Official Call For Papers

[Michael]

I must point out that these concepts are not dogma in that they are still in discussion. Much as any hypothetical in science is under discussion until proven sufficiently to become accepted THEORY or LAW.

These idea are *accepted theory*. They are all completely without empirical support. What happens if we simply change the terms to "God energy", "God matter" and "God's inflation"? Is it still not "dogma"?

As such "dark matter" (as far as I can tell, from the link I posted earlier), can be considered a place-holder for "as yet unknown" matter we are familiar with, or even unknown particles.

I suppose you could make that argument for all of the metaphysical bad boys of Lambda-CMD theory. Why make up placeholder terms for human ignorance?

But unless there is some reason to think that the fundamental concept of GRAVITY is broken in some way in which it only applies here and applies differently elsewhere, then we need something to account for the gravitational effects.

Gravity is *attractive*, and it doesn't do repulsive tricks in a lab. Only in supernatural dogma does gravity do repulsive tricks. This has *nothing* to do with GR, other than the fact they chose to stuff a metaphysical friend into GR.

So, in that senses, it is not dogma.

It would be dogma if it were preached that everyone must believe it without question.

My kids are being taught this garbage in school. How would you feel your kids were being taught YEC in school and they told you "well, your kids don't have to believe us, but we get to preach at them anyway"?

FYI, I almost exactly the same about Lambda-CDM theory as you might feel about YEC theories. I see no reason for either of these dogmas to be taught in the classroom. Faith has it's place, but not in the classroom. That should be reserved for "empirical physics".

But when you say it "cannot be tested by experiment" I also must point out that many of these concepts are predicated on gravity which we test daily, as Plindboe points out.

Nope. Show me one controlled experiment where "space" expanded due to gravity, or gravity did any repulsive tricks of any sort. Show me controlled empirical evidence that "dark energy" or "inflation" is in any way linked to "gravity".

 

[tansy]

No, the apple is not attached to anything, nor am I in space or water or whatever. My keys did drop when I let go, but how about the apple?

Thanks for clarifying LOL - the point I was making is that we (whether Christians, Creationists, scientists, whoever), don't necessarily have all the information...without that, we can sometimes make false assumptions - or conclusions can be all right as far as they go, but different conditions, of which we yet know nothing, can bring different results, which can lead us to modify our conclusions...which obviously scientists do, and I'd imagine so do Creation scientists.

Thing is, presumably no-one ACTUALLY knows EXACTLY (at least yet), what was (or is, for that matter), going on in the far reaches of time. I don't think anyone, including Creation scientists, can yet say EXACTLY how things were, or, indeed, how things are going to be - I mean they don't even know exactly how this global warming's going to pan out, and that's something they are observing and measuring right at this moment. So much of science is still in its infancy.

Hawking hasnt yet worked out the Theory of Everything yet..at least not last time I heard.

 

[thaumaturgy]

These idea are *accepted theory*.

Let's limit the present post to discussing DARK MATTER here (since that was what I had been addressing earlier):

Let's be clear here. To my knowledge no one is saying "Dark matter is necessarily only some new exotic material". It could be but it might not be so exotic. IN FACT there is still much research going on about Dark Matter. Here's what our friends at NASA say:

There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole.(SOURCE)

What we do know is that, if gravity is the same in all places then there is mass we cannot directly observe responsible for the rotational behavior of galaxies as well as the lensing of light.

The idea of "Dark Matter" is merely a placeholder that says "there's unseen mass" and by that scientists mean mass they have yet to be able to identify.

It could be something quite exotic, but to my knowledge no one has claimed DEFINITIVELY what that exotic (or even non-exotic) material actually is.

It is a conjectural hypothesis used to account for the very real gravitational effects.

As has been pointed out, we know quite a bit about how gravity functions (if not exactly the mechanism, gravitons or curved space-time, gravity waves, whatever) but we do know that gravity functions in a certain way requiring additional mass over what we see.

Let's put this in a simple example:

Suppose you see a 3 year old child step on a scale and he weights 850lbs. Would you just "assume" that you cannot trust gravity? Or would you assume there are some hidden weights on the child or the child is made of denser material?

They are all completely without empirical support.

WRONG. I'm not a cosmologist and even I understand that gravity is the empirical evidence that supports the existence of something unseen. That means it is most decidedly NOT DOGMATIC BELIEF.

What happens if we simply change the terms to "God energy", "God matter" and "God's inflation"? Is it still not "dogma"?

As long as "God Matter" is defined as some mass that can affect gravity.

I suppose you could make that argument for all of the metaphysical bad boys of Lambda-CMD theory. Why make up placeholder terms for human ignorance?

Is this not clear yet? It isn't a placeholder for ignorance it is a placeholder for unobserved mass. It could be as mundane as cold hydrogen gas clouds, or as exotic as some as-yet-unknown particle in the "particle zoo" (both of which we know quite a bit about from empirical analyses)

Gravity is *attractive*,

And how, exactly, does that gainsay the underlying idea of missing mass in an orbital calculation?

Granted according to THIS citation, Einstein's General Relativity developed the idea of gravitational repulsion, and in addition there may be some strange highly conjectural hypotheses on the edges of this topic around matter and antimatter that get into gravitational repulsion, but even THIS citation indicates the ideas are that matter and antimatter still attract. Honestly I cannot speak authoritatively on all aspects of dark matter, but are your kids being taught that level of conjectural detail in their schools? What age are your kids? 28? Are they in grad school? (If so, then please let them finish their graduate astronomy degree without getting too upset.)

My kids are being taught this garbage in school.

Are they being taught similar "garbage" such as:

F = GmM/r[sup]2[/sup]

How would you feel your kids were being taught YEC in school

Because YEC is demonstrable garbage. (You want to take on the geology behind YEC I'd be happy to do that. That is my strong suit.) YEC is demonstrably devoid of factual data in support of it as opposed to more standard old earth geology. End of story.

And what, exactly, are your kids being "taught"? That there is "missing mass" that the calculations don't account for?

How, exactly, is that garbage? So do you think the gravitational effects seen by cosmologists are "OK"? How do your calculations differ?

FYI, I almost exactly the same about Lambda-CDM theory as you might feel about YEC theories.

Except, again, YEC hypotheses are proven incorrect by actual data. YEC is not an alternative to completely unknown standard geology. It is an alternative to quite well developed geologic THEORIES and even LAWS.

That's the difference here. Dark Matter is mass that is as yet unaccounted for in the calculations. I really don't get why you would find the idea "repellent" unless you think the calculations are somehow inherently flawed or the failure of the calculations is somehow "correct".

I see no reason for either of these dogmas to be taught in the classroom.

Fine! I don't know what level of kids you are talking about. I hope it is taught in college where the calculations can be dealt with and the people receiving the information can see that the numbers don't add up unless you have the mass accounted for.

Faith has it's place, but not in the classroom. That should be reserved for "empirical physics".

When I read THIS PAGE FROM NASA, I really don't see this as "faith-based". I see it as people attempting to understand why the "3 year old child weighs 850 lbs".

Nope. Show me one controlled experiment where "space" expanded due to gravity,

I rather assume you must have some scientific background so I hope I don't offend when I explain what we scientists do in a simplified manner:

Not all things are "measured in a petri dish" in the lab. We have a relatively good idea about how normal gravity works. That means that when I weigh some reactants out in the lab I don't have to first develop the concept of mass, inertia and gravity all over again. In fact I can use gravity all day long to my advantage and I don't have to expand space at all to do it!

And in its most simplistic form, that is precisely what astronomers are doing with "Dark Matter". They are looking at space, they see light bending, they see rotation that is not accounted for by the visible mass and they reason there is something missing. Some "dark matter" that they do not yet see.

They don't have to compress space or bend reality. They just have to use standard 17th century calculations from Newton and Kepler and maybe a bit of last century's physics from Einstein to run the numbers and realize something doesn't add up.

 

[Michael]

Let's limit the present post to discussing DARK MATTER here (since that was what I had been addressing earlier):

Well, I was actually complaining about the whole 'creation mythos", not just dark matter.

Let's be clear here. To my knowledge no one is saying "Dark matter is necessarily only some new exotic material". It could be but it might not be so exotic. IN FACT there is still much research going on about Dark Matter. Here's what our friends at NASA say:

Well, all it takes is a quick gander at Arxiv to see that SUSY theory has pretty much taken over the dark matter debate.

What we do know is that, if gravity is the same in all places then there is mass we cannot directly observe responsible for the rotational behavior of galaxies as well as the lensing of light.

Sure, but none of that matter can be SUSY oriented material unless you have some empirical evidence that SUSY particles actually exist.

WRONG. I'm not a cosmologist and even I understand that gravity is the empirical evidence that supports the existence of something unseen. That means it is most decidedly NOT DOGMATIC BELIEF.

Well, that's still no excuse to propose hypothetical SUSY particles to fill the gaps of an otherwise failed theory about our mass calculations of galaxies. Evidently our mass estimation techniques are *WAY* off.

As long as "God Matter" is defined as some mass that can affect gravity.

You don't find it the least bit offensive that someone is tacking on "properties" onto this from of matter that doesn't show up in lab?

Granted according to THIS citation, Einstein's General Relativity developed the idea of gravitational repulsion,

No. Einstein "briefly" suggested that some force kept things "stable" and he introduced a non-zero constant into GR to explain a "static" galaxy. He also called that move his "greatest blunder", and ultimately set it back to zero. Lambda-CDM theory is a resurrection of blunder theory, not GR.

and in addition there may be some strange highly conjectural hypotheses on the edges of this topic around matter and antimatter that get into gravitational repulsion, but even THIS citation indicates the ideas are that matter and antimatter still attract.

True Matter and antimatter would still be attractive.

Honestly I cannot speak authoritatively on all aspects of dark matter, but are your kids being taught that level of conjectural detail in their schools? What age are your kids? 28? Are they in grad school? (If so, then please let them finish their graduate astronomy degree without getting too upset.)

Does the age of my children really matter? What controlled empirical evidence is there that inflation or dark energy actually exist in nature? Would you feel fine with them teaching "God matter" and "God energy" and "Godflation" in college?

Are they being taught similar "garbage" such as:

F = GmM/r[sup]2[/sup]

Lambda-CDM theory is not GR. They are quite different in fact. GR as Einstein taught it has a ZERO constant, and no "dark energy".

Because YEC is demonstrable garbage. (You want to take on the geology behind YEC I'd be happy to do that. That is my strong suit.) YEC is demonstrably devoid of factual data in support of it as opposed to more standard old earth geology. End of story.

Ditto on inflation and dark energy and SUSY theory. Inflation is dead and gone according to Lambda-CMD theory. It can therefore *NEVER* be verified in a lab. Dark energy doesn't do squat in a lab, and nobody can even tell you where it comes from, let alone show you it has some tangible effect on nature.

And what, exactly, are your kids being "taught"? That there is "missing mass" that the calculations don't account for?

There being taught a "creation mythos" that is no better supported than YEC theory.

Except, again, YEC hypotheses are proven incorrect by actual data. YEC is not an alternative to completely unknown standard geology. It is an alternative to quite well developed geologic THEORIES and even LAWS.

Again, that is also true of Lambda-CDM theory. According to Einstein nothing can travel faster than light. In the real world of physics, if our universe is only 13.7 billion years old, the size of our galaxy can be no larger than 27.4 light years across. It is however quite a bit larger than this size, and the only thing that makes this possible is a mythical form of energy called "dark energy" and a completely ridiculous claim about "space" expanding. Note that "space" isn't even physically defined, nor is "space" a part of GR theory.

They don't have to compress space or bend reality. They just have to use standard 17th century calculations from Newton and Kepler and maybe a bit of last century's physics from Einstein to run the numbers and realize something doesn't add up.

The fact that things do not "add up" is no excuse to stuff the gaps with metaphysical gap filler.

If "God did it" is not a valid scientific answer, then how is "inflation did it" any better?

FYI, 'dark matter' is probably the *least* offensive part of current theory because not all "explanations" of DM are related to SUSY theory. However, when they start adding in "evil dark energies" and "inflation faeries" to math formulas, there is no longer a connection to real physics.

Let's refocus here for a second:

All creation myths are highly reliant upon things that cannot be empirically demonstrated in a lab. Lambda-CDM theory is absolutely no exception to that rule. No creation myth is immune from this "problem' with the possible exception of the EU BB theory I cited for you from Alfven. That is why EU theory is "more acceptable" to me personally than any other cosmology theory. Your mileage may vary.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Does the age of my children really matter?

Because I don't believe that young, impressionable children in primary schools are being taught about supersymmetric quantum mechanics.

They may be being taught about the "big bang", but unlike the various creation myths, it at least has a reason be promulgated as an hypothesis for the universe (LINK)

Disagree with the science or not, at least it has some reason to consider it, as opposed to something like the Genesis account which effectively boils down to "someone said that God said this happened".

 

[Michael]

They may be being taught about the "big bang", but unlike the various creation myths, it at least has a reason be promulgated as an hypothesis for the universe (LINK)

A Big Bang theory in a generic sense may indeed have a tiny bit of "reason" behind it, but only if you *ASSUME* that the universe is not eternal and infinite. Lambda-CDM theory however does not have any 'reason' behind it. What "reason" is there to claim "inflation did it", and then turn right around and ignore those "dark flows" that falsify the theory?

SPACE.com -- Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no logical reason to believe that "the dead inflation deity did it with his other invisible friend evil dark energy".

Disagree with the science or not, at least it has some reason to consider it, as opposed to something like the Genesis account which effectively boils down to "someone said that God said this happened".

How is Lambda theory not just "the dead inflation deity and evil dark energy made it happen"? There is no "science" to support inflation in the first place because it was never demonstrated to exist in the first place, and the universe is not homogeneously distributed as inflation requires. Dark energy is also a myth. It does not exist in nature. It's purely an ad hoc creation.

IMO you do not seem to be employing the same skeptical perspective towards *ALL* creations myths, just the ones you don't personally care for.

 

[Michael]

Disagree with the science or not, at least it has some reason to consider it, as opposed to something like the Genesis account which effectively boils down to "someone said that God said this happened".

I hate to rain on your parade, but the individual that came up with Big Bang theory was a Catholic Priest. No doubt his "creation event" was also inspired by that exact same line in Genesis that says "And let there be light".

 

[Hespera]

Michael sez...A Big Bang theory in a generic sense may indeed have a tiny bit of "reason" behind it, but only if you *ASSUME* that the universe is not eternal and infinite. QUOTE/////////////


H sez... if you read more and explained less you'd probably know there is a whole lot more than a tiny bit reason (not "reason", the quotation marks are a cheap shot) that goes into the BBT.


Also, what is this about *ASSUME*, other than some odd non-standard punctuation?

Chances are you dont want to know as it would, in your words, 'rain on your parade' but if you did, you could look up for yourself why the universe cant be infinite.

Cant be eternal either. You seem to have your assumptions backwards.

You may want to get these grade school level misconceptions before you try to try to tackle the big boys in astrophysics.

Its like you go into a math conference and see they the chalkboard is covered with odd symbols that you never saw before. Aha, sez our naif, I (*I*) have discovered the fatal flaw in this stuff, at a glance! They are not using numbers! Math uses numbers so its all fake! It isnt math at all. hahaha showed you egg heads.

yup.



Something you maybe could explain is why fundies are so concerned with this particular bit of rather esoteric theorectical astrophysics?

Why not come back down to erth and explain why your "flood" left not the slightest
trace anywhere? (hint... the explanation can be put in 4 wrods very easily)

 

[Michael]

Chances are you dont want to know as it would, in your words, 'rain on your parade' but if you did, you could look up for yourself why the universe cant be infinite.

Alright, I'll bite, why can't it be infinite and expanding?

Cant be eternal either. You seem to have your assumptions backwards.

The laws of thermodynamics insist that some from of energy predated this physical universe. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. While *THIS* physical universe might not be eternal, something is.

You may want to get these grade school level misconceptions before you try to try to tackle the big boys in astrophysics.

FYI, I've already been on them for several years now.

Its like you go into a math conference and see they the chalkboard is covered with odd symbols that you never saw before. Aha, sez our naif, I (*I*) have discovered the fatal flaw in this stuff, at a glance! They are not using numbers! Math uses numbers so its all fake! It isnt math at all. hahaha showed you egg heads.

It's more like going to the conference and noticing that they are applying their math formulas to invisible elves and having no personal "faith" in invisible elves. None of the math has any meaning if one has no faith in those invisible elves.

Something you maybe could explain is why fundies are so concerned with this particular bit of rather esoteric theorectical astrophysics?

Maybe because it's congruent with Genesis and various religious beliefs? I don't profess to read minds.

Why not come back down to erth and explain why your "flood" left not the slightest
trace anywhere? (hint... the explanation can be put in 4 wrods very easily)

When did this conversation become related to Biblical accounts of floods and such? Did you get the impression somehow that I personally support YEC? You might accuse me of supporting some form of 'Old Earth" creationism, but I won't defend YEC OT accounts of ancient history.

FYI, almost all ancient cultures on Earth have some sort of account of an ancient flood. The account in the Bible would seem to come from the Epic of Gilgamesh and that story probably precedes the Bible by several thousand years.

 

[Hespera]

Michael...I didnt accuse you of anything, but whether you are a YEC or an OEC is a meaningless distinction between two brands of nonsense.

I know that some cultures have flood stories, not all. Almost all? did you make that up or do you have a source?

We also find stories of great heroes and warriors, magic men, monsters, all sorts of things. if flood stories are evidence that there was a flood, then by the same token, every culture must have had its monsters, half men / half gods and all the rest, dont you think?

I mentioned flood because it would take a miracle, and is easier to talk about than astrophysics. Never mind, tho if stories are the total of your evidence for why there is no evidence of a flood. Thin soup, too thin for me.

No, my analogy was right on about the math conference. Theists are the ones with stuff like 'invisible elves". And of course the point was you wont understand anything they are saying, and will have no qualification to call foul. Same as with astrophysics.
What doe it matter how many years you "have been on them"? If its as long as you say why didnt you educate yourself to where you know enough to do more than just be tiresome and repeat the same moldy mistakes and carands?

i didnt say the universe cant be infinite and expanding. i said it cant be infinite.
You want to debate the big boys in astrophysics, you will need to at least know basic things like that. Look it up or continue to look like grade school level carping.

Oh,and "fyi" as you like to say, a comment on your use of eccentric punctuation like *THIS*:

All it says to me is that you dont have enough facts at your disposal so you talk louder. You are getting the opposite effect to what you'd hope for from me, so you can save yourself a few keystrokes and look more credible at the same time.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I hate to rain on your parade, but the individual that came up with Big Bang theory was a Catholic Priest.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It doesn't matter if it was a buddhist monk. The science behind it has nothing to do with "God" or catholicism. LeMaitre does not appear to have been doing this based on Genesis but rather based on General Relativity and derivation of what ultimately became the Hubble Law.

Sorry to rain on your parade but that seems to be little more than poor logic fallacy on your part.

He also wore round glasses, does that mean that all people who wear round glasses are Belgian catholic priests?

No doubt his "creation event" was also inspired by that exact same line in Genesis that says "And let there be light".

You will have to back that up with some actual evidence that he, himself, was of that opinion.

Hate to rely on Wikipedia but here's some interesting aspects of this:

"Lemaître himself always insisted that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications;..."
(SOURCE)

Now the article further goes on to say:

...and yet the congruence between his scientific and religious beliefs is apparent in his famous description of the beginning of the universe as "a day without yesterday"—alluding to the creation account in Genesis (ibid)

The first sounds like a statement from LeMaitre, the second sounds like conjecture of others about his motives.

It could have been any number of things that inspired him to come up with the idea.

Murray Gell-Mann was inspired by a buddhist poem about the 8-Fold way when he was generating the idea of the classification of subatomic particles. Does that mean that subatomic particle classification based on Group Theory are a buddhist concept?

Feynman was born Jewish. Does that mean QED is based on the Torah?

Nicolas Steno converted from Lutheranism to Catholicism and ultimately abandoned medicine and geology to become the Bishop of Titiopolis, does that mean Steno's Laws are all fundamentally linked to Martin Luther?

But indeed, it wouldn't matter if LeMaitre himself said he was inspired by Genesis. The idea is supported by data that has nothing to do with Genesis, nor is it wholly "faith based" as is any "Creation Myth".

And that is the fundamental difference between the Big Bang and creation myths.

 

[Michael]

Michael...I didnt accuse you of anything, but whether you are a YEC or an OEC is a meaningless distinction between two brands of nonsense.

First of all, let me be clear that I am personally into EU/PC (electric universe/plasma cosmology) theory, not current BB theory or any sort of specific creation event per se. I do however accept that a 'creation event' is possible.

There is a clear distinction between accepting that the Earth is ancient and being in denial of this fact so I cannot understand how you can claim the distinction is meaningless. Could you elaborate a bit?

I know that some cultures have flood stories, not all. Almost all? did you make that up or do you have a source?

I'm not going to cite a creationist website if that is what you expect. If you want sources, go to Google or Bing and type in "ancient accounts of floods".

We also find stories of great heroes and warriors, magic men, monsters, all sorts of things. if flood stories are evidence that there was a flood, then by the same token, every culture must have had its monsters, half men / half gods and all the rest, dont you think?

I suspect that many of the monster and half/men accounts related to fossils that were dug up by various communities. I"m sure that there are a logical "explanations" for these accounts as well.

I mentioned flood because it would take a miracle, and is easier to talk about than astrophysics. Never mind, tho if stories are the total of your evidence for why there is no evidence of a flood. Thin soup, too thin for me.

You seem to be implying that I defend the notion of a global flood. I am not doing that. I'm simply noting that the Biblical accounts were not created in a vacuum and that virtually all (I know of none that don't) cultures have some account of an ancient flood. Yes, they could have been "local' floods, but accounts of floods are commonplace.

No, my analogy was right on about the math conference. Theists are the ones with stuff like 'invisible elves".

Statistically speaking, most astronomers are "atheists" and promote "dark evil energies" and "inflation faeries" that never show up in a lab. I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water. They have their own brand of "invisible elves" and their beliefs are not immune from scientific scrutiny.

And of course the point was you wont understand anything they are saying, and will have no qualification to call foul. Same as with astrophysics.

"Understanding" what they are saying and "agreeing' with that dogma are two entirely different issues. I "understand" their arguments and therefore I know how to poke holes in their arguments. I simply do not *agree with* their belief systems nor do I share their faith in evil dark energies or dead inflation deities.

What doe it matter how many years you "have been on them"? If its as long as you say why didnt you educate yourself to where you know enough to do more than just be tiresome and repeat the same moldy mistakes and carands?

It is because I *HAVE* educated myself that I don't buy their dogma. It's also probably an age related thing because I've had 30 plus years as an adult, watching them stuff one invisible metaphysical friend after another into BB theory. They started with inflation faeries thanks to Guth, then "evil dark energies" once they believed that the universe was accelerating, and now SUSY brands of imaginary invisible matter.

i didnt say the universe cant be infinite and expanding. i said it cant be infinite.

What is the difference?

You want to debate the big boys in astrophysics, you will need to at least know basic things like that. Look it up or continue to look like grade school level carping.

I've been debating the "big boys in astrophysics" for quite a while now, and I assure you that they can't support their beliefs any better than you can.

Oh,and "fyi" as you like to say, a comment on your use of eccentric punctuation like *THIS*:

All it says to me is that you dont have enough facts at your disposal so you talk louder. You are getting the opposite effect to what you'd hope for from me, so you can save yourself a few keystrokes and look more credible at the same time.

I'm simply highlighting the important points. You're welcome to interpret my behaviors any way that pleases you. IMO 'credibility' comes from empirical, controlled experimentation, not words or formulas on a chalk board.

Inflation does not exist in nature nor has it ever existed in nature. That is also true of "dark energy'. If you have physical empirical evidence to the contrary, let's see it. In many years of these debates with the "big boys" of astronomy, that's never happened, but hey, you could be the first one in human history to cite controlled experiments where dark energy or inflation had some effect on even a single atom. Got one?

 

[uke2se]

So, coming up on 12 pages soon, and how much evidence for DSP has been offered?

...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Inflation does not exist in nature nor has it ever existed in nature.

I highlighted and important point in your argument here. This is a "universal negative claim" which is logically impossible to defend unless you are God and have seen all points in time and all places in the universe.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Some Information about Dark Energy (from a non-cosmologist), in case people are afraid this is actually just completely unfounded:

Physics invites the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant, Lambda; nowadays the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence. Physics also suggests the dark energy could be dynamical, allowing the arguably appealing picture that the dark energy density is evolving to its natural value, zero, and is small now because the expanding universe is old. This alleviates the classical problem of the curious energy scale of order a millielectronvolt associated with a constant Lambda. Dark energy may have been detected by recent advances in the cosmological tests. The tests establish a good scientific case for the context, in the relativistic Friedmann-Lemaitre model, including the gravitational inverse square law applied to the scales of cosmology. We have well-checked evidence that the mean mass density is not much more than one quarter of the critical Einstein-de Sitter value. The case for detection of dark energy is serious but not yet as convincing; we await more checks that may come out of work in progress. Planned observations might be capable of detecting evolution of the dark energy density; a positive result would be a considerable stimulus to attempts to understand the microphysics of dark energy. This review presents the basic physics and astronomy of the subject, reviews the history of ideas, assesses the state of the observational evidence, and comments on recent developments in the search for a fundamental theory.(SOURCE)

(emphases added)

Further "Evidence for Dark Energy" (with associated references) LINKY

Now, again, I'm not in a position to mount a stern defense of Lamda-CDM theory nor even of "Dark Energy", but it sounds to me like this is much more robust than mere ex cathedra statements from the "priesthood" about what IS or ISN'T.

It sounds to me like any of a number of scientific concepts still in debate and discussion.

Science should be able to freely discuss concepts even before they have become "Law".

(And, of course, the same should be said for Plasma Cosmology, etc.)

 

[Michael]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It doesn't matter if it was a buddhist monk. The science behind it has nothing to do with "God" or catholicism. LeMaitre does not appear to have been doing this based on Genesis but rather based on General Relativity and derivation of what ultimately became the Hubble Law.

Neither GR or Hubble's law require a 'creation event'. What makes you think that all matter and energy was ever collected to a single 'point' (something smaller than a breadbox)? LeMaitre's "creation event" is not based directly on either GR or expansion, but rather it is directly related to the Genesis accounts of a creation event. Alfven's 'big bang' theory is not a 'creation event' per se, and it satisfies GR and expansion.

You will have to back that up with some actual evidence that he, himself, was of that opinion.

Hate to rely on Wikipedia but here's some interesting aspects of this:

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than a one line WIKI claim on that one. There is no guarantee that expansion necessitates a "creation event'. The only purpose it serves to insist on a creation event is to be congruent with Genesis.

Now the article further goes on to say:

So in your opinion it was simply a "coincidence" that his scientific beliefs and spiritual opinions were congruent? You don't find that a bit "convenient'?

The first sounds like a statement from LeMaitre, the second sounds like conjecture of others about his motives.

The first claim has no reference that I can locate. The second claim is obvious. His religious and scientific beliefs are congruent.

But indeed, it wouldn't matter if LeMaitre himself said he was inspired by Genesis. The idea is supported by data that has nothing to do with Genesis, nor is it wholly "faith based" as is any "Creation Myth".

Of course it is "faith based". What physical evidence can you present to demonstrate that all mass and energy was ever collected to a single point in time and space. That whole *assumption* is based on pure faith.

And that is the fundamental difference between the Big Bang and creation myths.

There is no difference between them. The Big Bang theory *is* a "creation myth". No one can physically demonstrate that all matter and energy were collected to a single point. No one can physically demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's overactive human imagination. No one can show that evil "dark energies' have any influence on the movements of even a single atom let alone cause the whole physical universe to accelerate. These are purely ad hoc constructs intended to 'keep the myth alive", otherwise it would have died a natural death a long time ago.

 

[Michael]

I highlighted and important point in your argument here. This is a "universal negative claim" which is logically impossible to defend unless you are God and have seen all points in time and all places in the universe.

Consider me a "hard atheist" as it relates to inflation and DE. No, I can't physically demonstrate they do not exist, but in science the onus of responsibility falls on the one proposing their existence. Why are you an atheist if not because you "lack belief' in something that has not been empirically demonstrated in the lab? Why are you giving the dead inflation deity a free pass?

 

[Hespera]

Michael.. i guess i dont want to get into an infinitely expanding discussion with you.

Astrophysics is of little interest to me anyway.

Just a quick comment on a couple of things...

Understanding" what they are saying and "agreeing' with that dogma are two entirely different issues. I "understand" their arguments and therefore I know how to poke holes in their arguments. I simply do not *agree with* their belief systems nor do I share their faith in evil dark energies or dead inflation deities.

What doe it matter how many years you "have been on them"? If its as long as you say why didnt you educate yourself to where you know enough to do more than just be tiresome and repeat the same moldy mistakes and carands?
​

It is because I *HAVE* educated myself that I don't buy their dogma. It's also probably an age related thing because I've had 30 plus years as an adult, watching them stuff one invisible metaphysical friend after another into BB theory. They started with inflation faeries thanks to Guth, then "evil dark energies" once they believed that the universe was accelerating, and now SUSY brands of imaginary invisible matter.

i didnt say the universe cant be infinite and expanding. i said it cant be infinite.
​

What is the difference?


Dogma, evil, belief system, deities, faeries, metaphysics, etc are all religious concepts, you are arguing against your own inability to realize that others dont think in those terms. Some of us are free of those (dark) old superstitious ways of htinking. Try it!

You are proposing to argue against things you dont understand, despite your claim that you do. Ya got a PhD? You dont know enoubhg about astrophysics to know what they think or why they tYink it. How do i know? Just one example?

You give yourself away, asking the differnce between infinite and expanding.

My grade school kid saying the math is bunko coz it dont got numbers is pretty much right on.

 

[Hespera]

Michael.. i guess i dont want to get into an infinitely expanding discussion with you.

Astrophysics is of little interest to me anyway.

Just a quick comment on a couple of things...


QUOTE FROM MICAHEl//////////////////////
Understanding" what they are saying and "agreeing' with that dogma are two entirely different issues. I "understand" their arguments and therefore I know how to poke holes in their arguments. I simply do not *agree with* their belief systems nor do I share their faith in evil dark energies or dead inflation deities.

What doe it matter how many years you "have been on them"? If its as long as you say why didnt you educate yourself to where you know enough to do more than just be tiresome and repeat the same moldy mistakes and carands?
​

It is because I *HAVE* educated myself that I don't buy their dogma. It's also probably an age related thing because I've had 30 plus years as an adult, watching them stuff one invisible metaphysical friend after another into BB theory. They started with inflation faeries thanks to Guth, then "evil dark energies" once they believed that the universe was accelerating, and now SUSY brands of imaginary invisible matter.

i didnt say the universe cant be infinite and expanding. i said it cant be infinite.
​

What is the difference? QUOTE

............................................................................................................

H sez...

Dogma, evil, belief system, deities, faeries, metaphysics, etc are all religious concepts, you are arguing against your own inability to realize that others dont think in those terms. Some of us are free of those (dark) old superstitious ways of htinking. Try it!

You are proposing to argue against things you dont understand, despite your claim that you do. Ya got a PhD? You dont know enoubhg about astrophysics to know what they think or why they tYink it. How do i know? Just one example?

You give yourself away, asking the differnce between infinite and expanding.

My grade school kid saying the math is bunko coz it dont got numbers is pretty much right on.

​

Hespera View Public Profile Send a private message to Hespera Find all posts by Hespera Add Hespera to Your Contacts

​

 

[Michael]

What doe it matter how many years you "have been on them"? If its as long as you say why didnt you educate yourself to where you know enough to do more than just be tiresome and repeat the same moldy mistakes and carands?​

If there was a valid scientific basis for their beliefs, *someone* would have provided that evidence over the last say 7 years or so. Over the last 5 years I've been *very* active on various astronomy related websites and no one has ever provided such physical evidence.

​

Dogma, evil, belief system, deities, faeries, metaphysics, etc are all religious concepts, you are arguing against your own inability to realize that others dont think in those terms. Some of us are free of those (dark) old superstitious ways of htinking. Try it!

I did try it. That's why I don't buy into their dogma anymore. You might try it too. It's quite the liberating experience. FYI, I spent nearly 9 years as an atheist in my youth, I've studied Buddhism and many other religions. I've opened my mind to many things, including the fact that creation science, regardless of who's selling it, is a "religious concept" that requires "acts of faith" on the part of the "believer".

You are proposing to argue against things you dont understand, despite your claim that you do.

No, you are proposing to be some sort of "expert" in a field you don't understand and are not even particularly interested in to begin with. I've spent the better part of 30 years as an adult, actively studying these topics.

Ya got a PhD?

Ya got a better argument than an appeal to authority fallacy? Do you have a PHD in religion?

You give yourself away, asking the differnce between infinite and expanding.

Evidently you did not grasp the implication of the *need* (real physical need actually) for an infinite universe to be in motion. That doesn't surprise me actually, but it only demonstrates *your* lack of understanding of these issues, not mine.