Official Call For Papers

[thaumaturgy]

Yes --- remember: all I'm doing is showing a DSP from a Biblical perspective.

Well then mark the "supercontinent" down as close to a "FAIL". Because there was more than one likely. It is claiming something special about something that isn't necessarily "unique" or even "surprising" once you know the regular physics.

Supercontinents and plate tectonics are reasonably easy things to explain using modern every-day "jive-old" physics. No need for a different state.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well then mark the "supercontinent" down as close to a "FAIL". Because there was more than one likely.

No, thanks --- I'll leave it 'as is'.

That is, unless you're now going to tell me that every of these standard-model supercontinents had Genesis 1 written all over them.

That is:

1. fully-grown vegetation
2. populated by man and animal
3. uniform climate

Even if I did believe there were more than one (which I don't) --- one stands out head-and-shoulders above all the rest as and example of DSP.

 

[plindboe]

Why not just call it "missing matter", or "unidentified matter"?

If they had, would you have asked "Why not just call it dark matter?"? One is as good as the other.

On second thought, dark is probably the best word, as the property we're talking about is: not emitting enough light to be detectable by our telescopes.

All objects that are smaller than say Jupiter have exactly those same two properties in a distant galaxy.

Sure.

Well, I "sort of' see your point. I don't even actually complain much about MACHO forms of DM "explanation" for this "missing mass", or neutrino propositions related to DM. It's when they slap ad hoc properties to SUSY particles, point to the sky and claim that it *must be* non baryonic matter of some exotic nature that I tend to complain.

Must admit I don't care. I'll wait until there's good evidence before I start caring. Until then I'll let the experts speculate and hypothesize all they want.

Peter

 

[thaumaturgy]

You've got to be kidding me?

You can ascertain the weight of another galaxy?

Yes. There's a technique called the ORBITAL METHOD in which the mass of the galaxy is measured by measuring the velocity of the rotation of points (stars) in the galaxy.

M = v[sup]2[/sup]r/G

M = mass within the radius being measured
v = orbital velocity of the galaxy
r = radius of the point in the galaxy you are measuring
G = Gravitational Constant

LINK

I have to admit I'm always fascinated by how elegant some of these techniques are. It seems nearly impossible to even imagine the mass of a galaxy, let alone have a relatively simple way of measuring the mass!

(CAVEAT: Hopefully a real astronomer or physicist on here will clarify this point further. This isn't my area at all.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. There's a technique called the ORBITAL METHOD in which the mass of the galaxy is measured by measuring the velocity of the rotation of the galaxy.

Well --- color me impressed!

Now how do they weigh all that "visible matter" in order to compare it to the total weight, so as to ascertain the weight of all that stuff they probably overlooked or couldn't find, but call 'dark matter'?

Sarcasm aside --- why can't what they call 'dark matter' simply be the weight of planets or dwarf planets --- or even the combined weight of meteoroids?

'Dark matter' sounds like a catch-all phrase to me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Even if I did believe there were more than one (which I don't)

So I assume you have some significant questions about the correlation of orogens or other features across numerous disparate cratons? Hmmm?

Oh, and by-the-by, if you can find evidence in the rock record of HUMANS existing on Pangaea (the most recent supercontinent) prior to it's break up, regardless of how old you think any of these things are, you can get a massive amount of fame, and may become one of the most well-known people on the planet. (That evidence as well as the notariety would certainly help your ministry!)

It should be pretty simple. We know which rocks were there before the breakup of Pangaea, and we know which were there after the breakup. Just find evidence of human life in the "before" rocks and you win!

(It's that simple)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well --- color me impressed!

Now how do they weigh all that "visible matter" in order to compare it to the total weight, so as to ascertain the weight of all that stuff they probably overlooked or couldn't find, but call 'dark matter'?

Sarcasm aside --- why can't what they call 'dark matter' simply be the weight of planets or dwarf planets --- or even the combined weight of meteoroids?

'Dark matter' sounds like a catch-all phrase to me.

In a sense I think it kind of is a catch-all term. Take a look at the linked PDF. It covers a great deal of what we know, how the weights are measured, the interesting concepts around the weight distribution, etc.

Also it goes into some ideas of what "Dark Matter" may be. I don't believe there is a necessity that dark matter be something incomprehensibly strange. But it might be some strange particles we haven't seen here.

(There's a variety of hypotheses they talk about in the pdf.)

 

[AV1611VET]

So I assume you have some significant questions about the correlation of orogens or other features across numerous disparate cratons? Hmmm?

C'mon now --- do I have to stamp 'plebeian' across my forehead?

Oh, and by-the-by, if you can find evidence in the rock record of HUMANS existing on Pangaea (the most recent supercontinent) prior to it's break up, regardless of how old you think any of these things are...

Wrong dispensation --- we don't run on physical evidence.

...you can get a massive amount of fame, and may become one of the most well-known people on the planet. (That evidence as well as the notariety would certainly help your ministry!)

Go figure.

Like I like to point out --- let scientists come up with something that would fool themselves today --- and what do they get?

Fifteen minutes of fame and fortune.

Then let the next generation of scientists catch this generations' mistakes --- and what do they get?

Fifteen minutes of fame and fortune.

You guys are the only ones I know that high-five yourselves when you make an important discovery, then high-five yourselves later when that discovery is shown incorrect.

It should be pretty simple. We know which rocks were there before the breakup of Pangaea, and we know which were there after the breakup. Just find evidence of human life in the "before" rocks and you win!

(It's that simple)

Right --- just find evidence in the 'before' rocks and I win.

And just how am I supposed to even find evidence of human beings scattered all over the [now] seven continents when only [by comparison] a handful existed at the time?

Remember the BC 2348 census?

• 8 people living on 197,060,800 square miles of earth.

 

[Michael]

Must admit I don't care.

You don't care they teach dogma rather than science in the classroom? Really? Evidently you don't apply the same standard to science that you do toward theistic/atheistic debate. What exactly is the difference between faith and science other than the fact we can empirically test scientific theories?

Now admittedly, DM is not nearly as "out there" as 'dark energy' and the mythical dead inflation deity. Inflation is literally a 'supernatural" construct because no other known vector or scalar field in nature will undergo multiple exponential increases in volume without experience a significant loss of density. Dark energy is purely an ad hoc creation of epic proportions.

 

[Michael]

Actually, it does: we know how heavy the galaxies are, and we know how heavy the visible matter is. Thus, any discrepancy is dark matter: quite literally, matter that remains obstinately dark.

That does not excuse all the ad hoc properties being assigned to SUSY oriented *hypothetical* forms of matter, and all the point at the sky exercises. It's one thing to note that you blew the mass estimation of a galaxy. It's quite another thing to stuff the gaps of your otherwise failed theory with metaphysical gap filler.

Calling it mythical is just cheap tactic from someone who can't think of a real refutation.

SUSY particles are in fact "hypothetical" if not "mythical". You can whine about my terminology, but it is irrational for the atheists to complain about theistic theories when *EVERY* 'creation science" theory requires some form of metaphysical gap filler. How is "inflation did it" any better than "God did it"?

 

[Michael]

Yes. There's a technique called the ORBITAL METHOD in which the mass of the galaxy is measured by measuring the velocity of the rotation of points (stars) in the galaxy.

M = v[sup]2[/sup]r/G

M = mass within the radius being measured
v = orbital velocity of the galaxy
r = radius of the point in the galaxy you are measuring
G = Gravitational Constant

LINK

I have to admit I'm always fascinated by how elegant some of these techniques are. It seems nearly impossible to even imagine the mass of a galaxy, let alone have a relatively simple way of measuring the mass!

(CAVEAT: Hopefully a real astronomer or physicist on here will clarify this point further. This isn't my area at all.)

FYI, there's another method too called "lensing" as well.
NASA - NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Keep in mind that "missing mass/dark matter" is not equal to "it must all relate to some form of mass related to SUSY theory". MACHO forms of "dark matter" make no "extraordinary" claims. SUSY related forms of DM *DO* make extraordinary claims because no evidence of SUSY theory has ever been confirmed by anyone.

 

[plindboe]

You don't care they teach dogma rather than science in the classroom? Really?

I do, but that's got nothing to do with my statement. What I don't care about are unevidenced hypotheses about what the majority of dark matter consists of. If you have evidence showing that unevidenced hypotheses about dark matter are being taught as dogma in school, please share.

Evidently you don't apply the same standard to science that you do toward theistic/atheistic debate.

Evidently you prefer making stuff up about people, instead of reading what they say and trying to understand what they are communicating.

What exactly is the difference between faith and science other than the fact we can empirically test scientific theories?

Now admittedly, DM is not nearly as "out there" as 'dark energy' and the mythical dead inflation deity. Inflation is literally a 'supernatural" construct because no other known vector or scalar field in nature will undergo multiple exponential increases in volume without experience a significant loss of density. Dark energy is purely an ad hoc creation of epic proportions.

I entered the debate to correct what I viewed as your misunderstanding concerning dark matter, and it seems that my mission is accomplished, evidenced by your lack of counter arguments. I'm sure you can find others interested in the other subjects you mention.

Peter

 

[StabbingHobo]

Keep in mind that "missing mass/dark matter" is not equal to "it must all relate to some form of mass related to SUSY theory". MACHO forms of "dark matter" make no "extraordinary" claims. SUSY related forms of DM *DO* make extraordinary claims because no evidence of SUSY theory has ever been confirmed by anyone.

Just wait for a few years and see what they dig up from the LHC. It is capable of handling Super Symmetric masses. We'll see how it turns out.

 

[dad]

You do not see why rocks would suddenly appear different? Even if the fundamental physical laws were different? Do you know how rocks form?

Well, you take a created planet, and then you have some water on it. Then you can have fun making rocks by water activities, or heating stuff up. All sorts of ways.

But, no, I do not see why a rock would suddenly appear different, if a universe state change occurred. Unless you are talking aesthetics. Like if light changed, it may change colors?

You have addressed them, just not really "dealt" with them. There's a difference.

Not really, when they are dealt with in a way that exposes the core suppositions, and beliefs that form the foundation of the claims.

Wh...what? Dunk? What? It relates to the ratios of uranium isotopes related to neutron capture and the fine structure constant. I don't see how that relates to "dunking" the reactor.

To get a same state reaction, they have to dunk the whole area, in their heads, miles under the earth. You see, they also imagine in their heads things like a certain oxygen content on the planet. And certain reactions needs certain things to happen. So, they simply dunk the area, and after it is cooked just right, (in their heads) it magically resurfaces! The whole thing is an invention to explain in a same state belief way, what we see. The fine structure constant is another thing sitting on a precarious perch, but that is another story.

Oh, by the way, we have many other examples where geologic formations have been buried and re-exposed all over the earth. Unrelated topic. (Although, as usual, one I'm rather intimately familiar with which is probably more than you can say.) Nice try though.

Oh, I know that things were bashed about, and pushed up, and buried, abd such. That isn't the issue. The issue is doing it in imaginary time, and on cue, so that a same state reaction occurs.

I'm afraid I will have to take the information from trained nuclear physicists over the "claims" of a man with minimal skills in algebra and almost no apparent scientific background whatsoever. Thanks for playing, though. (And when it comes to science, do always remember, you are just "playing".)

Then you will be dealing only in belief based scenarios, resting solely on a fable, and assumption. The skills you speak of are all present state physics. Unless we had a present state at creation, that is meaningless, and blowing smoke. No matter how much you revere them.

I was addressing Michael who seemed to limit the discussion to hypotheses and inferrentail conjectures like dark matter/dark energy and I wanted to take it back to brass-tacks as they say and get to the meat of it. To take it to things we know quite a bit about (sorry if the "know quite a bit about" part left you in the dust).

So? I wanted to mention that dark energy and matter is bogus. And I was addressing anyone that can read. No wonder some people want to keep it out of a discussion. It can't be defended.

 

[StabbingHobo]

Also Dad, do explain what the "Different State Past" was like. I'm eager to hear.

Third time I ask this.

 

[tansy]

I'm holding an apple now. If I let go of it, will it fall down?

That all depends. If it is not in the optimum conditions for falling, then it will not fall, even if you let go of it. For example, if it is also held by a length of string and you are grasping it at the bottom of the length, then it will not fall. If you are holding it in water, it will not fall. If you are in a moon rocket (no gravity) it will not fall.

 

[StabbingHobo]

No, the apple is not attached to anything, nor am I in space or water or whatever. My keys did drop when I let go, but how about the apple?

 

[Michael]

Just wait for a few years and see what they dig up from the LHC. It is capable of handling Super Symmetric masses. We'll see how it turns out.

My point is that *all* creation science theories are based upon *hypothetical* entities galore. In fact current Lambda-CDM theories rely on not one, not two, but *THREE* different forms of mataphysical (not physically demonstrated) entities including SUSY theories, "dark energy" and 'inflation'. SUSY theory is the only one of the three that has *any* hope of ever being demonstrated in a lab. Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct because no other vector or scalar field know to exist in nature will undergo multiple exponential increases in volume without a significant change in density. Worse yet, inflation is now "dead" and it has no influence on nature and can never be empirically verified.

 

[Michael]

I do, but that's got nothing to do with my statement. What I don't care about are unevidenced hypotheses about what the majority of dark matter consists of. If you have evidence showing that unevidenced hypotheses about dark matter are being taught as dogma in school, please share.

Every SUSY theory, every "dark energy" theory, and every "inflation" theory is "dogma". By "dogma" I mean it cannot be demonstrated in an empirical experiment, but rather it requires an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer".

Evidently you prefer making stuff up about people, instead of reading what they say and trying to understand what they are communicating.

I'm just amused that several folks in this thread dislike theistic creation theories, but they seem to give standard theory a free pass.

I entered the debate to correct what I viewed as your misunderstanding concerning dark matter, and it seems that my mission is accomplished, evidenced by your lack of counter arguments. I'm sure you can find others interested in the other subjects you mention.

Peter

My basic argument is still valid Peter. There is no valid empirical evidence to support *any* creation science theory, including Lambda-CDM theory.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Every SUSY theory, every "dark energy" theory, and every "inflation" theory is "dogma". By "dogma" I mean it cannot be demonstrated in an empirical experiment, but rather it requires an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer".

I must point out that these concepts are not dogma in that they are still in discussion. Much as any hypothetical in science is under discussion until proven sufficiently to become accepted THEORY or LAW.

As such "dark matter" (as far as I can tell, from the link I posted earlier), can be considered a place-holder for "as yet unknown" matter we are familiar with, or even unknown particles.

But unless there is some reason to think that the fundamental concept of GRAVITY is broken in some way in which it only applies here and applies differently elsewhere, then we need something to account for the gravitational effects.

So, in that senses, it is not dogma.

It would be dogma if it were preached that everyone must believe it without question.

But when you say it "cannot be tested by experiment" I also must point out that many of these concepts are predicated on gravity which we test daily, as Plindboe points out.