Dark Energy

  • Thread starter Thread starter juancpath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juancpath

Guest
I was watching this documentary regarding Dark Energy. Apparently Astronomy has dubbed this term to the amount of “missing energy” that is supposed to account for up to 65% of all the energy in the universe. Of course… there is “dark matter” that makes up to 12% of the missing mass of the universe… Apparently without all these amounts of mass/energy, the Physic calculations regarding gravity do not work out.

They call it “Dark” since no-one has been able to detect or measure any of it…but i ask whether this a manifestation of a higher being or something related to it?

I was raised catholic, but I steered away from religion for the past 10 years… I know there is a higher power out there… but i just dont believe on having to follow all the tribulations that the church (any church) makes you go though to be considered part of them.

Any comments are appreciated.
 
juancpath said:
I was watching this documentary regarding Dark Energy. Apparently without all these amounts of mass/energy, the Physic calculations regarding gravity do not work out.

They call it “Dark” since no-one has been able to detect or measure any of it…but i ask whether this a manifestation of a higher being or something related to it?

I was raised catholic, but I steered away from religion for the past 10 years… I know there is a higher power out there… but i just dont believe on having to follow all the tribulations that the church (any church) makes you go though to be considered part of them.

Any comments are appreciated.
Click to expand...
A physicist could tell you better, but my impression is that “dark energy” and “dark matter” are both posited in order to make the calculations work out.

“I know there is a higher power out there…”. Well, if there is, Juan, there is not much likelihood we are going to know much about it on our own, is there? After all, our calculations don’t even work out unless we invent things like “dark energy” to fill the void. Supposedly, we will never know what information there is in a Black Hole, and perhaps we’ll never know whether there even IS any information in a black hole. Nobody knows what the “string” was that supposedly ignited into the Big Bang. Those who posit “branes” to explain it (and the creation of many, many, many universes which, again, calculations seem to demand) have no idea what they look like; how many they are; what they’re made of or anything else.

So, if something or other is so very “higher” that it can create universes and strings and 'branes and all that stuff, we’re not terribly likely to know much about it. Well, there’s an exception, isn’t there? If that Being chose to manifest itself to us in some way, it would do so in a way we could comprehend, wouldn’t it? If that Being imposed into our brains such a trivial bit of information (from its point of view) as every calculation and chemical formula that explains our sun alone, in all its workings, we would not be able to grasp it, would we? Perhaps we wouldn’t live through the experience of so much information coming into our brains all at once.

It is plain from the Bible, that one could not see the Face of God, as He really is, and live. If you think for a bit about only the amount of information there is in our visible universe, let alone in the billions of other universes scientists now tell us are there, there is no possibility whatever that we could comprehend it in a million lifetimes.

So what would that Being do if He cared whether we knew anything about Him or not? He would have to come to our level in some way. He would have to express Himself and His wishes for us (If He has any) in ways we could understand and actually accomplish. He would not tell us to go knock a couple of "branes together and create a string that would create a universe. He would tell us to do something much simpler. Again, that assumes that Being cares anything about us at all. But if you assume that Being does, then its not difficult to believe that Being has some purpose or other in creating us and keeping us going.

Nobody can read the mind of God, or the higher Being, if you will. Being “higher”, we cannot know its thoughts anymore than a sea slug can know ours. But if that Being has a purpose for us, then it would seem logical to assume that Being wants us to be a particular way. Since we have free will, that Being would realize that leaving things to chance would not serve its likely purpose. If we assume that Being has any desire at all for us to join it at some time, and share in its higher life, then one necessarily has to believe it would want us to conform to it’s mode of being.

But how would that be? We can’t accomplish very much in this life, no matter what. So how, then, would that Being communicate to us how it wanted us to conduct ourselves? By communicating them in human ways; ways humans can comprehend. One of those ways, we call the Bible. That’s really the point of that story in the Bible about God not being in the fire or the whirlwind, but in a whisper. Isn’t it?

(oops, ran out of room) New post.
 
Remainder:

Now, if that Being did not want to come out of the sky at us in a cataclysmic display so that we would all instantly be believers, and shout orders to us, but wanted the simplest of all simple human things. Suppose, strange to tell, that this Maker of 'Branes and "Whatever Makes Branes, wanted us simply to love it/him, as it/him perhaps loves us? Would that Being not put us to the same kinds of expectations that any human lover puts to another? Faith? Would it not expect that? Avoidance of offense? And how would that Being put all that to us? Likely by rules of human scale; do this, don’t do that.

Once you believe there is a “higher being” at all, everything is possible from there, Juan; even things that seem small and annoying. That higher Being may simply be speaking in our language.
 
Ridgerunner said:
“dark energy” and “dark matter” are both posited in order to make the calculations work out.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

And instead of “making up” stuff to fit the calculation, they might want to consider that maybe the calculation is off and none of this stuff exists.
 
Sir_Knight said:
40.png
Ridgerunner:
A physicist could tell you better, but my impression is that “dark energy” and “dark matter” are both posited in order to make the calculations work out
Click to expand...
Exactly!

And instead of “making up” stuff to fit the calculation, they might want to consider that maybe the calculation is off and none of this stuff exists.
Click to expand...
Physicists are so dumb, aren’t they? They make up fantasy ideas for which they have no evidence, just in order to make the calculations work, when any casual observer can see that the calculations are off. It’s so obvious - why don’t they just abandon the concordance model - any seventh grader could suggest something better. I’m sure that you can.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

(Pssst: the evidence for the existence of dark matter is absolutely overwhelming)
 
hecd2
(Pssst: the evidence for the existence of dark matter is absolutely overwhelming)
Click to expand...
There is no evidence for Dark Matter. Dark Matter is assumed because of an observation that behaves as if more mass existed. This assumption is made from a lack of data not because of the data.

The observed observation that is attributed to Dark Matter should be attributed to the geometry of the universe. The fact that the universe is the result of the Big Bang and all objects in the universe are moving outward from the Big Bang in all directions makes the geometry of the universe curve.

The curve of the universe is created by the limitation that no object could move faster then the speed of light. Consequently, all spatial action must remain an equal distance from the Big Bang.

This is the same as putting a marble in a curved bowl. If you tried to make a marble circle another marble on a flat surface using only the mass attraction, you would soon discover that the force is very weak. If the experiment is done in a curved bowl you would find that you could spin the marble at a very high rate.
 
by the way… i wouldn’t go so far as to say physicist are dumb… some of the best science came from some of the most devote Christians…

That being said, i myself have a degree in physics and think the idea of dark energy is a little suspect… though i know there is some evidence for it, not much. I am not deep in the field of Dark energy and Dark matter, so I can’t fully speak for them, but it comes off as something akin to Ether from 100 years ago.

Dark energy/matter was theorized as a way to explain why galaxies stay together since there is not enough visible mass (stars, planets, dust). It is also used to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate.

in christ
 
The entire universe in all its marvelous beauty and complexity is a manifestation of a “higher being”, aka God. God is, among other things, The Great Artist, and all the universe is one of his greate creations.

When you talk about wanting to avoid the “tribulations” I can only ask, will you also want to be married some day and yet avoid the “tribulations” of being married? After all, the “higher being” you speak of is a Person (3 Persons, actually) and we are called to be in a deep and everlasting relationship with that Person (Persons). We don’t see that relationship as being a tribulation any more than being in a good marriage is a tribulation.

But many of us were where you are now and we came around. Maybe you will too.
 
CoG said:
There is no evidence for Dark Matter. Dark Matter is assumed because of an observation that behaves as if more mass existed. This assumption is made from a lack of data not because of the data.
Click to expand...
One can only assume from this that you have failed to do your homework.

Evidence for dark matter:
  1. The flat rotation curves in spiral galaxies determined by Vera Rubin et al can only be explained by mass density in spiral galaxies at least ten times higher than the mass we can see
    Rubin et al, Astrophys J Lett 225, L107 (1978)
    Rubin et al, Rotation Velocities of 16 Sa Galaxies and a Comparison of Sa, Sb, and Sc Rotation Properties, Astrophys J 289, 81, (1980)
    Rubin et al, Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc), Astrophys. J    .     238: 471 (1980)
  2. the dispersion of the peculiar velocities of galaxies in clusters, observed as long ago as 1937, demands the presence of dark matter
    F Zwicky, Astrophys J 86, 217 (1937)
    Cen, Bahcall and Gramann, *Velocity Correlations of Galaxy Clusters, *Astrophys J Lett in pressavailable on line here: arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9409/9409042.pdf
    The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS):

    The IRAS point source catalogue:
    lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/iras/point_s_catalog.cfm
  3. distant galaxies affected by gravitational lensing confirms its existence
    Wittman et al, *Detection of weak gravitational lensing distortions of distant galaxies by cosmic dark matter at large scales, *Nature 405, 143 - 148 (2001) Gray et al, Probing the distribution of dark matter in the Abell 901/902 supercluster with weak lensing, Astropys J 568, 141 (2002)
    R Irion, *The Warped Side of Dark Matter, *Science 300, 1894 - 1896 (2003)
  4. So does very hot X-ray emitting gas bound in galaxies and clusters
    Borgani and Guzzo, *X-ray Clusters of Galaxies as Tracers of Structure in the Universe, *Nature 409, 39 - 45 (2001)
    There is much more than this, but this will suffice for now
The observed observation that is attributed to Dark Matter should be attributed to the geometry of the universe. The fact that the universe is the result of the Big Bang and all objects in the universe are moving outward from the Big Bang in all directions makes the geometry of the universe curve.
Click to expand...
The curve of the universe is created by the limitation that no object could move faster then the speed of light. Consequently, all spatial action must remain an equal distance from the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
This is the same as putting a marble in a curved bowl. If you tried to make a marble circle another marble on a flat surface using only the mass attraction, you would soon discover that the force is very weak. If the experiment is done in a curved bowl you would find that you could spin the marble at a very high rate.
Click to expand...
And your avalanche of errors and misunderstanding here confirms that you really don’t have a proper grasp of the physics.

It would be much better if you learned some basic astrophysics before jumping in like this.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm
 
heisenburg said:
by the way… i wouldn’t go so far as to say physicist are dumb…
Click to expand...
Thank you. That’s kind of you.
That being said, i myself have a degree in physics and think the idea of dark energy is a little suspect… though i know there is some evidence for it, not much.
Click to expand...
Well the evidence is the accelerating expansion of the universe
Perlmutter et al, *Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-redshift Supernovae, *Astrophys J 517, 565 - 586 (1999),
Bahcall et al, *The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe, *Science 284, 1481 - 1488 (1999)
Riess et al, Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant, Astron J 116, 1009 (1998)

and the fact that the universe is flat or close to flat:
Spergel et al, *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology, *draft available on-line here: lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap_3yr_param.pdf
Dark energy/matter was theorized as a way to explain why galaxies stay together since there is not enough visible mass (stars, planets, dust). It is also used to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate.
Click to expand...
in christ
Click to expand...
Dark matter and dark energy are quite different things.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm
 
Hec…

I hope my statements were not taken as a slap at physicist. It was not meant as such, I was just trying to in a polite way say that physicist aren’t as dumb as people think they are… If you look at previous posts of mine when dealing with physics, you would see I have been an ardent defender of physics.

That being said, I do find in my own personal study that dark matter and dark energy (yes, I understand they are different, but was just talking about them in a very general term) are a little odd in that while the theory does fit the evidence, It is just a little odd to say there are these huge amounts of matter we cannot see, feel or touch (though my understanding could be off) In fact, Dark matter far exceeds the amount of visible matter. Yet no where on earth/solar system can you find any. But this is a personal issue and may not be entirely scientific. As mentioned, Astrophysics is not my area of expertise, so I am sure there is plenty I can be missing, and will read over the material you provided.

Again, my statements were not in any way meant as a slap at physics… I have a deep respect for physics. hopefully you can tell that by my user name (though it is intentionally misspelled)

In Christ
 
heisenburg said:
Hec…

I hope my statements were not taken as a slap at physicist. It was not meant as such, I was just trying to in a polite way say that physicist aren’t as dumb as people think they are…
Click to expand...
No offence taken, although this is rather a back-handed compliment 🙂 Do most people think physicists are dumb?
That being said, I do find in my own personal study that dark matter and dark energy (yes, I understand they are different, but was just talking about them in a very general term) are a little odd in that while the theory does fit the evidence, It is just a little odd to say there are these huge amounts of matter we cannot see, feel or touch (though my understanding could be off) In fact, Dark matter far exceeds the amount of visible matter. Yet no where on earth/solar system can you find any. But this is a personal issue and may not be entirely scientific. As mentioned, Astrophysics is not my area of expertise, so I am sure there is plenty I can be missing, and will read over the material you provided.
Click to expand...
Well the whole point about dark matter is that if it exists (and the evidence for its existence is very strong from its effect on ordinary matter and on photons) then it doesn’t interact with ordinary matter strongly other than gravitationally which is why we can’t run it through our fingers. However theoretical physics has several credible candidates for dark matter particles, such as WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), axions and , and there is a good chance that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN when it hopefully comes on stream next year will create and detect dark matter particles. There are good precedents for theoretical physics predicting the properties of a particle which is then found experimentally - the most recent example is the confirmation of the existence of the predicted top quark as a result of proton-antiproton collisons at the Tevatron accelerator at Fermilab. However, this will only have a positive result if dark matter is particulate and if the particles are not too heavy or light

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Isn’t it ironic that “religious” people are accused of “inventing” a god to fill an obvious role that MUST exist but whom they cannot see, while physicists are criticized for inventing matter that MUST exist but THEY cannot see?

On the other hand, if the physicists can do it, how can they criticize the religious people?
 
jpusateri said:
Isn’t it ironic that “religious” people are accused of “inventing” a god to fill an obvious role that MUST exist but whom they cannot see, while physicists are criticized for inventing matter that MUST exist but THEY cannot see?

On the other hand, if the physicists can do it, how can they criticize the religious people?
Click to expand...
I couldn’t have put it better myself…
 
CoG said:
The observed observation that is attributed to Dark Matter should be attributed to the geometry of the universe. The fact that the universe is the result of the Big Bang and all objects in the universe are moving outward from the Big Bang in all directions makes the geometry of the universe curve.
Click to expand...
So, if the universe has boundaries, what’s on the other side? Space is already a whole lot of nothing, is there not even nothing over there?
 
My opinion to the whole thing is that There is something holding everything together it can be dar matter/energy or it could be a higher being … something that cannot be detected by any of out high tech instruments. Apparently Dark matter and energy are every where… does this sound familiar?
 
Yeah, It sounds familiar. Let’s see… Isn’t the universe too flat for the Big Bang? Comsology is a religion.

Science doesn’t wish to know the hoax it is pulling over everyone’s head. Dark energy and Dark matter are Bunk. Untestible means unscientific. I thought they knew this when they fought with religion on evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top