It was once thought that neutrinos had zero mass. With the discovery of neutrinos with non zero mass guess what? That's right, it was part of missing matter in dark matter. No all of it, and not all of it by far, but still some.
Dark matter,dark energy, dark flow exists is the minds of those physicists that find it difficult to connect the dots. They establish their "laws of physics" then sell them as if they were 'written by the hand of God' (sort of a pun) Then they discover that something is going on out there that seems to defy those laws. They conclude; 'That can't happen..unless...there's something else in the universe....Aha! it must be "DARK MATTER!!" An unknowable, unseeable, unproven mysterious force, influencing those precious theories. They roll with that myth until they run up against some other obstacle. On to "DARK ENERGY". And, of course, now we have "DARK FLOW" as the know all-end all. It all appears to be "DARK BULL****". And really folks, what's the difference between all those "DARK" things and the belief in some 'creator' or 'intelligent designer'? Wait, I know the difference. It's 'SCIENCE'....or should it be; SCIENCE-ISM? "But SCIENCE has given us so much. Computers, robotic manufacturing, disease control and medicine, the 'electric car', refrigerators and 3d TV. God, on the other hand, has only provided war and disharmony. (wars fought, by the way with sciences weapons). In effect, all science has done is learn to manipulate what is already here and available. Science didn't 'invent electricity', science learned to control it. Science didn't invent fire or gears or the wheel or pulleys. The principles of gears and pulleys and levers have always existed in the natural world. The only thing 'SCIENCE' is actually inventing is 'DARK STUFF' and only to explain away what they really don't know.
It IS difficult to connect the dots, otherwise someone would have done so already. Besides that, I'm unaware of a single physicist that pretends that our physical theories are written by the hand of God. If you know one, please tell me his/her name. I'll let a successful theoretical physicist explain how new physical law is found. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw"]Feynman on Scientific Method. - YouTube[/ame] You should replace that "must" with "could". It's just a name for something we don't understand. A short name is desirable to waste less time in practice. It could also be called "the stuff we don't know or the error in our theories". You have to admit that dark matter just sounds way more mysterious and cool. Astrophysicists love simple words. Big Bang, Red Giant, White Dwarf, Sunspots, Black Hole, ... That's true and it's a remarkable feat that required a lot of work and thought.
It is much better, IMO, to remain open-minded, to accept challenges, to make adjustments to new information...than it is to stick our heads in the sand where we are void of curiosity and adventure...
True enough. But when the 5 lb bag is full, switch to a 10 lb bag. When "science" figured out that their concept of the universe wasn't working out as expected, given their 'laws of physics'; instead of switching to a bigger bag, they attempt to shove 'dark matter' into their little bag. It don't fit. It's no different than religion replying "well, God simply is, always was and always will be" when confronted by the age old question, "if there's a God, where did [he] come from?" Dark matter/energy/flow = science dogma. We are to 'take it in faith'. Even though 'the darks' only exists to reinforce sciences established theories, which appear to be somewhat questionable. I'm all for "curiosity". But I appreciate those scientists that admittedly state [we really don't know much about the who, what's, whens and wheres of the universe] as opposed to those (like many on this forum) that propagate the all seeing, all knowing infallibility of 'scientists'. (he said with sarcasm)
quite the opposite to your analogy. They 'added' 78% most matter/energy to the equation and hubble shared the 'bag' is far bigger. (they can see further away) the initial idea of dark matter, is (was) just matter that is not lit (emitting) and planets and asteroid belts are proof of them. The dark energy is just energy 'we' cannot see that causes a potential between points of mass (entanglements). describing these 'facts' is where the ol virial (theorem) does not allow. But in comparison to theology, science is like the new new new testamentsssssssss, as it is ever evolving. What you are awaiting is the 'last word' and dont even realize that is what your theology has been suggesting all along. If you could see my hand, you would see i already came!
Like I said, it is better to remain open-minded, to absorb new and even conflicting information, to make adjustments, while always maintaining a curiosity of the unknowns. There is a huge difference between religion and science; Science remains open-minded to new information while religion is closed-minded and righteous...
Science is as close minded as religion. How much 'grant money' goes into the holographic universe hypothesis? I doubt that any does. Grant money goes to those that pursue accepted theorem. Big Bangs and Quantum physics. Billions are spent proving and re-proving that the universe originated 13.7+- years ago with some big bang, followed by some expansion/inflation into (what) To suggest otherwise is akin to blasphemy. It all seems close to religious ideology to me. It's the 'believer' that concerns me. As in religion, those that 'believe' that science has 'nailed it'. Take it on faith, just as those that 'believe' in the 'creation by some God', take it on faith. They follow the big bang, quantum theory, e=mc2, blindly into the night. Listening to the high priests and monks, nodding to the affirmative of their utterances. accepting the dogma of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy/flow' as explanation to the heretofore 'unexplainable'. In the name of Einstein, Hawking and the Holy Copernicus.
There are only 3 in the trinity. I chose Copernicus as representative of "the holy ghost". Although, Darwin works.
both have enabled people to think. Einstein knew his work was incomplete Hawking did 'what'? ie... he claimed the hadron would not find the 'god' particle and was right but did it stop the waste of resources? But then again, i am right and will not stop ww3. So, I guess i am being kind of harsh on wheelie. either way........... hawking and einstein are not even close to the same level. and copernicus is well beyond both in the scope of focusing on the comprehension of life. I have come to believe that if einstein focused more on what 'life' is, the scope would have been completed already. ie... there is more evidence, right here on the earth than the hubble ever provided
Not sure what type of science you refer to, but science as I know it is not closed-minded to anything?! People study the origin of the Universe and quantum physics not to reaffirm what we already know but to continue discovery of what we don't yet know. Einstein is being challenged today with the possibility that stuff can travel faster than the speed of light...this is not blasphemy at all...just further research and potential new discoveries/information. Science is not 'faith'. Science is knowing what we know and no more. Science can offer 'possible' explanations for stuff we don't yet know about or can confirm, but back at the lab science only knows what it knows...period. Not sure why you have such a hatred and diatribe towards true science??
I love science. Absolutely am enthralled by it. From study of the macrocosm to the microcosm. Biology, geology, archeology, physics, paleontology, zoology and all the 'ologies' betwixt and between. What I have a problem with is 'true believers'. Those that bang drums without knowing why they bang drums. The ones that stand up and shout "I believe in the Big Bang" but when asked "what's the Bang?" They get that lost look and reply "The Big Bang is proof that there is no God". The "Quantum theory is cool" crowd that doesn't have a clue of what the theory is. I fear them as much as I fear fundamentalist christians. I don't like science being placed on some pedestal that removes it from scrutiny.
When I begin to understand the physics or the math to explain the world around me, for me, this creates the supposed pedestal. A body of scientific knowledge carries for me much more weight than any one of 300 religions or just dismissing science because it's too complex. If we did not have the accumulated scientific knowledge over the past 500 years, nearly everything we know today would not exist. I can't make this statement about religions or politics or whatever special interest groups...all of them come and go...
Besides 'stuff', what do we have today that wasn't here from the beginning? To switch gears, how about that 'beginning'? I'd surmise that calculating the odds of everything to exist, including all that 'stuff' would be an astronomical feat. That this planet, having gone through all of it's gyrations to be in the condition it's in today and be able to host life, as we recognize it. The odds that this planet could be precisely located where it is in relation to the sun, that there is a moon exactly the size it is and distance from the planet, that allows life to exist. That the solar system is in the correct place within the galaxy. That all the elements are present, in the right proportions to sustain life. That one celled creatures seized the opportunity to divide and multiply and evolve into sentient beings capable of wonder about the marvels that surround them and seek answers to questions and be endowed with the intelligence to pursue the answers to those questions. There's something afoot besides mere mechanics. I am neither a religious person nor particularly spiritual. I accept scientific theory and buy into most scientific explanations of what the universe is. But I can no longer accept 'dumb luck' as being the prime mover. Everything is far to ordered and exacting for dumb luck or order from chaos. As to religion and politics? It served it's purpose. It brought cohesion and unity to otherwise disconnected and diverse clans and tribes. Giving them a sense of community and cooperation that permitted social growth and advancement of the species. It made room for our thinkers to think and come up with all that stuff, as those not as gifted worked the fields and fish nets and helped sustain the group.
Without the knowledge of science, today would look very much like it did 5000 years ago. Which part of science declares that 'dumb luck' is a reason for Earth's existence...and humans? The Universe is not static or orderly! It is chaotic. It is random. Haven't you heard that entropy rules? If some mythical force could possibly have created the Universe, why didn't they create it as a static entity? What could possibly be the reason for a creator to allowing continuous expansion? Nothing to me makes any sense to involve any form of a creator? If religion believes they know 'everything' from the beginning, then hand over the information...share with all of us how it unfolded...what's happening today...what it will look like in one billion years??? And religion and politics IS NOT necessary for people to group together in order to create community...
Not at all. There is nothing chaotic about the universe. It follows observable laws of physics. Random, sure. If it weren't random, for example, all the stars would be the same size. But chaotic it is not. It is guided steadily by those laws of physics which do not change.
i knew sooner or later some random garbage would come to print on this thread. Random is not a property or force in nature. To sustain causal descriptions to a system, removes the random from the equation. Plancks constant combining entropy to the direction of time/space is the ignorance of the existing paradigm. For example; the concept of a hot piece of iron going cold without comprehending why is based on ignorance, not the laws of physics. That would be like an idiot that comprehends 'for every action, there is an equal reaction' but then forgets it to remain complacent to the entropic principle. energy is not bound to the speed of particles and that stupidity is the rube of todays physics and the comprehension of nature. No matter how much is described with todays paradigm, the foundation is still off. Ie.... ptolemiac (model) math could describe the onion skin layers of the central earth and that lasted for well over 1000 yrs....and the math was practically perfect to the level required of the period. Now is our time and requiring the universe to need 78% more dark crap to fit the existing model should be enough proof to any and all, that the current model is a weeeeeeee bit off. Gravity is not understood, Entanglement is and has been evidenced, but it sure aint in virial theorem and the emergent property of life, could NEVER be reductionary or people would be eating poop by accident versus cranbulay by choice. simple integrity to science, enables anyone to realize the benchmarks are where the problem exists and plancks constant is where it is
of quoting max planck and not comprehending the old paradigm will equilibrate another post from the AT and as oooosual, not a thing to say how many here know the troll?
Can you predict what I might type in the next few keystrokes ...................? As far as I'm concerned, if 'we' are chaotic then the Universe is chaotic. Sure there are laws of physics to explain some things but not all things. Didn't we just discover the Universe is expanding much faster than we thought? I'm not smart enough to know, but how many laws of physics allow a variable for entropy or chaos? Call it chaos, or entropy, or noise, or just stuff we don't yet understand to finite levels...
Regarding this thread...has it been proven that indeed there is missing mass...mass that we cannot see? If so, has this missing mass been quantified...is it 90% of the Universe, 5%? Similarly, do we find missing mass in our galaxy, and if so, what percentage is missing? Is there missing mass in our Solar system? Is there missing mass in atoms? Is it possible that gravity has mass? Is it possible that electromagnetic fields have mass? As the Universe is expanding, can we determine if the 'missing mass' is expanding in 'mass' or is it the space between the missing mass that grows?
that's basic keep guessing cant see it finding new 'solar bodies' quite frequently. Asteroid belts ...etc.... When they find a wobbling star and claim 'eureka, a planet'..... well they find 'dark matter' (matter that is not lit, like stars emit) E=mc2 shares what? Is mass, just energy per that equation? Now did fission share that to split an atom, there are smaller bits of mass, than energy emitted? gravity is a property of em (entanglement) the field has a d/t just like mass what expansion? with all that mass within the universe, now you can comprehend why a 'red shift' (hubble evidence that enabled the expansion to be claimed) that BGR is not evidence.
