Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How would we see if dark matter even exists, let alone compare anything to it? I think you mean theoretically. 'we think there..golly gee just must be...such and such an amount of dark matter'?
Firstly, thank you (at least) for not going down the fallacy by repeated assertion path.
"GRID-Arendal" is the main centre of an organisation (of scientifically thinking minds) collaborating with the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment), located in Arendal, Norway.
I'll give up on the latter one because the entire paragraph is composed of human mind generated objective concepts/definitions, many of which carry testable meanings, which mostly all of us know and understand.
...
What was observed in these tests has been interpreted and communicated amongst a group of like-minded people following an agreed process and objectively testable definitions (called Science). Its sometimes difficult to 'get' the concept that what we mean by 'other creatures' here, is living things that appear to us (via our own senses and perceptions), are conceptualised by the mind and given meanings and communicated by the phrase of 'other creatures'.dad said:
So you keep saying, and yet they were off on their predictions of the amount of normal matter right here at the solar systems edge by a factor of 30 at the minimum, yet to be refined into higher quantities.....
Why stop there? Why not calculate how much pixie dust would be needed?
Firstly, thank you (at least) for not going down the fallacy by repeated assertion path.
Unfortunately it seems you didn't read the link, nor what you posted from it:
"GRID-Arendal" is the main centre of an organisation (of scientifically thinking minds) collaborating with the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment), located in Arendal, Norway.
This tells us that everything that follows came from models (concepts) developed by groups of human minds, presumably following the scientific process, making use of science's standard objective definitions/concepts.
??
The sun was not originally a thought in your mind. It was there before any mind of any man existed. So was God. Einstein, if I recall correctly seemed to think man made up God. He gets a big gong....and his being dead now is not in his mind either.
Not sure what facts you thought you presented. However time is no invention of man either.
What would he know about error bars, he probably thinks they could be used as a deadly weapon.
Then how do you explain the radical change in meanings of the term 'gravity' over the lifetime of humans? 'Orbits' itself has radically changed in meaning also, so you can't point to that as being what you'd (likely) call 'a physical thing' .. and even the names of the minds that changed what 'orbit' is, are recorded in hard historical documents (Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Einstein, etc).
Its time to acknowedge that I am talking about the meanings of those terms, and you are speaking about something else. I realise that .. I hope you do also(?) However, what you are talking about has zip objective evidence supporting it whereas what I'm talking about has sooo much that it literally swamps the trivial little belief you hold, which is of absolutely zero use in science. Science thus ignores it and gets on with the real business of being useful. This is why no-one agrees with your other silly belief about time varying from local to remote regions of the universe. Its a completely useless untestable belief!dad said:
.. and so now you resort to the fallacy of repeated assertion whilst offering no evidence!dad said:
.. and of course that depends on what one means by 'reality'. In science, things that are regarded as being 'real' or 'exists', are testable things which can reproduce tangible results consistently, and are indepedently verifiable.dad said:
But that statement comes from a model/concept that was devised by humans to explain the persistency of our perceptions of what we meant when we use term 'the Sun' over human history (which also changed). Notice that it invokes the concept of time as a key part of that explanation .. without time the statement would be gibberish (and probably is to a lizard, etc .. who knows?).dad said:
.. and surprise, surprise, what I am saying is generally in agreement with Einstein's comments .. even though his mind is gone .. which is ok because I have a mind also .. and mine is still here .. unlike Einstein's.dad said:
... Fallacy of repeated assertion, with no accompanying evidence.dad said:
Poor reading comprehension skills again.
The reality is your idiotic definition of excited hydrogen as being ionized was born after it was pointed to you that Marmet's paper which you have championed over the years as plasma explaining redshift had nothing to do with plasma but atomic hydrogen.
I think the issue is whether the orbits/sun/gravity/time exists regardless of what little notions man has.
To a rational man, the earth and the sun actually exist. It is easily demonstrated. Gravity is not a pure belief, at least not gravity in the solar system.
That rules out all origin so called science claims. They are pi in the sky darwinian level demon dreams.
Wrong. You do not represent man kind in your strange surrealist denials of the reality of the sun, and time and gravity etc.
The concept of falling is something many creatures have. If an eagle grabs a snake and drops it over rocks from high above, it is because the eagle knows about falling! If the snake happened to think falling was a figment of the mind, it would soon learn better!
.. and I say with abundant objective evidence that what we mean by 'exists' is determined solely by us humans .. its our word and we control its meaning .. There is no objective evidence supporting otherwise.
If it so easily demonstrated, then why have you failed in demonstrating that their existence is independent from the mind's concepts (or perceptions)?dad said:
What we call 'gravity' is objectively testable. Gravity passes these tests and is thereby demonstrably part of science's objective reality.dad said:
.. and the only way you know that is because that's what you observe using your senses and your mind's perceptions.dad said:
Nope. Space and time are incorporated into models (or concepts) of the universe. These particular models have very rigorous operational and continuosly evolving definitions including 'space' and 'time' in science, and have been cumulatively objectively tested over and over again, in observations which span different epochs, remote and local regions of space, producing objective evidence. They are part of objective reality and their is an abundance of evidence supporting what I say. This evidence/testing is what spearates them from beliefs, which may or may not be testable.dad said:
No a fantasy is closer to a delusion which I outlined above. All science's operational definitions are testable. Fantasies aren't until they are described objectively (like movie storyboards, novels, cartoons, etc).dad said:
Well only because you think so (ie: this is only your asserted belief .. science rolls forward and ignores untestable beliefs).dad said:
I have the abundant objective evidence in favour of what I say .. all you have to do is look for it .. whereas you have none.dad said:
We don't know what a snake or an eagle conceptualises. We, however, know what 'falling' means.dad said:
Perhaps your mind is telling you all that .. How could it not be doing that?dad said:
Well at least I know how to distinguish reality from beliefs .. that should help me and my offspring to survive, propagate and fill a niche in landscape of what it is to be human!dad said:
Now that is just plumb silly. Lot's of things...like the universe, animals, nature, etc etc exist that are certainly not determined by us!!!!!!!!
The complete understanding of that force that holds us to the ground is not understood by science. Nor do eagles have a full understanding. Neither eagles nor you determine what gravity is. That is certain.
Well, if your confused mind was the only mind in the world you might have a point. Fortunately many creatures and people and objects obey the laws of gravity, so we need not use the inner recesses of your brain as the sole poi of observation! Gravity, frankly, doesn't really care what you think.
If 10,000 cameras on the street and shops and elsewhere take your picture in a give day, then your supposed existence actually has precious little to do with you believing anything. Other minds can look at the pics! I find it humorous that men who imagine themselves learned struggle with dumb thoughts even a bird would not struggle with...it knows it exists!
Most things have reality without any need whatsoever to register with your mind for approval.
Many things are known to exist that have not been observed by our senses, like atoms, electricity, air, love, God, and hey, even Christmas!
The snake that gets splattered on rocks when dropped by the eagle need not have a conversation to verify gravity exists!
Well, since trees shed leaves as light decreases, and birds sing when it increases...etc etc...they couldn't much care what my mind thinks.
Yes, lots is independent of human minds. People who think everything is in their mind think too much, and think too much of themselves.
The religious models of science that incorporate their conceptions of space and time into them cannot be tested. They simply make the same mistake many times of imposing their foolish beliefs and misconceptions onto evidences. The very definition, said Einstein, of insanity.
Anyone that thinks the fantasies of origin science religious models are objective or reality has lost touch with reality.
Empty claims that you have shown to be unsupportable and have displayed an inability to even be able to discuss the core concepts in any depth deeper than a puddle.i
Lemming are said t roll forward over cliffs. (even if they really don't the picture serves the purpose here). Blundering forward in ignorant darkness and blindness and stubborn rebellious will not do them any good whatsoever when they hot the cliff of the Almighty God whacking the foolishness out of them, when they realize suddenly that they were grossly in deadly error.
You can be very sure I do that!
Evidence for what you say, such as that the sun is a man made concept or some such nonsense?
You think nature shows that show that happening or folks that have seen it are making stuff up? You think the serpents would not die if your mind moved a certain way??
Get out...of your mind...more.
Cameras have been designed by scientist and engineer minds to ultimately produce images which we can understand, interpret and conceptualise. They are specifically designed to capture images based on our own conceptualisations of Physics (eg: EM spectra, photons, charge movement, etc).dad said:
