James R, Dark Matter, and Religion

[Prince_James]

James R.:

No such act has ever been observed which has left any kind of evidence that can be examined, however.

Agreed. There have been no verfied miracles.

So, this particular group of scientists thinks very highly of dark matter. Personally, I'm keeping an open mind about it. Perhaps dark matter will turn out to be the correct explanation; perhaps it won't. Perhaps if I was an astrophysicist I would have a firmer, more informed opinion. But then, you're not an astrophysicist either.

Indeed I am not. But a good answer to the first of the redded text.

However, do note the very faith-esque sounding "though scientists don't know what dark matter is, they are certain it is needed..."

If that's true, then it's good news for astronomy, because it solves a long-standing puzzle. I haven't looked at the results, myself, and don't know if I'd be qualified to interpret them anyway, since I'm not an expert in the field. I'm happy to let those who are experts mull over these results. Why aren't you? Why do you want to prejudge the data?

Well actually, the data is clearly inconclusive, and has so far not been a major breakthrough.

So, another group has a different theory. Is there data to support their theory, and distinguish it from dark matter? Which theory is better, based on the observations? If neither can be clearly ruled out, then the scientific approach is not to rule out either of them, but to keep an open mind, pending better data. Agreed?

For the most part, yes. But at this point, I am siding with the scientists which claim that it may be time to tackle the idea that Newton may have been wrong in regards to large scale structures.

Inflation solves a number of separate problems, in fact.

Which ones specifically?

I'm not sure, but I think you are probably wrong about this. Do you follow the astrophysical literature?

I tend to, actually. I regularly check for big breakthroughs and follow several small, pet-interests.

No. Gravity is it.

According to what theory? For according to Einstein, gravity warps space-time. This was confirmed initially by the eclipse of 1911, I do believe, and later on by various other observations. If space is gravity, it could not warp itself. Nor would it have a relation to mass.

There is no point devoid of a gravitational field, however. Nor is there any part of space with zero energy. "Nature abhors a vacuum".

There are vacuum fluctuations in spacetime, but not of spacetime.* They are two different things.

What is space-time but the constant "'sea' of zero-point energy and 'substance'"?

Einstein got rid of the need for an "ether" a century ago. Electromagnetism propagates in free space, which is not a medium.

I am not claiming space-time is aether, but it is certainly a media for electromagnetic radiation. The vacuum - aka, the base state of space-time - facillitates the absolute expression of C, aka, 300,000 km/p/s.

Every Robertson-Walker metric gives exactly the means you claim does not exist. As I suggested, you might want to look up a text on general relativity. Anything titled "Introduction to general relativity" will do for a start.

This only speaks of expanding space-times, not space-times which violate C in their expansion. I do not object to expansion of space-time. As far as I am aware - and perhaps I am wrong on this - there is no known explanation behind any consideration of cosmic inflation violating C. Do you have some information I am sorely lacking?

In fact, Alan Guth's original proposal gave a mechanism. Look up "false vacuum".

I should have said "inflation faster than C". I am well aware that methods have been shown to allow for non-C expansion.

This doesn't disprove inflation or the big bang or dark matter, you realise.

Certainly not. But it also shows a remarkable level of ignorance on inflation, even if it doesn't violate C. In essence, scientists are scratching their heads.

 

[James R]

Prince_James:

However, do note the very faith-esque sounding "though scientists don't know what dark matter is, they are certain it is needed..."

I agree that some scientists are over-confident about that. I'm not convinced that dark matter is the only viable explanation.

But at this point, I am siding with the scientists which claim that it may be time to tackle the idea that Newton may have been wrong in regards to large scale structures.

Why take sides at all? Can't we look at both approaches?

Inflation solves a number of separate problems, in fact.

Which ones specifically?

Inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter, the fact that the universe appears to be bigger than we'd otherwise expect, the so-called "horizon" problem, and probably others that I can't recall off the top of my head.

According to what theory? For according to Einstein, gravity warps space-time.

According to Einstein, gravity is nothing more than the warping of spacetime. Gravity and spacetime curvature are one and the same thing.

This was confirmed initially by the eclipse of 1911, I do believe, and later on by various other observations. If space is gravity, it could not warp itself.

The usual statement is: matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move. It's also worth noting that, technically, spacetime can warp itself, since general relativity is a non-linear theory.

There is no point devoid of a gravitational field, however. Nor is there any part of space with zero energy. "Nature abhors a vacuum".

There are lots of parts of space with essentially zero energy, if you ignore the presence of a little background radiation and the odd particle drifting through. Statements such as "nature abhors a vacuum" sound all well and good, but they're pretty empty (no pun intended).

There are vacuum fluctuations in spacetime, but not of spacetime.* They are two different things.

I forgot to add the footnote above: *In quantum theories of gravity, spacetime itself should have quantum fluctuations.

What is space-time but the constant "'sea' of zero-point energy and 'substance'"?

I think of it mainly as a coordinate system, rather than as any kind of substance.

I am not claiming space-time is aether, but it is certainly a media for electromagnetic radiation. The vacuum - aka, the base state of space-time - facillitates the absolute expression of C, aka, 300,000 km/p/s.

E/m radiation travels through spacetime, but that fact alone doesn't mean spacetime is some kind of substantive medium.

This only speaks of expanding space-times, not space-times which violate C in their expansion.

The point is: the Robertson-Walker metrics do not put any limit on the rate at which spacetime can expand. In particular, they include no speed of light limit.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D:

Ask yourself whether you can see the end of an infinite line. If you can't, then you see why God is empricially unobservable. There is no way to prove any of his attribute sby reference to the senses.

This was also not in regards to omnipotence, but to omnipresence and existence.

The concept of god is not the same thing as the concept of an infinite line. This comparison has no bearing.

No infinite being can limits its appearance. This is an absurdity. This would require a limitation of that which has no limits to constrict.

I guess holography and a loudspeaker is outside his omnipotent capabilities?

The flaw is in its lack of simplicity compared to another argument, not in the argument itself. ONe would ideally want to be able tos ummarize an argument for God without extensive lines of argument. This cannot be provided by a system that address the Primve Mover correctly.

If the argument cannot stand up to counter arguments, it cannot be held as a proof.

As LightGigantic has pointed out: If there is other power in the universe, then one is not omnipotent. Omnipotence requires complete and utter power belonging to oneself.

Why does omnipotence require sole existence? Why can't two beings...three...five can have the same matching complete and utter power. I have not come across any definition of omnipotence requiring singular possession.

Moreover, it is certainly an act of omnipotence to set -everything- in motion. This requires infinite exertion.

Why would the precipitation of any motion require omnipotence? Have you never heard of the snowball effect?

It places on a rational level of discussion.

An excuse to validate ID/creationism which has absolutely no logical way of being proven.

Actually, there is nothing in Darwinian evolution that requires independence from supreme guidance whatsoever. Just that is the most reasonable thing to suspect, as there is no positive evidence for a watcher.

There is nothing in Darwinian evolution that requires DEPENDENCE on a supreme guidance. It therefore stands as the reasonable doubt to the popularly accepted ( ) ID.

All contingent things are necessarily more complicated than a necessary thing, because they require the existence of perhaps an infinite variety of other things, as well as no firm basis for their existence. To discuss a contingent thing one must address empirical evidence, whereas a necessary thing is capable of being known a priori.

This assumes that any god is axiomatic correct?...this is one of the many many problems...jumped up assumptions.

Would you not think that an infinite being or even an omnipotent being to be more complex than humanity? The species that theists maintain that this so called being created?

Philosophical rigour and a respect for great thinkers, both Atheists and Theists, alike. Also, some of the definitions of God certainly apply to existence as a whole. Any reasonable ontology and metaphysics requires such considerations.

I guess...but the word reasonable does not apply here.

At times, they sure seem to be "jumping the gun".

Well look at it this way...it is more easily, budget-wise more than likely, justifiable to research the plausibility of a previously unknown matter or compound rather than to redo the entire theory of gravitation. It is much much easier to consider a previously undetectable mass, prove its existence, then add it to gravity laws, rather than NOT consider a possible undetectable matter, revamp ALL laws of gravity, then 237 years later prove dark matter and go "oops, we were right before".

I agree. But it is a valid argument -if- the Euthypro argument can be dealt with.

Problem...valid arguments should not have an IF clause dependant on something unprovable.

Amend it to read "a thing cannot exist without its source's existence at the time of the causal event which created it."

Does this mean you propose to freeze time at the point of the creation of this entity? Or can the universe please progress?

Let's try something....

God created morality.
Morality exists.
God expired himself in 2001.
Morality still exists...........


And...you assume that random events do not occur. Random events do not have a source. Hence...the property of random.

Actually, it requires no assumption whatsoever. It is a pure a priori proof of God, which makes it so appealing because it requires nothing but necessity to discuss.

Really dumb. The ontological statement is circular. It also requires you to assume that humans can even begin to imagine the properties of the so called greatest being ever. It is also illogical in that conception does not mean existence is obvious...someone conceptualized the computer (e.g.) before it existed.

The ontological argument is just like Lightee saying believe to see to believe - conceptualize to exist to conceptualize.

Easily: Logical extremes. For nistance, omnipresence is a matter of an infinite scope of existence.

All of this is again grand assumption, topped up with a touch of mortal ego.

The greatest being would have to be necessary, which means eternal.

Why does necessity have to be an attribute of greatness? I can be the nicest person in town; without the town's existence precipitated by or dependant on my own.

That isn't an attribute of God - that is an attribute of Judeo-Christianity. In essence, worship is not here being discussed.

Good point.

Metaphysics has nothing to do with the paranormal or supernatural. Those are parapsychological considerations. Metaphysics means "after physics". It stems from a work by an untitled Aristotle which was catalogued at Alexandria after physics, hence, "metaphysics". It has since become a discipline of philosophic study which includes theology, ontology, and first principles.

Ah...my bad, I ascribed the "popular" usage of metaphysics here.

However...why do you think good old regular physics can't answer the booga-booga questions in time? Metaphysics in my opinion can quickly become as dangerous as religion mostly because of the same 'popular' (mis)usage of the term. We'll all become as sappy as Oprah.

Dualism is the metaphysical proposition that there exists two substances: The mental and the material. Descartes is probably the most well known dualist.

No...I know what it is, I've never bothered to contemplate. The most I've thought about it is that if technology becomes such that it can advance a brain facsimile, a person's mental "unit" can probably be copied onto a machine body, a nice step toward longevity and great for sci-fi movies. (the viability and cost of this is totally another topic).