Nghhh. "I do not know" is a legitimate answer in science. This is one of my beefs with christian people actually, so rapidly jumping to conclusions and in dishonest manners seeking to discredit the opposition instead of doing what integrity dictates; Prove the validity of their own position by honest means.
I agree, but you should try discussing non mainstream astronomy ideas in cyberspace sometime. It's more hostile to 'dissent' than most religious websites I've visited. Scientists use terms like 'crackpot', 'crank', yada yada yada, the way a fundy aggressive Christian might use the term 'evil'. Science like religion is composed of human beings that operate in groups in much the same way. Once an idea gets entrenched in 'science', letting go of the idea can take *centuries*.
And so what? It is still observed.
No it's not. Actually only a pattern of redshift and signal broadening in a plasma medium is actually "observed". At best case, you could interpret that pattern of redshift as a type of 'acceleration'. How did you get from 'acceleration' to "dark/God energy did it"? Where do I get a quantity of dark/God energy? How do I control it?
The name dark matter is given because it has not been observed directly, only indirectly by way of it's effect on the universe.
Actually only "missing mass" has been 'observed' because our technologies are actually still pretty primitive compared to say Webb telescope standards. I have a feeling that Webb will change our understanding of spacetime as much as SDO is starting to change our understanding of solar physics.
That we so far do not know what it is does not invalidate it's existence, Michael.
What evidence invalidates the existence of "God" again?
And no, the same cannot be said of God as he is not even indirectly observed.
He's been indirectly observed having an effect on the lives of human beings since the dawn of recorded human civilization! If the "effect" is all I need, the "dark/God' answers everything.
Seriously?
Sure. FYI I added the term "acceleration" in there since that is what I actually meant. On the other hand, what evidence do you have that plasma can be accelerated by 'dark/God' energy?
And it is an argument from ignorance, Michael. It is logically unsound and invalid.
I think you missed my point. That same criticism applies to 'exotic matter/energy did it" claims. They are essentially replacing their ignorance with placeholder terms for 'magic'.
No, you've misunderstood the whole concept Michael. Dark matter is observed, as is dark energy.
No, you are still parroting the "dogma". I'll go so far as to say that "missing mass" is (not actually) observed, but implied by the current measurements. Dark energy however is *not* observed, and never will be observed. The only thing we 'observe' are photons, specifically photons with a pattern of redshift that mainstream astronomers *subjectively interpret* as 'acceleration'. It's still a *HUGE* leap of faith to jump from "I think I see a pattern of acceleration in those photons" to "dark/God energy did it".
The thing is they are observed indirectly.
No. Only "missing mass" is observed indirectly. There is still no evidence that "missing mass" equals "exotic mass" anymore than there is evidence that every UFO is from another planet.
In other words: We know something is the cause of certain effects we see. The cause is just not yet identified. Like X-rays used to be. They were observed and even used before we knew what they were.
I can (and probably should) work this from both angles. We "see the effects" of "God" in the lives of human beings. They "pray" to God. They experience God in their lives in various ways. We also observe God in every star, every planet, ever spec of plasma in space. We simply observe the "EM effects" of an electric God/Universe on human beings.
Creationism is creationism. Slightly less bonkers than YEC is still bonkers.
In the sense that "bonkers" might be applied to an idea that conflicts with empirical scientific evidence like ancient rock formations, and carbon dates, that does not apply to the notion that everything we see and experience was created by God in some distant date in the past, and may cease to exist in it's present form at some date in the future.
Again, not going to address the same fallacy.
You keep missing the key point. "Science" is not a legitimate surrogate source of "truthiness" when it comes to answering the big picture questions about how the universe got there, when it will end etc. By the way, the largest body of "Christians" on the planet embrace evolutionary theory and science in general.
"Scientists" do not have the slightest clue where dark energy might come from, yet they claim it makes up more than 70 percent of the universe. It has no tangible effect on humans on Earth. It has no useful purpose in terms of tangible goods that it produces. It's the ultimate "leap of faith" in exotic energy of the gaps claims.
Those are your words. Not mine. When I don't know I say I don't know. When I am mistaken, I adjust accordingly.
I do the same thing. I applaud and agree with that attitude. I've changed my views many times on many topics over the years, so why should I fault you for doing the same? The journey was worthwhile for me, even my stint as an atheist. It taught me a respect for empirical physics and helped me conquer all sorts of inner fears. Atheism wasn't a "destination" for me however, it was just a "phase along the way".
And I never said 'dark energy did it'. Though the term does fit, given that it could also be said 'some energy we can't really identify as of yet is behind this'. Nothing wrong with that, apart from the misunderstanding of it you demonstrated in this post.
IMO you keep avoiding the key empirical issue here. There is no leap of faith required to suggest that the universe is alive. Even awareness shows up in a variety of shapes and sizes on Earth.
That's radically different however from *creating* new forms of matter and energy on a whim without any empirical justification. Even if I gave you "acceleration" (which I ultimately won't do), you still could not justify the claim that "dark energy did it" in a lab on Earth. You could not accelerate so much as a single electron with "dark energy".
In everyday life, yes. Probably. But why the hangup with it?
It prevents the progress of real empirical physics IMO, and IMO that is detrimental to both science and religion.
It does not seem you have a case. :/
To who's standards, yours or mine? What "case" do you have that dark energy isn't a collective figment of a few astronomers to save one otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift/signal broadening phenomenon? "Dark energy" only seems to serve on useful purpose, namely to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from instant destruction. It was metaphysical 'gap filler' of truly epic proportions.
To call that thin is... A stretch. Even if something looks like something else to you that does not mean there is a connection - rocks and clouds can look like faces or animals, even though they may not be that. What you have is a groundless speculation based on an a-priori conclusion. Sorry, but you're not helping the theist case here.
Actually those Birkeland currents don't just "look like" neutrons in a living organism, they carry current the same way as the structures of living organisms. In other words they 'function' like living structures.
It's certainly possible to simply "handwave" away at all the signs, but the signs are pretty clear. We live inside of an electric universe. The universe contains flowing currents that resemble the currents of our brains. It's not any sort of a leap of faith to assign "awareness" to a series of structures that look like and function like the structures of a living organism. It is however a leap of faith in unseen (in the lab) entities to be claiming that 'dark/God energy did it."
.
:
