hypothesis are completely dependant on each other and unproven assumptions, and somehow a majority of scientists haven't noticed the circular logic.

One way or another we'll find out soon. Particle accelerators are running out of places to look for dark matter. I estimate they'll run out of places to look within 20 years. At which point they'll either have found it or proved it never was.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think dark energy

 I don't think dark energy or dark matter are "arrogent" say like claims of magic babies with super powers. 

 

But I do like the fact with science over time, it does adapt and is quicker to update and ditch, unlike religion. 

 

I will say however, I really do not ever see, although I could be wrong, a day where we find a "grand unified theory".  Even in my layperson's understanding, everything seems ultimately messy even the stuff we can explain. 

 

Our species has the great potential to uncover lots of things in the future, but I don't think we will ever get perfect knowledge. Better knowledge, sure, but not a ultimate utopia answer. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There are a

Vastet wrote:
There are a majority who believe in dark matter and energy, so it is not surprising. However, I've seen multiple papers that combined absolutely discredit the possibility. There was one just a year or so ago that showed all the stars in all the galaxies move as they should move, and nothing dark is necessary to explain anything. You have to understand that dark matter and energy both are the result of people thinking that there isn't sufficient mass to explain galactic rotation, and too much for universal expansion. Both forces were invented to explain appearences. But neither force is necessary if galactic rotations are as they should be and the universe is not expanding. There is just as much evidence now for and against dark matter and energy. It is possible I'll be wrong and they'll find it. It is likely that will never happen. The observable universe may be less than 1% of the universe, in which case all observations on expansion are instantly null and void. The entire hypothesis of dark energy rests absolutely on the assumption the observable universe is the universe, which is quite possibly the most arrogant scientific assumption humanity has yet to make. Take away dark energy, and suddenly you don't need dark matter to hold a galaxy together. Both hypothesis are completely dependant on each other and unproven assumptions, and somehow a majority of scientists haven't noticed the circular logic. One way or another we'll find out soon. Particle accelerators are running out of places to look for dark matter. I estimate they'll run out of places to look within 20 years. At which point they'll either have found it or proved it never was.

I believe the key to this discussion is "what is outside our known Universe".

When we figure that out then the human race will go to a new level of intelligence and awarness.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't think

Brian37 wrote:
I don't think dark energy or dark matter are arrogent say like claims of magic babies with super powers.

Religious claims are not scientific claims. Dark matter and energy are the most arrogant scientific claims ever made by humanity. Religious claims are by definition the epitome of arrogance, but there's absolutely nothing scientific about them.

Brian37 wrote:
I will say however, I really do not ever see, although I could be wrong, a day where we find a grand unified theory. Even in my layperson's understanding, everything seems ultimately messy even the stuff we can explain.

I give it a hundred fifty years. 50 to acquire the necessary information, another 100 to realise we have it and what it means. We are acquiring knowledge too fast to keep up with now. It is already impossible for a professional in any subject to keep up with all the papers and discoveries in that subject. 20 years ago we had no idea what caused cancer and had yet to identity a single extraterrestrial planet. Now we have two or three types of cancer on the verge of permanent elimination, and more than 3000 planets outside our solar system have been identified. We even have possible detections of extragalactic planets now. Noone could keep up with that rate of discovery. So it will likely be awhile between the acquisition of the knowledge necessary for a unified theory and the application of one. And of course it will remain subject to tweaks for centuries as fine details are worked out and tested, much like with any field of science.

Brian37 wrote:
Our species has the great potential to uncover lots of things in the future, but I don't think we will ever get perfect knowledge. Better knowledge, sure, but not a ultimate utopia answer.

Perfection is subjective. By definition, we've already had perfect knowledge since before we could speak, and will have it forever; from some person or another's perspective.

Absolute knowledge, or omniscience, is a different story. It would require more energy and matter to describe all matter and energy than exists. And again to describe emergent properties. It would require at least 2 universes just to have absolute knowledge of one, assuming absolute knowledge is even obtainable, which quantum physics currently suggests is not the case. Though there have been some interesting developments on that front in the last couple years.
Regardless of the obtainability, acquiring absolute knowledge would be like acquiring light speed. The closer you get the more energy is required to go further, until you hit infinite energy requirements and a neutron wall.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Here are (5) videos for you

Here are (5) videos for you to watch. My favorite is #5 because it sort of talks about this discussion and what I asked "what is beyond the known Universe"

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

They are long videos. So be prepared to spend some time watching them.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Definitely going to watch

Definitely going to watch those later with my pipe. XD

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Definitely

Vastet wrote:
Definitely going to watch those later with my pipe. XD

I think you will enjoy them. I enjoyed the way they presented the information.

The animation is also good, so you get a visual when the speaker is stating the information.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Just finished the first one.

Just finished the first one. Seemed to take forever before they started getting into the meat of it, and then it suddenly dumped a few trillion steaks into your lap simultaneously. lol. If the video was a video game, the difficulty curve was a 90 degree angle.

I love seeing this kind of video. It goes right to the edge of my ability to absorb without having to look something up every 5 minutes.

Much of my youth I was basically taught so many things were already proven, which I've since learned was far from true. The sad thing is the result of the detachment between the scientists and the teachers. Most science teachers are no better than laymen, and many not even that qualified. It really handicaps the entire population when the first steps in science education have to be erased later in order to actually become a professional in the field.

And the worst thing is how it feeds the religious mindset. An evangelical would watch this (well, assume an evangelical would watch this) and come out feeling validated in rejecting science, having confirmed that science is taught like a religion that is always having to change its tune because it proved itself wrong, which their holy book never does (you can no more use the bible to disprove the bible than you can use the bible to prove the bible). How many people in the last 60 odd years have been taught about the big bang as if were an absolute fact when we've known the whole time that we can only explain what happened a few planck seconds afterwards. The big bang should never have been taught as a fact, but as a prevailing hypothesis which had yet to be disproved. Complete with competing hypothesise and criticisms of each, with a focus on acknowledging we don't know exactly, but we're trying to find out.

Even this post would be misinterpretted by a evangelical, as no matter what exactly happened a few planck seconds before we can explain the universe, something extremely significant occurred and created the CMB. There are a huge number of differing hypothesis of what exactly that event was. A 5th dimensional black hole forming, two universes bouncing off each other, the big bang, this big bounce, cosmic strings colliding, and dozens more. We don't know exactly what happened, and maybe we never will. But we do know something happened. The CMB is pervasive and obvious and cannot be accounted for otherwise. But because religions can focus on minor details poorly presented, they get a foothold in the argument when they have absolutely nothing to contribute.

We desperately need actual scientists teaching science.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I'd have to agree with you

 I'd have to agree with you on the religious getting a foothold. They grab on to one thing, a word or a theory, then they warp it to fit their narrative.

I remember in the 70's watching something about Noah's Ark and they said that the tops of the Himalayyas had shells and salt and blah blah. So that must mean that the waters were that high at one time and the Noah story is true, thus validating the bible.

They didn't understand plate techtonics or where did the water come from or how could Noah survive at that altitude because there would be no oxygen and they would be freezing their nads off AND that most likley there would be massive icebergs. The list goes on, but when they present this stuff in a scientific manner, then people watch it and believe in it.

I agree with the various hypothesis's about how the Universe started. There are so many guesses there and none of them have a guarantee on being the correct one.

It's easy being an hypothetical scientist thinking this shit up, but you need the math to back it up

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I am currently in the

 I am currently in the middle of watching the first video you linked.

There is one thing, even between competing theories between scientists, it still has to be said, even with those disagreements the attempt is still ultimately the idea of observation and collecting data and compairing.

I happen to agree with the one guy that when some say the multi verse theory isn't science because you cant observe another universe. Well, it isn't in that it is so much proven. But, in the same frame, we also cannot physically enter the center of a back hole, but mathmatically we can use QM to give us a mental picture of what does happen once gravity sucks material in. Is it a complete picture? No. 

 

But Victor Stenger in his book, "The New Atheism" wrote something that has stuck with me ever since I read it. Now adimittedly he was talking about science having the ability to have a say about god claims. Basically he said, "Science DOES have something to say about the unseen."

 

In principle and this really has been proven time after time, even if you cannot see something directly, if it is real, it will have meausrable effect on the things around it that we can see and meausre. I still see that as solid principle thinking. And I also think time has proven, the more we attack the unseen with science the more it becomes open and known and eventually seen, even if only through forumalas.

 

A few years back, and I have to admit, I don't have the link. But I was floored by what an M-Theorist said, as a guest on a pannel hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson. Mind you I am summerizing here. But I got the impression, no matter what, parallel, muilty, bubble, whatever, but "all this" seems to be pointing to one giant wave function. Like a cosmic "double slit". 

 

I have grown to see the study of the cosmos and universe, as merely a GIGANTIC attept like your local weather reporter, just with more complex math and formulas. 

 

I might have some of my discriptions off, sure. But just in listening  to the history of where we were 200 years go, to the math of probability which is astounding when talking about QM, I can only sit in awe, pondering how unimportant our speices is in all this, which makes me appreciate even more, our scientists trying to put the peicies of this gigantic puzzle together. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I am currently in the

 I am currently in the middle of watching the first video you linked.

There is one thing, even between competing theories between scientists, it still has to be said, even with those disagreements the attempt is still ultimately the idea of observation and collecting data and compairing.

I happen to agree with the one guy that when some say the multi verse theory isn't science because you cant observe another universe. Well, it isn't in that it is so much proven. But, in the same frame, we also cannot physically enter the center of a back hole, but mathmatically we can use QM to give us a mental picture of what does happen once gravity sucks material in. Is it a complete picture? No. 

 

But Victor Stenger in his book, "The New Atheism" wrote something that has stuck with me ever since I read it. Now adimittedly he was talking about science having the ability to have a say about god claims. Basically he said, "Science DOES have something to say about the unseen."

 

In principle and this really has been proven time after time, even if you cannot see something directly, if it is real, it will have meausrable effect on the things around it that we can see and meausre. I still see that as solid principle thinking. And I also think time has proven, the more we attack the unseen with science the more it becomes open and known and eventually seen, even if only through forumalas.

 

A few years back, and I have to admit, I don't have the link. But I was floored by what an M-Theorist said, as a guest on a pannel hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson. Mind you I am summerizing here. But I got the impression, no matter what, parallel, muilty, bubble, whatever, but "all this" seems to be pointing to one giant wave function. Like a cosmic "double slit". 

 

I have grown to see the study of the cosmos and universe, as merely a GIGANTIC attempt like your local weather reporter, just with more complex math and formulas. 

 

EDIT....... Sorry for the double post.

 

ANYWHO, it amazes me that we are now at a point in science, in order to understand the big, we have to go small, and understand the sub atomic math. It boggles my brain to think about the scope of it all and it frustrates me even more, when with all we know now, for humans to still instist on superstion, sky heros and mythology as gap answers.

 

 

 

I might have some of my discriptions off, sure. But just in listening  to the history of where we were 200 years go, to the math of probability which is astounding when talking about QM, I can only sit in awe, pondering how unimportant our speices is in all this, which makes me appreciate even more, our scientists trying to put the peicies of this gigantic puzzle together through studing the quantim world. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
  I love this quote by

  I love this quote by George Lemaitre,

 

QUOTE GEORGE "Clearly the initial quantum could not conceal in itself the whole course of evolution. The story of the world need not have been written down in the first quantum like song on a disk of a phonograph. Instead from the same beginning wildly different universes could have evolved."

Now mind you I just dicovered him just how, saw a Cahtolic collar. What it does denote, the quote, or hints at is that our perceptions of reality are limited to what might be out there. GREAT, I love the qoute for that, but how you can gap fill with the mythology of antiquity and say something insightful while clinging to the ignorance of antiquity is a bit miffing.

The other part of being religious is that there have been very smart people WORLDWIDE in every religion whom have made discoveries. That says to me, that our species ability is not in mythology or super natural claims, but in our evolutionary curiocity which humans falsely attributed to a magical place.

I still like the quote, but it is aburd to think being a Catholic is some sort of patent holder of discovery.

Unfortunately the "fine tuning" argument arose out of stuff like this. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
  I love this quote by

  I love this quote by George Lemaitre,

 

QUOTE GEORGE "Clearly the initial quantum could not conceal in itself the whole course of evolution. The story of the world need not have been written down in the first quantum like song on a disk of a phonograph. Instead from the same beginning wildly different universes could have evolved."

Now mind you I just dicovered him just how, saw a Cahtolic collar. What it does denote, the quote, or hints at is that our perceptions of reality are limited to what might be out there. GREAT, I love the qoute for that, but how you can gap fill with the mythology of antiquity and say something insightful while clinging to the ignorance of antiquity is a bit miffing.

The other part of being religious is that there have been very smart people WORLDWIDE in every religion whom have made discoveries. That says to me, that our species ability is not in mythology or super natural claims, but in our evolutionary curiocity which humans falsely attributed to a magical place.

I still like the quote, but it is aburd to think being a Catholic is some sort of patent holder of discovery.

Unfortunately the "fine tuning" argument arose out of stuff like this. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 One fascinating modle to

 One fascinating modle to me was the "hour glass" model. 

It made me thing of, dropping a watter ballon and it hitting the ground and splatting in multiple directions. 

Not exactly an "hour glass" shape. But, say take a bag of potato chips, and instead of opening the bag on one end or the other, even out the contents, put the bag in the center of a table, and POUND your fist directly in the middle of the bag. The force has the potential to push equal amounts in both directions. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 One fascinating modle to

 One fascinating modle to me was the "hour glass" model. 

It made me thing of, dropping a watter ballon and it hitting the ground and splatting in multiple directions. 

Not exactly an "hour glass" shape. But, say take a bag of potato chips, and instead of opening the bag on one end or the other, even out the contents, put the bag in the center of a table, and POUND your fist directly in the middle of the bag. The force has the potential to push equal amounts in both directions. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 One fascinating modle to

 One fascinating modle to me was the "hour glass" model. 

It made me thing of, dropping a watter ballon and it hitting the ground and splatting in multiple directions. 

Not exactly an "hour glass" shape. But, say take a bag of potato chips, and instead of opening the bag on one end or the other, even out the contents, put the bag in the center of a table, and POUND your fist directly in the middle of the bag. The force has the potential to push equal amounts in both directions. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
  TO VASTET , because of

 

TO VASTET , because of our historical beefs, and MIND YOU, this is NOT intended to start WW4 because we've already had WW3 here. I'd request you go to TIME STAMP 6, mins and 3 second in, where the readheaded female host in this video, says that while atoms do interact, she goes on to say after a  certain point under certain conditions THEY DONT.

What am I missing here? It isn't inteded to say "AH HA mothter fer", but when I listen to this it does SEEM to confim what I had argued before, that there is a degree of seperation ultimately. I think your argument in laypersons term, is that is an illusion. 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I&index=2&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
  TO VASTET , because of

 

TO VASTET , because of our historical beefs, and MIND YOU, this is NOT intended to start WW4 because we've already had WW3 here. I'd request you go to TIME STAMP 6, mins and 3 second in, where the readheaded female host in this video, says that while atoms do interact, she goes on to say after a  certain point under certain conditions THEY DONT.

What am I missing here? It isn't inteded to say "AH HA mothter fer", but when I listen to this it does SEEM to confim what I had argued before, that there is a degree of seperation ultimately. I think your argument in laypersons term, is that is an illusion. 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I&index=2&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
  TO VASTET , because of

 

TO VASTET , because of our historical beefs, and MIND YOU, this is NOT intended to start WW4 because we've already had WW3 here. I'd request you go to TIME STAMP 6, mins and 3 second in, where the readheaded female host in this video, says that while atoms do interact, she goes on to say after a  certain point under certain conditions THEY DONT.

What am I missing here? It isn't inteded to say "AH HA mothter fer", but when I listen to this it does SEEM to confim what I had argued before, that there is a degree of seperation ultimately. I think your argument in laypersons term, is that is an illusion. 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I&index=2&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 TO VASTET , because of

 

TO VASTET , because of our historical beefs, and MIND YOU, this is NOT intended to start WW4 because we've already had WW3 here. I'd request you go to TIME STAMP 6, mins and 3 second in, where the readheaded female host in this video, says that while atoms do interact, she goes on to say after a  certain point under certain conditions THEY DONT.

What am I missing here? It isn't inteded to say "AH HA mothter fer", but when I listen to this it does SEEM to confim what I had argued before, that there is a degree of seperation ultimately. I think your argument in laypersons term, is that is an illusion. 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I&index=2&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

 

She says that inflation theory says that over time those atoms CANNOT recombine. Now, maybe your arguement was that was old theory? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Here is another thing

 Here is another thing aobut the second vidoe I am currently watching that even prior to has stuck in my crull.

"Forever" and "eternal". Even scientists whom are not theists use these terms and speculate at this being a possibility. Krauss has said that our universe can come out of nothing. I agree, but I don't think that conflicts with an eternal cycle. If Krauss is right, and nothing is unstable, it has to lead to something.

So knowing what infinte regress is, the problem isn't to me, that it has to be something or nothing, but a quantum fluctiation back and forth that can be eternal. 

The more I think about it, I see the "ultimate" being the "forever" not being caused by a cognition. Even Hawkings said that is not required. 

But, you can have a temporary "off" like a light switch, to a temporary "on". I see the positions of "off" and "on" as being finite, but the fluctuation between the two as the "forever".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Here is another thing

 Here is another thing aobut the second vidoe I am currently watching that even prior to has stuck in my crull.

"Forever" and "eternal". Even scientists whom are not theists use these terms and speculate at this being a possibility. Krauss has said that our universe can come out of nothing. I agree, but I don't think that conflicts with an eternal cycle. If Krauss is right, and nothing is unstable, it has to lead to something.

So knowing what infinte regress is, the problem isn't to me, that it has to be something or nothing, but a quantum fluctiation back and forth that can be eternal. 

The more I think about it, I see the "ultimate" being the "forever" not being caused by a cognition. Even Hawkings said that is not required. 

But, you can have a temporary "off" like a light switch, to a temporary "on". I see the positions of "off" and "on" as being finite, but the fluctuation between the two as the "forever".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Here is another thing

 Here is another thing aobut the second video I am currently watching that even prior to has stuck in my crull.

"Forever" and "eternal". Even scientists whom are not theists use these terms and speculate at this being a possibility. Krauss has said that our universe can come out of nothing. I agree, but I don't think that conflicts with an eternal cycle. If Krauss is right, and nothing is unstable, it has to lead to something.

So knowing what infinte regress is, the problem isn't to me, that it has to be something or nothing, but a quantum fluctiation back and forth that can be eternal. 

The more I think about it, I see the "ultimate" being the "forever" not being caused by a cognition. Even Hawkings said that is not required. 

But, you can have a temporary "off" like a light switch, to a temporary "on". I see the positions of "off" and "on" as being finite, but the fluctuation between the two as the "forever".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I do think a "forever"

 I do think a "forever" exists, but just not with us. I think humans simply need to accept our finite blip in a giant weather pattern to which we are riding in. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ugh. Usually I'd clean this

Ugh. Usually I'd clean this up, but I'd be risking losing posts. A few of them. I don't feel comfortable risking that.

Brian37 wrote:

 

TO VASTET , because of our historical beefs, and MIND YOU, this is NOT intended to start WW4 because we've already had WW3 here. I'd request you go to TIME STAMP 6, mins and 3 second in, where the readheaded female host in this video, says that while atoms do interact, she goes on to say after a  certain point under certain conditions THEY DONT.

What am I missing here? It isn't inteded to say "AH HA mothter fer", but when I listen to this it does SEEM to confim what I had argued before, that there is a degree of seperation ultimately. I think your argument in laypersons term, is that is an illusion. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I&index=2&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

She's basically extrapolating in laymans terms one possible after-big bang expansion process. The particles she's referring to here aren't atoms, but the tiny stuff atoms are made of. Stuff that is constantly appearing and disappearing in fractions of a second all over the universe. If the expansion of the universe is fast enough, then instead of recombining and annihlating each other, the particles are dragged apart too far and too fast to ever recombine and thus two particles that weren't there before are suddenly there. It's based on the expansion of the universe in combination with quantum mechanics.

Basically, the quantum laws state you cannot measure with precision both the mass and velocity of a particle at any time, and you can't know either until you measure it. More to the point, even the particles don't know what they are or how fast they are moving until they are measured. Measuring one changes the other. The result of this is that the universe is swimming with virtual particles that at the moment aren't anything because noone is measuring them. Basically a monstrously huge shroedingers cat experiment, where there's an infinite number of cats. Except alive and dead aren't the only options, but virtual particles can be any particle, and indeed eventually are every particle (not simultaneously).

Virtual particles are responsible for the Casimir effect, amongst other things. The effects are observable and the foundation of quantum mechanics depends on this state of the universe being accurate. It's a tricky thing to wrap your head around. Try reading these two articles to understand it better. I really haven't explained it as well as could be.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

Forever is tricky. The very term depends on time to have meaning, and time depends on mass which depends on matter. If all existence began with the big bang and will end in heat death, then forever will never be. Time began at the big bang and will cease the instant the last particle decays.

But the probability of a single universe coming to be out of nothing only once is roughly equal to the probability of a god making everything, and describes as much as such a position. It doesn't solve or explain anything, and it probably isn't true. Multiverses are almost guaranteed by pretty much any math. The question is what kind, and there are a few different types of possible multiverses.

The question of forever as a scientific statement is well beyond our ability to ever be able to answer. It really isn't meaningful to do anyway, except as an intellectual exercise. Whether there is or isn't a forever cannot impact us at all. Either way, there is absolutely 0 chance of homo sapiens experiencing it, and only very slightly above 0 in detecting it. Someone in the video said it might be possible to get information from before the big bang in the case of gravity waves resulted from supermassive black hole collisions, but if the universe is expanding, that is certainly false. Such waves may exist, but we would never see them. Either they would have already passed by billions of years ago, or they'd never catch us because gravity moves at the speed of light which just isn't fast enough to catch us.

So I don't concern myself with forever.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian... really? wtf? 

Brian... really? wtf?

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I do think a

Brian37 wrote:

 I do think a "forever" exists, but just not with us. I think humans simply need to accept our finite blip in a giant weather pattern to which we are riding in. 

I remember being told by a professor that blackholes would last forever to which my reply was "nothing last forever".

Of course I didn't know about the Hawkin's Radiation, but I had visualized that the weakest spot on a black hole would be the poles. It just didn't make sense to say that a black hole would last forever.

Nothing lasts forever. The Universe will cease to exist one day and it doesn't matter what happens, it will cease eventually.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Ugh. Usually

Vastet wrote:
Ugh. Usually I'd clean this up, but I'd be risking losing posts. A few of them. I don't feel comfortable risking that.
Brian37 wrote:
  TO VASTET , because of our historical beefs, and MIND YOU, this is NOT intended to start WW4 because we've already had WW3 here. I'd request you go to TIME STAMP 6, mins and 3 second in, where the readheaded female host in this video, says that while atoms do interact, she goes on to say after a  certain point under certain conditions THEY DONT. What am I missing here? It isn't inteded to say "AH HA mothter fer", but when I listen to this it does SEEM to confim what I had argued before, that there is a degree of seperation ultimately. I think your argument in laypersons term, is that is an illusion.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I&index=2&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m
She's basically extrapolating in laymans terms one possible after-big bang expansion process. The particles she's referring to here aren't atoms, but the tiny stuff atoms are made of. Stuff that is constantly appearing and disappearing in fractions of a second all over the universe. If the expansion of the universe is fast enough, then instead of recombining and annihlating each other, the particles are dragged apart too far and too fast to ever recombine and thus two particles that weren't there before are suddenly there. It's based on the expansion of the universe in combination with quantum mechanics. Basically, the quantum laws state you cannot measure with precision both the mass and velocity of a particle at any time, and you can't know either until you measure it. More to the point, even the particles don't know what they are or how fast they are moving until they are measured. Measuring one changes the other. The result of this is that the universe is swimming with virtual particles that at the moment aren't anything because noone is measuring them. Basically a monstrously huge shroedingers cat experiment, where there's an infinite number of cats. Except alive and dead aren't the only options, but virtual particles can be any particle, and indeed eventually are every particle (not simultaneously). Virtual particles are responsible for the Casimir effect, amongst other things. The effects are observable and the foundation of quantum mechanics depends on this state of the universe being accurate. It's a tricky thing to wrap your head around. Try reading these two articles to understand it better. I really haven't explained it as well as could be. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/ Forever is tricky. The very term depends on time to have meaning, and time depends on mass which depends on matter. If all existence began with the big bang and will end in heat death, then forever will never be. Time began at the big bang and will cease the instant the last particle decays. But the probability of a single universe coming to be out of nothing only once is roughly equal to the probability of a god making everything, and describes as much as such a position. It doesn't solve or explain anything, and it probably isn't true. Multiverses are almost guaranteed by pretty much any math. The question is what kind, and there are a few different types of possible multiverses. The question of forever as a scientific statement is well beyond our ability to ever be able to answer. It really isn't meaningful to do anyway, except as an intellectual exercise. Whether there is or isn't a forever cannot impact us at all. Either way, there is absolutely 0 chance of homo sapiens experiencing it, and only very slightly above 0 in detecting it. Someone in the video said it might be possible to get information from before the big bang in the case of gravity waves resulted from supermassive black hole collisions, but if the universe is expanding, that is certainly false. Such waves may exist, but we would never see them. Either they would have already passed by billions of years ago, or they'd never catch us because gravity moves at the speed of light which just isn't fast enough to catch us. So I don't concern myself with forever.

 

Ok, so it seems to me I was not wrong and neither were you, but a point of view issue just like a partical can behave both like a ball and a wave.

 

So it isn't an either or thing, but "it depends" when using QM and I am hoping that is what you ment when you say "she was talking" about the possible.

 

And sorry for so many double posts, I don't know why this is happening here, but only seems to be happening here. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15649
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 I do think a "forever" exists, but just not with us. I think humans simply need to accept our finite blip in a giant weather pattern to which we are riding in. 

I remember being told by a professor that blackholes would last forever to which my reply was "nothing last forever".

Of course I didn't know about the Hawkin's Radiation, but I had visualized that the weakest spot on a black hole would be the poles. It just didn't make sense to say that a black hole would last forever.

Nothing lasts forever. The Universe will cease to exist one day and it doesn't matter what happens, it will cease eventually.

 

I agree nothing lasts for ever. AND that is also the point. If you go by Krauss nothing is unstable, thus it eventually leads to somthing. Just like Vastet was saying particals pop in and outof existence.

I stated before, I really personally DONT have  problem with both the finite and infitite existing. Once you take each as a point of view issue, and a wave fucntion, and fluctuation, you don't have to worry about infinite regress.

 

I said in a prior post, I see even the multiverse, parallell and bubble theories being all part of a giant fluctuation. Much like a light swich can be off for a finite period, then a quantum twitch, the light switch is on for a finite period. BUT the fluctuation between on and off can be infinite.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
https://youtu.be/7UNLgPIiWAg

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's an interesting video

That's an interesting video from a guy I like who still got everything wrong from square 1. He, like other proponents of dark matter and energy, still make the assumption that the visible universe is the entire universe when we are about as certain it isn't as we are gravity exists. And furthermore he's using dark matter and energy to prove each other. That cool graph that looks good doesn't even have a y or x axis if dark matter and energy don't exist, and therefore the graph itself relies on the assumption they exist to exist. It's literally proving christianity using the bible level circular reasoning.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That's an

Vastet wrote:
That's an interesting video from a guy I like who still got everything wrong from square 1. He, like other proponents of dark matter and energy, still make the assumption that the visible universe is the entire universe when we are about as certain it isn't as we are gravity exists. And furthermore he's using dark matter and energy to prove each other. That cool graph that looks good doesn't even have a y or x axis if dark matter and energy don't exist, and therefore the graph itself relies on the assumption they exist to exist. It's literally proving christianity using the bible level circular reasoning.

I knew you would challenge it. I thought it was interesting. 

I still think that dark matter and dark energy is what is outside our Universe and like a bubble of oxygen expending under water, the Universe is far from being perfect and clean cut. I'm sure there are areas of the Universe which are weaker than other areas.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The thing is we know our

The thing is we know our galactic cluster is being pulled towards an invisible mass. The mass is invisible because it's so far away that light from it can never get here. That means there is at least one supermass in the universe that is outside the visible universe. If there's one there could be billions. There is no way to estimate the size or mass of the entire universe, only the visible.
The very fact that we know we can't observe the entire universe means every assumption about expansion itself is in question.

The whole idea of expansion is predicated on the assumption that all the galaxies outside our local group are being pushed apart, but they also could easily be being pulled like our group is by monstrously huge masses that we can never see. If such is the case, then suddenly dark energy isn't necessary to explain why galaxy clusters are moving away from us. And if that's the case, then dark matter isn't necessary to hold galaxies together. We're basically looking at a giant jigsaw puzzle for which we have but one piece, and we have no idea how many pieces there are.

Dark energy is really completely undetectable unless some day a civilization spans an entire galaxy cluster. But dark matter existing would prove the existence of dark energy, and dark matter must be detectable in order for it to function as predicted. So if they ever find and define some dark matter I'll happily accept it. But for the moment there's nothing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The thing is we

Vastet wrote:
The thing is we know our galactic cluster is being pulled towards an invisible mass. The mass is invisible because it's so far away that light from it can never get here. That means there is at least one supermass in the universe that is outside the visible universe. If there's one there could be billions. There is no way to estimate the size or mass of the entire universe, only the visible. The very fact that we know we can't observe the entire universe means every assumption about expansion itself is in question. The whole idea of expansion is predicated on the assumption that all the galaxies outside our local group are being pushed apart, but they also could easily be being pulled like our group is by monstrously huge masses that we can never see. If such is the case, then suddenly dark energy isn't necessary to explain why galaxy clusters are moving away from us. And if that's the case, then dark matter isn't necessary to hold galaxies together. We're basically looking at a giant jigsaw puzzle for which we have but one piece, and we have no idea how many pieces there are. Dark energy is really completely undetectable unless some day a civilization spans an entire galaxy cluster. But dark matter existing would prove the existence of dark energy, and dark matter must be detectable in order for it to function as predicted. So if they ever find and define some dark matter I'll happily accept it. But for the moment there's nothing.

I see what you are saying. Dark matter and dark energy isn't so mysterious. It's actually regular matter which we can't see because it isn't visible.

The only way the human race will survive beyond time is to learn how to travel via worm holes or as the such. We will never be able to travel at the speed of light. So shortcuts are going to be the answer.

Then we can visit areas of these masses which are not visible to us.

 

I still think that the most difficult thing for me to wrap my brain around is the edge of the Universe. If you start from the singularity you have an expanse taking place.

As it continues to expand, you have empty space being filled with energy and matter.

Eventually you keep expanding until everything becomes too spread out.

Then the Universe will disintegrate.

 

It's the empty space outside our Universe which fascinates me.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
https://www.newsweek.com/dark

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.