An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

As I pointed out in my earlier post, we call it 'dark' because we cannot detect the energy itself.

Well *I* can detect it. It's called "electricity". We see evidence of it's presence everywhere inside our physical universe, not to mention our human forms.

In other words, we can't see it, so it is dark.

So "dark energy" must drive the high speed solar wind too eh? The aurora?

It's just a way of saying 'unknown', but it sounds better.

God energy "sounds better" to me personally. The problem here of course is you aren't "explaining" anything. In fact you're going out of your way to *not explain* the actual empirical "cause" and you're adding nothing to the discussion IMO. We could simply call it "acceleration" and save a word.

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

Nobody does. I'm simply granting you that we both seem to agree that there is more energy in the system than astronomers account for. I think it's "electricity". You seem to think it's "dark energy" but that term "dark" only seems to relate to your (our) own ignorance as Doveman suggested, not an actual empirical "cause" that would actually be scientifically meaningful.

Would you be as into the concept if they happened to call it "God energy" instead?

 

[Michael]

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

Why not, everyone else does. What standards are you using here if not empirical standards when it comes to seeking "evidence" to support an idea?

I have for instance already provided physical evidence to support my theory of God in terms of the effect of the EM field on human thoughts.

I think before I go any further I'd like to hear your answer to that question. It might help me understand the gap between our positions a bit better.

 

[Michael]

FYI, please don't ask *ME* to define "dark energy". It's like asking an atheist to define God.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Well *I* can detect it. It's called "electricity". We see evidence of it's presence everywhere inside our physical universe, not to mention our human forms.

Good for you, but given that electricity is detectable it's most likely not going to be that.

So "dark energy" must drive the high speed solar wind too eh? The aurora?

Nope. No one has claimed that either, it would be best if you stopped making nonsensical arguments up.

God energy "sounds better" to me personally. The problem here of course is you aren't "explaining" anything. In fact you're going out of your way to *not explain* the actual empirical "cause" and you're adding nothing to the discussion IMO. We could simply call it "acceleration" and save a word.

I don't know how many times it has been said but we are not discussing acceleration we are discussing the CAUSE of the acceleration.

Nobody does. I'm simply granting you that we both seem to agree that there is more energy in the system than astronomers account for. I think it's "electricity". You seem to think it's "dark energy" but that term "dark" only seems to relate to your (our) own ignorance as Doveman suggested, not an actual empirical "cause" that would actually be scientifically meaningful.

Exactly. Dark energy is a placeholder name. In other words, it's the word we're using for this particular thing we know nothing about. It's a word that describes that currently we are completely ignorant about what this energy is. It does not confer any properties or meaning upon the energy itself, other than that it is some kind of energy. It's a word that means 'we know nothing about this energy, so we'll give it a temporary name (not a claim) until we find out about it'.

Would you be as into the concept if they happened to call it "God energy" instead?

Sure. However, you have to remember that the name has no properties. Calling it God energy doesn't prove God because we know nothing about this energy. It is just a name.

 

[SithDoughnut]

FYI, please don't ask *ME* to define "dark energy". It's like asking an atheist to define God.

Except that the two concepts are entirely different and while God is deemed as a word with properties and meaning, dark energy is not.

The reason we're still disagreeing is that you're arguing against a point none of us are making. We are not making any claims with dark energy, and it's important that you understand why dark energy is not the claim you think it is so that any debate can happen. So I'm going to take Belk's advice and leave. The reason we are asking you to define dark energy is that you are arguing as if it is something completely different to what we've been saying. The definition of dark energy is 'the energy that is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe'. I've explained what the word 'dark' refers to so I'd advise you read over everything we've posted with what I've been saying in mind. Hopefully then you'll realise that what we're arguing is not what you think we're arguing. Until then, no productive debate can be had.

 

[sandwiches]

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?

LMAO
Alright... You got me. I admit I thought you were serious, at first. Now, I know for sure you were just trolling to get your jollies.

Well played, sir.

 

[Michael]

LMAO
Alright... You got me. I admit I thought you were serious, at first. Now, I know for sure you were just trolling to get your jollies.

Well played, sir.

I'm glad someone appreciates my weird sense of humor.

 

[Michael]

Good for you, but given that electricity is detectable it's most likely not going to be that.

But see, here is where your faith in "dark energy" led you astray IMO. I handed you the one known force of nature that could and might accelerate a mostly plasma universe and you rejected it out of hand because it's not "dark".

 

[SithDoughnut]

But see, here is where your faith in "dark energy" led you astray IMO. I handed you the one known force of nature that could and might accelerate a mostly plasma universe and you rejected it out of hand because it's not "dark".

Meh, I'm with sandwiches on this now. Well played. Seriously, you were about as convincing as they come. I blame not working it out on my lack of sleep...

 

[Michael]

Nope. No one has claimed that either, it would be best if you stopped making nonsensical arguments up.

But wait a moment....

If we can just point at any old observation of an acceleration of plasma and claim "dark energy did it", why doesn't that same exact logic work for solar wind too? The mainstream can't "explain" it. Birkeland could explain it of course, in fact he "predicted" it, but the mainstream can't explain it.

 

[Michael]

Hopefully I'm making a few inroads with humor that I can't make with pure logic.

 

[Belk]

Hopefully I'm making a few inroads with humor that I can't make with pure logic.

Well, ceartainly the idea that you have some sort of "pure" logic is humorous.

Seriously though, don't you get tired of trotting out the same shtick again and again? I would think it would get boring after a while?

 

[Doveaman]

But see, here is where your faith in "dark energy" led you astray IMO. I handed you the one known force of nature that could and might accelerate a mostly plasma universe and you rejected it out of hand because it's not "dark".

Meh, I'm with sandwiches on this now. Well played. Seriously, you were about as convincing as they come. I blame not working it out on my lack of sleep...

This sounds like a cop-out to me. You claim it is "dark" and "unknown" energy, others claim it is "electricity", a known force of nature that can be empirically verified, and your response is to ignore the claim and run off to bed. How typical. The problem with mainstream astronomy is that they are all sleeping on the job, and you are obviously following their pathetic example. No wonder the universe is so dark to you guys; you are always sleeping.

 

[Doveaman]

Seriously though, don't you get tired of trotting out the same shtick again and again? I would think it would get boring after a while?

There is nothing as boring as living in darkness and having no idea why.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

This sounds like a cop-out to me. You claim it is "dark" and "unknown" energy, others claim it is "electricity", a known force of nature that can be empirically verified, and your response is to ignore the claim and run off to bed. How typical. The problem with mainstream astronomy is that they are all sleeping on the job, and you are obviously following their pathetic example. No wonder the universe is so dark to you guys; you are always sleeping.

If its electricty proof it, untill then its dark energy <aka, untill then we dont know for sure.>

 

[Michael]

If its electricty proof it, untill then its dark energy <aka, untill then we dont know for sure.>

Poor you. You'll be living in the "dark ages" of astronomy your whole life then. The mainstream has an *extreme* (almost paranoid) aversion to anything related to EU theory, probably because it threatens them. Empirical physics and religions often come into conflict, and EU theory is the empirical theory that threatens them the most. I'm afraid with that attitude you'll be living in the "dark" for a long time.

 

[Michael]

Well, ceartainly the idea that you have some sort of "pure" logic is humorous.

Seriously though, don't you get tired of trotting out the same shtick again and again? I would think it would get boring after a while?

Empirical physics isn't "boring", it's wonderful. It's brought us all sorts of useful consumer products and things to make our lives better. What is "boring" is wasting money on "dark energy" and "inflation" and stuff that never shows up in a useful consumer product. That's just wasteful nonsense.

Birkeland already "explained" the solar wind in terms of the EM field. There's a perfect example of an acceleration process the mainstream doesn't "understand". Birkeland however not only "understood it" based on empirical physics, he "predicted' it in a true empirical manner. He didn't just point at the aurora and say "look, dark energy did it". He picked a real force of nature and found a way to physically "explain" it. That isn't "boring", that's real science.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Poor you. You'll be living in the "dark ages" of astronomy your whole life then. The mainstream has an *extreme* (almost paranoid) aversion to anything related to EU theory, probably because it threatens them. Empirical physics and religions often come into conflict, and EU theory is the empirical theory that threatens them the most. I'm afraid with that attitude you'll be living in the "dark" for a long time.

I am not sure why you would say such a thing.
All i said was we do not know. And untill we do know we shouldnt claim to know.

I mean surely thats not too much to ask? If you want your hypothesis of what is speeding up the universe to be accepted your going to need some proof to back it up and show that dark energy is electromagnitism.
All in all that should be pretty easy to do right? After all its not like it can hide out there.

By all means i invite you to do so since it will help further the understanding. But if you have no convincing evidence then it will remain dark energy untill somebody else comes up with evidence of what dark energy 'really' is.

Also, please do not mistake this as me asking you to convince me since quite honestly i would not understand a word of it.

 

[Michael]

I am not sure why you would say such a thing.
All i said was we do not know. And untill we do know we shouldnt claim to know.

Oh come now. They "claim to know" that the 70+ percent of the universe is made of "dark energy". If they can claim to know something like that, I can certainly claim to know that their "dark energy" is really "electricity".

I mean surely thats not too much to ask? If you want your hypothesis of what is speeding up the universe to be accepted your going to need some proof to back it up and show that dark energy is electromagnitism.

I can back it up in lab by demonstrating that the EM field moves/accelerates plasma. Can you demonstrate that "dark energy" has any effect on plasma?

All in all that should be pretty easy to do right? After all its not like it can hide out there.

It doesn't "hide out", it drives solar wind, creates million degree coronal loops, ect. It's pretty darn obvious IMO.

By all means i invite you to do so since it will help further the understanding. But if you have no convincing evidence then it will remain dark energy untill somebody else comes up with evidence of what dark energy 'really' is.

"Dark energy" really is just 'gap filler' to save an otherwise falsified, "faster than light speed expansion theory". I'm sorry but that just doesn't fly by me, not to mention the whole inflation mythos.

Also, please do not mistake this as me asking you to convince me since quite honestly i would not understand a word of it.

You can certainly "understand" that EM fields have an effect on plasma. You can buy an ordinary plasma ball from the store and see it accelerate plasma a light it up. The mainstream would like you to believe you can't understand it, but it's not magic, and it's not complicated and it's not difficult to understand once you see it for yourself in a real lab or see it work in a real consumer product. The only reason "dark energy" is "difficult" is because they "made it up" and they refuse to demonstrate it actually exists in any empirical way. Instead they point at the sky, slap on a little math, and claim you can't understand it unless you understand (and accept) their math. Baloney. You don't need to understand how a transmission works to drive a car and get something useful from it. The only reason they want to complicate it is because they made it up, it's not real, it will never show up in a useful consumer product, and it's gap filler for their one theory.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Well see I dont know what a EM field or plasma is.
Now that is not to say i could not find out if i so wished. same go's for anything else in the world. I just am not interested unless i have some solid reason to believe its any more credible then homeopathy.

Appealing to Big bad mainstream science as holding down your pet theory to me just sounds like baloney. If the evidence is there the mainstream will accept it eventually. If it isnt there your best defense is claiming the Big Bad is holding you down.

I know what dark energy is and isnt. Its very simple.
its "We dont know"
it isnt: A actual entity that has any real meaning other then a quick reference.