Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 2:21:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Just making crap up that makes no sense is definitely simple, but no, we can't just go with it.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 3:55:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.

I was just reading this article and didn't see anything about the topic. I was also curious to hear opinions on a multi-universe scenario in this thread if anyone knows a thing or two.

http://www.space.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 3:56:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 2:21:56 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Just making crap up that makes no sense is definitely simple, but no, we can't just go with it.

True. I was curious to hear opinions on the topic... more so opinions about a multi-universe scenario if anyone knew a thing or two. I got curious after reading an article in regards to a multi-universe.

http://www.space.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 8:45:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

(1) It isn't a "simple answer," seeing as a multiverse would invoke multiple more assumptions.

(2) Gamma rays and neutrinos generated from dark matter annihilations have been observed. Dark energy forms the best explanation for the universe's accelerating expansion despite the CMBR suggesting that it is spatially flat. The multiverse theory lacks any profound evidence.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 3:30:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 3:55:20 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.

I was just reading this article and didn't see anything about the topic. I was also curious to hear opinions on a multi-universe scenario in this thread if anyone knows a thing or two.

http://www.space.com...

What scientists do know is that there is no evidence for multi-verses, it's just a mathematical alternative.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 10:00:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 8:45:47 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

(1) It isn't a "simple answer," seeing as a multiverse would invoke multiple more assumptions.

Fair enough, i phrased that wrong... of course it's not easy lol.

(2) Gamma rays and neutrinos generated from dark matter annihilations have been observed. Dark energy forms the best explanation for the universe's accelerating expansion despite the CMBR suggesting that it is spatially flat. The multiverse theory lacks any profound evidence.

I understand that. I am saying can it not be viewed that we are accelerating due to the gravitational pull of universes or other "big bangs" around ours? Another thing, isn't there a lack of evidence in the multiverse theory bc we don't know how to observe one yet? Or, does string theory have some opinions on it?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 10:03:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 3:30:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/27/2015 3:55:20 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.

I was just reading this article and didn't see anything about the topic. I was also curious to hear opinions on a multi-universe scenario in this thread if anyone knows a thing or two.

http://www.space.com...

What scientists do know is that there is no evidence for multi-verses, it's just a mathematical alternative.

Mathematical is enough for me... i don't expect us to have evidence on something this vast. One Multiverse idea can mean everything is possible... we are not even close to possibilities we can see.
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 4:49:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 10:00:37 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 12/27/2015 8:45:47 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

(1) It isn't a "simple answer," seeing as a multiverse would invoke multiple more assumptions.

Fair enough, i phrased that wrong... of course it's not easy lol.

(2) Gamma rays and neutrinos generated from dark matter annihilations have been observed. Dark energy forms the best explanation for the universe's accelerating expansion despite the CMBR suggesting that it is spatially flat. The multiverse theory lacks any profound evidence.

I understand that. I am saying can it not be viewed that we are accelerating due to the gravitational pull of universes or other "big bangs" around ours? Another thing, isn't there a lack of evidence in the multiverse theory bc we don't know how to observe one yet? Or, does string theory have some opinions on it?

But dark matter gamma rays prove the likelihood of the existence of dark matter. Further, I doubt string theory is probable. [https://www.math.columbia.edu...]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 8:01:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory
https://www.google.com...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:30:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 2:21:56 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Just making crap up that makes no sense is definitely simple, but no, we can't just go with it.

We absolutely can.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:34:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy

These aren't made up. They are theoretical constructs that represent something which we know is there, but which we haven't discovered yet. For example, galaxies are far more massive than what we observe from our telescopes. Theoretically, they should simply fly apart due to lack of gravitational energy from the mass we can see. Since they aren't flying apart, the mass must be there, but is undetectable to our current instruments.

Same with dark energy. Newton's second law states that a force is being exerted on any body that accelerates. All galaxies are currently accelerating outwards, so something is exerting force on it. We don't know what that is, so we've dubbed it dark energy to give it a name that we can talk about.

It's a matter of language and conveying the ideas we want other people to know about.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 12:16:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 8:01:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory
https://www.google.com...

The good old prof evil dark matter and his non existing hell hound dark energy. Travellers of the multi-verses. On a quest to harness the power of the ever mighty gamer ray burst. Leaving string behind to show where they have been . No sorry guys . I seen you lot making up wild stories thought I might join in. Good night
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 2:12:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 11:30:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/27/2015 2:21:56 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Just making crap up that makes no sense is definitely simple, but no, we can't just go with it.

We absolutely can.

Maybe I should have been more explicit, I meant to say "we can't just go with it and still be talking about science." If you are talking about make-believe bedtime stories, then yeah, go with it.

Here's a bedtime story for you.

Once upon a time there was a thing called Science and it was the systematic study of the physical and natural world that used observation and experiment to determine what was true. To do this, Science took observations and facts about the world and developed theories to explain those facts and observations and then tested them with new observations and facts to see if the theories were true in terms of being reliable and explanatory. If the theories didn't align with the observations then Science decided the theory was either wrong or incomplete, and so we changed the theory.

This approached worked very well for a couple thousand years until around thirty or forty years ago when a man named Hubris came along. Hubris didn't like it when the observations didn't match the theories, he considered the theories to be sacred and he was just too arrogant to accept that our theories might be wrong or even incomplete, so he decided that it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete. He decided that the universe that the conceptual framework was supposed to explain is only 1% of reality, there must be another 99% of it that is unobserved and unobservable, and he called it dark matter. He decided that from now on, when the facts don't fit the conceptual framework, we will just change the facts.

This made science much easier to do. The observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, and rather than going to the trouble of adjusting the theories to fit the facts, we just started adjusting the facts to fit the theories. That way, Hubris reasoned, we were always right, and it was the universe that was always wrong.

With Hubris in charge, we know the theory of gravity can't be wrong or incomplete, so we must correct the Universe's mistake by inventing something that is holding the galaxies together, and it should be something unobserved and perhaps unobservable just to be safe. So we invent some kind of mysterious unseen matter that emits no radiation, and we say we know it by its secondary effects, it is an "inferred" phenomena. And what is that secondary, inferred phenomena? It is the fact that the current theoretical framework didn't explain the observations, so according to the theory the universe was wrong. As you can see, with Hubris running the show, doing Science became easy peasy.

Galaxies spin in contradiction of Newton's laws, so there must be invisible dark matter, the universe is expanding and it's accelerating, so there must be mysterious dark energy, Beta decay violates the conservation law so we invent invisible neutrinos, a single proton at a time still displays an interference pattern in the double slit experiment so we say that a single proton travels every possible path simultaneously and therefore it interferes with itself, the universe appears to be fine-tuned so we say there are an infinite number of undetectable universes and we just happen to live in one that looks fine tuned.

Once the observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, then the observed universe we were trying to understand was no longer reality, it was just 1% of reality, and that contrivance wasn't even the universe anymore, it was just one of an infinite number of universes, all of it unobserved and unobservable, and all so the theories could remain intact, and so we get to be right all the time. Easy peasy!

In the end, the enterprise of science had largely abandoned its reliance on observations and we went into the business of manufacturing unobserved and unobservable realities in order to support the theories. And because it is based on unobserved and unobservable realities, it was all completely faith based, and yet, we still call it science...and everyone lived happily ever after.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 4:19:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 2:12:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/29/2015 11:30:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/27/2015 2:21:56 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Just making crap up that makes no sense is definitely simple, but no, we can't just go with it.

We absolutely can.

Maybe I should have been more explicit, I meant to say "we can't just go with it and still be talking about science." If you are talking about make-believe bedtime stories, then yeah, go with it.

Here's a bedtime story for you.

Once upon a time there was a thing called Science and it was the systematic study of the physical and natural world that used observation and experiment to determine what was true. To do this, Science took observations and facts about the world and developed theories to explain those facts and observations and then tested them with new observations and facts to see if the theories were true in terms of being reliable and explanatory. If the theories didn't align with the observations then Science decided the theory was either wrong or incomplete, and so we changed the theory.

This approached worked very well for a couple thousand years until around thirty or forty years ago when a man named Hubris came along. Hubris didn't like it when the observations didn't match the theories, he considered the theories to be sacred and he was just too arrogant to accept that our theories might be wrong or even incomplete, so he decided that it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete. He decided that the universe that the conceptual framework was supposed to explain is only 1% of reality, there must be another 99% of it that is unobserved and unobservable, and he called it dark matter. He decided that from now on, when the facts don't fit the conceptual framework, we will just change the facts.

This made science much easier to do. The observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, and rather than going to the trouble of adjusting the theories to fit the facts, we just started adjusting the facts to fit the theories. That way, Hubris reasoned, we were always right, and it was the universe that was always wrong.

With Hubris in charge, we know the theory of gravity can't be wrong or incomplete, so we must correct the Universe's mistake by inventing something that is holding the galaxies together, and it should be something unobserved and perhaps unobservable just to be safe. So we invent some kind of mysterious unseen matter that emits no radiation, and we say we know it by its secondary effects, it is an "inferred" phenomena. And what is that secondary, inferred phenomena? It is the fact that the current theoretical framework didn't explain the observations, so according to the theory the universe was wrong. As you can see, with Hubris running the show, doing Science became easy peasy.

Galaxies spin in contradiction of Newton's laws, so there must be invisible dark matter, the universe is expanding and it's accelerating, so there must be mysterious dark energy, Beta decay violates the conservation law so we invent invisible neutrinos, a single proton at a time still displays an interference pattern in the double slit experiment so we say that a single proton travels every possible path simultaneously and therefore it interferes with itself, the universe appears to be fine-tuned so we say there are an infinite number of undetectable universes and we just happen to live in one that looks fine tuned.

Once the observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, then the observed universe we were trying to understand was no longer reality, it was just 1% of reality, and that contrivance wasn't even the universe anymore, it was just one of an infinite number of universes, all of it unobserved and unobservable, and all so the theories could remain intact, and so we get to be right all the time. Easy peasy!

In the end, the enterprise of science had largely abandoned its reliance on observations and we went into the business of manufacturing unobserved and unobservable realities in order to support the theories. And because it is based on unobserved and unobservable realities, it was all completely faith based, and yet, we still call it science...and everyone lived happily ever after.

+1
janesix
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 8:39:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 11:34:00 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy

These aren't made up. They are theoretical constructs that represent something which we know is there, but which we haven't discovered yet. For example, galaxies are far more massive than what we observe from our telescopes. Theoretically, they should simply fly apart due to lack of gravitational energy from the mass we can see. Since they aren't flying apart, the mass must be there, but is undetectable to our current instruments.

Same with dark energy. Newton's second law states that a force is being exerted on any body that accelerates. All galaxies are currently accelerating outwards, so something is exerting force on it. We don't know what that is, so we've dubbed it dark energy to give it a name that we can talk about.

It's a matter of language and conveying the ideas we want other people to know about.

Have you ever heard of epicycles? Same thing here.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:51:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 8:39:52 PM, janesix wrote:
Have you ever heard of epicycles? Same thing here.

What relevance has an ancient theory to this discussion?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:53:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 11:51:07 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:39:52 PM, janesix wrote:
Have you ever heard of epicycles? Same thing here.

What relevance has an ancient theory to this discussion?
It was an example of how people make up crap with zero evidence to explain things in science. Like dark matter and dark energy.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:56:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 2:12:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/29/2015 11:30:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/27/2015 2:21:56 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Just making crap up that makes no sense is definitely simple, but no, we can't just go with it.

We absolutely can.

Maybe I should have been more explicit, I meant to say "we can't just go with it and still be talking about science." If you are talking about make-believe bedtime stories, then yeah, go with it.

Lol. I mean, in philosophy, science is treated as the most fanciful of all the methods of epistemology. The claim that our universe is expanding faster due to the pull of other multiverses is as philosophically sound as the observation that the earth is round. It's all fantasy, just roll with it ;)
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:48:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 2:12:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Once upon a time there was a thing called Science and it was the systematic study of the physical and natural world that used observation and experiment to determine what was true. To do this, Science took observations and facts about the world and developed theories to explain those facts and observations and then tested them with new observations and facts to see if the theories were true in terms of being reliable and explanatory. If the theories didn't align with the observations then Science decided the theory was either wrong or incomplete, and so we changed the theory.

This approached worked very well for a couple thousand years until around thirty or forty years ago when a man named Hubris came along. Hubris didn't like it when the observations didn't match the theories, he considered the theories to be sacred and he was just too arrogant to accept that our theories might be wrong or even incomplete, so he decided that it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete. He decided that the universe that the conceptual framework was supposed to explain is only 1% of reality, there must be another 99% of it that is unobserved and unobservable, and he called it dark matter. He decided that from now on, when the facts don't fit the conceptual framework, we will just change the facts.

This made science much easier to do. The observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, and rather than going to the trouble of adjusting the theories to fit the facts, we just started adjusting the facts to fit the theories. That way, Hubris reasoned, we were always right, and it was the universe that was always wrong.

With Hubris in charge, we know the theory of gravity can't be wrong or incomplete, so we must correct the Universe's mistake by inventing something that is holding the galaxies together, and it should be something unobserved and perhaps unobservable just to be safe. So we invent some kind of mysterious unseen matter that emits no radiation, and we say we know it by its secondary effects, it is an "inferred" phenomena. And what is that secondary, inferred phenomena? It is the fact that the current theoretical framework didn't explain the observations, so according to the theory the universe was wrong. As you can see, with Hubris running the show, doing Science became easy peasy.

Galaxies spin in contradiction of Newton's laws, so there must be invisible dark matter, the universe is expanding and it's accelerating, so there must be mysterious dark energy, Beta decay violates the conservation law so we invent invisible neutrinos, a single proton at a time still displays an interference pattern in the double slit experiment so we say that a single proton travels every possible path simultaneously and therefore it interferes with itself, the universe appears to be fine-tuned so we say there are an infinite number of undetectable universes and we just happen to live in one that looks fine tuned.

Once the observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, then the observed universe we were trying to understand was no longer reality, it was just 1% of reality, and that contrivance wasn't even the universe anymore, it was just one of an infinite number of universes, all of it unobserved and unobservable, and all so the theories could remain intact, and so we get to be right all the time. Easy peasy!

In the end, the enterprise of science had largely abandoned its reliance on observations and we went into the business of manufacturing unobserved and unobservable realities in order to support the theories. And because it is based on unobserved and unobservable realities, it was all completely faith based, and yet, we still call it science...and everyone lived happily ever after.

+ 10000

Virtual particles are another example of this sort of absurdity.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 2:34:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy

No Jane, it isn't like that at all, dark matter and dark energy are based in science. They are measurable and detectable, even though their properties have yet to fully understood, they still have the same effect on our universe, ones that are clearly observable.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 2:50:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 2:12:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/29/2015 11:30:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/27/2015 2:21:56 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Just making crap up that makes no sense is definitely simple, but no, we can't just go with it.

We absolutely can.

Maybe I should have been more explicit, I meant to say "we can't just go with it and still be talking about science." If you are talking about make-believe bedtime stories, then yeah, go with it.

Here's a bedtime story for you.

Once upon a time there was a thing called Science and it was the systematic study of the physical and natural world that used observation and experiment to determine what was true. To do this, Science took observations and facts about the world and developed theories to explain those facts and observations and then tested them with new observations and facts to see if the theories were true in terms of being reliable and explanatory. If the theories didn't align with the observations then Science decided the theory was either wrong or incomplete, and so we changed the theory.

This approached worked very well for a couple thousand years until around thirty or forty years ago when a man named Hubris came along. Hubris didn't like it when the observations didn't match the theories, he considered the theories to be sacred and he was just too arrogant to accept that our theories might be wrong or even incomplete, so he decided that it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete. He decided that the universe that the conceptual framework was supposed to explain is only 1% of reality, there must be another 99% of it that is unobserved and unobservable, and he called it dark matter. He decided that from now on, when the facts don't fit the conceptual framework, we will just change the facts.

This made science much easier to do. The observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, and rather than going to the trouble of adjusting the theories to fit the facts, we just started adjusting the facts to fit the theories. That way, Hubris reasoned, we were always right, and it was the universe that was always wrong.

With Hubris in charge, we know the theory of gravity can't be wrong or incomplete, so we must correct the Universe's mistake by inventing something that is holding the galaxies together, and it should be something unobserved and perhaps unobservable just to be safe. So we invent some kind of mysterious unseen matter that emits no radiation, and we say we know it by its secondary effects, it is an "inferred" phenomena. And what is that secondary, inferred phenomena? It is the fact that the current theoretical framework didn't explain the observations, so according to the theory the universe was wrong. As you can see, with Hubris running the show, doing Science became easy peasy.

Galaxies spin in contradiction of Newton's laws, so there must be invisible dark matter, the universe is expanding and it's accelerating, so there must be mysterious dark energy, Beta decay violates the conservation law so we invent invisible neutrinos, a single proton at a time still displays an interference pattern in the double slit experiment so we say that a single proton travels every possible path simultaneously and therefore it interferes with itself, the universe appears to be fine-tuned so we say there are an infinite number of undetectable universes and we just happen to live in one that looks fine tuned.

Once the observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories became subordinate to the theories, then the observed universe we were trying to understand was no longer reality, it was just 1% of reality, and that contrivance wasn't even the universe anymore, it was just one of an infinite number of universes, all of it unobserved and unobservable, and all so the theories could remain intact, and so we get to be right all the time. Easy peasy!

In the end, the enterprise of science had largely abandoned its reliance on observations and we went into the business of manufacturing unobserved and unobservable realities in order to support the theories. And because it is based on unobserved and unobservable realities, it was all completely faith based, and yet, we still call it science...and everyone lived happily ever after.

There is only one problem with your story Sidewalker. The establishment did not abandon reliance on observations. It was the observations you mentioned such as the spin of galaxies that did not fit the current models. We can't afford to just sit and wait to make another observation that might explain why observations don't fit the current understanding.

If we did not use inductive reasoning in science we would not be anywhere as near as we are with our understanding. Most particles we have discovered were hypothesized before we had the technology to empirically prove them. If one were to look at science with a pragmatic approach for how discoveries are made, it is critical to make hypothesis such as dark matter. If we didn't there would be no ability to build technology which has the ability to prove or disprove it, which means we would become stagnant.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 2:51:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 12:16:43 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 12/28/2015 8:01:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory
https://www.google.com...

The good old prof evil dark matter and his non existing hell hound dark energy. Travellers of the multi-verses. On a quest to harness the power of the ever mighty gamer ray burst. Leaving string behind to show where they have been . No sorry guys . I seen you lot making up wild stories thought I might join in. Good night

I'm not certain what meaning you intended to convey here.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 4:13:53 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 2:51:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 12:16:43 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 12/28/2015 8:01:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory
https://www.google.com...

The good old prof evil dark matter and his non existing hell hound dark energy. Travellers of the multi-verses. On a quest to harness the power of the ever mighty gamer ray burst. Leaving string behind to show where they have been . No sorry guys . I seen you lot making up wild stories thought I might join in. Good night

I'm not certain what meaning you intended to convey here.

You guys said dark energy. And I was not certain on what you were trying to convey. So if you can speak moo poo I can 2.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 3:12:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 2:50:09 AM, slo1 wrote:

If we did not use inductive reasoning in science we would not be anywhere as near as we are with our understanding. Most particles we have discovered were hypothesized before we had the technology to empirically prove them. If one were to look at science with a pragmatic approach for how discoveries are made, it is critical to make hypothesis such as dark matter. If we didn't there would be no ability to build technology which has the ability to prove or disprove it, which means we would become stagnant.

I don't think he's objecting to theoretical constructs like dark matter being proposed as hypotheses. In fact, what he's objecting to is that people *don't* think of them as hypotheses -- many have more or less accepted them as fact. They don't treat it as a question of "does dark matter exist" but rather a question of "when will we discover dark matter". They have way more confidence in its existence than they should have, and it's for no reason other than that it allows their pre-established worldviews to remain coherent.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:58:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 4:13:53 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 12/30/2015 2:51:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 12:16:43 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 12/28/2015 8:01:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:47:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/26/2015 3:13:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:30:11 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Can we not go with the simple answer and say... it is from the gravitational pull of all the multi-universes that surround ours?

Sure, we can make up any story we wish, but that wouldn't be science.
Kind of like how they made up the stories of dark matter and dark energy

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory
https://www.google.com...

The good old prof evil dark matter and his non existing hell hound dark energy. Travellers of the multi-verses. On a quest to harness the power of the ever mighty gamer ray burst. Leaving string behind to show where they have been . No sorry guys . I seen you lot making up wild stories thought I might join in. Good night

I'm not certain what meaning you intended to convey here.

You guys said dark energy. And I was not certain on what you were trying to convey. So if you can speak moo poo I can 2.

You can call it what ever you want, but until you are serious about explaining why the redshift is greater on objects further away and designing methods to prove the cause of that observation empirically then you are just a negative nelly.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:09:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 3:12:13 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/30/2015 2:50:09 AM, slo1 wrote:

If we did not use inductive reasoning in science we would not be anywhere as near as we are with our understanding. Most particles we have discovered were hypothesized before we had the technology to empirically prove them. If one were to look at science with a pragmatic approach for how discoveries are made, it is critical to make hypothesis such as dark matter. If we didn't there would be no ability to build technology which has the ability to prove or disprove it, which means we would become stagnant.

I don't think he's objecting to theoretical constructs like dark matter being proposed as hypotheses. In fact, what he's objecting to is that people *don't* think of them as hypotheses -- many have more or less accepted them as fact. They don't treat it as a question of "does dark matter exist" but rather a question of "when will we discover dark matter". They have way more confidence in its existence than they should have, and it's for no reason other than that it allows their pre-established worldviews to remain coherent.

Point well taken
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:43:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 1:48:56 AM, spacetime wrote:

Virtual particles are another example of this sort of absurdity.

I retract this statement. Came across some actual empirical evidence of virtual particles.
Call me King Pootie Tang.