An Empirical Theory Of God

[Exiledoomsayer]

What "definition" shall we use in your opinion, and what does "dark energy" have to do with "acceleration"?

From what we observe the universe is accelerating. We do not know what is causing this acceleration.
so in fact we do not know "the cause of the acceleration of the universe" but we know the result this cause produces. namely the acceleration of the universe.

Now for simplicities sake we take "the cause of the acceleration of the universe" and give a placeholder name so we dont have to waste a entire lung of air trying to make clear what we are talking about. so we dub it "dark energy"

Now for a minute supose we find out that electromagnitisme is the cause of the acceleration. then that means that Electromagnitism=dark energy. and we can ditch the placeholder name of dark energy and use the proper name now that we know what it is. electromagnitisme

But untill then we just refer to the placeholder name for easy conversation.

Then how does the mainstream seem to "know" that 70+ percent of the universe is made of "dark energy" again?

honestly, i cant tell you how they got the % i simply never bothered to find out.

Ok. Do we even know if it exists or has any effect on say a single atom in a controlled test of concept?

I hope i have answered this for you above already but i will just try to say it another way.

it works kind of like a murder. we found a murdervictem and we suspect there will be a person that committed the murder. However we dont know who it is. But we know what the result of his murder was namely the murder victem.

Now instead of refering to "the person that commited the murder" we'll use a placeholder till we work it out. say "murderer"

now lets look at your question..
Do we even know if it exists or has any effect on say a single victem in a controlled test of concept?

Do we know if a murderer exists when we have found a murder victem? yes.
But untill the 'crime' is solved we wont be able to indentify who the murderer is bob, tim, george or whoever.

I'm afraid that simply doesn't explain why I keep reading paper after paper about "dark energy did this", "dark matter did that", all related to "point at the sky" exercises that completely lack any control mechanism whatsoever.

if you read dark energy did this. you could transelate it in your mind and read
"a unknown effect caused this"
We dont know what caused it. But we know what the result is as we can observe the result but finding the cause is harder.


Let me know if the analogy helped clear it up at all or if it just made things even more blurry.

In essence the following is taking place, We observe a result. We do not know the cause. We give the unknown cause a placeholder name for easy reference then proceed to observe results and publish those untill we can work out whats really causing it.

 

[Michael]

From what we observe the universe is accelerating.

Ok, let's just go with that premise.

We do not know what is causing this acceleration.
so in fact we do not know "the cause of the acceleration of the universe" but we know the result this cause produces. namely the acceleration of the universe.

Can you name one possible empirical and more likely "cause" that might also be 39 OOM's more powerful than gravity *BESIDES* the EM field?

Now for simplicities sake we take "the cause of the acceleration of the universe" and give a placeholder name so we dont have to waste a entire lung of air trying to make clear what we are talking about. so we dub it "dark energy"

What makes it "dark" in your opinion anyway?

Now for a minute supose we find out that electromagnitisme is the cause of the acceleration. then that means that Electromagnitism=dark energy. and we can ditch the placeholder name of dark energy and use the proper name now that we know what it is. electromagnitisme

Well, essentially that's what I've already done. I've already ditched the placeholder term for human ignorance and I simply accept the fact that we live inside of an electric universe. I can see the evidence of that "bright energy" everywhere I look from coronal loops to solar "jets" to high speed solar wind, all the things Birkeland "predicted' with his electric sun model.

But untill then we just refer to the placeholder name for easy conversation.

Magic energy it is. How then is science different from fairytales?

honestly, i cant tell you how they got the % i simply never bothered to find out.

Check it out sometime. It's a purely fabricated (ad hoc) number, just like the whole term "dark energy".

it works kind of like a murder. we found a murdervictem and we suspect there will be a person that committed the murder. However we dont know who it is. But we know what the result of his murder was namely the murder victem.

That works up until you claim that the murderer was "dark energy" and "dark energy did it in the study with a candlestick". I'm afraid there is no empirical connection between "placeholder term" and the action being "explained" with a placeholder term that itself is an "assumption". How do you know that the excess energy is "dark" for instance? Those million degree coronal loops don't look very "dark" to me.

 

[sandwiches]

One wonders why you guys keep throwing yourself against this brick wall?

Yea, I'm done. I think he's trolling us now, quite frankly.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Because in terms of empirical physics you can?

Why are you an "atheist" again?

[snippity-snip]

Two things: One, I'm amazed that you are somehow a Christian. Pretty much everything you have said can and has been used against the existence of God...

Two, I'm going to have one more go, and that's it, because as Belk said, this is like throwing myself against a brick wall.

Let's use this analogy:

Pretend you know barely anything about the laws of physics. However, you observe that something is holding us on to the planet. When you jump, you come back down, why would that be? The only thing you know is the law of cause and effect, so you deduce that some kind of force is holding you down. You have no idea what this force is, how it works, where it comes from or why it even exists. However, to make things easier when you study this force, you decide to call it Gravity - after all, one word is easier to say than a whole sentence.

Now compare it to this:

Pretend you know barely anything about rest of the universe. However, you observe that something is causing the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There isn't enough known energy in the universe to cause this, so why is it happening? The only thing you know is that acceleration requires energy, so you deduce that some kind of energy is causing the acceleration. You have no idea what this energy is, how it works, where it comes from or why it even exists. However, to make things easier when you study this force, you decide to call it Dark Energy - after all, two words are easier to say than a whole sentence.

I have just described Dark Energy. Do you understand now? If you don't, I'll give up, because thankfully everyone else gets it.

 

[Doveaman]

I have just described Dark Energy. Do you understand now? If you don't, I'll give up, because thankfully everyone else gets it.

I don't.

Yes, there is energy out there, but it's certainly not dark.

It's only dark to those who don't know how to look or where to look and are therefore blind...

 

[SithDoughnut]

I don't.

Yes, there is energy out there, but it's certainly not dark.

It's only dark to those who don't know how to look or where to look and are therefore blind...

You may disagree, but you must at least understand what I'm saying? You don't have to agree with my argument to understand what it is that I'm trying to argue.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Well i gave it a shot.
Willfull ignorance or trolling is the only explaination now, I shudder to think there could actually be a human being that dense so ill avoid that option all together.

Dovea just for you we'll call it demonic energy cause clearly its satan trying to make us turn away from god like he did with the cardboard fossils xD

 

[sandwiches]

I don't.

Yes, there is energy out there, but it's certainly not dark.

It's only dark to those who don't know how to look or where to look and are therefore blind...

I agree with Sith. You may not agree that we don't know what dark energy is, but at least you get what we're saying. I never thought I'd say something like this but, honestly, you're very much a breath of fresh air in this thread.

 

[Michael]

Two things: One, I'm amazed that you are somehow a Christian. Pretty much everything you have said can and has been used against the existence of God...

Not the God described in this thread.

Two, I'm going to have one more go, and that's it, because as Belk said, this is like throwing myself against a brick wall.

FYI, that would be a "wise" choice by the way. I've been around the planet many more times than you and I've probably talked to every astronomer in cyberspace over the last 7 years or so. If they didn't change my beliefs, you aren't likely to do so either.

Let's use this analogy:

Pretend you know barely anything about the laws of physics. However, you observe that something is holding us on to the planet. When you jump, you come back down, why would that be? The only thing you know is the law of cause and effect, so you deduce that some kind of force is holding you down. You have no idea what this force is, how it works, where it comes from or why it even exists. However, to make things easier when you study this force, you decide to call it Gravity - after all, one word is easier to say than a whole sentence.

Now compare it to this:

Note here that what you describe is a force that I can "feel" myself here on Earth. I don't have to have "faith" in the math, or "faith" in the concept. I can actively experiment with 'gravity', right here and now.

Pretend you know barely anything about rest of the universe.

Frankly that's not hard for me to do because the universe is vast and we've only scratched the surface in our understanding of it IMO. I do however have some understanding of the forces in nature based on my experience here on Earth with "gravity' for instance or the EM field.

However, you observe that something is causing the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There isn't enough known energy in the universe to cause this, so why is it happening?

Ok, we grossly underestimated the energy in the system. Now what?

The only thing you know is that acceleration requires energy, so you deduce that some kind of energy is causing the acceleration.

With you so far....

You have no idea what this energy is, how it works, where it comes from or why it even exists.

Woah. I have a pretty good idea that the EM field is probably involved in some way since that's the one known force of nature that overcomes gravity and is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Don't you think we should consider the "plausible" alternatives?

However, to make things easier when you study this force, you decide to call it Dark Energy - after all, two words are easier to say than a whole sentence.

"Excess energy" might be an appropriate two word description, but why did you *assume* it is "dark"? Would you expect to see some effect of all this energy inside the solar system? Might it have something to do with those million degree coronal loops or that million mile per hour solar wind?

I have just described Dark Energy. Do you understand now? If you don't, I'll give up, because thankfully everyone else gets it.

How did you decide it was "dark" energy exactly?

 

[Michael]

Well i gave it a shot.

Ok, so let me give it a shot now. Why exactly did you choose to label yourself an "atheist" and why do you believe acceleration is caused by "dark energies"?

 

[Michael]

You may disagree, but you must at least understand what I'm saying? You don't have to agree with my argument to understand what it is that I'm trying to argue.

FYI, I understand what you're trying to argue, I just don't buy the argument. Let's try a reverse process here and try explaining to me why you personally "lack belief" in God, yet you have faith in unseen "dark energies"? Can't you see the double standard problem there somewhere?

 

[Michael]

I agree with Sith. You may not agree that we don't know what dark energy is, but at least you get what we're saying. I never thought I'd say something like this but, honestly, you're very much a breath of fresh air in this thread.

For the record I'm not trying to be "difficult", just 100% consistent. If we're going to discuss an empirical theory of God, we must stick with empirical physics. Whatever thinking processes that you apply to the topic of God, try applying them here to the topic of "evil dark energies" and tell me why the energy is "evil" or "dark".

Honestly, there is a "principle" here at stake in terms of empirical physics. If you're going to hold me to an empirical standard in this thread, then anything we discuss here should have exactly the same standards applied to it that we apply to the topic of God, otherwise we're comparing metaphysical apples to empirical oranges.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Ok, so let me give it a shot now. Why exactly did you choose to label yourself an "atheist" and why do you believe acceleration is caused by "dark energies"?

Alright may aswell.

I simply never believed in god. In my country most people do not do so. We have the religious and then we have the normal people. I wasnt aware of the term atheist untill somewhere earlier this year actually but the description fitted me so i fell under it by default even if i wouldnt want to.

I do not believe the accelration is caused by dark energies. I simply call the cause dark energy untill i know what it really is. who knows maybe its expending because of the teeth the toothfairy is storing the spacetime continium
For all i care i could call it flimflam.

 

[Michael]

Alright may aswell.

I simply never believed in god. In my country most people do not do so.

Likewise I learned about astronomy 30 years ago. We didn't believe in "dark energies" back then, and "dark matter" simply meant the ordinary matter we couldn't see yet with our limited technologies. I was exposed to "empirical astronomy".

We have the religious and then we have the normal people. I wasnt aware of the term atheist untill somewhere earlier this year actually but the description fitted me so i fell under it by default even if i wouldnt want to.

Well, likewise I see no particular logical reason to believe in "unseen entities". If there is something driving a process of acceleration, I have a pretty good idea what's doing it, and it has nothing to do with "dark energies".

Yes or no, would you expect to see some empirical effect of all that "dark energy" here on Earth, or inside our solar system?

I do not believe the accelration is caused by dark energies. I simply call the cause dark energy untill i know what it really is.

Well, I already know what force of nature it could be.

who knows maybe its expending because of the teeth the toothfairy is storing the spacetime continium
For all i care i could call it flimflam.

Flippant commentary aside, there is in fact a logical "first choice" here, so don't you think we should start there?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You are still using your definition of the word.

We are seeing empirical effect of all that "dark energy" the empirical effect is the acceleration of the universe. That is the whole reason we have a unknown cause that needed a placeholder name.

Now i have to admit first i just mentioned electromagnitism because i saw the phrase in a thread somewhere but i do not actually know what it is

is the first choice god?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Actually, I would like to ask this to avoid strawmanning your position.
What do you think we mean when we say dark energy and why did we call it that? or rather. What is your definition of dark energy?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Ok, so let me give it a shot now. Why exactly did you choose to label yourself an "atheist" and why do you believe acceleration is caused by "dark energies"?

I am an atheist because I do not believe in God.

The acceleration is caused by dark energy because that is what we have decided to call this unknown cause. Notice the word 'unknown' there. I put that there because we know nothing about dark energy. Dark energy is just a name. Nothing more. Just. A. Name.

Now you assume that by calling it dark energy, we have given this energy properties that require evidence and proof. If that were true, I would agree with you. However, the word dark energy currently doesn't insinuate any properties. We call it dark because we can't see it. We call it energy because we know that energy is the cause of acceleration.

Therefore the only thing we know about 'dark' energy (don't forget, this is just a name, not a claim). Is that it is some form of energy that is causing the acceleration. The name does not matter - it does not matter what it is called because whatever you call it, it means nothing other than an alternative way of saying 'energy we know nothing about'.

That is what dark energy is: it is this energy we know nothing about. We know that whatever it is, it is causing the acceleration (because dark energy is the name of the cause, remember?). I'll bold this last bit because I want you to read it very carefully, just in case you didn't read the rest.

By calling this unknown cause 'Dark Energy', we are not making any claims. It's just a name, it does not insinuate any meaning or properties. We know nothing about it, so of course we cannot make any claims.

We have made one claim. Just one. The claim we have made is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that energy causes acceleration. That is the only claim, and we have empirical evidence to support it. We use the adjective 'dark' for this energy because it describes how we cannot detect it. However, according to the laws of physics, some form of energy must be there. Any other claims you think we have made are entirely in your own head.

 

[Michael]

Actually, I would like to ask this to avoid strawmanning your position.
What do you think we mean when we say dark energy and why did we call it that? or rather. What is your definition of dark energy?

"My definition"? I think it's a ad hoc placeholder term for human ignorance and a gap filler of epic proportions to save an otherwise falsified "faster than light speed expansion" creation theory. That's what I think it is. What do you think it is? Ever seen dark energy do anything to anything in a controlled experiment?

 

[Michael]

Can one of you "dark energy religion" types explain why you used the term "dark" to describe the "excess energy"? I'm trying to be reasonable here about the "excess" part, but where did you get the term "dark" from, and what makes you think it's "dark" in the first place?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Can one of you "dark energy religion" types explain why you used the term "dark" to describe the "excess energy"? I'm trying to be reasonable here about the "excess" part, but where did you get the term "dark" from, and what makes you think it's "dark" in the first place?

As I pointed out in my earlier post, we call it 'dark' because we cannot detect the energy itself. In other words, we can't see it, so it is dark. It's just a way of saying 'unknown', but it sounds better.

Also, who's calling it "excess" energy? I haven't seen the word used until now...