An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

verysincere · Feb 22, 2013

Somehow Christians got the impression that the Hebrew word MIN ("variety", "kind", "category") referred to some sort of exacting taxonomic classification---as if God created rigid "boundaries" around each variety of organism. But that is an anachronism fallacy. So is this not simply an example of the power of TRADITION?

"Each after its own kind" has a different connotation "sound" in English than does the Hebrew equivalent "each after its respective variety". Indeed, the Bible and The Theory of Evolution totally agree that parents produce offspring that are very similar to the parents. If an elephant gave birth to a leopard, it would be a powerful denial of The Theory of Evolution. So offspring tend to look like their parents---and both the Bible and Science agree on this. No conflict whatsoever.

So how do we help a sincere creationist to remove their "tradition glasses" and to see what the Bible and Creation itself ACTUALLY says about "varieties of organisms"?

Michael · Feb 23, 2013

faith guardian said:
Sorry, Michael. I have no time for this nonsense.

Translation: You don't want to face the fact that in terms of pure empirical physics, "science" is no better than "religion" in terms of pure acts of faith in the "unseen" (in the lab). That is the bottom line here.

You draw the conclusions you draw here. Not while maintaining intellectual integrity.

Wait a minute! In terms of "time spent", I've studied astronomy and solar physics since I was 8-9 years old and we landed people on the moon. It's been my passion for most of my childhood and adult life. Since I'm now 53, that represents the better part of five decades that I've studied this topic. In terms of "time spent", how much real time do you have invested in this topic?

Yes dark matter is observed - indirectly, as discussed. The term dark matter is used because we do not know what we are observing.

If that were in fact what they were claiming, I would agree with you. Unfortunately you are naive. They don't just claim that there is "missing mass" we cannot yet account for, they claim that the missing mass *must be* in some form of "new and exotic" matter, of a kind and type that has never been seen on Earth. That's the actual claim that they make.

The problem is that our technologies and "models" are "primitive". We cannot even see small stars in a distant galaxy, we "estimate" them based upon "models" that turn out to have all kinds of flaws.

For instance, within the past 5 years we have discovered that we *grossly* underestimated the number of small stars that we cannot directly observe, vs. the larger stars we can actually observe from Earth.

In that same five year window, we've also discovered that the universe is actually twice as bright as we imagined, mostly due to all the 'dust' in the universe. Our galaxy mass estimates are *obviously flawed* yet they have never been updated to include any of these findings of "ordinary" matter.

We also recently discovered that the "missing baryonic matter" (the stuff they knew was there but didn't find it until last year) turns out to be located *outside of the galaxy* in the form of million degree plasmas. Most of the "missing mass" that is called "dark matter" also just so happens to be located exactly where those million degree plasma are located, namely outside the visible star system. That huge mass of plasma, more massive than all the stars in our galaxy, helps to explain the rotation pattern problems, but again, that issue has yet to be addressed in any updated Lambda-CDM models.

On top of all these recent findings of "missing normal matter", LHC has pretty much crushed SUSY theory. In short, the whole concept of exotic matter has become an exotic matter of the gaps claim at this point in time.

And from "we do not know" the ONLY conclusion we can draw is "we don't know". And that is exactly what dark energy and dark matter both represent; An unknown.

But again, that isn't what they claim. They make "knowledge claims" about that "missing mass", and about 'dark energy'. Just claiming they need a "new" form of energy to explain a plasma plasma body acceleration is a dubious claim to begin with.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

.....

We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them.

That statement simply isn't true. We not only grossly underestimated the amount of small stars, we grossly underestimate the *brightness* of the galaxies in the first place! Hoy Vey. That last sentence is also highly ironic considering the fact they used the very technique they cite to find all the "missing mass" in plasma last year. They claimed it wasn't there because they already had the technology to see it, and then it turns out that they "found" just such ordinary matter anyway just last year.

YOU somehow seem to be an adherent to a misconceived notion that somehow what scientists do is sit down have fancy ideas and give them "theory" stamps of approval, which is most certainly not the case.

Yes they do. It's called the "peer review" process that actually starts in college. If you don't toe the line, you're not likely to even get a degree, let alone get a job or ever publish a paper!

So common to see this among religious people though, and it is a beef I have with you guys. You make bold statements - often very shady ones - and yet expect to be taken seriously. Not only that, but to have your completely unfounded guesswork which has no real connection to any empirical data whatsoever to be seen as valid.

I provided you with links to real empirical data to support everything I have told you. Like any good YEC however, I haven't seen much from you in terms of a response, nor any data to support your claims.

And the reasons why tend to be severe misunderstandings or total misrepresentations of what science actually has to offer.

Science has wonderful things to offer, yet it suffers from the same pitfalls of other *human organizations*. It can become an unwieldy political beast that functions a lot like any "religion", including "leaps of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).

You point fingers, you draw logically invalid conclusions and use fallacious arguments to back your position, which you then label "an empirical theory of god". As I said, I have no time for that.

If you took the time to point out of few of these so called "fallacious arguments", that actually might be useful in terms of starting a real discussion.

Michael · Mar 5, 2013

Dave Ellis said:
Yes you do have to explain it since you claimed God evolved out of energy. You are describing how god was formed.

This part of our conversation belongs in this thread IMO, so I answered your post in this thread. No, I don't have to explain how or why God formed anymore than you have to explain how the near singularity thingy came to exist, or inflation came to exist, or dark energy came to exist. Most "scientific" theories make *prior assumptions*, and that is certainly true of astronomy in general. I don't have to explain how God came to exist anymore than you have to explain how the conditions prior to the BB came to exist.

If we claimed that energy evolved out of a substance called zlog, we would then have to show what zlog is,

Guth did exactly that. He claimed "inflation genies did it" and he has consistently failed miserably to produce any tangible inflation genies.

and how energy evolved from it, otherwise our claim can justifiably be dismissed out of hand until we can provide evidence for it.

If that were in fact true, we could dismiss out of hand every single cosmology theory in existence today.

You made the claim that God evolved from energy, therefore you have the burden of proof for your claim.

Actually I didn't make that "claim". I simply suggested it was a "possibility" as you might postulate various options as to the "cause" of the conditions prior to inflation, or the condition that caused inflation.

So far all you have tried to do is avoid the burden of proof to show how you came by your info.

No, I actually provided "structures" in space that resemble and function like structures inside the brains of living organisms. I showed electrical activity occurs in space in everything from solar atmospheric activity, to gigantic current carrying plasma filaments.

If the experiment in question is set up to explain how something like dark energy was created, then they absolutely must show how it was created. You made a claim on how god was created, so you have the same burden of proof.

So what "creates" dark energy?

So your God is simply something that is aware but possesses no extraordinary powers?

In terms of raw energy useage, God is rather extraordinary. In terms of longevity of form, the universe has extraordinary powers of "organized structure". In terms of needing three new metaphysical "superpowers" to explain creation, "forgetaboutit"!

What is the point of this being in regards to the universe?

What is the "point" of the universe in "scientific" theory? You keep expecting answers from me that you don't expect from so called "science". What's up with that?

The difference is, nobody here is making a claim on how the energy was created.

I'm not doing that either.

You made a claim on how your God was created, so show how you know your claim is true.

Again, I made no actual "claims". I simply suggested "options", just as various M-theories suggest "options" in terms of pre-bang conditions.

You can't be serious....

Are you honestly on her trying to argue physics on a universal scale, when you clearly don't understand the relationship between potential and kinetic energy, or the law of conservation of energy?

Nice dodge, and rather a foolish "put down" IMO.

A quick trip into your local grade 6 science class will inform you that the energy from the sun is not "used up" when it strikes your face, it is converted from light to heat energy.

A quick trip to a 6 grade science class will also inform you that the universe is full of energy! Get over yourself.

You don't need to zero anything out, because no energy was destroyed. The same amounts of positive vs negative energy exists as did before.

Ding, ding, ding! There was a *positive net energy* that was *used* and get's used again and again and again! The universe has *net positive* amount of energy, and it's always had a "net positive" amount of energy in it!

I mean honestly, this is basic science.

Ya, but inflation and dark energy and SUSY theory aren't "basic science", they're "hypothetical entities" at best case.

Labelling something a religion does not make it so...

Labeling a bunch of mythical forms of matter and energy "scientific" doesn't make them so either.

However, based on your reply it's clear you have absolutely zero understanding of Krauss's work. I recommend you pick up a copy of "A Universe from Nothing", you can get an audiobook version of it off itunes as well, it was only $11 or so. It goes for about 6 hours, and you will hear in detail all of the experiments and observations that went into the work going right back to Einstein.... and why it is currently the prevailing view among any physicists that know what they're talking about.

I've heard his nonsensical "wrap" now for *years*. He wouldn't last five minutes in a real debate on this topic on this forum.

And your knowledge of science is absurd and ridiculous. As stated above, the light energy was converted to heat energy. You still have the same amount of energy as you started with, so "zeroing it out" is not required.

You seem to be *ignoring* the key issue. The universe has a net *positive* amount of energy that gets recycled for eternity. It cannot ever be "zeroed out". Based on the laws of physics as we know them, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy has existed in some form for eternity. Nothing is created out of "nothing". His title is a ruse and his rap is scientific mumbo-jumbo and ultimately pure nonsense.

Well, so far you've shown a complete misunderstanding of energy conservation and kinetic vs potential energy for one.... And you've misrepresented Krauss's arguments, along with the other similar arguments of other prominent physicists like Stephen Hawking.

You've provided no argument of Krauss's that you feel I've "misrepresented", nor have you quoted him to demonstrate my error. I'm a reasonable guy, but you've provided no actual information to work with.

But of course, I'm sure they're just neophytes to your vast scientific knowledge.

Oh nice. Of course Jesus was nothing but a neophyte to all atheists too, right? Take the low road much?

Oh my...

If gravity is not a source of negative energy, things like the escape velocity equations for rockets simply would not work. It's a key factor.

If you take two mass bodies and *separate* them, that *net positive kinetic energy* turns into net positive kinetic energy right before they collide. Again, you're simply *ignoring the net positive energy of the whole system over time*.

A good way to think of it is: It requires positive energy (i.e. created by a rocket booster) to move two items apart. Negative energy is the force trying to pull the two items back together (gravity).

The whole concept of assigning gravity a "negative" energy was the magic "slight of hand" in the first place. It's an *arbitrary* assignment to begin with as my potential to kinetic energy example demonstrates. You're selecting an *arbitrary* sign to assign to gravity. Mass exists only because energy exists, not only because "gravity" exist.

If the positive energy outweighs the negative energy in this scenario, you can escape the earth's gravitational pull... Which requires a velocity of roughly 5 miles per second.

Yes, yes, but your rocket used *existing energy* from a *net positive energy universe*.

Look up "conservation of energy". You'll see why your point is absurd.

It's absurd that you believe that conservation of energy helps you when if fact it *destroys* your claim. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and energy exists. Your own claims fall apart the moment we take an electron and positron and stick them together!

Ironically, it's your religion (coupled with a poor understanding of science) which is likely leading you to your poor conclusions.

We'll see who has a poor understanding of science as our conversation progresses. I'd suggest you cool your jets a bit since it is likely that I've studied these topics for longer than a lot of folks have been alive.

Well, we know how inflation worked,

Really? Why did it leave all those massive structures in space that are not supposed to be there according to inflation theory?

however we don't know what caused it to initially happen.

But you expect me to explain the "cause" of "God"? Really?

As for Dark Energy, we understand relatively little about it in general.

So really it's nothing more than a "sky religion" based on "unseen" (in the lab) entities that are more empirically impotent in the lab than your average concept of God? How exactly do we "test" your beliefs anyway?

However in both cases, predictions made by the models based on inflation and dark energy have been repeatedly confirmed by observation.

You mean *except for* those "dark flows" and those gigantic structures in space that defy inflation theory?
Largest structure challenges Einstein's smooth cosmos - space - 11 January 2013 - New Scientist

The universe as we know it couldn't have existed without inflation, and the measured geometry of the universe as well as energy/matter densities require dark energy to exist, or the universe would not have the characteristics it does.

Psst! Actually it *doesn't* have the characteristics they claim it has.

However we can measure the effects of dark matter.

Nope. All you can measure is the effects of "missing mass". You have zero evidence that any of that missing mass is found in exotic forms of matter.

What's your point? I just said there's a lot that is unknown about it, of course experiments are going to fail. The odds of getting it right on the first try is absurdly low, it can take a long time for them to either find what they're looking for, or show the idea is flawed. That's the whole point of experimentation.

Yet you expect *immediate* evidence of God? Why? You seem quite comfortable "living on faith" when it suits you?

I've already shown the bit about gravity above.... however I'd be thrilled to hear about your claim that the universe is somehow aware. Can you show your evidence?

Somewhere in these threads you'll find it.

I'm going to stop here for now to see how you respond to those gigantic sized structures in space that falsify inflation theory, and you explain how "missing mass" equates to "exotic forms of matter must exist".

RealityCheck01 · Mar 17, 2013

Michael said:
For instance, within the past 5 years we have discovered that we *grossly* underestimated the number of small stars that we cannot directly observe, vs. the larger stars we can actually observe from Earth.

Actually we cannot even observe the larger stars from Earth (in distant galaxies) as in your link Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount.

Michael said:
In that same five year window, we've also discovered that the universe is actually twice as bright as we imagined, mostly due to all the 'dust' in the universe.

That is wrong.
In that same five year window, we've also discovered that the dust in galaxies blocks twice as much light as previous calculated (no imagination need apply!), all due to all the interstellar dust in the galaxies. That "twice as much lught" only applies to the part of the spectrum blocked by the dust. The light is radiated by the dust again in another part of teh spectrum. Thus the luminosity of the galaxies remains the same.

Neitehr of these observations have any effect on the estimates of galaxy masses because astronomers

Rarely add up stellar masses to calculate galaxy masses.
Do no use the intrinsic brightness galaxies to calculate galaxy masses. In fact the use of observed luminosity (which is not the 'brightness' in the paper) is rarely used to calculate masses - it is how the galaxies rotate that is the main method.

Michael said:
We also recently discovered that the "missing baryonic matter" (the stuff they knew was there but didn't find it until last year) turns out to be located *outside of the galaxy* in the form of million degree plasmas.

Almost right!
We have also recently discovered that thre is a halo of million degree plasmas outside the Milky Way. There is no evidence that other galaxies hoive this halo. If other galaxies have this halo then this is some of the "missing baryonic matter" ((the stuff they knew was there and have been discovering for decades).
N.B. This missing matter is that missing matter that makes up the 4% of the universe that is baryonic - all we have to doe is find the missing 96% on non-baryonic matter and energy (wait we have - dark matter and dark energy !)

Michael said:
Most of the "missing mass" that is called "dark matter" also just so happens to be located exactly where those million degree plasma are located, namely outside the visible star system.

Totally wrong, Michael.
Missing matter is not dark matter. Missing matter is missing normal, baryonic matter.
Most of dark matter is in a halo arond galaxies. Dark matter is distributed throughtout the univsere. Moset of it is in the intra-cluster meduim.
That huge mass of plasma, more massive than all the stars in our galaxy, cannot explain the rotation pattern problems (the mass needs to be within the galaxy) And thinking that this discovery of normal missing matter has be addressed in any updated Lambda-CDM models is ridiculous.

Michael said:
On top of all these recent findings of "missing normal matter", LHC has pretty much crushed SUSY theory.

On top of all these recent findings of "missing normal matter", LHC has pretty ruled out the simpliest of the SUSY theories.
In short you have the impression that dark matter can only be SUSY particles. You are wrong, Michael: Cold Dark Matter

The candidates fall roughly into three categories:

Axions are very light particles with a specific type of self-interaction that makes them a suitable CDM candidate.[2][3] Axions have the theoretical advantage that their existence solves the Strong CP problem in QCD, but have not been detected.

MACHOs or Massive Compact Halo Objects are large, condensed objects such as black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, very faint stars, or non-luminous objects like planets. The search for these consists of using gravitational lensing to see the effect of these objects on background galaxies. Most experts believe that the constraints from those searches rule out MACHOs as a viable dark matter candidate.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

WIMPs: Dark matter is composed of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. There is no currently known particle with the required properties, but many extensions of the standard model of particle physics predict such particles. The search for WIMPs involves attempts at direct detection by highly sensitive detectors, as well as attempts at production by particle accelerators. WIMPs are generally regarded as the most promising dark matter candidates.[5][7][9] The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark matter particles passing through the Earth, but many scientists remain skeptical, as null results from similar experiments seem incompatible with the DAMA results.

Michael said:
Just claiming they need a "new" form of energy to explain a plasma plasma body acceleration is a dubious claim to begin with.

There is no such thing 'plasma body acceleration'. There is an observed acceleration in the velocities of galaxies. So it is galaxy acceleration which is called dark energy because a candidate for it is a non-zero cosmological constant that acts as a negative pressure and accelerates the expansion of the universes.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.
.....
We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them.

The statement simply is true. We have got good estimatss of the masses of galaxies validated by measuring them in various ways (couting stars, brightness, rotation) ! Hoy Vey. That last sentence is also highly accurate.
Your statement is totally wrong considering the fact they did not use the very technique they cite to find some of the missing mass in plasma last year. The Milky Way's Hot Gas Halo was detected from the X-rays emitted by the plasma, not the absorption of radiation passing though the halo .

Michael said:
Just Yes they do. It's called the "peer review" process that actually starts in college. If you don't toe the line, you're not likely to even get a degree, let alone get a job or ever publish a paper!

Oh dear - a bit of conspiracy theory there, Michael !
According to you no paper that challenges established science would ever be published. The is obviously wrong. Read Einstein and his overthrow of classical mechanics and gravitation. Read the QM papers. Read many of the nuclear physics papers (quarks anyone!).

The fact is that many papers have been published on alternatives to dark matter, Lambda-CDM, etc.

As for stopping people from getting a degree - peer review has little to do with it. To graduate all you need to do is pass exams. When you get to Master and PhD levels there is a form of peer review - external assessment of your thesis and oral defense of your thesis respectively.

RealityCheck01 · Mar 17, 2013

Thanks Michael for reminding me about the Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science page. It is a while since I looked at it.
So some actual empirical data for you, Michael !
Abell 2744: Pandora's Cluster Revealed

One of the most complicated and dramatic collisions between galaxy clusters ever seen is captured in this new composite image. This collision site, known officially as Abell 2744, has been dubbed "Pandora's Cluster" because of the wide variety of different structures seen. Data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory are colored red, showing gas with temperatures of millions of degrees. In blue is a map showing the total mass concentration (mostly dark matter) based on data from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Japanese Subaru telescope. Optical data from HST and VLT also show the constituent galaxies of the clusters
...
The authors of this study retraced the details of the collision, and deduce that at least four different galaxy clusters coming from a variety of directions were involved. To understand this history, it was crucial to map the positions of all three types of matter in Abell 2744. Although the galaxies are bright, they make up less than 5% of the mass in Abell 2744. The rest is hot gas (around 20%) visible only in X-rays, and dark matter (around 75%), which is completely invisible.

The highlighted portion is something that you have ignored in your erronous assertions about galaxy masses (see Galaxy masses are rarely calculated fron star counts or luminosity). Even if galaxy masses were magically doubled, that would have little effect on the mass of galaxy clusters or the universe.

Michael · Mar 18, 2013

RealityCheck01 said:
Even if galaxy masses were magically doubled, that would have little effect on the mass of galaxy clusters or the universe.

In terms of star counts, it could *more than double* if you wanted to. It's twice as bright as we thought *and* we grossly underestimate the small stars too. In addition, you'd have to add all that "plasma" mass they just found in 2012 *around the outside* of the galaxy that exceeds all the mass in the stars of our galaxy. Once you *fix* your obviously broken and now obsolete galaxy mass estimation models, let me know.

Michael · Mar 18, 2013

RealityCheck01 said:
Actually we cannot even observe the larger stars from Earth (in distant galaxies) as in your link Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount.

Yet you expect me to believe that you're accurately accounted for all the "normal" mass in a galaxy? Why? Clearly those mass estimates are "fubar" which is why you need all that 'gap filler' in the first place!

That is wrong.
In that same five year window, we've also discovered that the dust in galaxies blocks twice as much light as previous calculated (no imagination need apply!), all due to all the interstellar dust in the galaxies. That "twice as much lught" only applies to the part of the spectrum blocked by the dust. The light is radiated by the dust again in another part of teh spectrum. Thus the luminosity of the galaxies remains the same.

Translation: I don't want to change my "normal mass" estimates, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we "blew" our original mass estimates, possibly by a factor of at least two. Now of course you can "tinker" around to "fix" the problem in a way that "minimizes" the need for exotic matter, or in a way that "minimizes the damage" to your faith in exotic forms of matter. Which is it going to be?

Neitehr of these observations have any effect on the estimates of galaxy masses because astronomers

Rarely add up stellar masses to calculate galaxy masses.

Really? How do they come up with "normal" mass estimates then?

Do no use the intrinsic brightness galaxies to calculate galaxy masses. In fact the use of observed luminosity (which is not the 'brightness' in the paper) is rarely used to calculate masses - it is how the galaxies rotate that is the main method.

You can't look at the rotation numbers until you have some idea of the mass of the stuff you can see!

Almost right!
We have also recently discovered that thre is a halo of million degree plasmas outside the Milky Way. There is no evidence that other galaxies hoive this halo.

Oh boloney. The fact so much mass is 'missing" and it's supposedly located around the *outside* of the star mass would *scream* the fact that *all* galaxies around surrounded by hot plasma you didn't account for.

You have *zero* evidence any galaxies do *not* have a plasma sheath around them!

If other galaxies have this halo then this is some of the "missing baryonic matter" ((the stuff they knew was there and have been discovering for decades).

You didn't find *most of the normal matter* you knew as there until *last year*, so why should I believe you've found all the normal matter now? Note that you still didn't add anything for those extra small stars, or the fact that you miscalculated the *large* stars too!

N.B. This missing matter is that missing matter that makes up the 4% of the universe that is baryonic - all we have to doe is find the missing 96% on non-baryonic matter and energy (wait we have - dark matter and dark energy !)

You found all the "missing normal matter" *and* you discovered your galaxy mass estimation techniques stink to high heaven. All the "missing mass" just so happens to be found around the *outside* of the star mass, thus *minimizing* any need for exotic brands of matter. Never have you addressed that fact.

Totally wrong, Michael.
Missing matter is not dark matter. Missing matter is missing normal, baryonic matter.

All that "dark matter" that is still missing is composed of normal matter as far as you know. You have no evidence that exotic matter even exists! WIMP theory is now an 'exotic matter of the gaps" claim at *best* case, a dying and falsified theory at worst.

Most of dark matter is in a halo arond galaxies.

You mean like that million degree plasma around the outside of the galaxy they found in 2012?

Dark matter is distributed throughtout the univsere. Moset of it is in the intra-cluster meduim.

You mean like those million degree plasmas they find in the intra-cluster medium?

That huge mass of plasma, more massive than all the stars in our galaxy, cannot explain the rotation pattern problems (the mass needs to be within the galaxy)

Admittedly you'd probably have to include "electrical current" to get it to actually work properly, and of course that will never happen.

And thinking that this discovery of normal missing matter has be addressed in any updated Lambda-CDM models is ridiculous.

Show me any Lambda-CDM model that accounts for all the things I've mentioned, or even *most* of them! That massive amount of mass in plasma was only found last year. Which Lambda-CDM model includes that finding?

On top of all these recent findings of "missing normal matter", LHC has pretty ruled out the simpliest of the SUSY theories.
In short you have the impression that dark matter can only be SUSY particles. You are wrong, Michael: Cold Dark Matter

No, I'm right in noting that your "exotic matter' claims are "exotic matter of the gaps" claims at this point in time. You have *zero* evidence that exotic matter even exists.

There is no such thing 'plasma body acceleration'.

There is no such thing as 'expansion of space'. You made it up.

The rest of your post wasn't worth responding to.

RealityCheck01 · Mar 18, 2013

Michael said:
In terms of star counts, it could *more than double* if you wanted to. ....

Luckily you have the or else I would think that you were making yet another unsupported assertion, this time about Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount and its effect on galaxy masses!

The paper is Evidence for a Nonuniform Initial Mass Function in the Local Universe and one point you seem to have missed is that this result does not apply to every galaxy. It looks like it applies to LSB galaxies.

You did not address the actual point: The highlighted portion is something that you have ignored in your erronous assertions about galaxy masses (see Galaxy masses are rarely calculated fron star counts or luminosity). Even if galaxy masses were magically doubled, that would have little effect on the mass of galaxy clusters or the universe (a 5% increase).

Some simple math for you, Michael: In order to replace the observed dark matter mass with galaxy mass you would have to multiply the mass of the galaxies by 1500%!
Do you really think that astronomers are so incompetent that they underestimate the galaxy masses by a factor of 15?
Silly question - judging by your posts hare you seem to think that all scientists are idiots !

RealityCheck01 · Mar 18, 2013

Michael said:
Yet you expect me to believe that you're accurately accounted for all the "normal" mass in a galaxy?

Who ever said that? I certainly have not.
P.S. I havve never personally accounted for any of the mass in a galaxy !
Astronomers have measured the mass of galaxies.

Michael said:
Translation: ...

Translation: Michael has a fantasy that he can read minds !
Actual content of the paper that you cited:

the dust in galaxies not in the blocks twice as much light as previous calculated (no imagination need apply!)

Actual science:

That "twice as much light" obviously only applies to the part of the spectrum blocked by the dust. The light is radiated by the dust again in another part of the spectrum. Thus the luminosity of the galaxies remains the same.

Actual fact:

Statements from a stance of ignorance about what you read are not impressive, Michael .

I will change my mind about the mass of galaxies when you cite the scientific literature that states that the masses need updating.
Unfortunately in other threads (and a bit in this thread) you have shown a deep denial of astronomy and so we cannot trust you unsupported assertions.

Michael said:
How do they come up with "normal" mass estimates then?

Galaxy rotation curve + luminosities + the mass-to-light ratios in the disk and core portions of spiral galaxies. Masses of Galaxies only mentions the first as teh other techniques are not used as much.

Michael said:
You can't look at the rotation numbers until you have some idea of the mass of the stuff you can see!

Wrong - Masses of Galaxies

Michael said:
Oh boloney. The fact so much mass is 'missing" and it's supposedly located around the *outside* of the star mass would *scream* the fact that *all* galaxies around surrounded by hot plasma you didn't account for.

Oh boloney. I did not account for anyhing.
The fact so much mass is 'missing" and it's supposedly located around the *outside* of the star mass does *scream* the fact that at least the Milky Way and maybe *all* galaxies are surrounded by hot plasma that astronomers have discovered.

Michael said:
You have *zero* evidence any galaxies do *not* have a plasma sheath around them!

You have *zero* evidence any galaxies (except the Milky Way) do have a plasma sheath around them and it is you assertion that they do !
My assertion is that the fact that there is such a halo around the Milky Way suggests that there may be halos around other galaxies. But it may be a property of spiral galaxies only. It may have something to do with the Local Group. It is insanely speculative to state that every galaxy in the universe has such a halo.

Michael said:
You didn't find *most of the normal matter* you knew as there until *last year*, so why should I believe you've found all the normal matter now?
...snipped more ranting about me and normal matter...

One more time I did not find anything !
If you now about this subject than you would know that no one says that all of the normal matter has been found.
Before the discovery of the hallo it was known that we (not me, Michael !) has only found 50% of the normal matter.

Michael said:
All that "dark matter" that is still missing is composed of normal matter as far as you know.

Still ignorant about dark matter, Michael . Try reading the article sometime.

Michael said:
You mean like that million degree plasma around the outside of the galaxy they found in 2012?

And ... ignorant about dark matter, Michael !

Michael said:
You mean like those million degree plasmas they find in the intra-cluster medium?

And ... ignorant about dark matter, Michael !

Michael said:
Admittedly you'd probably have to include "electrical current" to get it to actually work properly, and of course that will never happen.

Wow - your ignorance is actually becoming deeper, Michael !
We are talking about gravity not electromagnetism.

Michael said:
Show me any Lambda-CDM model that accounts for all the things I've mentioned, or even *most* of them! That massive amount of mass in plasma was only found last year. Which Lambda-CDM model includes that finding?

And again your ignorance is showing - you do not know what the Lambda-CDM model is, Michael !

The ΛCDM model is based on six parameters: physical baryon density, physical dark matter density, dark energy density, scalar spectral index, curvature fluctuation amplitude and reionization optical depth. In accordance with Occam's razor, six is the smallest number of parameters needed to give an acceptable fit to current observations; other possible parameters are fixed at "natural" values e.g. total density = 1.00, dark energy equation of state = -1, neutrino masses are small enough to be negligible. (See below for extended models which allow these to vary).

You either plug in the observed values or use the model to match observations (e.g. the WMAP data) and vary the parameter until they observations are matched.

Michael said:
No, I'm right in noting that your "exotic matter' claims are "exotic matter of the gaps" claims at this point in time. You have *zero* evidence that exotic matter even exists.

And ... ignorant about dark matter, Michael !

Michael said:
There is no such thing as 'expansion of space'. You made it up.

Wow -now you are really going off the deep end because I had nothing to do with the formulation of the concept spacetime expansion , Michael !
As I recall it was someone that you are possiblely ignorant of - Albert Einstein - and many others who built upon his work.
Spacetime expnasion is not a fantasy. It is a basic part of GR that you seem determined to remain in denail of.
Here is some more actual sceince that you will deny
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.

The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.

Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.

Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.

Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.

Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.

Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.

Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

The entirety of your post wasn't really worth responding to but maybe some other reader will find this useful.

The rest of my post that you are ignoring is also useful:
Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science
We have got good estimates of the masses of galaxies validated by measuring them in various ways That last sentence was also highly accurate.

Your statement was totally wrong considering the fact they did not use the very technique they cite to find some of the missing mass in plasma last year. The Milky Way's Hot Gas Halo was detected from the X-rays emitted by the plasma, not the absorption of radiation passing though the halo .

Your statement about "toeing the line" was a bit of conspiracy theory, Michael !
The reality is that not toeing the line is what scientists become famous for. Destroying (in the nicest way!) other scientists work is the highlight of a scientific career.

According to you no paper that challenges established science would ever be published. The is obviously wrong. Read Einstein and his overthrow of classical mechanics and gravitation. Read the QM papers. Read many of the nuclear physics papers (quarks anyone!).

The fact is that many papers have been published on alternatives to dark matter, Lambda-CDM, etc.

And sime facts about degrees that you seem to want to deny: To graduate all you need to do is pass exams. When you get to Master and PhD levels there is a form of peer review - external assessment of your thesis and oral defense of your thesis respectively.

Michael · Mar 19, 2013

RealityCheck01 said:
Who ever said that? I certainly have not.

Then you have no justification for claiming WIMPS did it, or mythical forms of matter did it. All you know is that matter is 'missing' and we haven't "found" it yet. Of course we just 'found' more baryonic matter last year in the form of million degree plasma, than all the known mass of the galaxy! It's also conveniently located to explain 'dark matter', and the temperature suggests is 'current carrying' plasma as Peratt's models suggest.

P.S. I havve never personally accounted for any of the mass in a galaxy !
Astronomers have measured the mass of galaxies.

They stink at it. They just found more mass last year than they'd found in the whole of human history prior to 2012. Our technologies are still pretty primitive as well as our 'models'.

Translation: Michael has a fantasy that he can read minds !

If you didn't rely upon verbal abuse in every debate, you'd have nothing to discuss. Have you even read a book on plasma physics yet?

All I pointed out to you is that the universe is *dusty*. It 'scatters' light. It results in *inelastic scattering events*. It blocks light and affects our ability to see light. We therefore *underestimate the mass* of a galaxy. We also grossly underestimate the mass of a galaxy by underestimating the number of small stars in relationship to the number of larger ones. None of that information, or the findings of plasma around our galaxy have been addressed in current theories.

Should it *be addressed*, it can be done by A) maximizing the amount of 'normal matter' in a galaxy, thus decreasing the need for exotic matter, or B) by protecting the status quo and *minimizing* the use of "ordinary' matter, so as to *protect* the current theory. Which path shall they choose?

Actual fact:

Actual fact is that you constantly misrepresent my statements and the statements of many other authors I've cited. That's the actual fact.

I will change my mind about the mass of galaxies when you cite the scientific literature that states that the masses need updating.

I did that for you when I cited all that plasma they found around our galaxy in 2012. It's conveniently locate right where "dark matter" is supposedly located, and it's a larger amount of mass than exists in all the stars in our galaxy. It's temperature also implies that Peratt was correct about the flow of current into the galaxy.

Unfortunately in other threads (and a bit in this thread) you have shown a deep denial of astronomy and so we cannot trust you unsupported assertions.

Considering this statements comes from the guy that denies that discharges occur in plasma, and has never read a textbook on MHD theory, your criticism is meaningless.

Galaxy rotation curve + luminosities + the mass-to-light ratios in the disk and core portions of spiral galaxies. Masses of Galaxies only mentions the first as teh other techniques are not used as much.

You don't know what you're talking about. How do they decide how much "dark matter" is necessary *without* "guestimating" the amount of *ordinary* mass in *ordinary* stars, and the dust between them? You keep ignoring the fact they *must* have some idea of the visible mass of a galaxy to decide what the rotation curves "should" look like!

The fact so much mass is 'missing" and it's supposedly located around the *outside* of the star mass does *scream* the fact that at least the Milky Way and maybe *all* galaxies are surrounded by hot plasma that astronomers have discovered.

You seem to ignore the implications of that finding, and since you are not an astronomer, maybe I need to explain it to you. Most if not all of the "dark matter" in a galaxy is supposedly located mostly along the *outside* of the ordinary matter in the galaxy. If that were not so, it would not "speed up" the rotation patterns of the stars we observe.

That huge body of mass they just found, "just so happens" to be perfectly positioned in terms of "helping" to explain why the stars on the inside of the galaxy rotate faster than we expect without any mass around the outside of the galaxy! Now of course that necessitates a *revamp* of standard theory since standard theory really didn't "know" where the missing baryonic matter was located prior to 2012. It now knows that the missing baryonic matter is found right were "dark matter" (aka missing mass) is expected to exist. Ignoring the placement of that massive amount of ordinary mass isn't an option.

You have *zero* evidence any galaxies (except the Milky Way) do have a plasma sheath around them and it is you assertion that they do !

Actually that's not true since I've shown you "million degree plasma threads" that flow between galaxies. If our galaxy has a mass of plasma around it, why would it be 'unique' in that way?

My assertion is that the fact that there is such a halo around the Milky Way suggests that there may be halos around other galaxies. But it may be a property of spiral galaxies only.

Why? Why arbitrarily pick *one* type of galaxy and try to claim in only applies to one?

It may have something to do with the Local Group. It is insanely speculative to state that every galaxy in the universe has such a halo.

The only thing that is "insane" about this conversation is your personal need to interject loaded and useless language and to misrepresent my statements so often. That's the insane behavior.

The rest of your post simply wasn't worth responding to.

Have you read a book on plasma physics yet? If not, your own self imposed *ignorance* is the real problem.

Michael · Mar 19, 2013

Since RC seems to be in denial of basic facts about the location of various plasma structures observed around galaxies, I should point out the following:

Planck spots hot gas bridging galaxy cluster pair / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA

In terms of plasma bodies around various galaxies and galaxies clusters, the evidence is growing by the year. The more our technologies and techniques improve, the more plasma cosmology theory is supported.

Not only does plasma surround every galaxy and every galaxy cluster, plasma flows *between* the various clusters!

Michael · Mar 19, 2013

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36343/36343-h/36343-h.htm

FYI, it would seem that George Woodward Warder presented this same basic panentheistic concept to the world about 100 years before it occurred to me personally.

Michael · Apr 2, 2013

New Scientist TV: Time-lapse Tuesday: A frog's electric face

It seems that electrical current plays a critical role in the formation of living forms:

How does an embryo know where its face should grow? This amazing time-lapse video reveals a surprising mechanism at work: electricity.

The footage shows a frog embryo early on its development. Watch carefully and around nine seconds into the video you'll see a flash of light and dark patterns that looks like a template for where the face will subsequently develop.
These patterns are called bioelectric signals - fluxes of charged particles shooting across cells - that are already known to be involved in the formation of organs which rely heavily on electrical signals to function, such as the heart. This is the first time that they've been spotted in the formation of such a complex embryonic structure.
Dany Adams, a developmental biologist at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, stumbled upon the patterns after leaving her time-lapse camera running overnight. She describes the recording that she saw the next day as "jaw-dropping".

Michael · May 23, 2013

I found this article to be highly entertaining. Apparently only string theory can save us from an panentheistic universe.

String theory may limit space brain threat - physics-math - 22 May 2013 - New Scientist

However, if we can demonstrate that the universe has a finite lifespan, that would deny Boltzmann brains the infinite time they need to outnumber us. String theory might be able to help, says Zukowski, who has been studying the problem as part of her PhD research with Raphael Bousso, also at Berkeley.

How cute. Supposedly string theory might save us all from God.

Michael · May 23, 2013

Our Brain's Neurons Look Exactly Like The Structure Of The Universe - disinformation

Uh, oh, apparently it's too late for string theory to save us:

http://convozine.com/12287-dharmachakra/15330
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E2DB173EF936A2575BC0A9609C8B63
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/19-dark-matter-of-the-human-brain

BlueLioness · Jun 5, 2013

Michael said:
Welcome to theism. Do you believe "God" is "aware"?

I don't think this is the Christian standpoint. The Christian standpoint is that that GOD is a Person (just like you and I are persons), making Him separate from the universe, yet its Creator entirely.

I mean I was always raised to believe that God and the universe were two different things. That God was the creator of the universe but not the universe itself. Why on earth are you saying that God is the universe?

Michael · Jun 6, 2013

BlueLioness said:
I don't think this is the Christian standpoint. The Christian standpoint is that that GOD is a Person (just like you and I are persons), making Him separate from the universe, yet its Creator entirely.

I mean I was always raised to believe that God and the universe were two different things. That God was the creator of the universe but not the universe itself. Why on earth are you saying that God is the universe?

Welcome to the conversation. Sorry for the delayed response. It's been a hectic last few weeks for me.

I would tend to agree with you that panentheism is not necessarily a "typical" Christian belief. Panentheism doesn't preclude God from being "more than" just the visible universe that we observe. It simply suggests that God is present in all things. Essentially, God would simply be a "really big" person with a very large physical form.

bhsmte · Jun 6, 2013

Michael said:
Welcome to the conversation. Sorry for the delayed response. It's been a hectic last few weeks for me.

I would tend to agree with you that panentheism is not necessarily a "typical" Christian belief. Panentheism doesn't preclude God from being "more than" just the visible universe that we observe. It simply suggests that God is present in all things. Essentially, God would simply be a "really big" person with a very large physical form.

Michael,

Are you familiar with Albert Einstein's opinion on personal Gods, like the one of Christianity?

Michael · Jun 6, 2013

bhsmte said:
Michael,

Are you familiar with Albert Einstein's opinion on personal Gods, like the one of Christianity?

Unlike most Christians, myself included, apparently Einstein never developed a "personal" relationship with God.

bhsmte · Jun 6, 2013

Michael said:
Unlike most Christians, myself included, apparently Einstein never developed a "personal" relationship with God.

No, he absolutely didn't, because he didn't believe in the any personal Gods, such as the God of Christianity. He left the door slightly ajar towards a universal God (one that does not answer prayers, or judges or cares what you do), but he slammed the door hard against the existence of any personal Gods.

An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

Exegete/Linguist

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

BlueLioness

Guest

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency