Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,095 Year: 5,352/9,624 Month: 377/323 Week: 17/204 Day: 17/21 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 31 of 305 (663760)
05-26-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by zaius137
05-26-2012 11:40 AM


Let me explain why I am using the term bizarre.
Yes, do.
Begin by telling me this. Why should it be "bizarre" if most of the universe is not luminous?
If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility.
No.
Only indirect evidence of both is observable ...
So, like gravity then. Or the Earth's core. Or the year 1000 AD. Or solar fusion. Or magnetic fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 11:40 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 9:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 32 of 305 (663762)
05-26-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by zaius137
05-26-2012 11:40 AM


The scientists are picking up on this one already, but can I just ask you to clarify one thing - when you say:
If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility.
are you using "invisibility" to mean "does not produce electro magnetic radiation, which is within the small band of the electro magnetic spectrum which the human eye is capable of detecting" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 11:40 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 10:58 PM vimesey has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 33 of 305 (663763)
05-26-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by zaius137
05-26-2012 11:40 AM


If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility.
Looking at invisibility eh? Surely that's an oxymoron.
When we "look" at argon gas, are we looking at invisibility? Assuming that such a sentence even makes sense, what is its the significance.
And there is no anti-gravity associated with either dark energy or dark matter. I can understand making such a mistake with dark energy...

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 11:40 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 10:36 PM NoNukes has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3517 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 34 of 305 (663827)
05-26-2012 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 2:12 PM


Dr. Adequate my friend of many disciplines.
Begin by telling me this. Why should it be "bizarre" if most of the universe is not luminous?
In the case of dark matter a small portion of it is proposed to be baryonic but the lions share of Dark matter is non baryonic with some proposals relying on the spontaneous breaking of symmetry moderated by the Higgs mechanism. Well I think it can be concluded by now that the Higgs Boson is a myth (have not checked recently on this). If Dark matter is a quantum effect, how is it going to be identified by science? I guess you just have to have faithright.
So, like gravity then. Or the Earth's core. Or the year 1000 AD. Or solar fusion. Or magnetic fields.
Gravity is quantifiable in general relativity, the earths core is observable by property of shock waves, solar fusion is re-creatable in nuclear weapons (although solar neutrinos are somewhat missing). Maxwell’s equations and Gauss's law for magnetism cover magnetic and electric fields.
What is a hypothesis that has no mechanism and is largely unquantifiable?
?Science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 2:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 5:02 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2012 7:37 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3517 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 35 of 305 (663832)
05-26-2012 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
05-26-2012 3:05 PM


And there is no anti-gravity associated with either dark energy or dark matter. I can understand making such a mistake with dark energy...
Anti-Gravity/ neg. vacuum energy Potato/ Pota’to
Here is my stab at dark energy.
Here is how I see dark energy as not being the proposed vacuum energy.
Consider a General Relativity field equation.
Is dark energy "neg. vacuum energy or is it expanding space (vacuum energy verses {cosmological constant x space time metric tensor}). When Einstein introduced his cosmological constant, it was on the same side of the field equation as his curvature tensor, which equated it to a property of space. A modern view places dark energy other side of the field equation and multiplied times the space-time metric tensor, which gives it a kind of energy implication. I believe that Einstein was right in the first place by putting it with the curvature tensor. I thought It must be a property of space and therefore not matter energy just my uneducated guess (correction by a real physicist is invited).
As a dark energy, there has also had an attempt at an explanation by quantum fluctuations but the observed dark energy posses far less of a force (~20,000 times less) than quantum physics would suggest.
It must be a property of space expansion thus the hand of God.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 3:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2012 11:25 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 11:36 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3517 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 36 of 305 (663838)
05-26-2012 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by vimesey
05-26-2012 3:00 PM


The scientists are picking up on this one already, but can I just ask you to clarify one thing - when you say:
If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility.
are you using "invisibility" to mean "does not produce electro magnetic radiation, which is within the small band of the electro magnetic spectrum which the human eye is capable of detecting" ?
I am playing the provocateur.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2012 3:00 PM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 4:42 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 37 of 305 (663852)
05-27-2012 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by zaius137
05-26-2012 10:58 PM


I am playing the provocateur.
Is that creationese for "deliberately being wrong"? Only there's another name for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 10:58 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 38 of 305 (663854)
05-27-2012 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zaius137
05-26-2012 9:59 PM


In the case of dark matter a small portion of it is proposed to be baryonic but the lions share of Dark matter is non baryonic with some proposals ...
Not all of them, then.
... relying on the spontaneous breaking of symmetry moderated by the Higgs mechanism. Well I think it can be concluded by now that the Higgs Boson is a myth (have not checked recently on this).
Then I should check again if I were you.
Gravity is quantifiable in general relativity, the earths core is observable by property of shock waves, solar fusion is re-creatable in nuclear weapons (although solar neutrinos are somewhat missing). Maxwell’s equations and Gauss's law for magnetism cover magnetic and electric fields.
And dark matter is quantifiable, which is why we know how much of it there is. Like the Earth's core, it is necessary to predict our observations.
---
How about you answer my question. Why should it be "bizarre" if most of the universe is not luminous?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 9:59 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 39 of 305 (663869)
05-27-2012 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zaius137
05-26-2012 9:59 PM


Gravity is quantifiable in general relativity, the earths core is observable by property of shock waves, solar fusion is re-creatable in nuclear weapons (although solar neutrinos are somewhat missing). Maxwell’s equations and Gauss's law for magnetism cover magnetic and electric fields.
What is a hypothesis that has no mechanism and is largely unquantifiable?
There are no missing solar neutrinos. Your understanding is about ten years old.
You are trying to establish a difference between dark matter/dark energy, and something like the earth's core, solar fusion, and any other thing we know only by indirect evidence, but you are not getting there. In each case we can and have quantified the component and we have only indirect measurements. In some cases we know a lot about the entity, but that "lot" is all determined and verified from indirect measurement.
As for no mechanism, can you explain how gravity warps space? Could Newton explain the apparent 'action at a distance?'
ABE:
Anti-Gravity/ neg. vacuum energy Potato/ Pota’to
Is this a misunderstanding or something more deliberate. You were wrong and are still wrong. And what is the explanation for your error regarding dark matter being having anti-gravity?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 9:59 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 7:36 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 46 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 7:59 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 40 of 305 (663877)
05-27-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by zaius137
05-26-2012 10:36 PM


I believe that Einstein was right in the first place by putting it with the curvature tensor. I thought It must be a property of space and therefore not matter energy just my uneducated guess (correction by a real physicist is invited).
Einstein added a cosmological constant because by doing so he was able to generate solutions allowing a static universe. Unfortunately, those solutions were not stable with regard to not expanding/contracting. Even more unfortunate for Albert, it shortly became evident that the universe was expanding, something Einstein would like to have predicted. I'll let you draw your own conclusion about whether Einstein was correct or not.
It must be a property of space expansion thus the hand of God
Yikes. Dude... It's more impressive say things like this after you've been right about something.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 10:36 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 41 of 305 (663878)
05-27-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by zaius137
05-26-2012 10:36 PM


the hand of God
It must be a property of space expansion thus the hand of God.
The right or left hand? Or maybe a two hand grip?
You have evidence I suppose of this "hand of God"?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 10:36 PM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 11:40 AM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 42 of 305 (663879)
05-27-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
05-27-2012 11:36 AM


Re: the hand of God
You have evidence I suppose of this "hand of God"?
Well, we've found one of his gloves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 11:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 43 of 305 (663881)
05-27-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2012 11:40 AM


Re: the hand of God
The problem with solutions like "the hand of God" is that they leave us as ignorant about how stuff works as we were before.
As most folk here know, I am a devout Christian who does believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen. But that's a personal belief and really irrelevant to the question of Cosmology or Evolution or any other field of inquiry.
The question is "how is it done?"
We observe the universe and see that it is expanding. We look at the energy sources and find that no matter how we add them up, we just don't see sufficient energy to explain the accelerating expansion. There has to be something more that we have not yet identified and so we assign a placeholder name to the force or forces we have not yet identified; we call it "Dark Energy".
We observe galaxies and find some behave in ways that we cannot explain based on the total mass that we can see. There needs to be something more that we have not yet identified and so we assign a placeholder name to the mass or masses we have not yet identified; we call it "Dark Matter".
We keep observing and find that we can observe where the Dark Matter seems to be located and we can tell how much Dark Energy there must be and some of the characteristics of Dark Energy.
The important point is that although we do not yet know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy are, we do know that whatever they are they are subject to direct observation by humans and that the observations do not depend on the observers POV or belief system or bias.
It is acknowledging areas where we do not yet have answers and continuing to search for those answers, while inserting "the hand of God" is an end point and an end point that teaches us nothing about how stuff works.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 11:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4056 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 44 of 305 (664010)
05-28-2012 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by zaius137
05-25-2012 1:52 AM


Dark matter isn't much of a stretch
(I'm desperately trying to get involved with EVC again, but feel hopelessly out of my league lol... I'll take a stab at a minor contribution here)
It doesn't seem to me to be too much of a stretch to accept the notion that, in the vastness of space, there would me matter which is not visible to us. If matter does not emit radiation (visible or not) of its own accord, and has no nearby light source to illuminate it (which would describe the vast majority of the universe), then it would be for all intents and purposes undetectable to us... EXCEPT by observing its gravitational influence on other matter that is observed. If one limits oneself to accepting only that which is directly observed, one must throw out a great deal of subsequently firmly established science.
As an aside - I'd be curious if someone could point to an article detailing "direct observation" (whatever that might be) of dark matter - I am struggling to locate any sort of "smoking gun" in this respect - I see several plausible studies, but they all rely on indirect observation to some extent. In fact, I don't see how one could "directly" observe dark matter unless you capture it in a test tube and and shine a light on it.
Edited by Briterican, : Added request for info regarding possible "direct" observation of dark matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by zaius137, posted 05-25-2012 1:52 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 8:54 PM Briterican has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3517 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 45 of 305 (664039)
05-28-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
05-27-2012 7:37 AM


NoNukes are good Nukes
Is this a misunderstanding or something more deliberate. You were wrong and are still wrong. And what is the explanation for your error regarding dark matter being having anti-gravity?
I must admit that my intent was not to include dark matter as the anti-gravity association; I associated anti-gravity to dark energy (a misunderstanding I did not pick up on). When I goggled anti-gravity and dark energy, I came up with this article in universetoday.
quote:
Now, a new study reveals an alternative theory: that the expansion of the universe is actually due to the relationship between matter and antimatter. According to this study, matter and antimatter gravitationally repel each other and create a kind of antigravity that could do away with the need for dark energy in the universe.
Antigravity Could Replace Dark Energy as Cause of Universe's Expansion - Universe Today
Go figure for my point of dark energy being anti-gravity, I know that the term anti-gravity is just a colloquialism but just Google anti-gravity and dark energy.
Here is one Scientists Examine ‘Dark Energy’ of Antigravity - The New York Times
What Is Dark Energy? | Space
There are literally hundreds.
Here is a direct reference and in some literature for dark energy, (omega energy is vacuum energy).
Sorry for the misunderstanding but I did learn something.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2012 7:37 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024