Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is no evidence for Dark Energy

UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:33:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 11:14:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Title says it all.

Title says approximately nothing.

Why don't you explain what dark energy is and what the supposed evidence for it is, and under what context it can be considered evidence?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:42:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 11:14:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Title says it all.

Oh no...you are really gonna try to come over here to Science, eh?

OK--but I warn you..we are not like those guys over in the Religion Forum. We use proof and sources and logic over here. Not just tossing off groundless opinions anybody can do--as in religion.

So let us begin: link please? And I will post--oh, how many do you want?--some that proves that Dark Energy indeed exists.

Let me give you a quick hint. See what you can do with it............

Hubble Cnstant
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:44:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 11:14:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Title says it all.

You need to stay over in Religion, bro.

You will not do well here in Science. Here is my first shot in my forthcoming salvo....

http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

Gimme some links for your OP claim!!

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:44:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 12:42:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:14:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Title says it all.

Oh no...you are really gonna try to come over here to Science, eh?

OK--but I warn you..we are not like those guys over in the Religion Forum. We use proof and sources and logic over here. Not just tossing off groundless opinions anybody can do--as in religion.

So let us begin: link please? And I will post--oh, how many do you want?--some that proves that Dark Energy indeed exists.

Let me give you a quick hint. See what you can do with it............

Hubble Cnstant

Hubble Constant (SP?)

I am not denying that the universe is expanding, or even expanding faster.

I intend to argue using the same logic I was preached to about in the religious forum.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:45:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 12:44:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:14:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Title says it all.

Oh no...you are really gonna try to come over here to Science, eh?

OK--but I warn you..we are not like those guys over in the Religion Forum. We use proof and sources and logic over here. Not just tossing off groundless opinions anybody can do--as in religion.

So let us begin: link please? And I will post--oh, how many do you want?--some that proves that Dark Energy indeed exists.

Let me give you a quick hint. See what you can do with it............

Hubble Cnstant

Hubble Constant (SP?)

I am not denying that the universe is expanding, or even expanding faster.

I intend to argue using the same logic I was preached to about in the religious forum.

read my link. More are coming. Where's yours?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:46:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:47:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

Wow..this is too easy!!

Go back to Religion before it is too late!!!!!!!

LOL

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:47:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 12:45:17 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:44:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:14:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Title says it all.

Oh no...you are really gonna try to come over here to Science, eh?

OK--but I warn you..we are not like those guys over in the Religion Forum. We use proof and sources and logic over here. Not just tossing off groundless opinions anybody can do--as in religion.

So let us begin: link please? And I will post--oh, how many do you want?--some that proves that Dark Energy indeed exists.

Let me give you a quick hint. See what you can do with it............

Hubble Cnstant

Hubble Constant (SP?)

I am not denying that the universe is expanding, or even expanding faster.

I intend to argue using the same logic I was preached to about in the religious forum.

read my link. More are coming. Where's yours?

You didn't post any link.

And having a discussion, even one based on evidence and scientific proof, does not necessitate links.

A battle of more links doesn't discern truth. If that is what you are still interested in.

I'm aware of what the Hubble Constant is. I'm not denying it's existence or the expansion of the universe.

I'm saying there is no evidence for Dark Energy.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:04:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The evidence for Dark Energy is the same as the evidence for gravity, but I better expand on that!

If someone bothers to make the measurements, it will turn out that two objects attract each other according to a strict rule, ie f = m1 x m2 over d squared.

Newton's idea was that mass is mutually attractive because that best explains the form of the equation that relates the force to the masses and distances involved. That mutual attractive force is called gravity.

Exactly the same applies to dark energy. It is the best way we've found (so far) to explain the form of the equations that match the observations.

Gravity is more familiar, but its still only a theory. There may be no such thing as gravity. In fact, we know there is! Because Einstein showed that there is no attractive force at all - its all because mass curves spacetime.

So does dark energy exist? Well, the universe doesn't behave according to the rules - observation is not matching the equations. If there is dark matter, the equations work ok. Is that evidence? All I'd say is it's as good the evidence for Newton's gravity. Is that good enough for you?

PS - I'm have a sneaking preference for MOND theories rather than dark matter/energy theories... but what do I know?

So the evidence for dark energy is the same as the evidence for gravity.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:17:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

Oh...so you are rejecting all the science and all those Cosmologists who claim Dark Energy exists. And have shown proof?

I'm sure they will be dis-heartened to hear that.

"Pearls before swine?" LOL

What "pearl?

You have provided nothing but a groundless OP claim that I have already refuted with links three times.

You really need to go back to the Religion Forum if you can't do better than this.

Seriously.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:21:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:04:50 PM, kp98 wrote:
The evidence for Dark Energy is the same as the evidence for gravity, but I better expand on that!

If someone bothers to make the measurements, it will turn out that two objects attract each other according to a strict rule, ie f = m1 x m2 over d squared.

Newton's idea was that mass is mutually attractive because that best explains the form of the equation that relates the force to the masses and distances involved. That mutual attractive force is called gravity.

Exactly the same applies to dark energy. It is the best way we've found (so far) to explain the form of the equations that match the observations.

Gravity is more familiar, but its still only a theory. There may be no such thing as gravity. In fact, we know there is! Because Einstein showed that there is no attractive force at all - its all because mass curves spacetime.

So does dark energy exist? Well, the universe doesn't behave according to the rules - observation is not matching the equations. If there is dark matter, the equations work ok. Is that evidence? All I'd say is it's as good the evidence for Newton's gravity. Is that good enough for you?

PS - I'm have a sneaking preference for MOND theories rather than dark matter/energy theories... but what do I know?


So the evidence for dark energy is the same as the evidence for gravity.

What I have been told by many posters on DDo is that if the observation supports more than one hypothesis then it is not evidence.

The observation is the accelerated expansion of the universe. There are explanations like dark energy, time slowing down as space expands, and others that explain the observation. This according to what I have been told makes the observation NOT evidence.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:30:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:21:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:04:50 PM, kp98 wrote:
The evidence for Dark Energy is the same as the evidence for gravity, but I better expand on that!

If someone bothers to make the measurements, it will turn out that two objects attract each other according to a strict rule, ie f = m1 x m2 over d squared.

Newton's idea was that mass is mutually attractive because that best explains the form of the equation that relates the force to the masses and distances involved. That mutual attractive force is called gravity.

Exactly the same applies to dark energy. It is the best way we've found (so far) to explain the form of the equations that match the observations.

Gravity is more familiar, but its still only a theory. There may be no such thing as gravity. In fact, we know there is! Because Einstein showed that there is no attractive force at all - its all because mass curves spacetime.

So does dark energy exist? Well, the universe doesn't behave according to the rules - observation is not matching the equations. If there is dark matter, the equations work ok. Is that evidence? All I'd say is it's as good the evidence for Newton's gravity. Is that good enough for you?

PS - I'm have a sneaking preference for MOND theories rather than dark matter/energy theories... but what do I know?


So the evidence for dark energy is the same as the evidence for gravity.

What I have been told by many posters on DDo is that if the observation supports more than one hypothesis then it is not evidence.


Who, exactly, said that?

The observation is the accelerated expansion of the universe. There are explanations like dark energy, time slowing down as space expands, and others that explain the observation. This according to what I have been told makes the observation NOT evidence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:53:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

"Dark Energy"
"Physics invites the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant, Lambda; nowadays the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence"
http://arxiv.org...

There are observations that some scientist use to support Dark Energy. But as you have pointed out yourself UR... These same observations help support different hypotheses.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
http://www.rense.com...
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com...

In this case because the observations support many hypotheses equally with Dark Energy we can conclude that the observations are NOT evidence.

Hence Dark Energy has no Evidence. In accordance to the illogic espoused by so many others.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:54:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:30:53 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:21:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:04:50 PM, kp98 wrote:
The evidence for Dark Energy is the same as the evidence for gravity, but I better expand on that!

If someone bothers to make the measurements, it will turn out that two objects attract each other according to a strict rule, ie f = m1 x m2 over d squared.

Newton's idea was that mass is mutually attractive because that best explains the form of the equation that relates the force to the masses and distances involved. That mutual attractive force is called gravity.

Exactly the same applies to dark energy. It is the best way we've found (so far) to explain the form of the equations that match the observations.

Gravity is more familiar, but its still only a theory. There may be no such thing as gravity. In fact, we know there is! Because Einstein showed that there is no attractive force at all - its all because mass curves spacetime.

So does dark energy exist? Well, the universe doesn't behave according to the rules - observation is not matching the equations. If there is dark matter, the equations work ok. Is that evidence? All I'd say is it's as good the evidence for Newton's gravity. Is that good enough for you?

PS - I'm have a sneaking preference for MOND theories rather than dark matter/energy theories... but what do I know?


So the evidence for dark energy is the same as the evidence for gravity.

What I have been told by many posters on DDo is that if the observation supports more than one hypothesis then it is not evidence.


Who, exactly, said that?

I'm paraphrasing but I'm sure you have read the other posts.


The observation is the accelerated expansion of the universe. There are explanations like dark energy, time slowing down as space expands, and others that explain the observation. This according to what I have been told makes the observation NOT evidence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 1:58:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

No, I just lack any belief in Dark Energy existing.

I don't see why I need to define "dark energy", I bet it means different things to many different people.

I don't see why I need to present all the theories of why "dark energy" exists, I reject them all.

Do you not see that I am using the same illogic Atheist constantly regurgitate to answer your replies.

Don't I appear so much smarter because I am using the same tactics as Atheist apologetic?

I'm not claiming anything Buddy, I'm rejecting the existence of Dark Energy.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:01:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:30:53 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:21:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:04:50 PM, kp98 wrote:
The evidence for Dark Energy is the same as the evidence for gravity, but I better expand on that!

If someone bothers to make the measurements, it will turn out that two objects attract each other according to a strict rule, ie f = m1 x m2 over d squared.

Newton's idea was that mass is mutually attractive because that best explains the form of the equation that relates the force to the masses and distances involved. That mutual attractive force is called gravity.

Exactly the same applies to dark energy. It is the best way we've found (so far) to explain the form of the equations that match the observations.

Gravity is more familiar, but its still only a theory. There may be no such thing as gravity. In fact, we know there is! Because Einstein showed that there is no attractive force at all - its all because mass curves spacetime.

So does dark energy exist? Well, the universe doesn't behave according to the rules - observation is not matching the equations. If there is dark matter, the equations work ok. Is that evidence? All I'd say is it's as good the evidence for Newton's gravity. Is that good enough for you?

PS - I'm have a sneaking preference for MOND theories rather than dark matter/energy theories... but what do I know?


So the evidence for dark energy is the same as the evidence for gravity.

What I have been told by many posters on DDo is that if the observation supports more than one hypothesis then it is not evidence.



UndeniableReality: Who, exactly, said that?

Double_R
http://www.debate.org...

"Wet grass does not justify a belief that it rained if wet grass is the observation you are trying to explain and you have failed to eliminate other just as plausible explanations. If the lawn has a sprinkler for example, then that being just as plausible of an explanation negates rain as a justified belief. At that point it becomes a mere preference of one explanation over another without rational justification, thus failing to meet your definition."

Hence no evidence because the observation equally supports more than one hypotheses.


The observation is the accelerated expansion of the universe. There are explanations like dark energy, time slowing down as space expands, and others that explain the observation. This according to what I have been told makes the observation NOT evidence.
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:07:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:58:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

No, I just lack any belief in Dark Energy existing.

I don't see why I need to define "dark energy", I bet it means different things to many different people.

I don't see why I need to present all the theories of why "dark energy" exists, I reject them all.

Do you not see that I am using the same illogic Atheist constantly regurgitate to answer your replies.

Don't I appear so much smarter because I am using the same tactics as Atheist apologetic?

I'm not claiming anything Buddy, I'm rejecting the existence of Dark Energy.


WHY are you rejecting Dark Energy? You must have a reason.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:11:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 2:07:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:58:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

No, I just lack any belief in Dark Energy existing.

I don't see why I need to define "dark energy", I bet it means different things to many different people.

I don't see why I need to present all the theories of why "dark energy" exists, I reject them all.

Do you not see that I am using the same illogic Atheist constantly regurgitate to answer your replies.

Don't I appear so much smarter because I am using the same tactics as Atheist apologetic?

I'm not claiming anything Buddy, I'm rejecting the existence of Dark Energy.


WHY are you rejecting Dark Energy? You must have a reason.

Wo Wo.

"A wise man, proportions his belief to the evidence." --David Hume (great thinker of evidentialism and famous atheist)

If I see no conclusive material empirical testable scientific evidence for something like "dark energy" then I simply deny it. This is not saying "dark energy" isn't possible. Just that I see no reason to accept it's existence.

You don't need a reason not to believe.
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:16:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 2:11:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 2:07:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:58:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

No, I just lack any belief in Dark Energy existing.

I don't see why I need to define "dark energy", I bet it means different things to many different people.

I don't see why I need to present all the theories of why "dark energy" exists, I reject them all.

Do you not see that I am using the same illogic Atheist constantly regurgitate to answer your replies.

Don't I appear so much smarter because I am using the same tactics as Atheist apologetic?

I'm not claiming anything Buddy, I'm rejecting the existence of Dark Energy.


WHY are you rejecting Dark Energy? You must have a reason.

Wo Wo.

"A wise man, proportions his belief to the evidence." --David Hume (great thinker of evidentialism and famous atheist)

If I see no conclusive material empirical testable scientific evidence for something like "dark energy" then I simply deny it. This is not saying "dark energy" isn't possible. Just that I see no reason to accept it's existence.

You don't need a reason not to believe.

I actually agree with you. I don't see any evidence for it either.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:18:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:53:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

"Dark Energy"
"Physics invites the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant, Lambda; nowadays the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence"
http://arxiv.org...

You're missing the main point. Dark Energy is a hypothetical form of energy who's nature is unknown. It's just a phrase used as a placeholder for "whatever it is that explains this phenomenon", which exists simply because the phenomenon is currently not explained. You're mistakenly assuming that "Dark Energy" is a specific thing which is proposed to exist, when most alternative explanations are not actually alternatives, because dark energy is an umbrella term for them.

There are observations that some scientist use to support Dark Energy. But as you have pointed out yourself UR... These same observations help support different hypotheses.

Actually, I haven't pointed that out. I said, " If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses. "

http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
http://www.rense.com...
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com...

In this case because the observations support many hypotheses equally with Dark Energy we can conclude that the observations are NOT evidence.

Hence Dark Energy has no Evidence. In accordance to the illogic espoused by so many others.

If all of the proposed evidence for any hypothesis that fits under the umbrella term "Dark Energy" is equally explainable by other viable hypotheses, then I agree with you.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:20:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 2:01:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:30:53 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:21:37 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:04:50 PM, kp98 wrote:
The evidence for Dark Energy is the same as the evidence for gravity, but I better expand on that!

If someone bothers to make the measurements, it will turn out that two objects attract each other according to a strict rule, ie f = m1 x m2 over d squared.

Newton's idea was that mass is mutually attractive because that best explains the form of the equation that relates the force to the masses and distances involved. That mutual attractive force is called gravity.

Exactly the same applies to dark energy. It is the best way we've found (so far) to explain the form of the equations that match the observations.

Gravity is more familiar, but its still only a theory. There may be no such thing as gravity. In fact, we know there is! Because Einstein showed that there is no attractive force at all - its all because mass curves spacetime.

So does dark energy exist? Well, the universe doesn't behave according to the rules - observation is not matching the equations. If there is dark matter, the equations work ok. Is that evidence? All I'd say is it's as good the evidence for Newton's gravity. Is that good enough for you?

PS - I'm have a sneaking preference for MOND theories rather than dark matter/energy theories... but what do I know?


So the evidence for dark energy is the same as the evidence for gravity.

What I have been told by many posters on DDo is that if the observation supports more than one hypothesis then it is not evidence.



UndeniableReality: Who, exactly, said that?

Double_R
http://www.debate.org...

"Wet grass does not justify a belief that it rained if wet grass is the observation you are trying to explain and you have failed to eliminate other just as plausible explanations. If the lawn has a sprinkler for example, then that being just as plausible of an explanation negates rain as a justified belief. At that point it becomes a mere preference of one explanation over another without rational justification, thus failing to meet your definition."

Hence no evidence because the observation equally supports more than one hypotheses.

Fair enough. This is why context is important, like I've been trying to say.


The observation is the accelerated expansion of the universe. There are explanations like dark energy, time slowing down as space expands, and others that explain the observation. This according to what I have been told makes the observation NOT evidence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 2:18:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:53:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

"Dark Energy"
"Physics invites the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant, Lambda; nowadays the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence"
http://arxiv.org...

You're missing the main point. Dark Energy is a hypothetical form of energy who's nature is unknown. It's just a phrase used as a placeholder for "whatever it is that explains this phenomenon", which exists simply because the phenomenon is currently not explained. You're mistakenly assuming that "Dark Energy" is a specific thing which is proposed to exist, when most alternative explanations are not actually alternatives, because dark energy is an umbrella term for them.

I might accept this if in lectures and articles proposing 68% of the universe is composed of "dark energy".

Obviously what ever "dark energy" is, it is an object that is talked about as if it exists. Talked about as if it effects the formation of this universe and things in them.

"Dark energy" is said to be the reason for galactic filaments, the speed of stars near the edge of a galaxy, many other things.

How is something that is a hypothetical umbrella term spoken about in such specific terms of quantity and effects? I disagree with your summation.


There are observations that some scientist use to support Dark Energy. But as you have pointed out yourself UR... These same observations help support different hypotheses.

Actually, I haven't pointed that out. I said, " If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses. "

http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
http://www.rense.com...
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com...

In this case because the observations support many hypotheses equally with Dark Energy we can conclude that the observations are NOT evidence.

Hence Dark Energy has no Evidence. In accordance to the illogic espoused by so many others.

If all of the proposed evidence for any hypothesis that fits under the umbrella term "Dark Energy" is equally explainable by other viable hypotheses, then I agree with you.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:24:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 1:58:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

No, I just lack any belief in Dark Energy existing.

I don't see why I need to define "dark energy", I bet it means different things to many different people.

I don't see why I need to present all the theories of why "dark energy" exists, I reject them all.

Do you not see that I am using the same illogic Atheist constantly regurgitate to answer your replies.

Don't I appear so much smarter because I am using the same tactics as Atheist apologetic?

I'm not claiming anything Buddy, I'm rejecting the existence of Dark Energy.


I actually agree with the point you're making. For an atheist to say there is no evidence for God and then to not take up the burden of proof that goes with that claim and to define the god which they say there is no evidence for is disingenuous.

I'm sure you could have said it without acting like a child, but that doesn't matter. I do agree with that point, and always have.

So back to this thread... I'm glad we both agree that you have a burden of proof with respect to your claim that there is no evidence for dark energy.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:27:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 2:22:42 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 2:18:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:53:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:20:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 1:08:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:52:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The accelerated expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for dark energy.

But there are other hypotheses that explain why the universe is expanding faster.

Because the accelerated expansion of the universe supports all the different hypotheses of why, then the observation of accelerated expansion is null and void as evidence.

Because this is the only thing cited as evidence for Dark Energy, we can conclude there is no evidence for dark energy.

If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses.

You haven't defined "dark energy" or what these other hypotheses are. Those definitions might be problematic for the point you're trying to make.

Yeah. I should learn not to throw pearls in front of swine.

Oh, you called me swine, therefore you are correct about dark energy.

I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting the evidence for Dark Energy, what your asking for is to come from those that claim Dark energy exist.

You're making a claim that there is no evidence for dark energy. Therefore, if you cannot answer the questions I have posed, your claim is baseless and meaningless. If you can't even say what "dark energy" means, then you don't even have a semantically coherent claim.

"Dark Energy"
"Physics invites the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant, Lambda; nowadays the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence"
http://arxiv.org...

You're missing the main point. Dark Energy is a hypothetical form of energy who's nature is unknown. It's just a phrase used as a placeholder for "whatever it is that explains this phenomenon", which exists simply because the phenomenon is currently not explained. You're mistakenly assuming that "Dark Energy" is a specific thing which is proposed to exist, when most alternative explanations are not actually alternatives, because dark energy is an umbrella term for them.

I might accept this if in lectures and articles proposing 68% of the universe is composed of "dark energy".

Obviously what ever "dark energy" is, it is an object that is talked about as if it exists. Talked about as if it effects the formation of this universe and things in them.

"Dark energy" is said to be the reason for galactic filaments, the speed of stars near the edge of a galaxy, many other things.

How is something that is a hypothetical umbrella term spoken about in such specific terms of quantity and effects? I disagree with your summation.

Because we can still know that it must have certain properties in order to fit that unexplained missing component of some model. That, or an entirely new model is needed, which you have provided links for below.

There are observations that some scientist use to support Dark Energy. But as you have pointed out yourself UR... These same observations help support different hypotheses.

Actually, I haven't pointed that out. I said, " If you can show that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is the only proposed evidence of "dark energy", and that this proposed evidence does not provide more support to the dark energy hypotheses over other hypotheses, then it is not evidence for the dark energy hypothesis over those hypotheses. "

http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
http://www.rense.com...
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com...

In this case because the observations support many hypotheses equally with Dark Energy we can conclude that the observations are NOT evidence.

Hence Dark Energy has no Evidence. In accordance to the illogic espoused by so many others.

If all of the proposed evidence for any hypothesis that fits under the umbrella term "Dark Energy" is equally explainable by other viable hypotheses, then I agree with you.