The Universe Is a Miracle

[DogmaHunter]

Because we admit it was a miracle. You on the other hand are claiming it was purely natural without Divine intervention..... Therefore you should be able to explain it, while a miracle is by definition unexplainable....

Right, right.... because things happening through "divine intervention" is the default fallback thingy UNLESS it is known to be otherwise. And off course, this "divine intervention" doesn't require any explanation whatsoever.

lol, you can't make this up folks.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Apparently you don't understand the difference between an initial expansion that satisfies the laws of physics and a continued expansion that is increasing in violation of the laws of physics....

No, you don't, as observed by your next response. See above post.....

Right, right...
Neither do the vast majority of physicists out there, apparantly.

What a wonderfull blessing for the world and humanity and all of science, that we have random internet trolls such as yourself who know and understand all this, so that they can tell actual physicists etc how to do their jobs, ha?

ow, wait.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Right, right...
Neither do the vast majority of physicists out there, apparantly.

What a wonderfull blessing for the world and humanity and all of science, that we have random internet trolls such as yourself who know and understand all this, so that they can tell actual physicists etc how to do their jobs, ha?

ow, wait.....

Yah I know they can't, that's why they propose magic Fairie Dust because the equations that are 99.8% accurate in the solar system can't be made to work outside of it without 95% fudging......

But you just keep believing that a theory 99.8% accurate needs 95% fudge factors to make it accurate...

lol, you people don't even accept the accuracy of your own theory, do you... or what it is really trying to tell you.... Lol

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yah I know they can't, that's why they propose magic Fairie Dust because the equations that are 99.8% accurate in the solar system can't be made to work outside of it without 95% fudging......

But you just keep believing that a theory 99.8% accurate needs 95% fudge factors to make it accurate...

lol, you people don't even accept the accuracy of your own theory, do you... or what it is really trying to tell you.... Lol

Why are you here on this puny forum with us mere mortals of average IQ?
Why aren't you giving symposiums in top universities all over the world to educate the entire scientific community on how to do physics?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why are you here on this puny forum with us mere mortals of average IQ?
Why aren't you giving symposiums in top universities all over the world to educate the entire scientific community on how to do physics?

Because someone has to keep you all from fooling the mere mortals with average IQ.... And I like this puny forum. So why are you here since you apparently think you know more than the one you claim thinks you all are of average IQ?

I think you are quite intelligent, just blinded by your dogma as will be seen below...

But I notice for some reason you keep avoiding explaining why your theory is 99.8% correct inside the solar system without fudge factors, but needs 95% fudge factors outside it?

What, don't you believe in the accuracy of your own theory?????

I mean come on, I thought you believed in the extreme accuracy of General Relativity? So then why do you refuse to accept what that extreme accuracy is telling you????

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because someone has to keep you all from fooling the mere mortals with average IQ.... And I like this puny forum. So why are you here since you apparently think you know more than the one you claim thinks you all are of average IQ?

I think you are quite intelligent, just blinded by your dogma as will be seen below...

But I notice for some reason you keep avoiding explaining why your theory is 99.8% correct inside the solar system without fudge factors, but needs 95% fudge factors outside it?

What, don't you believe in the accuracy of your own theory?????

I mean come on, I thought you believed in the extreme accuracy of General Relativity? So then why do you refuse to accept what that extreme accuracy is telling you????

You're again not answering the question.

If the vast majority of physicists etc are incorrect and YOU are correct, then why aren't you travelling the world as the world's most famous phycisist, giving symposiums in all the top universities to educate working physicists on how to do their job?

I mean, wouldn't that serve the world better then preaching to a bunch of heathens and creationists on some forum on the interwebs that doesn't actually matter to real life?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're again not answering the question.

If the vast majority of physicists etc are incorrect and YOU are correct, then why aren't you travelling the world as the world's most famous phycisist, giving symposiums in all the top universities to educate working physicists on how to do their job?

I mean, wouldn't that serve the world better then preaching to a bunch of heathens and creationists on some forum on the interwebs that doesn't actually matter to real life?

I already answered that. Dogma is incapacitating to thought.

Which is why you refuse to answer my question....

But I notice for some reason you keep avoiding explaining why your theory is 99.8% correct inside the solar system without fudge factors, but needs 95% fudge factors outside it?

What, don't you believe in the accuracy of your own theory?????

I mean come on, I thought you believed in the extreme accuracy of General Relativity? So then why do you refuse to accept what that extreme accuracy is telling you????

 

[SelfSim]

lol, you people don't even accept the accuracy of your own theory, do you... or what it is really trying to tell you.... Lol
...
What, don't you believe in the accuracy of your own theory?????

I mean come on, I thought you believed in the extreme accuracy of General Relativity? So then why do you refuse to accept what that extreme accuracy is telling you????

Did you even bother to read the Sean Carroll page? Because if you had, you'd get your answer including the explanation of what 'GR is telling' us:

... energy and momentum evolve in a precisely specified way in response to the behavior of spacetime around them. If that spacetime is standing completely still, the total energy is constant; if it’s evolving, the energy changes in a completely unambiguous way.

In the case of dark energy, that evolution is pretty simple: the density of vacuum energy in empty space is absolute constant, even as the volume of a region of space (comoving along with galaxies and other particles) grows as the universe expands. So the total energy, density times volume, goes up.

And so ..

.. A decrease in energy is just as much a “violation of energy conservation” as an increase in energy, but it doesn’t seem to bother people as much. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how bothersome it is, of course — it’s a crystal-clear prediction of general relativity.

And one that has been experimentally verified!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Apparently you don't understand the difference between an initial expansion that satisfies the laws of physics and a continued expansion that is increasing in violation of the laws of physics....

9 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "continued expansion that is increasing in violation of the laws of physics" lie
GR is a law of physics . GR predicts that an universe will have accelerating expansion when there is a positive cosmological constant. That is a standard explanation for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Dark energy

 

[RealityCheck01]

...Ahh, you mean plasma that didn't behave like they expected it to in space.....

9 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Gibberish followed by a "plasma that didn't behave like they expected it to in space" lie.
Dusty plasma has been extensively researched in labs on Earth and in micro-gee conditions.

Dusty plasmas are often studied in laboratory setups. The dust particles can be grown inside the plasma, or microparticles can be inserted. Usually, a low temperature plasma with a low degree of ionization is used. The microparticles then become the dominant component regarding the energy and momentum transport, and they can essentially be regarded as single-species system. This system can exist in all three classical phases, solid, liquid and gaseous, and can be used to study effects such as crystallization, wave and shock propagation, defect propagation, etc.

When particles of micrometer-size are used, it is possible to observe the individual particles. Their movement is slow enough to be able to be observed with ordinary cameras, and the kinetics of the system can be studied. However, for micrometer-sized particles, gravity is a dominant force that disturbs the system. Thus, experiments are sometimes performed under microgravity conditions during parabolic flights or on board a space station.

Plasma in space experiment (English subtitles)

NOTE:
The original commentary is done very unprofessionally, trying to turn the already not-so-difficult subject into a _really_ popular science sensationalist piece. This is very unfortunate. A more professional/scientific crew could've made this video to be much more informative and useful than it is. For that reason I couldn't translate it directly but had to change the translation a bit according to my own understanding which should leave the cosmonauts' and scientists' ideas in but leave the commentator's far-fetched conclusions out. I also wanted to cut out the last part about radiation clouds, but decided that it would be a form of censorship.

NOTE2:
This video has little to nothing to do with so called "plasma cosmology", "electric universe" and similar subjects. I am sad to see that this video is seen as support for these theories and is hence recommended/suggested by YouTube on wrong videos.
To the supporters of "electric universe": I really advise you to find out as much as you can about your theories because they are not a matter of faith, belief or "dogma" as one of the comments read. All physical theories must be a matter of evidence to be considered at least partially true and shouldn't have any contradicting evidence in the region they're supposed to work in. The model presented by you don't fulfill either of these conditions.

9 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Usual "cant even be observed" lie about dark matter and dark energy.
It was observations that gave us dark matter and dark energy. We have not directly observed some dark matter particle candidates. It is insane to expect to directly observe dark energy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

But I notice for some reason you keep avoiding explaining why your theory is 99.8% correct inside the solar system without fudge factors, but needs 95% fudge factors outside it?

9 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Some % gibberish accidently stumbles across a bit of science!
Why do astronomers ignore dark matter inside the Solar System. The reason is that they are not stupid and this can be the first thought they have when they learn about dark matter ! So they actually think about those effects. They write papers about it. They read those papers about it.
Ask Ethan: If Dark Matter Is Everywhere, Why Haven’t We Detected It In Our Solar System?

Should this be so? This was one of the first thoughts I had when I first learned about dark matter, some 17 years ago. Let’s investigate and find out the truth.
...
Values like the one we came up with, in the 10¹³ — 10¹⁷ kg range, are the mass of a single modest asteroid.
...
You might wonder, based on the arrangement of the Solar System, if many-body interactions between dark matter, a planet, and the Sun could cause additional dark matter to be captured by the Solar System. This was a fun problem, and was the topic of a paper I co-wrote some 10 years ago.

The amount of dark matter that affects the planets is tiny in comparison to the Sun, the planets and even big asteroids. The conclusion is that theoretically dark matter does have an effect inside the Solar System but we need > 100,000 times more accurate data to detect it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I mean come on, I thought you believed in the extreme accuracy of General Relativity?

9 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: "I thought you believed in the extreme accuracy of General Relativity" ignorance
The observational evidence for dark matter starts with the "extreme accuracy" of Newtonian gravitation and mechanics. Stars in galaxies and galaxies in galaxy clusters are moving slowly and in weak gravitational fields. The "extreme accuracy" of GR appears in other observational evidence for dark matter.
The "extreme accuracy" of General Relativity used in the observational evidence for dark energy.

The known laws of physics are tested to "extreme accuracy". That gives us confidence that they are right. That means dark matter and dark energy are needed.

 

[sjastro]

In other words your realization that we use the laws on earth to explain the entire universe just killed your claims it works differently elsewhere and you can't bring yourself to admit it..... I understand.... It's ok..... No, really it is... cough, cough....

Still struggling to grasp the differences between local and global which is obvious to other posters.
Par for the course.................

What magic plasma?

Ahh, you mean plasma that didn't behave like they expected it to in space.....

At least my magic plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe, while your magic Fairie Dust cant even be observed.....

How this video solves all of mainstreams "problems" is anyone's guess.
The problem for you is that the video uses real plasma instead of magic plasma.
Remember the effects of magic plasma becomes exponentially stronger as the plasma density for all intents and purposes drops to zero.
How are magic plasma crystals formed in a vacuum?
Furthermore remember in order for electromagnetic forces to dominate at large scales, magic plasma is immune to creating Debye screening which means it would be impossible to form plasma crystals as it cannot screen the Coulomb forces exerted between the dust particles.

Γeff = Z² e² exp(−∆/λd))/(4πǫ₀∆kTd)
Here Ze is the average charge per particle, ∆ the mean distance between the particles, λd the Debye screening length (see below), and Td the kinetic temperature of the particles. Plasmas with Γeff > 1 are called strongly coupled. For the crystal formation a critical value Γeff ≃ 100 - 1000 has to be exceeded. Below Γeff the system is in the liquid or gaseous phase.
In addition, the interparticle distance has to be of the same order as the Debye screening length or smaller, i.e., κ = ∆/λd <∼1.

Ref: https://www.ph.tum.de/academics/org/labs/fopra/docs/userguide-03.en.pdf
For magic plasma there is no limit to the size of λd, which can be made to approach an infinite limit resulting in Γeff = 0 and no crystal formation.

Since magic plasma is Harry Potteresque your video should be in Parseltongue not Russian.

 

[variant]

Fact: No scientist has explained how the universe came into being.

There are only two options.

1. It came from nothing.
2. It always existed.

Scientists admit that the first option is impossible. It defies logic.

The second option also defies logic. Some believe in it still. They believe the past is infinite.

Yet you cannot cross an infinite amount of time or distance. And for the PRESENT to exist then the universe would have had to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now.

The two options are illogical. Therefore the universe came about illogically. A miracle.

Some will say "God made it". I do not include this option as it does not solve the problem. We then have to ask how God came about. Like the universe there are only two options, the same options as I list above.

So one miracle happened, so why not others?

Your unintended premise is that God defies logic. I would clean that up if you intend to argue for a God.

Trying to disprove all possibilities of the universe is going to be fruitless if you don't know how it works.

"I don't know" is a perfectly fine answer for things you don't know. No one ever has to resort to "It's a miracle."

The universes existence doesn't need to be "explained" without enough information to explain it. The idea that you need to do that is faulty.

 

[variant]

I don't think it's reasonable to disregard "Always existed" as illogical, but accept an explanation that has "always existed" as one of its attributes.

Yeah, we call that question begging.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I already answered that.

You did not. At best, you made a sarcastic comment to avoid answering the question.

Which is why you refuse to answer my question....

But I notice for some reason you keep avoiding explaining why your theory is 99.8% correct inside the solar system without fudge factors, but needs 95% fudge factors outside it?

What, don't you believe in the accuracy of your own theory?????

*I* don't have any theories.

I mean come on, I thought you believed in the extreme accuracy of General Relativity? So then why do you refuse to accept what that extreme accuracy is telling you????

Without GR, GPS wouldn't work. No matter what you say. No matter how dishonest you are. No matter how much you misrepresent the science and engineering involved.


I'll answer my question to you, for you...


I edited out the answer and decided to do what I I'ld normally never do: put someone on ignore. The level of dishonesty this user operates under, is no longer something I can tolerate or deal with. So instead of getting worked up, i'm just removing the problem from sight.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'll answer my question to you, for you...
The reason you aren't travelling around the world to lecture actual physicists in all the top universities, is because you actually do NOT know better then them. Because you are nothing but an ignorant, dishonest conspriracy theorist with nothing but fundamentalist religious beliefs that are so far removed from empirical reality, that it's not even funny anymore.

Ouch.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Without GR, GPS wouldn't work. No matter what you say. No matter how dishonest you are. No matter how much you misrepresent the science and engineering involved.

Oh I know it wouldn't, simply because we have no other way to keep those clocks on the satellites synced with one another... and for no other reason at all... what, you think you have an atomic clock in your GPS in your car that needs to be synced with those satellites at such high precision? lol......

I'll answer my question to you, for you...
The reason you aren't travelling around the world to lecture actual physicists in all the top universities, is because you actually do NOT know better then them. Because you are nothing but an ignorant, dishonest conspriracy theorist with nothing but fundamentalist religious beliefs that are so far removed from empirical reality, that it's not even funny anymore.

At least I can actually post evidence of the actual world and not have to lie to everybody. At least I don't nfeel the need to try to insult others to make myself feel all puffed up...

Feel better now that your rant is over?

Rants are all you have, that's why you keep studiously avoiding answering.....

Which is why you refuse to answer my question....

But I notice for some reason you keep avoiding explaining why your theory is 99.8% correct inside the solar system without fudge factors, but needs 95% fudge factors outside it?

What, don't you believe in the accuracy of your own theory?????

After all, you just claimed GPS wouldn't work without it, so apparently you concede to its accuracy (without actually understanding why its needed, but at least you are in the ballpark for once, instead of the next city).....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ouch.

Not in the least. Rants and tirades are the first concession that people cant back up their beliefs scientifically and have lost the battle.

Instead of hurting as you think it should, it merely confirms that he has realized he has nothing scientific to argue with....

It is a great day here at CE..... two in one day, praise be to God.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not in the least. Rants and tirades are the first concession that people cant back up their beliefs scientifically and have lost the battle.

Instead of hurting as you think it should, it merely confirms that he has realized he has nothing scientific to argue with....

It is a great day here at CE..... two in one day, praise be to God.....

You wouldn't recognise science if it came up to you and slapped you upside the head with a gigantic billboard saying "Hi, i'm science".

Off course, if dismiss all of science, then nothing scientific that someone presents will be recognized as such. You are a bad joke.

Have fun sitting on that superiority-complex throne.
I'm done with you. I have never met someone as arrogant, condescending and dishonest as you. And I've met my share of ...eum... "annoying" people.

So gratz, achievement unlocked: you managed to make me put you on ignore.
Here's your award.