Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?

[toobfreak]

You are doing a great job arguing for the existence of something you tend to discount exists.

Now you are confusing issues. You're doing a great job at proving to me I've credited you with more smarts than you really have.

So.... since you apparently had a real education in physics, How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies?

If you have access to the internet, you don't need me to explain that to you, you can go look that up on your own. I don't write technical treatises or do research projects for others for free.

If you had truly credited me with smarts you wouldn't have acted like a jack ass about this.

Never acted like an ass, but I guess you're right, you've said enough crazy irrational crap over the years that I never truly credited you with too much smarts, yet you occasionally say very intelligent things! Then in the next breath, wouldn't surprise me if you claimed you really believed that Earth was only 2000 years old and really created in a week.

 

[ReinyDays]

I just have a lowly engineering degree. But I know enough that I know you actually didn't answer the question. So.... since you apparently had a real education in physics, How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies?

Emission from Hydrogen is exactly the same whether in a lab or from 8 billion light-years away ... nothing happens to light as it travels through the universe ... dark matter doesn't interact with light, that's why it's called "dark" ...

 

[Unkotare]

Black matter matters!

 

[ReinyDays]

Light matter has wrights too ...

 

[zaangalewa]

Nothing I am describing limits God.

God is an entity which we are not able to describe - but his creation we are able to understand and to describe, because god is not a liar. So it is clear that every description of his creation not needs knowledge about god.

Studying God's creation provides knowledge of God.

Everyone is able to study physics! This has nothing to do with a special form of religion including atheism. And also religious people (including atheists) know nothing about god. Everyone only believes (also atheists do so!) to understand god - but indeed is no one able to know for example that god exists and/or not exists. And in case god exists and not exists - what's easily possible for god, because god is almighty - we are again in the situation to know nothing about god, because we are not able to think with a contradiction. Everything would be true in our thoughts in this case - what's nevertheless able to be the same time wrong in the reality all around us. There are reasons why only one "god" exists in physics - the "god" with the name "experiment".

 

[zaangalewa]

... Our universe is effectively a bubble. A flat one. There may be other ones. They all had a beginning and all were created from nothing.

The "universe is flat" means we are able to use the euclidian geometry in case of the universe <=> The three angles of a triangle are together 180°. That's extremely astonishing. Why not less than 180° why not more than 180°? But this has nothing to do with "bubble" except you call the spacetime per se "bubble" - but the spacetime is in general (=also in macrocosmic dimensions) flat - what's in the "normal" (=mesocosmic) dimension of our experience the opposite of a "bubble". In general you use the word "bubble" to say that it is only one bubble under much more bubbles (=you believe in the existence of a multiverse) - but that's nothing what anyone is able to know.

 

[zaangalewa]

Both is true as far as we know. The universe is flat and it expands. The only problem I see in this context is sometimes for me that it is not clear when physicists speak only about an empty space and when they speak really about "nothing". I guess they speak about a neverending empty space, when they speak about an uncertainity relation of the nothing in this context.

It doesn't seem like nothing is that complex of a subject to understand. You are over complicating it.

To believe in neverending space around the universe is an oversimplification. To call this neverending space "nothing" is totally wrong - and as far as I know it is also in contradiction to the theory of relativity, because space was born once and the space itselve expands. So the universe not expands into a surrounding space. If someone is using now the analogy of a kind of quantum-vacuum of the space in context with the expression "nothing" then this is a wrong analogy. Space is something.

 

[zaangalewa]

... A universe created from nothing is the only explanation which makes sense and fits the observed data.

But it is not a satisfying answer, because nothing comes from nothing - within our universe.

So I don't discount other universes or bubbles of space and time being created in the same manner.

... ?

 

[ding]

You are doing a great job arguing for the existence of something you tend to discount exists.

Now you are confusing issues. You're doing a great job at proving to me I've credited you with more smarts than you really have.

So.... since you apparently had a real education in physics, How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies?

If you have access to the internet, you don't need me to explain that to you, you can go look that up on your own. I don't write technical treatises or do research projects for others for free.

If you had truly credited me with smarts you wouldn't have acted like a jack ass about this.

Never acted like an ass, but I guess you're right, you've said enough crazy irrational crap over the years that I never truly credited you with too much smarts, yet you occasionally say very intelligent things! Then in the next breath, wouldn't surprise me if you claimed you really believed that Earth was only 2000 years old and really created in a week.

You are confusing me with James Brown, dummy.

 

[ding]

I just have a lowly engineering degree. But I know enough that I know you actually didn't answer the question. So.... since you apparently had a real education in physics, How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies?

Emission from Hydrogen is exactly the same whether in a lab or from 8 billion light-years away ... nothing happens to light as it travels through the universe ... dark matter doesn't interact with light, that's why it's called "dark" ...

Sorry but I can't wrap my mind around space expanding faster than the speed of light but objects not traveling at faster than the speed of light. It does not compute. There is something wrong with our understanding and I tend to believe it starts at the beginning when they gloss over the part of why the universe expanded in the first place.

 

[ding]

Nothing I am describing limits God.

God is an entity which we are not able to describe - but his creation we are able to understand and to describe, because god is not a liar. So it is clear that every description of his creation not needs knowledge about god.

Studying God's creation provides knowledge of God.

Everyone is able to study physics! This has nothing to do with a special form of religion including atheism. And also religious people (including atheists) know nothing about god. Everyone only believes (also atheists do so!) to understand god - but indeed is no one able to know for example that god exists and/or not exists. And in case god exists and not exists - what's easily possible for god, because god is almighty - we are again in the situation to know nothing about god, because we are not able to think with a contradiction. Everything would be true in our thoughts in this case - what's nevertheless able to be the same time wrong in the reality all around us. There are reasons why only one "god" exists in physics - the "god" with the name "experiment".

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

... Our universe is effectively a bubble. A flat one. There may be other ones. They all had a beginning and all were created from nothing.

The "universe is flat" means we are able to use the euclidian geometry in case of the universe <=> The three angles of a triangle are together 180°. That's extremely astonishing. Why not less than 180° why not more than 180°? But this has nothing to do with "bubble" except you call the spacetime per se "bubble" - but the spacetime is in general (=also in macrocosmic dimensions) flat - what's in the "normal" (=mesocosmic) dimension of our experience the opposite of a "bubble". In general you use the word "bubble" to say that it is only one bubble under much more bubbles (=you believe in the existence of a multiverse) - but that's nothing what anyone is able to know.

The term bubble is meant to convey self contained closed universes. Yes, we cannot know if they exist just like I don't know that the mailman who stops at your house puts envelopes in your mailbox but I can infer he does because I know when he stops at my house he puts envelops in my mail box. So I can infer that other universes would be like ours just as I can infer the mailman puts envelopes in your mailbox.

 

[ding]

Both is true as far as we know. The universe is flat and it expands. The only problem I see in this context is sometimes for me that it is not clear when physicists speak only about an empty space and when they speak really about "nothing". I guess they speak about a neverending empty space, when they speak about an uncertainity relation of the nothing in this context.

It doesn't seem like nothing is that complex of a subject to understand. You are over complicating it.

To believe in neverending space around the universe is an oversimplification. To call this neverending space "nothing" is totally wrong - and as far as I know it is also in contradiction to the theory of relativity, because space was born once and the space itselve expands. So the universe not expands into a surrounding space. If someone is using now the analogy of a kind of quantum-vacuum of the space in context with the expression "nothing" then this is a wrong analogy. Space is something.

I never defined nothing as never ending space. I am not hung up on what we are expanding into. I don't need to know that to know that if other universes exist they would exist under the same laws of nature as ours and would have been created in the same way as ours. You are over complicating this discussion by trying to define something that no parallel exists for. A parallel does exist for other universes... our universe is that parallel.

 

[ding]

... A universe created from nothing is the only explanation which makes sense and fits the observed data.

But it is not a satisfying answer, because nothing comes from nothing - within our universe.

So I don't discount other universes or bubbles of space and time being created in the same manner.

... ?

It is an immensely satisfying answer. Saying that God created the universe from nothing is immensely satisfying. Saying the universe was created from nothing is not the same thing as saying the universe was created by nothing. And lastly, God is no thing. No thing created the universe. God is no thing.

 

[zaangalewa]

Nothing I am describing limits God.

God is an entity which we are not able to describe - but his creation we are able to understand and to describe, because god is not a liar. So it is clear that every description of his creation not needs knowledge about god.

Studying God's creation provides knowledge of God.

Everyone is able to study physics! This has nothing to do with a special form of religion including atheism. And also religious people (including atheists) know nothing about god. Everyone only believes (also atheists do so!) to understand god - but indeed is no one able to know for example that god exists and/or not exists. And in case god exists and not exists - what's easily possible for god, because god is almighty - we are again in the situation to know nothing about god, because we are not able to think with a contradiction. Everything would be true in our thoughts in this case - what's nevertheless able to be the same time wrong in the reality all around us. There are reasons why only one "god" exists in physics - the "god" with the name "experiment".

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.

I never said god is a thing. I speak about what we are able to think and what we are not able to think. The creator is not his creation. But this strangeness of god finds an end in Jesus, the Christ ... and in us, the children of god. There is no need to live in fear.

God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit.

Is he only spirit, if he is? Is he also not spirit, if he is?

A spirit is no thing.

Isn't it?

Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness.

The closest I imagine is god is not a grmpftltrmpf, ... but I'm not sure about.

That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality -

We don't live in any matrix. The world is real.

that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

I'm sure the moon is in the sky with or without any mind on planet Earth.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

In the beginning was the word (in sense of information)
Anton Zeilinger

 

[ding]

Nothing I am describing limits God.

God is an entity which we are not able to describe - but his creation we are able to understand and to describe, because god is not a liar. So it is clear that every description of his creation not needs knowledge about god.

Studying God's creation provides knowledge of God.

Everyone is able to study physics! This has nothing to do with a special form of religion including atheism. And also religious people (including atheists) know nothing about god. Everyone only believes (also atheists do so!) to understand god - but indeed is no one able to know for example that god exists and/or not exists. And in case god exists and not exists - what's easily possible for god, because god is almighty - we are again in the situation to know nothing about god, because we are not able to think with a contradiction. Everything would be true in our thoughts in this case - what's nevertheless able to be the same time wrong in the reality all around us. There are reasons why only one "god" exists in physics - the "god" with the name "experiment".

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.

I never said god is a thing. I speak about what we are able to think and what we are not able to think. The creator is not his creation. But this strangeness of god finds an end in Jesus, the Christ ... and in us, his children.

God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

no comment

I never said you said God was a thing. Of course the painter cannot be the painting although I do remember you arguing against this. You are all over the map. You argue we cannot know God exists. You argue that we cannot know God or know anything about God's nature. This is 100% wrong. And diametrically opposed to Catholic thought. We can know God exists and we can know God's nature through human reason and observation of what He created. But most importantly we can know that God exists and God's nature through a direct relationship with God.

God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Our universe is effectively a bubble. A flat one. There may be other ones. They all had a beginning and all were created from nothing.

The "universe is flat" means we are able to use the euclidian geometry in case of the universe <=> The three angles of a triangle are together 180°. That's extremely astonishing. Why not less than 180° why not more than 180°? But this has nothing to do with "bubble" except you call the spacetime per se "bubble" - but the spacetime is in general (=also in macrocosmic dimensions) flat - what's in the "normal" (=mesocosmic) dimension of our experience the opposite of a "bubble". In general you use the word "bubble" to say that it is only one bubble under much more bubbles (=you believe in the existence of a multiverse) - but that's nothing what anyone is able to know.

The term bubble is meant to convey self contained closed universes. Yes, we cannot know if they exist just like I don't know that the mailman who stops at your house puts envelopes in your mailbox but I can infer he does because I know when he stops at my house he puts envelops in my mail box. So I can infer that other universes would be like ours just as I can infer the mailman puts envelopes in your mailbox.

That's nonsense.

 

[zaangalewa]

... A universe created from nothing is the only explanation which makes sense and fits the observed data.

But it is not a satisfying answer, because nothing comes from nothing - within our universe.

So I don't discount other universes or bubbles of space and time being created in the same manner.

... ?

It is an immensely satisfying answer. Saying that God created the universe from nothing is immensely satisfying.

It sounds nice - but this means there is a titanic nothing between us and god, which we are not able to overstep as long as we are something on our own. We have to leave everything here to come home. But this is nothing what physicists ask for.

Saying the universe was created from nothing is not the same thing as saying the universe was created by nothing. And lastly, God is no thing. No thing created the universe. God is no thing.

no comment

 

[ding]

Nothing I am describing limits God.

God is an entity which we are not able to describe - but his creation we are able to understand and to describe, because god is not a liar. So it is clear that every description of his creation not needs knowledge about god.

Studying God's creation provides knowledge of God.

Everyone is able to study physics! This has nothing to do with a special form of religion including atheism. And also religious people (including atheists) know nothing about god. Everyone only believes (also atheists do so!) to understand god - but indeed is no one able to know for example that god exists and/or not exists. And in case god exists and not exists - what's easily possible for god, because god is almighty - we are again in the situation to know nothing about god, because we are not able to think with a contradiction. Everything would be true in our thoughts in this case - what's nevertheless able to be the same time wrong in the reality all around us. There are reasons why only one "god" exists in physics - the "god" with the name "experiment".

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.

I never said god is a thing. I speak about what we are able to think and what we are not able to think. The creator is not his creation. But this strangeness of god finds an end in Jesus, the Christ ... and in us, the children of god. There is no need to live in fear.

God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit.

Is he only spirit, if he is? Is he also not spirit, if he is?

A spirit is no thing.

Isn't it?

Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness.

The closest I imagine is god is not a grmpftltrmpf, ... but I'm not sure about.

That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality -

We don't live in any matrix. The world is real.

that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

I'm sure the moon is in the sky with or without any mind on planet Earth.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

In the beginning was the word (in sense of information)Anton Zeilinger

Is he only spirit, if he is? Is he also not spirit, if he is?

If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive. So in the case of spirit creating the material world, everything which has a physical reality is really composed of mind-stuff. So... no.

 

[zaangalewa]

Nothing I am describing limits God.

God is an entity which we are not able to describe - but his creation we are able to understand and to describe, because god is not a liar. So it is clear that every description of his creation not needs knowledge about god.

Studying God's creation provides knowledge of God.

Everyone is able to study physics! This has nothing to do with a special form of religion including atheism. And also religious people (including atheists) know nothing about god. Everyone only believes (also atheists do so!) to understand god - but indeed is no one able to know for example that god exists and/or not exists. And in case god exists and not exists - what's easily possible for god, because god is almighty - we are again in the situation to know nothing about god, because we are not able to think with a contradiction. Everything would be true in our thoughts in this case - what's nevertheless able to be the same time wrong in the reality all around us. There are reasons why only one "god" exists in physics - the "god" with the name "experiment".

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.

I never said god is a thing. I speak about what we are able to think and what we are not able to think. The creator is not his creation. But this strangeness of god finds an end in Jesus, the Christ ... and in us, the children of god. There is no need to live in fear.

God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit.

Is he only spirit, if he is? Is he also not spirit, if he is?

A spirit is no thing.

Isn't it?

Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness.

The closest I imagine is god is not a grmpftltrmpf, ... but I'm not sure about.

That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality -

We don't live in any matrix. The world is real.

that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

I'm sure the moon is in the sky with or without any mind on planet Earth.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

In the beginning was the word (in sense of information)Anton Zeilinger

Is he only spirit, if he is? Is he also not spirit, if he is?

If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive. So in the case of spirit creating the material world, everything which has a physical reality is really composed of mind-stuff. So... no.

This has nothing to do with physics.