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'?It’s quite simple the total mass of the Universe using (Ωm, Ωλ) = (0.3, 0.7) is around 3 X 10⁵⁵g, now add up all the discovered mass and see if it equals the dark matter component.
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'?
Again, not neutral, but "electrically excited"....
Sigh, you people don't really know anything do you....
In physics, the Lyman-alpha line, sometimes written as Ly-α line, is a spectral line of hydrogen, or more generally of one-electron ions, in the Lyman series, emitted when the electron falls from the n = 2 orbital to the n = 1 orbital, where n is the principal quantum number.
Firstly, thank you (at least) for not going down the fallacy by repeated assertion path.Objective evidence that the sun does stuff outside your head? Easy.
"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.The Basics
According to the United Nations Environmental Program Grid-Arendal, UV radiation may affect ...
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.Plants
According to artificial UV light exposure studies on crops, UV rays decrease the crop yield in key crops, such as rice, soy, oats, beans and sorghum. The plants minimize their exposure to UV by limiting the surface area of foliage, which in turn impairs growth. The observed drop in yield, however, does not seem serious enough for scientists to sound the alarm.
Animals
Excessive exposure to UV radiation can cause cancers in mammals, including humans, and damage their eyesight. While fur protects most animals from direct overexposure to damaging rays, the radiation may damage the unprotected body parts, such as the nose, paws and muzzle.
...Marine Life
According to a NASA education web page updated in 2001, increased amounts of UV-B waves adversely affects marine plankton that populate the first 7 feet (2 meters) of ocean water. The natural response of the most chlorophyll-packed cells is to produce more light-absorbing pigments or sink lower in the water for self-protection. However, evading the sun reduces their ability to go through photosynthesis, which means they cannot grow or reproduce as normal.
Competition
UV exposure may also adversely change a species' ability to compete with other species. In the future, UV-resistant plants may prevail over UV-vulnerable ones, meaning that UV-resistant plants, such as tetraploid plants, will overtake plants easily damaged by UV rays, such as the wild, diploid version of the plant, according to research at Tokai University Japan."
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:The effects of the sun. Neither are the effects of time. Man is not the only creature or physical body that time affects in a real way. S stop trying to make it sound like man invented the universe will ya?
More stupidity. Yes, we people know a lot more about it than you, as proven. What do you think a neutral H atom contains? A proton (+), and an electron (-). + plus - = 0. What do you think lyman-alpha emission comes from?
From Wikipedia;
My bolding. Now, what is a single proton with an electron called? And why are we having to spend a great deal of time teaching you high school science?
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.....No, that is not how science works. We see the rotation curve of a galaxy, for instance, and calculate how much mass there needs to be to keep it gravitationally bound. The amount of normal matter is nowhere near enough.
Why stop there? Why not calculate how much pixie dust would be needed?No, that is not how science works. We see the rotation curve of a galaxy, for instance, and calculate how much mass there needs to be to keep it gravitationally bound. The amount of normal matter is nowhere near enough.
Where are your error bars?
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.
So let's look for objective evidence of human minds at work in the report. The objective test is to look for words or actions or concepts that can only be taken/used by human minds (scientists etc).
I have emboldened some of the more significant ones below:
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'.
This process is, in no way, independent from our human minds, although we always think it is. There is no objective test which decouples the human mind from that test which can conclusively reveal that (the meaning of) 'other creatures' came from anywhere independent from our minds.
We have no idea of what might be 'outside of our minds', as we can't objectively test that.
There is deep psychology behind what I'm saying here .. the human mind artificially creates separation of mind from surroundings, but as soon as we perceive anything from our senses, the mind goes thru the process of creating concepts then meanings then language. Its the way our minds work and of course, there's tons of objective evidence for what I'm saying here.
??Just because we think there are creatures physically separate from us, tells us that nothing more than that's what our minds have conceptualised to make sense of its perceptions.
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.There is oddly however, no objective test we can apply to scientifically underwrite what was originally only a thought our minds had anyway. You might reasonably say the test is pain, instant death, etc but both of these are sensations experienced either via our own senses or a mind-possessing observer's senses and given their usual meanings .. which doesn't make it in any way independent from a mind!
Not sure what facts you thought you presented. However time is no invention of man either.The concept of 'time' is no exception from these facts.
What would he know about error bars, he probably thinks they could be used as a deadly weapon.Where are your error bars?
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).That report or any other report doesn't affect how gravity works or orbits of the earth, or the sun. In the end...regardless of what any man thinks or does not think, nature is not devised by man or his brain.
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:Man sees things a certain way. That does not mean those things are some product of the imagination, or in any way due to words or thoughts man uses! It does not make the sun artificial.
.. and so now you resort to the fallacy of repeated assertion whilst offering no evidence!dad said:We think others animals and creatures and the sun exist...because they do exist.
.. 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:Some folks have retreated so far inside their own head that they lose contact with reality.
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:The sun was not originally a thought in your mind. It was there before any mind of any man existed.
.. 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: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.
... Fallacy of repeated assertion, with no accompanying evidence.dad said:Not sure what facts you thought you presented. However time is no invention of man either.
Poor reading comprehension skills again.From Wikpedia.....
Lyman-alpha emitter - Wikipedia
"The Lyman-alpha line in most LAEs is thought to be caused by recombination of interstellar hydrogen that is ionized by an ongoing burst of star-formation."
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.A Lyman-alpha emitter (LAE) is a type of distant galaxy that emits Lyman-alpha radiation from neutral hydrogen.
The Lyman series of spectral lines are produced by electrons transitioning between the ground state and higher energy levels (excited states)
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.....
Right next door cosmologically speaking, mind you. If they are off by a factor of at least 30 where it should have been so easy to see, being so close, what makes you think any of their other calculations based upon the amount of matter they predict is any more correct at even greater distances????? They couldn't even predict it correctly where it should have been EASY to see being so close cosmologically speaking.....
This of course if not even taking into affect the behavior of plasma electromagnetically in a universe 99.9% plasma, but instead treating it with pseudoscience....
Hydrogen atom excited at the expenses of kinetic energy of free electrons."
Until you understand what is going on, you will forever be confused.....
I think the issue is whether the orbits/sun/gravity/time exists regardless of what little notions man has.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).
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.You cannot demonsrate that what you think exists as a 'thing', is anything other than a pure belief you hold because you have no way of showing me that minds can be objectively decoupled from that notion ... in any way.
Same goes for 'time', 'universe', 'star', 'planet' etc .. they are all concepts having human mind fingerprints all over them. And also, 'time'!
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!
That rules out all origin so called science claims. They are pi in the sky darwinian level demon dreams... 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.
Wrong. You do not represent man kind in your strange surrealist denials of the reality of the sun, and time and gravity etc.As far as retreating into 'their own head' .. well, until you can produce a test that shows there is anything other than the mind's concepts, that is our reality .. like it or not.
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!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?).
.. 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.
.. 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.I think the issue is whether the orbits/sun/gravity/time exists regardless of what little notions man has.
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:To a rational man, the earth and the sun actually exist. It is easily demonstrated.
What we call 'gravity' is objectively testable. Gravity passes these tests and is thereby demonstrably part of science's objective reality.dad said:Gravity is not a pure belief, at least not gravity in the solar system.
.. and the only way you know that is because that's what you observe using your senses and your mind's perceptions.dad said:No. Lights in the sky can be used by other animals and creatures not just man. Look up the lifespans of bears/squirrels/eagles/whales etc. You will see that the time they live is no more a belief than the rising of the sun.
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:I asked what was known or not known. Since it is a belief that time and space are the same out there, that is untestable also.
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:The godless fool models of science regarding the origins of the universe are useless belief based manufactured fantasies.
Well only because you think so (ie: this is only your asserted belief .. science rolls forward and ignores untestable beliefs).dad said:That rules out all origin so called science claims. They are pi in the sky darwinian level demon dreams.
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:Wrong. You do not represent man kind in your strange surrealist denials of the reality of the sun, and time and gravity etc.
We don't know what a snake or an eagle conceptualises. We, however, know what 'falling' means.dad said: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!
Perhaps your mind is telling you all that .. How could it not be doing that?dad said:No. Lizards know how to catch bugs, for example and maybe lay out on a warm rock for a certain time. If you hear birds singing, perhaps they are trying to tell you they know all about the sun coming up!
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:Yes, you are in agreement with the dead here. So when we put you and Einstein together, we have only one mind left that thinks God was created by man. And you won't be around all that long!
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!!!!!!!!.. 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.
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.If it so easily demonstrated, then why have you failed in demonstrating that their existence is independent from the mind's concepts (or perceptions)?
What we call 'gravity' is objectively testable. Gravity passes these tests and is thereby demonstrably part of science's objective reality.
In the absence of science's objective tests, what we mean by 'gravity' is still considered real (and exists) by alike healthy human minds. There are also variations of what gravity is amongst those alike minds .. (compare an Astrophysicist's mind interpretation with a child's for eg) .. and we can provide objective evidence in support of this 'type ' of reality (because it is testable).
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.However 'gravity' thought to exist independently from the mind having that thought is nonsense because that mind just thought it, thereby falsifying its own statement!
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!Supposed existence independent of a mind is only a belief.
Most things have reality without any need whatsoever to register with your mind for approval.Once described by that mind however, invariably results in the type of reality I described in the paragraph immediately above.
Oh and delusions let's just say, are produced by unhealthy, or otherwise affected human minds. These delusions are usually untestable and are thus not necessarily considered real.
Many things are known to exist that have not been observed by our senses, like atoms, electricity, air, love, God, and hey, even Christmas!.. and the only way you know that is because that's what you observe using your senses and your mind's perceptions.
The snake that gets splattered on rocks when dropped by the eagle need not have a conversation to verify gravity exists!The animals you mention cannot have a conversation with you and report their sensations.
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.Their visible reactions are perceived by your mind and senses and your mind then creates the concept of 'animals reacting to light' (or 'animals possessing lifespans') both of which are objectively testable.
Yes, lots is independent of human minds. People who think everything is in their mind think too much, and think too much of themselves.However none of this is independent from your (or other human) minds.
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.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.
Anyone that thinks the fantasies of origin science religious models are objective or reality has lost touch with reality.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.
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.iNo 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).
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.Well only because you think so (ie: this is only your asserted belief .. science rolls forward and ignores untestable beliefs).
You can be very sure I do that!Its best to think of science's origin claims skeptically .. I mean, scientists do this .. so why not do the same?
Evidence for what you say, such as that the sun is a man made concept or some such nonsense?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.
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??We don't know what a snake or an eagle conceptualises. We, however, know what 'falling' means.
I understand (and can relate to) the images you created in your second paragraph ... because your words had meanings for human minds! That's all that happened. They are our shared conceptualisations (and not the animals').
Get out...of your mind...more.Perhaps your mind is telling you all that .. How could it not be doing that?
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!
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: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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?