An Empirical Theory Of God

[Exiledoomsayer]

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".

They arent claiming they know what 70+ consists of. they are claiming they dont know what it consists of. Big difference aint it?

 

[Michael]

They arent claiming they know what 70+ consists of. they are claiming they dont know what it consists of. Big difference aint it?

Oh yes they are!

WMAP- Content of the Universe

• 4.6% Atoms. More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory! The actual density of atoms is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters.
• 23% Cold Dark Matter. Dark matter is likely to be composed of one or more species of sub-atomic particles that interact very weakly with ordinary matter. Particle physicists have many plausible candidates for the dark matter, and new particle accelerator experiments are likely to bring new insight in the coming years.
• 72% Dark Energy. The first observational hints of dark energy in the universe date back to the 1980's when astronomers were trying to understand how clusters of galaxies were formed. Their attempts to explain the observed distribution of galaxies were improved if dark energy was present, but the evidence was highly uncertain. In the 1990's, observations of supernova were used to trace the expansion history of the universe (over relatively recent times) and the big surprise was that the expansion appeared to be speeding up, rather than slowing down! There was some concern that the supernova data were being misinterpreted, but the result has held up to this day. In 2003, the first WMAP results came out indicating that the universe was flat (see above) and that the dark matter made up only ~23% of the density required to produce a flat universe. If 72% of the energy density in the universe is in the form of dark energy, which has a gravitationally repulsive effect, it is just the right amount to explain both the flatness of the universe and the observed accelerated expansion. Thus dark energy explains many cosmological observations at once.

Emphasis mine.

Lets start with that first claim. How can they *KNOW* that only 4% of the universe consists or ordinary matter and energy? If they don't know what "Dark energy" actually is, how did they rule out the EM field again?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I'm going to say this once regarding "dark energy":

The word "energy" was chosen because, in physics, all motion relates to some energy, and we would like to have energy conserved. We are observing a motion that hasn't been accounted for. Thus we are observing an energy that hasn't been accounted for which corresponds with the observed motion.

The word "dark" was chosen, because we cannot see it. That is all "dark" means. A star we can see, so it would correspond to "light energy".

"Dark energy" and "dark matter" could, quite simply, be the result of any object which is effecting the motion but which isn't sending light in our direction which we could see.

The terms sound nice and mysterious and thus get great press, but that is all they boil down to.

Really.

It is.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Oh yes they are!

WMAP- Content of the Universe
Emphasis mine.

Lets start with that first claim. How can they *KNOW* that only 4% of the universe consists or ordinary matter and energy? If they don't know what "Dark energy" actually is, how did they rule out the EM field again?

"Ordinary matter and energy" in cosmology just means things we can see.

So, for the most part, stars.

The rest of it is things we can't see.

It could simply be hordes of Jupiters lurking in interstellar space.

 

[sandwiches]

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 dark energy is electricity where, in there, do I plug in my microwave? I don't see any power plugs in space. I just proved your little pet theory wrong. Check mate!

 

[Doveaman]

If dark energy is electricity where, in there, do I plug in my microwave? I don't see any power plugs in space. I just proved your little pet theory wrong. Check mate!

Dark energy isn't real. Electricity is. Attach some solar panels to your microwave and you will be fully plugged into the electricity in space.

 

[sandwiches]

Dark energy isn't real. Electricity is. Attach some solar panels to your microwave and you will be fully plugged into the electricity in space.

So, the universe isn't electric, then... If it were, I'd be able to plug in my appliances directly to the sun or your magical space plugs and get them working.

 

[Doveaman]

So, the universe isn't electric, then... If it were, I'd be able to plug in my appliances directly to the sun or your magical space plugs and get them working.

The Hubble Space Telescope is plugged into the sun by my “magical space plugs” and it's working. It sends back plenty images of bright electrical energy in space plasma, but none of dark energy.

 

[sandwiches]

The Hubble Space Telescope is plugged into the sun by my “magical space plugs” and it's working. It sends back plenty images of bright electrical energy in space plasma, but none of dark energy.

Nice try but solar panels aren't plugs. Also, the pictures aren't of electrical energy or the Hubble would've have shorted out. You will just stay in the dark ages despite your penchant for electricity. The day that you can show me this magical electrical energy electrocuting people is the day I'll believe your fairy tales.

 

[Michael]

"Ordinary matter and energy" in cosmology just means things we can see.

So, for the most part, stars.

The rest of it is things we can't see.

It could simply be hordes of Jupiters lurking in interstellar space.

IMO you missed the point of my complaint. Let's look at that quote again.

More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory!

The EM field is by far the single most likely "natural" explanation for "acceleration of plasma". By claiming that this "dark energy" has "never been directly detected in the laboratory", they have already ruled out the EM field as the "real (empirical) cause" of that "acceleration" because the EM field has certainly been detected in the lab. Your definition is "I don't know", but their definition rules out the EM field. How did they do that? Which definition is the "scientifically correct" definition of "dark energy"?

 

[Michael]

They arent claiming they know what 70+ consists of. they are claiming they dont know what it consists of. Big difference aint it?

But that is certainly not the limit of their claim. They have already evidently ruled out the EM field. How? Why?

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't you personally expect to see some physical effect of all this "extra energy" inside of our solar system? What drives the solar wind, dark energy? What the "cause" of that excess heat in the corona? Dark energy?

Go check out the mainstream position once and see what they have to say about the effects of all this "extra energy" they claim is "out there somewhere we can never get to".

 

[Michael]

I'm going to say this once regarding "dark energy":

The word "energy" was chosen because, in physics, all motion relates to some energy, and we would like to have energy conserved. We are observing a motion that hasn't been accounted for. Thus we are observing an energy that hasn't been accounted for which corresponds with the observed motion.

Ok, but then your definition isn't the same of the one on NASA's website. Now what?

The word "dark" was chosen, because we cannot see it.

I can certainly *see it* in that excess energy in the corona. I can certainly "see it" drive the solar wind processes. I however already have an empirical solution that "explains" these events and identifies the source of that "extra energy". It's called "electricity".

That is all "dark" means. A star we can see, so it would correspond to "light energy".

IMO the term "dark" can only relate to the "human ignorance" factor because unless you already can rule out "electricity" as the source of all that extra energy, you can't actually be sure it's even "dark" energy in the first place.

"Dark energy" and "dark matter" could, quite simply, be the result of any object which is effecting the motion but which isn't sending light in our direction which we could see.

FYI, when I was taught "empirical astronomy" in school, the term "dark matter" really only meant "stuff we can't see with our primitive technologies", more along the lines of MACHO concepts of "dark matter". These days however, it's taken on a whole different metaphysical meaning. The term "cold dark matter" is actually "magic matter" that has also never been seen by humans according to them. In fact they have assigned it a number of new "ad hoc properties" including the ability to pass through walls, emit gamma rays, and do all sorts of "not very dark" tricks. It's purely a metaphysical construct now that is more or less an exotic form of "dark gumby matter" who's properties have been assigned in a purely willy-nilly fashion to prop up their otherwise dead and falsified theories on cosmology.

The terms sound nice and mysterious and thus get great press, but that is all they boil down to.

Really.

It is.

Unfortunately it's not. They aren't simply using the term "dark" to denote "we don't know". They use the the term "dark" and specifically eliminate all known forms of mass and energy as the "cause' of that "dark" stuff.

In fact the Lambda-CDM theory *assumes* that only 4% of the universe is composed of ordinary empirical forms of matter and energy. How do they make these claims if all "Dark" means is "we don't know"?

 

[sandwiches]

IMO you missed the point of my complaint. Let's look at that quote again.

The EM field is by far the single most likely "natural" explanation for "acceleration of plasma". By claiming that this "dark energy" has "never been directly detected in the laboratory", they have already ruled out the EM field as the "real (empirical) cause" of that "acceleration" because the EM field has certainly been detected in the lab. Your definition is "I don't know", but their definition rules out the EM field. How did they do that? Which definition is the "scientifically correct" definition of "dark energy"?

Show us your electricity in space empirically or your whole hypothesis falls apart. I mean, that's what you're asking of us. So, might as well. =)

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

How do we rule things out from unknown causes?

Lets say i have a box the size of a lunchbox. I dont let you look in it.
You do not know what is inside.
but you know what cant be inside. for one thing you wont fit a hippo in there so thats pretty safe to rule out.

But wait a minute you say. I dont know what is inside so i cannot rule out that a hippo might be inside the lunchbox!

Thats how you can rule things out from a unknown something.
Now i dunno if EM was ruled out or weither there simply was no evidence for it yet. but perhaps somebody does.

 

[SithDoughnut]

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.

I haven't seen the empirical verification, all I've seen is claims that it exists.

Funny how you accuse that post of being a cop-out, when you have yet to say anything remotely productive. Hopping on to the back of other people's conversions just to try and look clever generally doesn't work. If you have the evidence I'd be happy to look at it. I haven't found much information on Birkeland's work that would actually be of any use to me, but I'm interested in what he has to say. What I've seen about plasma cosmology isn't exactly very convincing.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

In fact the Lambda-CDM theory *assumes* that only 4% of the universe is composed of ordinary empirical forms of matter and energy. How do they make these claims if all "Dark" means is "we don't know"?

Well if you look at all the stuff we can see, and you look at how it moves, then you try to explain the motion of all the stuff we can see using known physics and it fails...well then you can postulate all sorts of other models using the simplest extensions to the known models.

Realistically it is just numerology on par with that silly equation that estimates the number of intelligent civilizations in the galaxy.

Anyway, as "electricity" boils down to some kind of energy, you are talking about energy as well.

But...to be fair...energy is a pretty vacuous term, as no one can really tell you what energy *is*.

People should just own up the fact that "energy" is really a convenient label for certain mathematical structures in the equations describing motion in nature.

Motion is what is real. The rest of physics is just elaborate mathematical models that explain observed motion.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Ok, but then your definition isn't the same of the one on NASA's website. Now what?

I can certainly *see it* in that excess energy in the corona. I can certainly "see it" drive the solar wind processes. I however already have an empirical solution that "explains" these events and identifies the source of that "extra energy". It's called "electricity".

The problem with electricity is:

1. it is very strong as forces go

2. there are two charges

The result is that opposite charges tend to come together, so effectively electrical forces cancel on large scales.

How exactly do you get electro-magnetism to do things on cosmological scales?

In fact the Lambda-CDM theory *assumes* that only 4% of the universe is composed of ordinary empirical forms of matter and energy. How do they make these claims if all "Dark" means is "we don't know"?

Everyone is free to calculate what they want.

I mean someone "estimated" the number of civilizations on the galaxy based on random guesses.

Anyway, gravity fails to account for the motion, and electrical forces don't exist on cosmological scales for the reasons I gave.

 

[Doveaman]

Funny how you accuse that post of being a cop-out, when you have yet to say anything remotely productive. Hopping on to the back of other people's conversions just to try and look clever generally doesn't work.

That would explain why it is not working for you hopping on the backs of the mainstream. You certainly don't look clever at all presenting your "dark energy" claim or refuting Michael's electricity claim. Your best response is "I don't know"; "we don't know"; "nobody knows". I have certainly contributed more than that to this conversation, showing that I at least know something. You have contributed nothing but "unknown darkness" because the mainstream told you so.

 

[Michael]

Show us your electricity in space empirically or your whole hypothesis falls apart. I mean, that's what you're asking of us. So, might as well. =)

Sure, I'll be happy to. Let's start with a solar flare:

[0908.0813] Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits

 

[ArnautDaniel]

That would explain why it is not working for you hopping on the backs of the mainstream. You certainly don't look clever at all presenting your "dark energy" claim or refuting Michael's electricity claim. Your best response is "I don't know"; "we don't know"; "nobody knows". I have certainly contributed more than that to this conversation, showing that I at least know something. You have contributed nothing but "unknown darkness".

Saying "electricity" and providing a working physical model that accounts for observations are entirely different things.

My suspicion is that an actual model built on electromagnetism will run into problems that would end up needing its own mysterious "dark energy" to deal with when it attempts to describe our observations.

But hey!

I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

Let's see the model.