# Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?



## ding (Jul 6, 2020)

What type of matter is dark matter? 
Of which particles consist dark matter? 
How does dark matter arise? 
What are the evidences of dark matter?


----------



## Votto (Jul 6, 2020)

More importantly, does dark matter matter?

You see planets rioting, stars looting, it really gets old after a while.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jul 6, 2020)

Galaxies set on fire and stars murdered in enormous flashes of light, sounds like Chicago and Minneapolis.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ding (Jul 6, 2020)

Votto said:


> More importantly, does dark matter matter?


Not particularly.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jul 6, 2020)

ding said:


> What type of matter is dark matter?
> Of which particles consist dark matter?
> How does dark matter arise?
> What are the evidences of dark matter?



Should probably stick to the question of how it arises and then ask more questions. 

So discuss alternate hypothosis with regard to empty space. Meanning challenge the cosmological constant in which Einsteins current model functions. Probably would wanna kick around the theory of electromagnetism as an ice breaker. Knawmean?


----------



## petro (Jul 6, 2020)

What is Dark Matter?

A new trendy term for " who the hell knows"?


----------



## ding (Jul 6, 2020)

Natural Citizen said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What type of matter is dark matter?
> ...


I understand how the concept of dark matter / dark energy arose. And I understand the theory of how it is "created" so to speak. 

What I am trying to understand is if it is materially different than the matter that formed the universe.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jul 6, 2020)

ding said:


> I understand how the concept of dark matter / dark energy arose. And I understand the theory of how it is "created" so to speak.
> 
> What I am trying to understand is if it is materially different than the matter that formed the universe.



Right, I know. You're talking about the scale invariance of space. Duh.


----------



## james bond (Jul 7, 2020)

Votto said:


> More importantly, does dark matter matter?
> 
> You see planets rioting, stars looting, it really gets old after a while.



Black Lives Matter, but I don't really see dark matter matter.  It would if we could measure it somehow like the temperature.  I think it's hypothetical matter when we observe fast moving galaxies and they're clustered together.  It could be gravity or dark matter that holds these galaxies clustered together.  Actually, it could be anything we observe out in space and can't explain that is expanding at incredible speeds away from us or colliding.

If anyone claims they have observed or detected dark matter, then they should be put in the looney bin, but we can't because the science of atheism needs it along with dark energy to explain expansion phenomena.  I think it's another term like cosmic inflation which is also popular with the science of atheism.


----------



## ding (Jul 7, 2020)

Natural Citizen said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I understand how the concept of dark matter / dark energy arose. And I understand the theory of how it is "created" so to speak.
> ...


I don't know what that is.  I'm trying to figure out how if this matter is being added because the universe is expanding (i.e. empty space adds matter) why it doesn't clump together like other matter.

What is it about its properties that makes it behave differently.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jul 7, 2020)

ding said:


> I don't know what that is.  I'm trying to figure out how if this matter is being added because the universe is expanding (i.e. empty space adds matter) why it doesn't clump together like other matter.
> 
> What is it about its properties that makes it behave differently.



Well, what's to say that the properties of empty space do actually contract or dialate after a disturbance like an explosion/ bang? Perhaps the properties might remain unchanged. The very concept of dark matter seems to be a product of not actually challenging the scale invariance of the properties of empty space. Perhaps it remains scale variant. 

That's actually why I'd mentioned about touching on the fundamentals of electromagnetism first, since scale invariance is present in the fundamental theory of it.


----------



## ding (Jul 7, 2020)

Natural Citizen said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what that is.  I'm trying to figure out how if this matter is being added because the universe is expanding (i.e. empty space adds matter) why it doesn't clump together like other matter.
> ...


Ok, but I still don't understand how it can gravitationally affect the rest of the universe without itself being affected.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jul 7, 2020)

ding said:


> Ok, but I still don't understand how it can gravitationally affect the rest of the universe without itself being affected.



I don't particularly accept that it even exists, ding. Matter that is stronger than Newtons theory of gravitational attraction is yet to be observed so far as I know. And I believe there have been experiments that explain expansion of the universe and the speed of stars without even having to factor dark matter into it at all. Which basically voids the previous theory that there was more matter in the universe than we can see. I forget whose theory that was, but I know it was back in the 30s or thereabouts. Of course, I'm just a regular dolt with your standard Newtonian education. Anything a couple of fellers on the Internet could come up with would be nothing more than conjecture.  But it's interesting, it's fun topical babble for people who are interested in that kind of thing.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jul 7, 2020)

Fritz Zwicky was the guy's name who introduced the theory about there being extra/dark matter that we couldn't see. 1933. I looked it up.

As I'd mentioned, though, we've seen research which explains the expansion and speed without having to even factor in Zwicky's theory of dark matter. If I'm not mistaken, there were some amendments to the laws. I forget who the researcher was, though, it's been a couple of years back. I do know that it was a researcher out of Geneva.


----------



## ding (Jul 7, 2020)

Natural Citizen said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but I still don't understand how it can gravitationally affect the rest of the universe without itself being affected.
> ...


I'm with you there.  Seems like a fudge factor to me.  

But that's why I am asking the questions; to test it to see if there is something I am missing.


----------



## ding (Jul 9, 2020)

Dark matter and the aether are fudge factors.


----------



## Votto (Jul 10, 2020)

james bond said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > More importantly, does dark matter matter?
> ...


So your saying that dark matter is a cluster?

Racist!


----------



## james bond (Jul 10, 2020)

Votto said:


> So your saying that dark matter is a cluster?
> 
> Racist!



You're racist if you're comparing dark matter to black lives matter.  We don't know if dark matter exists.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 19, 2020)

ding said:


> ....
> 
> What are the evidences of dark matter?



Still what Vera Rubin found out in context of the rotation of the galaxy Andromeda is a very impressing question, which makes plaubsible the existence of "dark matter" (better to say: "unknown mass" - or "still unknown source of something what looks like gravitational force").

Here an example for the galaxy Messier 33:






Rotation curve of spiral galaxy Messier 33 (yellow and blue points with error bars), and a predicted one from distribution of the visible matter (gray line). The discrepancy between the two curves can be accounted for by adding a dark matter halo surrounding the galaxy.


----------



## ding (Jul 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


Otherwise known as a fudge factor.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 19, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



May I ask, why you say such an unbelievable stupid nonsense? Do you love pub brawls?

The path velocity far from the bulge of a galaxy should be proportional in an idealized Kepler system to the squareroot of the reziprocal radius. Why is it not?


----------



## ding (Jul 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


I say it because that's exactly what it is; a fudge factor to make observations match calculations.  

There is no explanation for what particles make up dark matter/energy or an explanation for how it was created without violating the FLoT or an explanation for why gravitational forces don't affect it like it does the rest of the universe.  

You might start with answering the questions asked by the OP before you make foolish assumptions about me.


----------



## ding (Jul 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


What type of matter is dark matter?
Of which particles consist dark matter?
How does dark matter arise?
What are the evidences of dark matter?


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 19, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You don't understand what you ask and why you ask this. Think about what I said - or let it be.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 19, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



no comment


----------



## ding (Jul 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


I do understand what I ask and why I ask it.  If they are correct and dark matter accounts for 85% of the matter in the universe then these are important questions.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 19, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


no comment


----------



## ding (Jul 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Hence, it's a fudge factor.


----------



## Quasar44 (Jul 19, 2020)

ding said:


> What type of matter is dark matter?
> Of which particles consist dark matter?
> How does dark matter arise?
> What are the evidences of dark matter?


Dark matter and energy are 100 percent real
It’s been unanswered the last 90 yrs
It has zero interaction with  anything
they are passing through you but it has zero interactions with any electrons


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 20, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



What's nonsense. To say so has more to do with psychology, sociology and politics than mathematics and physics.

Short: Explain why in a galaxy the path velocity is not proportional to ~ (1/radius)^1/2. Why exists such a huge difference in the expected values of an ideal Kepler system and the real measured values? Which other kind of formula is to use? "Dark matter" means in this context - as far as I am able to see - the formulas are correct, but there exists in reality indeed an additional gravity force. To use the word "dark" instead of "unknown" is perhaps just simple a poetical mistake. You can use instead of "dark matter" also an expression like "unknown gravity force" - or "gravity force, which comes from something, what we still don't know".


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2020)

Quasar44 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What type of matter is dark matter?
> ...


I think you are thinking of neutrinos.


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Which particles make up dark matter?


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 20, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Read, what I said. Think about - or let it be.


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


I did read what you wrote.  You are essentially agreeing with me.  It's a fudge factor.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 20, 2020)

ding said:


> ... I did read what you wrote.  You are essentially agreeing with me.



I agree with nothing what you say and specially I do absolutelly not agree with the way how you say what you say.



> It's a fudge factor.



You love it to babble. Tell me how to solve the problem Fritz Zwicky formulated in 1933 the first time in context Viralsatz (=~¿viral sentence?) or Vera Rubin made popular in context rotation curve. ... Oh I see now... In 1932 Jan Hendrik Oort calculated with 0.092 sun masses per parsec^3 although it were only known in 1932 0.038 sun masses per parsec^3. Why is this so? What is 'dark'? What do we not see? Why do we still not see, what we were not able to see since 1932 - although it has effects, which we are able to measure? What's wrong?


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ... I did read what you wrote.  You are essentially agreeing with me.
> ...


You mean besides not being able to describe the fundamental composition of matter which supposedly makes up 85% of the universe?


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 20, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I hate this aggressive nonsense style of US-Americans in all forms of "discussions". It's always stupid - and never interesting. Asides: What do you call why 85% in this context?


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


To make calculations match observations they say that dark matter accounts for 85% of the matter in the universe.


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Do you understand how dark matter is supposedly created?


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 20, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



How are we able to know this while we are not able to know the total amount of energy of the universe?


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 20, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



God made it. So it's a good thing. The only problem is we still don't know what it is exactly so we are able to use better ways of mathematics in combination with reality. We are still not able to explain what we "see" - or not able to explain what it makes to an delusion what we see - if it is a delusion, what seems not to be very plausible in case of dark matter (not so in case of dark energy, what's a totally different thing).

A piece of wood (matter) burns for example and sends out light. That it has a mass is onyl one criterion if it hits someones head for example. The word matter (material) is perhaps a totally wrong idea. No one knows. Gravity per se is only an effect of a dengled space time - better to say it is a bent space-time. What is able to bend space-timè? Only matter?


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


But we do know the total amount of energy....

"...Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


So the answer is no.  You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.

Even I know how dark matter is supposedly created.  

Dark matter is created by the expansion of the universe.  Such that as the volume grows the added volume was not perfectly empty.  So as the universe continues to expand, the amount of dark matter increases proportionately.  

So all of my questions still stand.  And have not been answered.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 21, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



no comment


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 21, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You confuse here the expressions "dark matter" and "dark energy", which are totally different. As far as I know in the moment it is possible that the ideas around "dark energy" are basing on a mistake. Not so dark matter.



> Such that as the volume grows the added volume was not perfectly empty.



?



> So as the universe continues to expand, the amount of dark matter increases proportionately.



Sounds crazy.



> So all of my questions still stand.  And have not been answered.



Strange.


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Exactly.  They know how much energy the universe started with.   And they know that that is not enough matter for the expansion that they think they see.  So to make calculations match observations they created dark matter.  The calculations and observations are so far off that they have to add almost 6 times more matter than we started with.  

The problem is that they are silent on how that matter is added without violating the conservation of energy (unlike the big bang which actually has an explanation), they are silent on which particles constitute this dark matter and they are silent on how this so called dark matter isn't affected by gravitation.


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Actually they aren't.   All matter is energy.  The matter in our universe began as energy (i.e. subatomic particles) and then quickly formed hydrogen and helium.  Dark matter also starts off as energy.  The problem is that they aren't very clear which particles form the dark energy which later becomes dark matter.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 21, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



no comment


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 21, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



no comment


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Can you explain to me your understanding of how dark matter and dark energy are different and your understanding of how each comes about?  Do you believe dark energy and dark matter are totally unrelated?


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 21, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


no comment


----------



## Dalia (Jul 26, 2020)

ding said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > More importantly, does dark matter matter?
> ...


The question is for how long will the crazy democraps be able to support the term* Dark* Matter? will they consider the term racist or not?


----------



## Quasar44 (Aug 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Dark gravity is true
100 percent proven 
It’s an undiscovered particle


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 3, 2020)

ding said:


> What type of matter is dark matter?
> Of which particles consist dark matter?
> How does dark matter arise?
> What are the evidences of dark matter?


Great questions! Dunno.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 3, 2020)

ding said:


> I say it because that's exactly what it is; a fudge factor to make observations match calculations.


Maybe. Either it isn't, or we are missing something about gravity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 3, 2020)

ding said:


> So to make calculations match observations they created dark matter.


Or discovered it, depending on what transpires.


----------



## ding (Sep 4, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So to make calculations match observations they created dark matter.
> ...


To discover it they'd have to say, "here... look at this particle."


----------



## ding (Sep 4, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I say it because that's exactly what it is; a fudge factor to make observations match calculations.
> ...


Or the measurement of the acceleration of the universe.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 5, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I say it because that's exactly what it is; a fudge factor to make observations match calculations.
> ...



I can hear the physicists laughing from here ... they've avoided having to announce Universal Field Theory for yet another generation ... something we learned in all this Cancer research, how to milk that grant teat for a century ... as soon as anyone admits GR is wrong, a mess of folks lose their jobs ...

Strictly speaking ... since I'm the only one who believes this ... it's NOT a Conspiracy Theory ... just to be clear on that matter ...


----------



## Missourian (Sep 5, 2020)

I suspect dark matter is just the current iteration of the Ptolemaic epicycle...a hypotheses that fits observation but is likely erroneous due to processes that are not yet discovered or properly understood.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 6, 2020)

Missourian said:


> I suspect dark matter is just the current iteration of the Ptolemaic epicycle...a hypotheses that fits observation but is likely erroneous due to processes that are not yet discovered or properly understood.



Not exactly ... epicycles programmed onto a dedicated modern computer will produce accurate results ... but epicycles don't explain any physics ... it's just a mathematical construction ...

Dark matter is a little above that as it does explain some physics ... the extra gravity holds galaxies together when they should be flying apart ... the nature of dark matter remains a mystery ... but it's still slightly better than just mathematical coincidence ...

Also, we do have an observation that seems to confirm some manner of "extra" material in the universe that we can't see ... as galaxies collide, the true center of gravity lags behind the apparent center of gravity ... "as though" light matter is more free to collect whereas dark matter being denser has less freedom to collect ... if we agree this evidence is weak (or very weak) ... we still have more evidence than epicycles ... alas, we have no evidence of any kind that epicycles exist ...

Modified General Relativity is a proposal that takes what we see in these galaxies and create a mathematical function to fit the data ... it's very compelling as it is a perfect predictor of the data we have ... _i.e._ If A, then A ... so we can dispense with this mythological dark matter nonsense ... _i.e._ If 0, then A ... because that second logical statement isn't even wrong ...


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2020)

ding said:


> So the answer is no. You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.
> 
> Even I know how dark matter is supposedly created.
> 
> ...



Dark matter isn't just created by the expansion of the universe as you claim.  It is the expansion of spacetime.  Spacetime is what creates the dark matter.  It also destroys the dark matter so the expansion of spacetime continually creates and destroys dark matter.  You talked about the creation and destruction of the virtual particles, but attribute it an expansion of space which isn't correct.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2020)

So to answer your questions:
>>What type of matter is dark matter?
Of which particles consist dark matter?
How does dark matter arise?
What are the evidences of dark matter?<<

Dark matter is virtual particles.
Dark matter consists of quarks.
Dark matter is created by spacetime and its expansion.
The evidence for dark matter was found by Einstein in that any physical object, i.e. mass, distorts the grid of space.  Even virtual matter bends spacetime, and spacetime tells the matter how to move.  We see the evidence as gravitational waves.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2020)

ding said:


> Actually they aren't. All matter is energy. The matter in our universe began as energy (i.e. subatomic particles) and then quickly formed hydrogen and helium. Dark matter also starts off as energy. The problem is that they aren't very clear which particles form the dark energy which later becomes dark matter.



True, but I think LHC scientists are starting to identify different types of quarks that form quarks and antiquarks.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sep 7, 2020)

james bond said:


> True, but I think LHC scientists are starting to identify different types of quarks that form quarks and antiquarks.



Buzz ... wrong ... all the particles predicted by the Standard Model have been found ... and no particles have ever been found to lies outside the Standard Model ... complete gibberish about Space/Time ... the primary characteristic of dark matter is that is doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation ... it's "dark" ... are you just creating matter out of nothing? ... that violates the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy ... E = mc^2 ...

Your ideas here are no better than perpetual motion ... show me how you demonstrate these claims you've made ...


----------



## ding (Sep 7, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So the answer is no. You don't know how dark matter is supposedly created.
> ...


I haven't claimed anything.  I presented the claim of others.  And I don't accept your explanation either. 

I did not talk about the creation and destruction of virtual particles.  I talked about the creation of  anti-matter and matter particles - which by the way is the generally accepted belief within science - and the mutual annihilation of anti-matter and matter particles.  And I never attributed the creation of anti-matter and matter particles with the expansion of space. It is the other way around.  

It is getting really old having to correct your misstatements about what I have said.


----------



## ding (Sep 7, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Actually they aren't. All matter is energy. The matter in our universe began as energy (i.e. subatomic particles) and then quickly formed hydrogen and helium. Dark matter also starts off as energy. The problem is that they aren't very clear which particles form the dark energy which later becomes dark matter.
> ...


Show me.


----------



## Robert Urbanek (Sep 7, 2020)

Given the massive power and influence of dark matter and dark energy, can there be any doubt that the universe is governed by the Prince of Darkness?


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Now, you're backing down.  You claimed you knew how dark matter is created through the expansion of the universe.  I just made it clearer in that it is the expansion of spacetime.  Next, you talk about how this spacetime in the universe contains matter and antimatter.  That creates the destruction of the virtual particles.  We have both creation and destruction in the expansion of spacetime.  

>>It is getting really old having to correct your misstatements about what I have said.<<

First, when have we discussed this before?

Now, you're saying I made misstatements and that you're correcting it based on that which wasn't your claim but the claim of others.  If they're the claim of others then you can't say my claims are the ones that need correction.  That isn't how science works.  Instead, I presented what LHC found with the quarks.

You asked questions.  I provided some answers.  Why don't you discuss that?


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



First, it isn't just the claim of others or those of scientists working on dark matter, dark energy, and virtual particles.  Laypeople are starting to understand this stuff like they learned about protons, electrons, and neutrons.  Laypeople are learning from it as to how dark matter and dark energy are formed and destroyed with the expanison of spacetime.  What I am not certain is how to describe what happens with the cosmology.  We see galaxies being caught in the expansion.  What is happening to them?  Are they expanding, too, like the balloon hypothesis?  Instead, we see the celestial bodies rocketing away from us.  We see collisions of entire galaxies.  What is happening there?  What are we seeing?









						subatomic particle - “Strangeness”
					

The discovery of the pion in 1947 seemed to restore order to the study of particle physics, but this order did not last long. Later in the year Clifford Butler and George Rochester, two British physicists studying cosmic rays, discovered the first examples of yet another type of new particle...



					www.britannica.com
				




So, we should be able to answer your questions and discuss these things as it isn't exotic science anymore like it was ten years ago.

With LHC, we have this from last month.









						Large Hadron Collider Beauty Discovers First “Open-Charm” Tetraquark
					

The particle, which has been called X(2900), was detected by analyzing all the data LHCb has recorded so far from collisions at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. The LHCb experiment at CERN has developed a penchant for finding exotic combinations of quarks, the elementary particles that come together



					scitechdaily.com


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2020)

Robert Urbanek said:


> Given the massive power and influence of dark matter and dark energy, can there be any doubt that the universe is governed by the Prince of Darkness?



dark just means the unknown.  While dark energy could be associated with Satan, it is more likely associated with God as he who expands the heavens.


----------



## ding (Sep 7, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Good Lord, you are an idiot.  Show me where you think I said it and I'll show you why you are an idiot.


----------



## ding (Sep 7, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You think everything is less than 6000 years old so it's not really possible for me to discuss science with you.


----------



## james bond (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Dark matter is arguable, but the Earth is young around 6000 years old.  It shows you are running away from true science.


----------



## james bond (Dec 15, 2020)

Wider net to be cast for finding dark matter.  The work for non-WIMP dark matter.

'On the collider front, the LHC researchers have begun to investigate some of these new possibilities. For example, they have started looking at the hypothesis that dark matter is part of a larger dark sector with several new types of dark particles. These dark-sector particles could include a dark-matter equivalent of the photon, the dark photon, which would interact with the other dark-sector particles as well as the known particles, and long-lived particles, which are also predicted by SUSY models.

"Dark-sector scenarios provide a new set of experimental signatures, and this is a new playground for LHC physicists," says Doglioni.

"We are now expanding upon the experimental methods that we are familiar with, so we can try to catch rare and unusual signals buried in large backgrounds. Moreover, many other current and planned experiments are also targeting dark sectors and particles interacting more feebly than WIMPs. Some of these experiments, such as the newly approved FASER experiment, are sharing knowledge, technology and even accelerator complex with the main LHC experiments, and they will complement the reach of LHC searches for non-WIMP dark matter, as shown by the CERN Physics Beyond Colliders initiative."'









						Breaking new ground in the search for dark matter
					

Our fourth story in the LHC Physics at Ten series discusses the LHC’s hunt for the hypothetical particle that may make up dark matter




					home.cern
				




Search for WIMP dark matter

"Crews working on the largest U.S. experiment designed to directly detect dark matter completed a major milestone last month, and are now turning their sights toward startup after experiencing some delays due to global pandemic precautions.

U.S. Department of Energy officials on Sept. 21 formally signed off on project completion for LUX-ZEPLIN, or LZ: an ultrasensitive experiment that will use 10 metric tons of liquid xenon to hunt for signals of interactions with theorized dark matter particles called WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles. DOE's project completion milestone is called Critical Decision 4, or CD-4.

Dark matter makes up an estimated 85 percent of all matter in the universe. We know it's there because of its observed gravitational effects on normal matter, but we don't yet know what it is. LZ is designed to detect the two flashes of light that occur if a WIMP interacts with the nucleus of a xenon atom.

"We are completing commissioning of the detector—the testing phase—and will be looking at LZ data next year," said Simon Fiorucci, LZ operations manager and a physicist at the DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), which is the lead institution for the LZ collaboration.

LZ is installed nearly a mile below ground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (Sanford Lab) in Lead, South Dakota. Its depth provides natural shielding against the constant shower of cosmic rays at the Earth's surface, which are a source of background particle "noise" that could drown out the WIMP interaction signals scientists are searching for. LZ is also built from components that have been individually selected and tested to be low in naturally occurring radiation that could also complicate the search."









						A major milestone for an underground dark matter search experiment
					

Crews working on the largest U.S. experiment designed to directly detect dark matter completed a major milestone last month, and are now turning their sights toward startup after experiencing some delays due to global pandemic precautions.




					phys.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

P


ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We don't.know. in fact, it is only called "matter" for convenience, to denote the fact that it appears to be interacting via gravity. "Matter" may be a misnomer. Scientists know this.


----------



## MarathonMike (Dec 15, 2020)

My theory is the universe is contained within a giant invisible sphere that has mass so great it is "pulling" all the matter in the universe towards itself. Hey, that's just as plausible as dark matter!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

MarathonMike said:


> My theory is the universe is contained within a giant invisible sphere that has mass so great it is "pulling" all the matter in the universe towards itself. Hey, that's just as plausible as dark matter!


Unfortunately no, it isn't, as it misses the entire point of why dark matter had to be postulated. But thanks anyway.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Maybe Dark matter is true NOTHINGNESS.....the absence of anything


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

Turtlesoup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...


Then you have to explain its boundaries. Why wouldn't the patches of nothing just diffuse across space and become filled with something? Fascinating idea though.


----------



## MarathonMike (Dec 15, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > My theory is the universe is contained within a giant invisible sphere that has mass so great it is "pulling" all the matter in the universe towards itself. Hey, that's just as plausible as dark matter!
> ...


Prove that my brilliant invisible sphere theory is wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

MarathonMike said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...


I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying it would not explain the observations that led to the postulation of dark matter in the first place, i.e., rotation speed of galaxies.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Dec 15, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nothingness would require nothing including its own boundaries and would have nothing to create boundaries.  Maybe true nothingness is nothing more than a blank slate whose boundaries aren't defined by it, but  by the SOMETHING that surrounds it.   The something creates and defines the boundaries.   Likely bonds would be created based on the Somethings need  past the cellular and elemental levels.   Maybe all somethings require a bond to something else which prevents them from existing nothingness on their own(unless they can slowly build or move into nothingness by keeping their bonds and closing in on the boundaries.)  If Dark Matter was just blank white--------


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> P
> 
> 
> ding said:
> ...


The fact that scientists can’t tell you what it consists of ought to be the first clue it doesn’t exist.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

Hence it is imagined.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

Turtlesoup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...


It’s only known property is being a fudge factor.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > P
> ...


That's only a clue that they need to conduct more investigation.


----------



## miketx (Dec 15, 2020)

Dark matter stole my bike!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

miketx said:


> Dark matter stole my bike!


Maybe mikey's fat ass is speeding up the rotation of the milky way? We.will need some very brave people to investigate, haha.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes, but  there would be a requirement that somewhere out there that there is NOTHINGNESS so even if Dark Matter isn't nothingness than something has to be.


ding said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You're not much into existential theories are you?

Even if Dark matter is not anything not even nothingness, there has to be something out there is nothing.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> The fact that scientists can’t tell you what it consists of ought to be the first clue it doesn’t exist.



"Something" certainly exists ... else how do you explain we effect we do observe ... what is the cause? ...

Are you suggesting atoms didn't exist until we discovery protons and electrons? ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that scientists can’t tell you what it consists of ought to be the first clue it doesn’t exist.
> ...


What's a quark made of? I will assume all the scientists are wrong, and they do not exist. Until you answer.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Dec 15, 2020)

MarathonMike said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...


`
What we can see supposedly is that Light Protons are broken down by Proton Decay causing the black holes to emit large amounts of gamma rays.

Proton Decay is Known to occur but never observed...perhaps lack of gravity or some other phenom like certain types of radiation affects protons differently in the area of the black holes.  If a black hole results from lack of orbital objects which typically produce gravity--------protons may just act differently there than here breaking apart and then decaying.    It would explain why we see no body masses and no light in these areas.

You are basically looking for what would cause a proton to decay.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 15, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What's a quark made of? I will assume all the scientists are wrong, and they do not exist. Until you answer.



Strings? ...


----------



## esalla (Dec 15, 2020)

Turtlesoup said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Actually the only


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Actually all the scientist who claim to know what quarks are made of are wrong because none of them know


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > What's a quark made of? I will assume all the scientists are wrong, and they do not exist. Until you answer.
> ...


Maybe. Strings made of what? Heh heh


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that scientists can’t tell you what it consists of ought to be the first clue it doesn’t exist.
> ...


I don't think so.  I am suggesting that dark matter was imagined to make the world make sense.  It's nebulous at best.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Something that constitutes 85% of the universe shouldn't be that hard to find.  But apparently that's what happens when this made up matter isn't made of the electrons, protons, and neutrons that we’re familiar with.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes ding, that is how hypotheses work. Else we would not need them. Evolution was also "imagined" to make the world make sense. 

And again, no scientists thinks it is anything like what we know as "matter", save for interacting with gravity. So the name "matter" was chosen for convenience and convention. Scientists are also looking for solutions in gravity theory that don't involve a strange new type of matter. So they are actually working to rule out dark "matter", not just complaining about it on a message board.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

Turtlesoup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Turtlesoup said:
> ...


Nothingness is not extant.  Nothingness is the absence of something.  The presence of energy/matter creates space and time.  So the absence of space and time is nothingness.  

That seemed sorta existential to me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> Something that constitutes 85% of the universe shouldn't be that hard to find.


Ding has spoken! Haha

As it turns out, something that interacts with gravity but not with normal matter or light might actually be pretty hard to find.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


It's a fudge factor.  It is nebulous at best.  The simplest explanation is that we don't fully understand what we are observing and there is no need to make up imaginary matter/energy to explain the acceleration.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Something that constitutes 85% of the universe shouldn't be that hard to find.
> ...


Yes, that's what I believe.  It's a fudge factor.  It's totally made up.  It's like the global warming hysteria.  It's very convenient to invent a new kind of energy that does not coalesce into electrons, protons and neutrons.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> It's a fudge factor.


What scientists call, "a hypothesis". What someone on a strange, attention begging bender calls, "a fudge factor".


----------



## esalla (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Dark matter is not made up, but it is merely an explanation for the unexplainable.  So dark matter might be real or another explanation might be found.

But you will never know


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It's a fudge factor.
> ...


That's good, make it personal.  Run along.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I will know the truth if they discover the true explanation for their observations.


----------



## esalla (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What is the truth?


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2020)

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > esalla said:
> ...


We'll see.


----------



## james bond (Dec 15, 2020)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > P
> ...



Well, something has to be out there to make galaxies look that way, the CMB more dense than it should be, velocity of stars not slowing down but remaining constant, and more.

The scientists don't know if it's baryonic or non-baryonic.  Something has to be out there tho.

If it doesn't exist, then it will be even more of a mystery.  Nothing shows that is the case.  They have to be be very small invisible particles.  How small is small?

It's one of the top questions that cosmologists are trying to answer and they're spending billions to figure it out.


----------



## james bond (Dec 15, 2020)

esalla said:


> What is the truth?



Lol.  You have to talk like it's religion with ding.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 16, 2020)

abe toi see a casuels 





ding said:


> ... The presence of energy/matter creates space and time.  So the absence of space and time is nothingness. ...



Why do you think space and time create energy - or energy creates space and time? Where do you see a causal process? I could perhaps imagine that space is only a special form of energy - and time is perhaps only a special flow of energy - (within a meta-time and meta-space) - but I'm not able to see a causal structure. As far as I know says the theory of relativity that space, time, energy and all natural laws were born in a first planksecond, when the universe had the size of a first plankmeter. "Suddenly" everything was here. This was about 13.8 billion years ago, how our last approximation tells us. This was "creation" - afterwards started "evolution". For example froze out inevitably electrons, when the universe became colder, because of the expansion of the universe. And I was evitably born some years later with a lot of good luck for me and perhaps some bad luck for others. About 2020 years ago was born someone who was more importnat - thatsd why we celebrate his bírthday every year.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> abe toi see a casuels
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gravity.  The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.   No energy.  No gravity.  No space and time.  Energy cannot exist without creating space and time because a consequence of energy is gravity, which perfectly balances the positive energy of matter which is what allows a universe to be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation because the net energy of the universe is zero.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 16, 2020)

ding said:


> Gravity.  The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.



Gravity is a form of energy. How is gravity able to create space and time out of a position of nowhere and nowhen? Where and when is this position or whatelse exists instead of this?


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity.  The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.
> ...


I don't see gravity creating space and time per se.  I see gravity as a consequence of space and time which is a consequence of the presence of energy/matter.   So the presence of energy/matter is what creates space and time.  Like I said before... no matter/energy, no gravity, no space and time.

What else exists instead or outside or before this?  Existence, God.  Or if you prefer a less philosophical answer... probably radiation.  Whatever it is, it is not energy or matter as we know it.  It is beyond energy and matter.  Consciousness without form.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Nothing - specially existed no "before" before time started.



> Existence, God.  Or if you prefer a less philosophical answer... probably radiation.



It existed no time, no space, no energy and no natural laws - but radiation (which is a form of energy) ?



> Whatever it is, it is not energy or matter as we know it.  It is beyond energy and matter.  Consciousness without form.



God is consciousness without form? What do you say, god? Are you consciousness without form? ... What means _"If you like me to be without hands!"_. No - I don't laugh now. ... But okay - a little smile: For a probably existing and/or not existing entity I have to agree that this was not one of your very worst jokes, father.  ...


----------



## esalla (Dec 18, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


God created the DNA that makes you what you are, whether Ding is a schizzo or not


----------



## ding (Dec 18, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


To say nothing existed before our time or there was no before because our time did not exist is an idiotic argument.  Our time did not exist.  That's as far as you can go with that argument.

Our universe should have only been filled with radiation; no matter, no energy to perform work and no life.  If there are other "universes" outside of our space and time, they are most likely filled with radiation and have no space or time.  In other words, they are no things.  So what exists outside of our universe are no things.  You being a thing, can't possibly relate to no things.  God is no thing.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Idiotic or not - that's the only thing we are able to say about this not existing time. If it smells like nothing - looks like nothing - feels like nothing - and so on: Why not to call it "nothing", if this is the only thing we are able to say and to think about in a realistic perspective?


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 18, 2020)

esalla said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Let me say it this way: It was for example inevitable that electrons froze out in our universe - but I am for example here because I am an answer of this what had happened in history before I was here. This laws follow different degrees of freedom. If my biological father for example had shot down Hitler or if my biological mother would had been murdered in a concentration camp then I would not live and I would miss nothing. And DNA is for me in general only a thing which has to do with a more or less sane body. In this context the environment is very important. Blue eyes are better for the life in the North of Europe for example. They are not better for to the life in the South of Europe.


----------



## justoffal (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> What type of matter is dark matter?
> Of which particles consist dark matter?
> How does dark matter arise?
> What are the evidences of dark matter?



Good question....

What is real is the big hole in our current set of equations about the gravitational effects of the average galaxy sprawl.... They simply weigh too much for the matter that is visible.
That does not mean that Dark Matter exists...it just means we are currently clueless....lol.

JO


----------



## justoffal (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> What type of matter is dark matter?
> Of which particles consist dark matter?
> How does dark matter arise?
> What are the evidences of dark matter?



We were all told that once the original singularity expanded into the current cosmic structure that the Strong force, weak force and Gravity all separated from each other....
how do we know there were only three forces?  Maybe there is one we have not identified yet?


----------



## james bond (Dec 18, 2020)

It's real.


----------



## esalla (Dec 18, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


This is complete gibberish  " It was for example inevitable that electrons froze out in our universe"  

Take your meds


----------



## ding (Dec 18, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Because it is inaccurate.  Relatively speaking there were other events which preceded our space time.  To say they have no meaning because they occurred before our space time is inaccurate.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> *Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?*
> What type of matter is dark matter?
> Of which particles consist dark matter?
> How does dark matter arise?
> What are the evidences of dark matter?




Absolutely real.  It has already been imaged.  Here are a few public releases of dark matter imaged around distant galaxy clusters.  The red is high energy xray radiation and the blue is the dark matter.













Sorry, I don't remember details of the technique used.  

Now dark energy is another matter.  That is purely hypothetical to solve a problem in observation and I believe the concept is flawed.

No one knows what type of matter dark matter is, only its presence by how it affects visible matter.  Maybe it is that third state from which all normal matter and energy arises.


----------



## ding (Dec 18, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > *Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?*
> ...


So then what's it made of?


----------



## esalla (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He said that he didn't know what dark matter was made of.

How many chromosomes do you have


----------



## ding (Dec 18, 2020)

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Enough to be able to prove my point, dummy.  Gravitational imaging is not proof of dark matter.  It's made up.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Good question.  It doesn't react or interact with anything we know so it is anyone's guess.  But it is there in some sort of twilight zone only partly discernible to us.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> It's made up.



Absolutely not.  Dark matter was first discovered by noting that there simply wasn't enough "stuff" in galaxies like our own to hold them together and from the stuff we can see, they should fly apart at the speed they rotate and so there had to be something more there to impart enough gravity to account for the structure and rotation.  Bottom line:  dark matter has to be there because there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the observable motions and behavior!






__





						[2012.07846] Baryonic effects on the detectability of annihilation radiation from dark matter subhaloes around the Milky Way
					





					arxiv.org
				












						Updated look at Milky Way’s rotation strengthens the case for dark matter
					

Tracking objects orbiting the Milky Way's center gives us a better understanding.




					arstechnica.com
				












						Milky Way Is Being Twisted and Deformed With Extreme Violence by the Gravitational Force of the LMC’s Dark Matter Halo
					

The long-held belief that the Milky Way, the galaxy containing Earth and the solar system, is relatively static has been ruptured by fresh cosmic insight. The spiral-shaped disc of stars and planets is being pulled, twisted and deformed with extreme violence by the gravitational force of a smalle



					scitechdaily.com
				












						Evidence for a Dark Matter Clump in the Milky Way
					

Astronomers think they've found evidence of a dark matter clump that punched its way through a stream of stars in the Milky Way halo.




					skyandtelescope.org


----------



## esalla (Dec 18, 2020)

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He still said that he did not know what dark matter was, then you ask him what it is made of.

LOL are you a ding a ling or a ring ding?


----------



## esalla (Dec 18, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It's made up.
> ...


Dark matter was never discovered?

Dark matters existence is implied because idiots can not accept that either their math is wrong or the universe is not what they think it is


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 19, 2020)

esalla said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > esalla said:
> ...



What is this what you say here? What is your alternative plausibility within natural science for the freezing out of electrons?


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 19, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Sure it is 'inacurate' = it fits not with our experienes - not with any of all possible experiences. We don't know anything about this "time", which is no time, in a "space", where is no spacee, with an energy, which was not energy. We are not able to say anything about what we know,  because we know nothing about, so the only thing what we are able to say about in a plausible way of natrual science is nothing - what we don't do, because we are curios. So we ask what this is, what we are not able to ask.



> Relatively speaking there were other events which preceded our space time.



Nothing becomes true because you or anyone else thinks something is true.



> To say they have no meaning because they occurred before our space time is inaccurate.



I did not say a nothing or the nothing has no meaning for something what is not nothing. But what is this meaning? What is someone able to say in a plaubible way of the nothing "before" the not nothing started to be?


----------



## esalla (Dec 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


That you are ill and are babbling about your delusions


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 19, 2020)

esalla said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > esalla said:
> ...



I fear, if you are the future of the USA then the USA is without any future. What about first to learn something about totally normal manners, before you try to "discuss" problems of natural science in context philosophy and spirituality?

Some information:
-----
_The whole universe was once a hot dense sphere(TBBT anyone?). One property of hot dense spheres is that they emit radiation, sometimes called blackbody radiation[1]. Everything at a finite temperature emits this kind of radiation. Even you. However, you are so “cool” on the scale of early universe temperatures that the radiation you emit is unlikely to have too much “energy” in it(The integrated spectral function will be super small!).

Most of this radiation is emitted at frequencies(or energy) that is roughly proportional to temperature[2]. When we say the early universe was hot, we mean it was really really hot. So, most of this radiation would escape as super high energy photons. And what do super high energy photons do? They make electrons(amongst a whole bunch of other particles) of course[3]!






The above image is a Feynman diagram that roughly depicts how two high energy photons can create an electrons and a positron( the anti particle of an electron!). This diagram is to be read in the following manner:_


_Everything left of the “dot” or the “vertex” is to be interpreted as an incoming particle, in this case two high energy photons in the early universe!_
_Everything right of the particle is to be interpreted as a outgoing particle in this case, an electron and a positron!_
_The directionality on the arrows indicate the “kind” of particle i.e particle or antiparticle. For example notice that the arrow in the lower vertex in the diagram above, has the “opposite” sense of direction that you would ascribe to a outgoing particle. This means its an antiparticle(positron!)._
_The lines between the vertices are “hypothetical” particles or imaginary, book keeping particles that are thought of as intermediates. In this case, its another electron._
_Cool. So far, so good. Hot universe -> very energetic radiation -> particles produced. Notice that this process can't happen in the universe any more. The universe has cooled to a ridiculously low temperature(3K). This particle production process can only happen when the incoming photons are sufficiently energetic, and hence the process occurs in very high energy situations only!

There is however a small caveat. If the universe is too hot, the two newly created electron positron pair just recombine. There is an optimal temperature when they can be created and stay created. This phase of the universe is called the lepton era(since its the phase of lepton creation!)

However, one of the long outstanding questions in physics is, if a positron is created everytime an electron is created, why do why have a matter dominated universe with mostly electrons?
-----_
source: How were electrons created? - Quora


----------



## esalla (Dec 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Nothing you posted is science, it is all unsupported speculation.  The big band theory is already dead as the expanding universe has no zero point evident that the mass spread out from, so the evidence itself disproves the single point origin


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 19, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> Absolutely real.  It has already been imaged.  Here are a few public releases of dark matter imaged around distant galaxy clusters.  The red is high energy xray radiation and the blue is the dark matter.
> 
> *Sorry, I don't remember details of the technique used.*
> Now dark energy is another matter.  That is purely hypothetical to solve a problem in observation and I believe the concept is flawed.
> No one knows what type of matter dark matter is, only its presence by how it affects visible matter.  Maybe it is that third state from which all normal matter and energy arises.



Sorry ... that's going to need a citation then ...


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 19, 2020)

esalla said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > esalla said:
> ...



Basing on the theory of relativity and the fact that the universe expands.



> The big band theory



 If this is a joke then it is a very nice joke, but it isn't a joke, isn't it? By the way: The big bang was not big and it was no bang. It was just simple the beginning of our universe. "Suddenly" everything was here and started to evolve. But this what evolves has different degrees of freedom. Some things must exist - other things can exist or may exist. If all possible things must exist then I guess this is only realizable in a kind of multiverse.



> is already dead as the expanding universe has no zero point evident that the mass spread out from,



?

The universe expands from all points into all directions. The big bang is everywhere.



> so the evidence itself disproves the single point origin



Single point (whatever this is in physics) or not is not the point. The point is the expansion of the universe. Your alternative is what exactly?


----------



## esalla (Dec 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


The law of conservation of mass precludes the possibility of the big bang and or something coming from nothing.  

Really


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 19, 2020)

esalla said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > esalla said:
> ...



Mass is a form of energy. Energy is not able to be produced - nor able to be destroyed - within our universe. But a form of energy is able to be transfered into another form of energy - while the entropy grows.

The "Massenerhaltung" (conservation of mass) says that in chemical reactions the sum of the masses of the substances which are combined in this chemical reactions doesn't change considerably.



> precludes the possibility of the big bang and or something coming from nothing.
> Really.



The sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be 0 - so it has no energy at all. If you could take a look at it from outside (but "unfortunatelly" (=fortunatelly, I guess) that is impossible, because it has no outside) you would see nothing, because it is nothing. But if you would leave our universe you would see it - because the universe is missing your mass in this case. On the other side could be in all points all around you an infinite number of universes, which you would not be able to see, as long as they don't have any energy outside of themselves. What is not in interaction is not existing - but his means not a lot in this case.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely real.  It has already been imaged.  Here are a few public releases of dark matter imaged around distant galaxy clusters.  The red is high energy xray radiation and the blue is the dark matter.
> ...


What was "imaged" was a representation of gravitational effects attributed to dark matter.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 19, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What was "imaged" was a representation of gravitational effects attributed to dark matter.



Sure, I got that ... I'd like to know how they came up with this though ... the red is the X-ray source, why the blue lobes? ... some kind of n-body gravity solution? ... not disputing this, just what to know more about how it was determined ...

Is this less or more compelling than the colliding galaxies data? ... "Dark Matter Can Interact with Itself, Galaxy Collisions Show" -- Space.com -- April 15th, 2015 ...


----------



## esalla (Dec 19, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Again the big bang theory claims that the mass of the Universe was created from nothing which violates the law of conservation of mass.  Very simple really.  There is also no cosmic void where the big bang occurred and without this the theory falls flat.  In fact all theories fall so flat and wrong that some are now claiming that the Universe is a computer simulation, and since we are part of the Universe this includes us.

Tyson.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Not even a clue


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > What was "imaged" was a representation of gravitational effects attributed to dark matter.
> ...


I thought the blue was also x-rays, just of different energies from the red parts.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 19, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I thought the blue was also x-rays, just of different energies from the red parts.



Hopefully toobfreak will be back and explain ... I don't doubt it, but right now it's all "nebulous" and I'd like more information ...


----------



## esalla (Dec 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the blue was also x-rays, just of different energies from the red parts.
> ...


Do you think that tooby is an information source on this?


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 19, 2020)

esalla said:


> ... Again the big bang theory claims that the mass of the Universe was created from nothing which violates the law of conservation of mass. ...



You should read and try to understand, what others say to you - then you would had known now that it is absurde what what you say here. The natural law "conservation of mass" is a law of chemistry for the building of substances on the level of the electron shell of atoms and molecules. Example: CO2 has the mass of 2 times the mass of oxygen plus the mass of carbon - as far as I remember from school this is 2*12 + 16 = 40 measured in u (=unified atomic mass unit). Let me take a look ... Yes: Element 6 has a mass of 12.0107, element 8 has a mass of 15.9994.

The idea "god made the universe out of nothing" is a very old idea of Christian philosophers - about 1700 years old - because they found no other explanation, when they tried to understand the expression "creation". But that's not an essential of the Christian religion - it's an essential of philosophy. Augustinus said _"The question 'What did god do, before he had created the world' is a senseless question, because there was no time before god had created time."_ _"The word of creation"_, he said,_ "is a timeless word."_

Astonishingly this qualifying imaginations about god and the way, how human beings are able to think, found a quantitative refresh in the theory of Albert Einstein. His theory breaks down in the very first moment of the universe. We need a new theory for this what really might had happened in the very first beginning of our worlds. But to find a new theory needs first of all a way to be ful of fantasy and intuition - it needs thousands of  thoughts to find a good one. But it needs also a lot of knowledge and discipline. And I think the scientist of the future, who will bring us to a new better way to understand creation, is perhaps a very silent calm and shy person, who avoids loud and aggressive people. This man might avoid specially people without manners, because truth is the fulfilling of love.


----------



## esalla (Dec 20, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > ... Again the big bang theory claims that the mass of the Universe was created from nothing which violates the law of conservation of mass. ...
> ...


Did you write all that psychobable for me?  Because I do not read psychobable.

1. Do you see yourself as a great physicist even though your highest level of school was 12?
2. Are you contributing to ending ignorance in the World?
3. Do you believe that you have a special relationship with a supernatural entity. Cult leaders, for example, might believe they can communicate with a god or that they are a manifestation of a god on earth.
4. Do you believe that you have a special relationship with a famous person or authority figure, such as the president


----------



## Turtlesoup (Dec 20, 2020)

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You mean its an  UFO---------UNIDENTIFIED flying object (just deep in space.)


----------



## esalla (Dec 20, 2020)

Turtlesoup said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Dings brain is a UFO on Earth


----------



## Turtlesoup (Dec 20, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > *Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?*
> ...


RADIATION breaks down PROTONS (including light protons)----------ergo what you are seeing is the RADIATION (the red) creating the Dark matter (purple becoming blue.)  So it isn't nothingness---------Dark Matter is the end result of broken down light protons (and other things) via radiation.  Black holes aren't gobbling up planets and lights----black holes are radiation breaking down everything including light protons creating gamma energy.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 20, 2020)

esalla said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > esalla said:
> ...



Bye bye.



> 1. Do you see yourself as a great physicist even though your highest level of school was 12?
> 2. Are you contributing to ending ignorance in the World?
> 3. Do you believe that you have a special relationship with a supernatural entity. Cult leaders, for example, might believe they can communicate with a god or that they are a manifestation of a god on earth.
> 4. Do you believe that you have a special relationship with a famous person or authority figure, such as the president



No comment


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 20, 2020)

Turtlesoup said:


> RADIATION breaks down PROTONS (including light protons)----------ergo what you are seeing is the RADIATION (the red) creating the Dark matter (purple becoming blue.)  So it isn't nothingness---------Dark Matter is the end result of broken down light protons (and other things) via radiation.  Black holes aren't gobbling up planets and lights----black holes are radiation breaking down everything including light protons creating gamma energy.



Those are some interesting ideas ... but wouldn't the light proton break down into light quarks? ... two up and one down  ... and won't these quarks interact with electromagnetic radiation? ... I'm not saying the Standard Model is right, but you'll need to be more explicit as to what manner of particle model you are using ... preferable one that includes dark matter ... 

I'm fine with æther ... a pervasive medium that allows electromagnetic waves to propagate ... as air is return to it's original state as a sound waves passes, so to does our "dark matter" æther return to it's original state as a light wave passes ... [shrugs shoulders] ... but then I'm the kind of guy who would dare to build a geocentric orrery ...


----------



## esalla (Dec 20, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > RADIATION breaks down PROTONS (including light protons)----------ergo what you are seeing is the RADIATION (the red) creating the Dark matter (purple becoming blue.)  So it isn't nothingness---------Dark Matter is the end result of broken down light protons (and other things) via radiation.  Black holes aren't gobbling up planets and lights----black holes are radiation breaking down everything including light protons creating gamma energy.
> ...


LOL according to the standard model the Universe is impossible, which is why some are branding reality as simulated


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> Bottom line: dark matter has to be there because there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the observable motions and behavior!


Which by definition makes it a fudge factor.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 22, 2020)

ding said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line: dark matter has to be there because there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the observable motions and behavior!
> ...


Or what serious, educated people call, "a hypothesis".


----------



## esalla (Dec 22, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


How would you know


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 22, 2020)

esalla said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Same reason I am always right and you are always wrong, Franskee.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


It takes no great leap of imagination to imagine other space and times.  What makes those other space and times space and times is the presence of energy.  No energy, no space and time.  Seriously, this isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp.  The creation of some space and times would logically occur before the creation of our space and time.  The creation of other space and times would logically occur after our space and time.  So your problem must be one of point of reference because you can't comprehend anything happening outside of our space and time.

It's like you are inside of a bubble and can't comprehend that there are other bubbles.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Or imagined.  A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of.   Let me know when you can tell me what particles it is made up of.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 22, 2020)

ding said:


> Or imagined.  A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of.   Let me know when you can tell me what particles it is made up of.



It might be just a single particle ... no known reason why there has to be Standard Model counter parts ... 

We're not imagining the discrepancies ... think of it as a mythological particle ... we've discussed what mythology is before ... simply made up so our gravitation equations work ... and that's useful ... God forbid anyone discredit Einstein ... it's not my place to point out the speed of light is slowing down ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 22, 2020)

ding said:


> A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of.


No, that is something arbitrary you just made up to save face. It is only called "matter" by convention, in that in interacts with the gravitational force.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Or imagined.  A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of.   Let me know when you can tell me what particles it is made up of.
> ...


A fudge factor.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > A hypothesis would be able to hypothesize which particles it is made up of.
> ...


Without forming structures?


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 22, 2020)

ding said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line: dark matter has to be there because there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the observable motions and behavior!
> ...




I don't see it that way.  If you're looking the other way and hear squealing brakes and a crash, you didn't have to see it to know that a car just crashed.

If I have a tub of opaque liquid filled to the line and walk away and come back and it's now 2 inches over the line, I don't have to know who or what was added to it to know that something the volume of that extra 2-inches must have been added to the tub.

Galaxies cannot spin as they are plainly seen to do and still hold together with the observable mass unless there is an additional mass there that is unobservable.  And since the mass of matter interacts with it, we call that Dark Matter.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


I know you don't.  I question the need to invent an explanation because I question our ability to know the acceleration of expansion.  Who knows what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Fine - tell me how to move from the left side to the right side through a 2-dimensional time within a 5 dimensional space, genius. With what kind of feet are you going under this conditions - and what kind of brain do you need to coordinate this feet?



> What makes those other space and times space and times is the presence of energy.



Because of what?



> No energy, no space and time.



Why? Where is the causal structure for this idea?



> Seriously, this isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp.



You speak only on a high level of stupidity, that's all.



> The creation of some space and times would logically occur before the creation of our space and time.



How for heavens sake is someone able to say "before time" had happened something? What exactly do you say by saying so?



> The creation of other space and times would logically occur after our space and time.



Wherein exists our space and time if it is not nothing? And if it is nothing what are we able to say about it?



> So your problem



It is not my problem. I speak about a general problem of the human mind. Everything what we know was always only within our own universe. So why do we think our logos is able to overstep the limits of our own universe, if we don't believe in god?



> must be one of point of reference because you can't comprehend anything happening outside of our space and time.
> 
> It's like you are inside of a bubble and can't comprehend that there are other bubbles.



There is no bubble, because there is no outside. Our universe expands, what means it expands from all points into all directions. Whoever travels through our universe is always "only" in the middle of our universe.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> I question our ability to know the acceleration of expansion.


I know of no acceleration or expansion involved in estimating Dark Matter.



> Who knows what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.


Astrophysicists.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> Gravity.  The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.





zaangalewa said:


> Gravity is a form of energy. How is gravity able to create space and time out of a position of nowhere and nowhen? Where and when is this position or whatelse exists instead of this?





ding said:


> I don't see gravity creating space and time per se.  I see gravity as a consequence of space and time which is a consequence of the presence of energy/matter.   So the presence of energy/matter is what creates space and time.  Like I said before... no matter/energy, no gravity, no space and time.





zaangalewa said:


> What else exists instead or outside or before this?  Nothing - specially existed no "before" before time started.





ding said:


> Existence, God.  Or if you prefer a less philosophical answer... probably radiation.





zaangalewa said:


> It existed no time, no space, no energy and no natural laws - but radiation (which is a form of energy) ?





ding said:


> Whatever it is, it is not energy or matter as we know it.  It is beyond energy and matter.  Consciousness without form.





zaangalewa said:


> God is consciousness without form? What do you say, god? Are you consciousness without form? ... What means _"If you like me to be without hands!"_. No - I don't laugh now. ... But okay - a little smile: For a probably existing and/or not existing entity I have to agree that this was not one of your very worst jokes, father.  ...





ding said:


> To say nothing existed before our time or there was no before because our time did not exist is an idiotic argument. ...





zaangalewa said:


> Idiotic or not - that's the only thing we are able to say about this not existing time. If it smells like nothing - looks like nothing - feels like nothing - and so on: Why not to call it "nothing", if this is the only thing we are able to say and to think about in a realistic perspective?





ding said:


> Because it is inaccurate.





zaangalewa said:


> Sure it is 'inacurate' = it fits not with our experienes - not with any of all possible experiences. We don't know anything about this "time", which is no time, in a "space", where is no spacee, with an energy, which was not energy. We are not able to say anything about what we know,  because we know nothing about, so the only thing what we are able to say about in a plausible way of natrual science is nothing - what we don't do, because we are curios. So we ask what this is, what we are not able to ask.





ding said:


> Relatively speaking there were other events which preceded our space time.





zaangalewa said:


> Nothing becomes true because you or anyone else thinks something is true.





ding said:


> To say they have no meaning because they occurred before our space time is inaccurate.





zaangalewa said:


> I did not say a nothing or the nothing has no meaning for something what is not nothing. But what is this meaning? What is someone able to say in a plaubible way of the nothing "before" the not nothing started to be?





ding said:


> It takes no great leap of imagination to imagine other space and times.





zaangalewa said:


> Fine - tell me how to move from the left side to the right side through a 2-dimensional time within a 5 dimensional space, genius. With what kind of feet are you going under this conditions - and what kind of brain do you need to coordinate this feet?


Turn left at the 7 11.



ding said:


> What makes those other space and times space and times is the presence of energy.





zaangalewa said:


> Because of what?


Because of gravity. 



ding said:


> No energy, no space and time.





zaangalewa said:


> Why? Where is the causal structure for this idea?


In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.  So... No energy, no gravity, no space and time.



ding said:


> Seriously, this isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp.





zaangalewa said:


> You speak only on a high level of stupidity, that's all.


You are the one in a bubble that can't comprehend the existence of other bubbles; some which preceded your bubble and some which were created after your bubble.



ding said:


> The creation of some space and times would logically occur before the creation of our space and time.





zaangalewa said:


> How for heavens sake is someone able to say "before time" had happened something? What exactly do you say by saying so?


Because each bubble has its own space and time and some bubbles were created before your bubble and some were  created after your bubble.



> The creation of other space and times would logically occur after our space and time.





zaangalewa said:


> Wherein exists our space and time if it is not nothing? And if it is nothing what are we able to say about it?


Our space and time exists inside of our bubble.  Other space and times exist within their bubbles but there was precedence in bubbles, dummy.



ding said:


> So your problem must be one of point of reference because you can't comprehend anything happening outside of our space and time. It's like you are inside of a bubble and can't comprehend that there are other bubbles.





zaangalewa said:


> It is not my problem. I speak about a general problem of the human mind. Everything what we know was always only within our own universe. So why do we think our logos is able to overstep the limits of our own universe, if we don't believe in god?


Nothing I am describing limits God.



zaangalewa said:


> There is no bubble, because there is no outside. Our universe expands, what means it expands from all points into all directions. Whoever travels through our universe is always "only" in the middle of our universe.



Our universe isn't expanding in all directions.  It is fairly flat. 

Look up multiverses to understand the concept of other bubbles.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I question our ability to know the acceleration of expansion.
> ...


The perceived increasing acceleration of the universe is the justification for dark matter/dark energy. 

How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.  Which experiment did they perform that tested light traveling between galaxies?


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity.  The presence of energy creates space and time because of gravity.
> ...



"Bubble" of or in what? A "bubble" in a nothing? Again: If the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe is 0 and you would never had been a part of our universe and you would live "outside" of our universe - wherever this could be if it could be at all  - then you would just simple not be able to make any interaction with our universe, because something what is without energy is not able to interact - and what is not able to interact is not existing. But also this we are not able to say. Indeed we are not able to say anything - we are only able to say nothing.



ding said:


> So your problem must be one of point of reference because you can't comprehend anything happening outside of our space and time. It's like you are inside of a bubble and can't comprehend that there are other bubbles.





> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > It is not my problem. I speak about a general problem of the human mind. Everything what we know was always only within our own universe. So why do we think our logos is able to overstep the limits of our own universe, if we don't believe in god?
> ...


[/Quote]

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.



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > There is no bubble, because there is no outside. Our universe expands, what means it expands from all points into all directions. Whoever travels through our universe is always "only" in the middle of our universe.
> ...



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.



> Look up multiverses to understand the concept of other bubbles.



A multiverse is an idea. The only "thing" what connects other universes with our universe is logic and mathematics - but we don't have any chance to prove whether we use mathematics the right or wrong way, because experiments are not possible in this context  - and we also do not know whether universes are possible which have a totally other form of logic and mathematics, which we are never able to understand for example or whether a universe exists which is without logic and mathematics at all, what would perhaps be a perfect hell. In general: What do we know about a mathematics "outside" of the universe (which has not outside)? Nothing! It's the same problem. We have nothing to say about this situation - also not mathematically. Perhaps works mathematics in this context - perhaps not. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We don't know it. We will not know it.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> The perceived increasing acceleration of the universe is the justification for dark matter/dark energy.


No.  That acceleration is ascribed only to the effect of Dark Energy.  In fact, 'Dark Energy' was created just to explain that acceleration but there is absolutely no other evidence or reason to believe it really exists, which is why I tend to discount it's existence.  



> How do Astrophysicists know what happens to light as it travels through the vast distances between galaxies.


If you had any real education in physics, you'd already know that.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We take a look in the sky and see this light with our eyes.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 23, 2020)

esalla said:


> ... The big band theory is already dead ...



I beg to differ, sir.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The perceived increasing acceleration of the universe is the justification for dark matter/dark energy.
> ...


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

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?


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> Nothing I am describing limits God.





zaangalewa said:


> 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. 





ding said:


> Our space and time exists inside of our bubble. Other space and times exist within their bubbles but there was precedence in bubbles, dummy.





zaangalewa said:


> "Bubble" of or in what? A "bubble" in a nothing? Again: If the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe is 0 and you would never had been a part of our universe and you would live "outside" of our universe - wherever this could be if it could be at all - then you would just simple not be able to make any interaction with our universe, because something what is without energy is not able to interact - and what is not able to interact is not existing. But also this we are not able to say. Indeed we are not able to say anything - we are only able to say nothing.


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.  





ding said:


> Our universe isn't expanding in all directions. It is fairly flat.





zaangalewa said:


> 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.





ding said:


> Look up multiverses to understand the concept of other bubbles.





zaangalewa said:


> A multiverse is an idea. The only "thing" what connects other universes with our universe is logic and mathematics - but we don't have any chance to prove whether we use mathematics the right or wrong way, because experiments are not possible in this context - and we also do not know whether universes are possible which have a totally other form of logic and mathematics, which we are never able to understand for example or whether a universe exists which is without logic and mathematics at all, what would perhaps be a perfect hell. In general: What do we know about a mathematics "outside" of the universe (which has not outside)? Nothing! It's the same problem. We have nothing to say about this situation - also not mathematically. Perhaps works mathematics in this context - perhaps not. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We don't know it. We will not know it.


A universe created from nothing is the only explanation which makes sense and fits the observed data.  So I don't discount other universes or bubbles of space and time being created in the same manner.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> 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.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2020)

toobfreak said:


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


If you had truly credited me with smarts you wouldn't have acted like a jack ass about this.  I'm not the droid you are looking for.


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



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 (Dec 23, 2020)

ding said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2020)

Black matter matters!


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 23, 2020)

Light matter has wrights too ...


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing I am describing limits 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 (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> ... 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 (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> ... 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 (Dec 24, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


You are confusing me with James Brown, dummy.


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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 (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


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 (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ... 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 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 (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


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 (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


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


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 (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



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 (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


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 (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's nonsense.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



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 (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...





> 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 (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


This has nothing to do with physics.


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...





> Isn't it?


No.  It isn't.  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, it isn't.


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...





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


That's probably because you don't possess the intellect and/or the motivation to work through the origin questions.  Nor the understanding of how that knowledge and the journey to obtain that knowledge will enrich your life or the lives of those around you.  Because if you did you wouldn't be so fucked up.


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...





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


I didn't say we did, dummy.  I said mind is the matrix or source and condition of physical reality.  That the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.  We live in the material world.  The world is 100% real.  So is the mind which composed it.


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...





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


Reality can only become manifest through mind.  What good is anything without mind to make it manifest?  The material world was created to manifest the glory of God.  The glory of God becomes manifest through minds on planet Earth.


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...





> _In the beginning was the word (in sense of information)_*Anton Zeilinger*


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew _bara_ - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being.

"In the beginning was the Word. . . and the Word was God. . . all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." The New Testament reveals that God created everything by the eternal Word, his beloved Son. In him "all things were created, in heaven and on earth.. . all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." The Church's faith likewise confesses the creative action of the Holy Spirit, the "giver of life", "the Creator Spirit" (_Veni, Creator Spiritus_), the "source of every good".

The Old Testament suggests and the New Covenant reveals the creative action of the Son and the Spirit, inseparably one with that of the Father. This creative co-operation is clearly affirmed in the Church's rule of faith: "There exists but one God. . . he is the Father, God, the Creator, the author, the giver of order. He made all things by _himself_, that is, by his Word and by his Wisdom", "by the Son and the Spirit" who, so to speak, are "his hands". Creation is the common work of the Holy Trinity.

Catechism of the Catholic Church


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> A universe created from nothing is the only explanation which makes sense and fits the observed data. So I don't discount other universes or bubbles of space and time being created in the same manner.





zaangalewa said:


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





ding said:


> 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 said:


> 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.


It is more than sounds nice, it is true.  The only thing between us and God is  surrendering our will to God.  God has placed no barriers between us and Him.  So yes, as long as we are on our own and refuse to surrender to God's will we separate ourselves from God. Knowing God's nature, knowing how God created existence from nothing is not a barrier, it is how glorification of God is manifested.


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> Saying the universe was created from nothing is not the same thing as saying the universe was created by nothing.





zaangalewa said:


> no comment


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Physics doesn’t begin until after the creation of the material world from nothing created by no thing. This is the realm of philosophy and logic.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> 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.



TimeSpace is a non-Euclidean space ... you'll need to quite literally think outside the box here ... the universe is expanded faster than the speed of light only from our own frame-of-reference ... "out there" is in a different frame-of-reference, and the universe _isn't_ expanding faster than the speed of light there ... 

Keep in mind that the notion of "light traveling through the universe" comes much later in the history of the universe ... we can only see light from so far away, past which there is no light, all black ... we're completely blind to the nature of the universe from these earlier times ... there's no light of any kind from before the CMB Epoch ... all we have is theory and the lab experiments that demonstrate these theories ... we'll never be able to see if these theories are indeed true, out there ... 

There's a number of excellent videos on YouTube that explain Special Relativity ... crazy ass shit for sure but there's many ways this can be demonstrated ... first and foremost is the orbit of Mercury, Newton's gravity fails to predict this motion, so another theory was needed ...


----------



## ding (Dec 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


This seems to contradict what you are saying.  According to Ethan - and everyone knows that anyone named Ethan always has an extremely high IQ and is never wrong - that space can expand faster than the speed of light.  That there is no upper limit to physical bounds of the expansion of space.

Personally I think this is all hooey and that they need to start thinking inside the box and start with why there is expansion in the first place.  Until they answer that question, they will never be able to answer the question of why it is accelerating.



> If we were to ask, from our perspective, what this means for the speed of this distant galaxy that we're only now observing, we'd conclude that this galaxy is receding from us well in excess of the speed of light. But in reality, not only is that galaxy not moving through the Universe at a relativistically impossible speed, but it's hardly moving at all! Instead of speeds exceeding 299,792 km/s (the speed of light in a vacuum), these galaxies are only moving through space at ~2% the speed of light or less.
> 
> But space itself is expanding, and that accounts for the overwhelming majority of the redshift we see. And space doesn't expand at a speed; it expands at a speed-per-unit-distance: a very different kind of rate. When you see numbers like 67 km/s/Mpc or 73 km/s/Mpc (the two most common values that cosmologists measure), these are speeds (km/s) per unit distance (Mpc, or about 3.3 million light-years).
> 
> The restriction that "nothing can move faster than light" only applies to the motion of objects through space. The rate at which space itself expands  — this speed-per-unit-distance — has no physical bounds on its upper limit.











						Ask Ethan: How Does The Fabric Of Spacetime Expand Faster Than The Speed Of Light?
					

Nothing in the Universe can travel faster than the speed of light. So how does space itself do it?




					www.forbes.com


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



An interesting explanation for little children ... but it misses some important points ... the ones you seem to be having difficulty with ... 

When we look at a galaxy 8 billion light years away, we see it as it was 8 billion years ago ... not as it is today ... it's dangerous to extrapolate, but if we do then we can make some reasonable statements as to the state as it is today ... by applying the Lorenz Transformation, not a shear transformation ... it's math ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> 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.


Then you arent thinking of it correctly. Think of it as two people holding a rope taut. Every meter of the rope expands into two meters of rope after one minute. Eventually, you and your friend will be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. Once that threshold is passed, you will never see your friend again.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



God is by the way always new and I wish you also a Happy Christmas.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 24, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Eventually, the galaxies we see will start to disappear, as they move away from us faster than the speed of light. Eventually we will see no galaxies in the sky. Imagine how different our scientific knowledge would be, if humans had just recently evolved in this environment. We would think there were no other galaxies, and Hubble would lose the Great Debate!


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Some years ago they measured a triangle with the very first emissions, up to now. It showed 180° => The universe is flat. It follows the euclidian geometry.


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2020)

ding said:


> ... Physics doesn’t begin until after the creation of the material world from nothing created by no thing. This is the realm of philosophy and logic.



Physics is natural philosophy. What you try to do has not a lot to do with philosophy. You say practically "I know, what I'm not able to know".


----------



## zaangalewa (Dec 25, 2020)

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > A universe created from nothing is the only explanation which makes sense and fits the observed data. So I don't discount other universes or bubbles of space and time being created in the same manner.
> ...



Or not.



> The only thing between us and God is surrendering our will to God.



It is the will of god to have children without an own will?



> God has placed no barriers between us and Him.



Except that no one knows whether god exists or not exists?



> So yes, as long as we are on our own and refuse to surrender to God's will we separate ourselves from God.



?



> Knowing God's nature,



God's what? His meta-nature?



> knowing how God created existence from nothing is not a barrier, it is how glorification of God is manifested.



And you think this has to do with physics? What has it to do with physics?


----------

