god created man

[lucaspa]

So with what "material cause" does God act on you?

Gravity. Chemistry. Friction. Air pressure. The list is a very long one, do you really want to hear it all?

I'm guessing you don't understand the concept of "secondary cause", do you?

 

[Matthew712]

If you cannot test it why should I believe it? Is it because scientists say so?

You can test it, I'm just asking how you would go about determining if there is "an empirical link"?

Science is based on what is known to exist in nature. Dark matter/energy are not known. That there are unnatural forms of matter and energy not found in nature but is said to have an effect on nature relies on faith, not science.

Science is based on what is testable, even though scientists don't know what dark matter is we still know it's there because of the effects that it makes. As Lucaspa said, we don't need to know exactly what X is or how X works to know that it is there when we can observe its effects.

How can a failed prediction make a prediction? You predicted that rotation curves are caused by gravity. --> Failed. You predicted that the gravity is caused by dark matter. -->. Show me the dark matter! Show me the mass responsible for this gravity!

What you are doing is just sprinkling a failed idea with mathemagic and creating a fictional model of the universe. You should take Einstein’s advice not to do that:

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” – Albert Einstein

It's called science, when we discover things that don't match up with current theories we revise them to match up with reality. We know dark matter is there because scientists have mapped out where gravity fields are (and their strength) and it doesn't match up with light-emitting sources, also things like observing gravitational lensing with dark regions is pretty much conclusive that there is gravity in dark regions (unless you have a problem with relativity?).

I think that unless you can establish and empirical link between cause and effect I have no reason to believe that the effect (rotation curves) is the result of your assumed cause (dark matter).

A little dark matter to experiment on in a lab will go a long way in helping to verify a cause. Since you have none and can find none I have no reason to believe in your assumed cause other than by faith.

We don't have a star in the lab, does that mean stars don't exist in your world view? Besides, it is more than just working out galactic rotations (if that were the case MOND would be the preferred model), there is plenty other evidence which you just seem to be ignoring.

It seems like everything you observe in space in somehow associated with gravitydidit even though you cannot provide a single ounce of this dark matter stuff to verify that gravitydidit.

I'm not even sure what you're saying. Are you saying that gravitational lensing can't be connected with gravity? Are you saying that general relativity is wrong? Seeing as how there are four fundamental forces, and three of them loose their strength relatively faster with distance than the fourth (gravity) it would make sense that much of what we observe at the large scale of the universe is connected with gravity.

What you have are effects without a verifiable cause. If your assumed cause has not been verified then it has nothing to do with reality. Just because you say it is so doesn’t make it so. You need to empirically verify it is so. That’s how science works.

The cause was once a hypothesis that has since been supported through observations, thus gaining the scientific consensus, that is how science works. I think Lucaspa was right when he said you are confusing the concept of dark matter with the candidates for dark matter.

There are other scientific explanations for what is assumed to be gravitational lensing.The universe is composed of more than 99% plasma and plasma distorts. Dust can also distort background light and even block it out completely. Also, intrinsic redshift and tired-light redshift are alternatives to Doppler redshift.

I didn't see anything about gravitational lensing in your link. It is a very well supported idea and a successful prediction of Einstein's relativity. Gravitational lensing is the only mechanism that makes sense as well as account for the data. Assuming your article is correct in that dust has obscured half of what we see from light-emitting sources, it still doesn't explain what we see as we need something like 4-5 times as much dark matter as normal matter to get the observations we see.

Also, redshift isn't the only way scientists have determined dark energy. Type 1a supernova is always the same (because of the way they are formed from white dwarfs exceeding the Chandrasekhar limit), and by analyzing the light of those far away scientists can determine if there is dark energy (if the light is not as bright as it should be than it supports dark energy) which it was confirmed that dark energy is out there.

When it comes to dark matter and energy, it isn't just one study or one way to show that they exist, but multiple different ways that all show the same story. Their concordance with the models make it so strongly supported as each additional line of evidence points to the same conclusion.

This assumes dark matter is an explanation. It isn’t. It’s an ad-hoc gap-filler designed to fit where there is no explanation, but you guys like to act as if it's a real explanation. But your "explanation" is only an ad-hoc gap-filler designed to fit where there is no explanation, therefore you have no real explanation. You are now trying to find an explanation.

I'm not sure I follow, we observe something that doesn't align up with contemporary models, so scientists make some hypotheses, further experiments support dark matter and do so quite well, and it's still an ad-hoc explanation? I'm not sure you understand how science works.

Your assumption is that an unnatural form of matter drives galaxies, an unnecessary assumption. You are assuming what is unnatural without fully exploring what is natural.

As far as I know dark matter/energy is considered natural, just not light-emitting sources and many candidates are not considered normal matter, but I've yet to see anything about it being unnatural.

There is nothing unnatural about EM fields driving galaxies made of plasma. This has even been demonstrated on a smaller scale using simple electrical principles found in nature.

From what I understand plasma physics (I think that's what it's called) does some neat stuff with relatively small-scale structures, but is mostly ignored as it utterly fails in painting a picture consistent with any other observations, sort of like MOND in that respect. One of the ways science works is that a model must be consistent with all types of data, not just one aspect. Even if a model accounts for certain things better than the current model, if it cannot explain what the current model explains just as well than it is discarded.

Any idea that can be demonstrated is far more convincing than an idea that is only assumed. Dark-matter is assumed but never demonstrated, therefore I have no reason to believe it exist other than faith that it does. Don’t just tell me you have money, show me the money.

It has been demonstrated multiple times, you just don't seem to like it for some reason.

 

[lucaspa]

Science is based on what is testable, even though scientists don't know what dark matter is we still know it's there because of the effects that it makes. As Lucaspa said, we don't need to know exactly what X is or how X works to know that it is there when we can observe its effects.

And instead of calling it "X", we put a label to it. In this case the labels are dark matter and dark energy. As I said and demonstrated, the "definitions" are simply "this is the stuff that causes these effects".

Doveaman, there's no stronger claims of what X is. In separate hypotheses, there are candidates proposed for each. For dark matter, in addition to dust and gas, there are neutrinos and some other forms of matter. For dark energy, some people have proposed the vacuum energy that gives rise to virtual particles. Those are all at the hypothesis let's test it stage.

As I said, if all the candidates that are matter fail for dark matter, then scientists will start speculating on more exotic causes. This was already tried with MOND, but it failed. For the moment, the physicists are, quite reasonably, sticking with something already capable of causing the observations: matter and the gravity it generates.

 

[Doveaman]

As I said, if all the candidates that are matter fail for dark matter, then scientists will start speculating on more exotic causes.

At what point will the speculation end? And is there an alternative explanation other than gravity, or is gravity the only cause in your opinion?

For the moment, the physicists are, quite reasonably, sticking with something already capable of causing the observations: matter and the gravity it generates.

So in other words, you don't really know what makes up 23% of the universe, you are just speculating at the moment. Fair enough. Good luck with that.

So what are the candidates for the 73% dark-energy?

 

[Doveaman]

You can test it, I'm just asking how you would go about determining if there is "an empirical link"?

Scaling. But then you will need some actual dark matter for that, and not hypothetical dark matter.

Science is based on what is testable, even though scientists don't know what dark matter is we still know it's there because of the effects that it makes. As Lucaspa said, we don't need to know exactly what X is or how X works to know that it is there when we can observe its effects.

This sounds like circular reasoning to me:

Matthew712: The observation of rotation curves is explained by standard gravity.

Doveaman: What is the evidence for this standard gravity?

Matthew712: Dark matter.

Doveaman: And what is the evidence for this dark matter?

Matthew712: The observation of rotation curves.

Doveaman: Alright-e then.

 

[Doveaman]

Dark-matter is not real. It was speculated into existence by a group of scientists who are now trying to verify its actual existence. Up to this point, dark-matter, as a real phenomenon, exists only as a religious practice by a small group of believers whose scientology is influenced by the Holy Bible.

Holy Bible:

Then God said, “Let there be light"; and there was light.

Then God said, “Let the earth produce vegetation”...and it was so.

Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures”...and it was so.

Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.

Peer-Review Bible:

Then scientists said, “Let there be inflation”; and there was inflation.

Then scientists said, “Let the universe produce dark-matter”...and it was so.

Then scientists said, “Let the universe produce dark-energy”...and it was so.

Then scientists saw everything that they had made, and indeed it was very good.

 

[Hespera]

Dark-matter is not real. It was speculated into existence by a group of scientists who are now trying to verify its actual existence. Up to this point, dark-matter, as a real phenomenon, exists only as a religious practice by a small group of believers whose scientology is influenced by the Holy Bible.

Holy Bible:

Then God said, “Let there be light"; and there was light.

Then God said, “Let the earth produce vegetation”...and it was so.

Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures”...and it was so.

Peer-Review Bible:

Then scientists said, “Let there be inflation”; and there was inflation.

Then scientists said, “Let the universe produce dark-matter”...and it was so.

Then scientists said, “Let the universe produce dark-energy”...and it was so.

do you have the capacity to say anything that is not a silly strawman?

 

[Doveaman]

do you have the capacity to say anything that is not a silly strawman?

Yes.

 

[Hespera]

Yes.

Thats good. Why do you keep doing it, as in the above?

It really does nothing but make you look silly, it says nothing at all about the ideas you are trying to criticize.

 

[Doveaman]

Thats good. Why do you keep doing it, as in the above?

It really does nothing but make you look silly, it says nothing at all about the ideas you are trying to criticize.

I disagree.

 

[Doveaman]

So with what "material cause" does God act on you?

Gravity. Chemistry. Friction. Air pressure. The list is a very long one, do you really want to hear it all?

I'm guessing you don't understand the concept of "secondary cause", do you?

So can you establish an empirical link between that "secondary cause" and God? or should I just accept this on faith?

 

[Hespera]

I disagree.

im sure you do, self awareness is a skill.

 

[Doveaman]

im sure you do, self awareness is a skill.

Okay, you can have the last words.

 

[Upisoft]

Dark-matter is not real. It was speculated into existence by a group of scientists who are now trying to verify its actual existence.

So? They are still verifying Einstein's theories as well as any other theory. That is expected.

Up to this point, dark-matter, as a real phenomenon, exists only as a religious practice by a small group of believers whose scientology is influenced by the Holy Bible.

At this point dark-matter is a name to observed phenomenon. If you think it is anything more than that, the error is entirely yours.

Holy Bible:

Then God said, “Let there be light"; and there was light.

Then God said, “Let the earth produce vegetation”...and it was so.

Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures”...and it was so.

I kept only the true statements for you. The rest is:

Doveaman 2 - 0 Straw Man

 

[Doveaman]

So? They are still verifying Einstein's theories as well as any other theory. That is expected.

"Still verifying" is not the same as "trying to verify".

At this point dark-matter is a name to observed phenomenon. If you think it is anything more than that, the error is entirely yours.

Dark matter is a name to the "assumed cause" of the observed phenomenon. If you think it is anything less than that, the error is entirely yours.

I kept only the true statements for you. The rest is:

Doveaman 2 - 0 Straw Man

Thanks.

 

[Matthew712]

This sounds like circular reasoning to me:

Matthew712: The observation of rotation curves is explained by standard gravity.

Doveaman: What is the evidence for this standard gravity?

Matthew712: Dark matter.

Doveaman: And what is the evidence for this dark matter?

Matthew712: The observation of rotation curves.

Doveaman: Alright-e then.

Perhaps it would help if you didn't simply my position so much it becomes a strawman, but to each their own I suppose.

 

[Upisoft]

"Still verifying" is not the same as "trying to verify".

True, however you are talking about various hypotheses what dark-matter actually can be. If can't be for certain everything proposed, so we need to verify all hypotheses and see what will be thrown away.

Dark matter is a name to the "assumed cause" of the observed phenomenon. If you think it is anything less than that, the error is entirely yours.

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The second sentence starts as "Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements ..."
It is not assumed cause, it is only hypothesized. The only real thing here is "discrepancies between measurements". If you think that dark-matter is something more than that, then you don't know what "hypothesized" means.

Thanks.

You are welcome. Why did you choose to lie then?
Telling lies will not help any of your arguments.

 

[Doveaman]

Perhaps it would help if you didn't simply my position so much it becomes a strawman, but to each their own I suppose.

I don't know what you mean.

Your claim is that the observed phenomenon (rotation curves) is caused by gravity and that the gravity is generated by dark-matter and that the evidence for the dark-matter is the observed phenomenon (rotation curves).

Is this not circular reasoning?

 

[Doveaman]

True, however you are talking about various hypotheses what dark-matter actually can be. If can't be for certain everything proposed, so we need to verify all hypotheses and see what will be thrown away.

“Still verifying” suggests that some aspects of the theory has been verified while other aspects of the same theory has not “yet” been verified. This, however, is not the case with dark-matter since nothing about it has ever been verified.

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The second sentence starts as "Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements ..."
It is not assumed cause, it is only hypothesized. The only real thing here is "discrepancies between measurements". If you think that dark-matter is something more than that, then you don't know what "hypothesized" means.

I think the first sentence of your Wiki link pretty much addresses my point:

“In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects...”

What “gravitational effects” are they talking about? How can they determine that it is “gravitational effects” without even determining that there is enough “mass” present to generate those “gravitational effects”? They are making an inference (dark-matter) from an assumption (gravitational effects). They are speculating about a speculation.

You are welcome. Why did you choose to lie then?
Telling lies will not help any of your arguments.

I suggests you stop accusing me of lying unless you have evidence that I am.

 

[Upisoft]

“Still verifying” suggests that some aspects of the theory has been verified while other aspects of the same theory has not “yet” been verified.

So, you don't understand how science works, do you? Even if we find a single aspect that was not predicted by the theory it will not be correct. It still could be used for limited cases though. Like Newton mechanics is still used for speeds much less than speed of light.

This, however, is not the case with dark-matter since nothing about it has ever been verified.

The rotation speed of galaxies have been verified.

I think the first sentence of your Wiki link pretty much addresses my point:

“In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects...”

You are still quote-mining, despite you already know what follows. But that's fine. You believe what you believe. Do as you please.