# Dark Matter = God?



## AVG-JOE

> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​



  God can be measured?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Dark matter. 

The unknowable stuff That HAS to be there to account for the required mass.  The invisible stuff between the stuff that Monkeys can measure at _this_ moment of _this_ Timeline on _this_ living wet rock in space.



It turns out that most of the 'stuff' in the universe is unknowable to Monkeys. 


Unknowable?  Or unmeasurable at this moment in Time?


----------



## AVG-JOE

If God is that big... bigger than the universe.  Bigger than the universe as it's understood by Monkeys in this moment... If God is THAT big, did he really care that much more about Abraham?  Was Abraham really more than just another swinging dick taking a ride on this worlds Living Timeline?


If God is, I'll bet you a dollar that He's way bigger than ALL the ancient stories put together, let alone any one of them.


​


----------



## AVG-JOE

Monkeys are lucky... This much Water?  This much Time?  Momma's lucky little bastards indeed.   



The God of AVG-JOE isn't *better* than the God of Abraham, and neither is better or worse than the God of (insert your preferred Description of Self here).

In the eyes of American Law, They're equal.  
And that's cool!  ​


----------



## HenryBHough

There are some scary racial implications in this..........


----------



## HelenaHandbag

Maybe "God", in this context, is the place holder for all that which can be explained, but just not right now.

I'm comfortable with saying that I don't know.


----------



## westwall

HenryBHough said:


> There are some scary racial implications in this..........







Really?  I see the simple admission that we are descended from apes.   You know "monkeys".  It's an evolutionary statement, not a racial one.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

westwall said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some scary racial implications in this..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I see the simple admission that we are descended from apes.   You know "monkeys".  It's an evolutionary statement, not a racial one.
Click to expand...

Though I'm not certain, he may have been referring to the "dark" part.


----------



## AVG-JOE

HenryBHough said:


> There are some scary racial implications in this..........



Evolution isn't pretty.  But it works.






You and I are living proof.



`​


----------



## AVG-JOE

HelenaHandbag said:


> Maybe "God", in this context, is the place holder for all that which can be explained, but just not right now.
> 
> I'm comfortable with saying that I don't know.



  To Possibilities!


----------



## Chuckt

AVG-JOE said:


> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
Click to expand...


God is a spirit.  Don't think a spirit has weight.


----------



## HenryBHough

Chuckt said:


> God is a spirit.  Don't think a spirit has weight.



Probably more than 21 grams - still the considered norm for ordinary humans.

Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AVG-JOE

Chuckt said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is a spirit.  Don't think a spirit has weight.
Click to expand...


Doesn't mean it can't be measured...




Chuckt said:


> God...
> 
> is...
> 
> a...
> 
> spirit.




Define "spirit".


----------



## AVG-JOE

HenryBHough said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a spirit.  Don't think a spirit has weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably more than 21 grams - still the considered norm for ordinary humans.
> 
> Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Pretty cool phenomenon!


----------



## HelenaHandbag

HenryBHough said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a spirit.  Don't think a spirit has weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably more than 21 grams - still the considered norm for ordinary humans.
> 
> Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I remember listening to that guy being interviewed on Art Bell's radio program several years ago.

Thanks for the memory refresh.


----------



## AVG-JOE

HenryBHough said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a spirit.  Don't think a spirit has weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably more than 21 grams - still the considered norm for ordinary humans.
> 
> Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




			
				The Handy Link Above said:
			
		

> MacDougall also measured fifteen dogs in similar circumstances and reported the results as "uniformly negative," with no perceived change in mass. He took these results as confirmation that the soul had weight, and that dogs did not have souls.



​


----------



## Big Black Dog

This can't be correct.  Dark matter?  I think not.  God is the "light".


----------



## HelenaHandbag

big black dog said:


> this can't be correct.  Dark matter?  I think not.  God is the "light".


UV-A, perhaps?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Big Black Dog said:


> This can't be correct.  Dark matter?  I think not.  God is the "light".



It's only called 'dark' by the Monkeys 'cause the Monkeys can't see it.

It is what it is.  The label matters not.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

AVG-JOE said:


> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
Click to expand...


Majority of the mass of the universe is dark matter. An as-yet undiscovered particle small than any other we know about so far. An even smaller particle is dark energy. But matter comprised of atoms only accounts for a minority of the mass of the total universe, say 20%. Dark matter's 70%, dark energy the remaining 10%. But being part of the rest of the universe, dark matter/energy are not G-d since G-d would have had to exist prior to creating the universe and the dark matter/energy.


----------



## Unkotare

AVG-JOE said:


> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
Click to expand...





Insipid


----------



## edthecynic

Delta4Embassy said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Majority of the mass of the universe is dark matter.* An as-yet undiscovered particle small than any other we know about so far. An even smaller particle is dark energy. But matter comprised of atoms only accounts for a minority of the mass of the total universe, say 20%. Dark matter's 70%, dark energy the remaining 10%. But being part of the rest of the universe, dark matter/energy are not G-d since G-d would have had to exist prior to creating the universe and the dark matter/energy.
Click to expand...


Dark matter may not have mass at all! As Einstein has shown, inertial mass is indistinguishable from gravitational mass, so dark matter may just as well be the pull of the universal super massive black hole of the Big Crunch.


----------



## Drake_Roberts

Who's to say God isn't the universe itself? An all pervasive force and will encompassing all things. Able to shift things one way or another. Something all people of all races, creeds, or even aliens (if you believe in them) are a part of. Something that is everywhere in each and every person.


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Majority of the mass of the universe is dark matter.* An as-yet undiscovered particle small than any other we know about so far. An even smaller particle is dark energy. But matter comprised of atoms only accounts for a minority of the mass of the total universe, say 20%. Dark matter's 70%, dark energy the remaining 10%. But being part of the rest of the universe, dark matter/energy are not G-d since G-d would have had to exist prior to creating the universe and the dark matter/energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dark matter may not have mass at all! As Einstein has shown, inertial mass is indistinguishable from gravitational mass, so dark matter may just as well be the pull of the universal super massive black hole of the Big Crunch.
Click to expand...



That makes no sense.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Dark matter has mass. Mass calculations for the observable universe don't add up revealing the existence of dark matter. 

As to the universe itself being G-d, there's a hypothesis currently that suggests perhaps the entire universe is in some way we don't understand yet a living organism. When you look at life under microscopes you see how everything's just made up of smaller things. Go small enough and you get non-organic particles, but added together make orgsnic molecules, and eventually life. Continuing on to larger scales, this pattern is repeated in how "little" things like planets and stars are like the indinvidual cells of an organism. By themselves they're inorganic and not alive, but when you go to galactic scale things do bear an uncanny resemblance to biological systems. One of the current models of the enture universe, the web ones, do actually look like veins and arteries, especially when "zooming" in on individual veins and seeing how the galaxies in them are all "flowing" in the same direction much like we observe blood cells flowing through out our own veins.

Another hypothesis (my own) is simply that what we mistake for divinity and gods is simply the counter-intuitive way things actually work according to quantum physics. When something doesn't work like classical physics predict, say quantum entaglement, coming to believe gods might be involved isn't really all that silly a notion. And since much of what we're discovering currently is akin to that, that ancient peoples may have noticed such truths and not been able to resolve them with the sciences available to them at the time, attributing it to divinity, gods, or other supernatural explanations then makes more sense.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Quote: Originally Posted by Chuckt  
God...

is...

a...

spirit.

Avg Joe: 

Define "spirit". 



Very good question.  Interesting thread, Joe!


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

AVG-JOE said:


> If God is that big... bigger than the universe.  Bigger than the universe as it's understood by Monkeys in this moment... If God is THAT big, did he really care that much more about Abraham?  Was he really more than just another swinging dick taking a ride on this worlds Living Timeline?
> 
> 
> If God is, I'll bet you a dollar that He's way bigger than ALL the ancient stories put together, let alone any one of them.
> 
> 
> ​


'Hand of God' Spotted by NASA Space Telescope - weather.com

Your questions reminded me of this photo I saw the other day.  This is a photo from NASA and it looks like G-ds hand.  Pretty amazing.


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Majority of the mass of the universe is dark matter.* An as-yet undiscovered particle small than any other we know about so far. An even smaller particle is dark energy. But matter comprised of atoms only accounts for a minority of the mass of the total universe, say 20%. Dark matter's 70%, dark energy the remaining 10%. But being part of the rest of the universe, dark matter/energy are not G-d since G-d would have had to exist prior to creating the universe and the dark matter/energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark matter may not have mass at all! As Einstein has shown, inertial mass is indistinguishable from gravitational mass, so dark matter may just as well be the pull of the universal super massive black hole of the Big Crunch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
Click to expand...


It is assumed that dark matter exists because at the extremes of the universe the objects seem to be accelerating away from us. Thus Dark Matter was postulated as the mass that was attracting and accelerating them. However it is just as likely that they are accelerating towards the universal super massive black hole of the theoretical Big Crunch, the opposite pole of the Big Bang. The universe expands and decelerates from the Big Bang and then at some point starts to accelerate and contract into the Big Crunch. Dark Matter does not explain why the universe decelerates as it expands from the point of the Big Bang. If Dark Matter exists it would accelerate all matter in the universe.


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dark matter may not have mass at all! As Einstein has shown, inertial mass is indistinguishable from gravitational mass, so dark matter may just as well be the pull of the universal super massive black hole of the Big Crunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is assumed that dark matter exists because at the extremes of the universe the objects seem to be accelerating away from us.
Click to expand...



Um...no. _Everything_ is moving away from _everything_ else. The things further away from us are moving away more rapidly. This means that the universe is expanding, not contracting. Dark energy is required to explain how this is happening despite the force of gravity.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Reason everything's expanding isn't because it's moving away from a big bang center starting point like, but the 'fabric' of space itself is expanding and getting bigger. All objects like stars and planets are only moving because the fabric on which they rest is itself moving away. Like a conveyer belt. The belt itself is what's moving, not the objects on it. They move too as they orbit like, but not in how they move away from everything else. 

Universe itself is several times larger than most realize. The term 'visible universe' refers to how since the universe is only ~13 billion year old, we can't see beyond 13 billion light-years. But due to inflation, the actual size of the universe is approximated at about 80 billion light-years. Good illustration of this here. Best, most crazy awesome thing I've ever seen. 

Scale of Universe - Interactive Scale of the Universe Tool

Move the slider left or right to zoom in and out. All the way right will show the whole viisble universe and has notes about visible, vs actual size. Cool stuff.


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is assumed that dark matter exists because at the extremes of the universe the objects seem to be accelerating away from us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no. _Everything_ is moving away from _everything_ else. *The things further away from us are moving away more rapidly. This means that the universe is expanding,* not contracting. Dark energy is required to explain how this is happening despite the force of gravity.
Click to expand...


No, it means they are ACCELERATING away from us, nothing more. You assume it is an expansion, but it can also be assumed it is a contraction. Your problem is you are thinking the universe is linear, whereas I see the universe as a cosmic vortex. You assume that anything moving farther away from us is moving in a straight line, whereas I see it as spiraling  away from us toward the contracting base of the vortex. 

I see the universe expanding from the Big Bang in a spiral vortex and curving around on itself as it expands and as it passes its "equator" it spirals into a contracting vortex leading to the Big Crunch. So the universe viewed from an outside observer would see Feynman's sphere when viewed above the equator and Hawking's vortex when viewed above the poles, one expanding and one contracting.


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is assumed that dark matter exists because at the extremes of the universe the objects seem to be accelerating away from us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no. _Everything_ is moving away from _everything_ else. *The things further away from us are moving away more rapidly. This means that the universe is expanding,* not contracting. Dark energy is required to explain how this is happening despite the force of gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it means they are ACCELERATING away from us, nothing more. You assume it is an expansion, but it can also be assumed it is a contraction. Your problem is you are thinking the universe is linear, whereas I see the universe as a cosmic vortex. You assume that anything moving farther away from us is moving in a straight line, whereas I see it as spiraling  away from us toward the contracting base of the vortex.
> 
> I see the universe expanding from the Big Bang in a spiral vortex and curving around on itself as it expands and as it passes its "equator" it spirals into a contracting vortex leading to the Big Crunch. So the universe viewed from an outside observer would see Feynman's sphere when viewed above the equator and Hawking's vortex when viewed above the poles, one expanding and one contracting.
Click to expand...





The vast majority of astronomers do not agree with you. This is just your self-indulgent 'play time.'


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no. _Everything_ is moving away from _everything_ else. *The things further away from us are moving away more rapidly. This means that the universe is expanding,* not contracting. Dark energy is required to explain how this is happening despite the force of gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means they are ACCELERATING away from us, nothing more. You assume it is an expansion, but it can also be assumed it is a contraction. Your problem is you are thinking the universe is linear, whereas I see the universe as a cosmic vortex. You assume that anything moving farther away from us is moving in a straight line, whereas I see it as spiraling  away from us toward the contracting base of the vortex.
> 
> I see the universe expanding from the Big Bang in a spiral vortex and curving around on itself as it expands and as it passes its "equator" it spirals into a contracting vortex leading to the Big Crunch. So the universe viewed from an outside observer would see Feynman's sphere when viewed above the equator and Hawking's vortex when viewed above the poles, one expanding and one contracting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The vast majority of astronomers do not agree with you.* This is just your self-indulgent 'play time.'
Click to expand...


That hardly makes me wrong and you right! After all, this is all purely theoretical. Both theories explain the acceleration at the extremes of the universe, but my theory also explains why the universe decelerated after the Big Bang and Dark Matter does not!


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means they are ACCELERATING away from us, nothing more. You assume it is an expansion, but it can also be assumed it is a contraction. Your problem is you are thinking the universe is linear, whereas I see the universe as a cosmic vortex. You assume that anything moving farther away from us is moving in a straight line, whereas I see it as spiraling  away from us toward the contracting base of the vortex.
> 
> I see the universe expanding from the Big Bang in a spiral vortex and curving around on itself as it expands and as it passes its "equator" it spirals into a contracting vortex leading to the Big Crunch. So the universe viewed from an outside observer would see Feynman's sphere when viewed above the equator and Hawking's vortex when viewed above the poles, one expanding and one contracting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The vast majority of astronomers do not agree with you.* This is just your self-indulgent 'play time.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That hardly makes me wrong and you right! !
Click to expand...



As I was saying..............................


----------



## HenryBHough

The vast majority of astronomers took it up after trying, in childhood, to tie their own shoes and failed.


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The vast majority of astronomers do not agree with you.* This is just your self-indulgent 'play time.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That hardly makes me wrong and you right! After all, this is all purely theoretical. *Both theories explain the acceleration at the extremes of the universe, but my theory also explains why the universe decelerated after the Big Bang and Dark Matter does not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I was saying..............................
Click to expand...


I added back what you edited out.

If Dark Matter exists then it has to exist everywhere in the universe, not just at the extremes, at least not without an explanation. So if Dark Matter exists everywhere then it must accelerate matter everywhere, not just at the extreme ends of the universe, but matter is decelerating from the point of the Big Bang. How does Dark Matter explain that paradox????


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That hardly makes me wrong and you right! After all, this is all purely theoretical. *Both theories explain the acceleration at the extremes of the universe, but my theory also explains why the universe decelerated after the Big Bang and Dark Matter does not!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I was saying..............................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I added back what you edited out.
> 
> If Dark Matter exists then it has to exist everywhere in the universe, not just at the extremes, at least not without an explanation.
Click to expand...



No one has said it doesn't. I don't think you understand _at all_ what you're trying to  talk about.


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I was saying..............................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I added back what you edited out.
> 
> *If Dark Matter exists then it has to exist everywhere in the universe*, not just at the extremes, at least not without an explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *No one has said it doesn't.* I don't think you understand _at all_ what you're trying to  talk about.
Click to expand...


OK, since you acknowledge that Dark Matter must exist everywhere in the universe, then why does it ONLY accelerate matter at the farthest extremes of the universe?????
You won't acknowledge that you can't answer that question!

You are ASSUMING that because the matter furtherest away from us is moving farther away from us faster means that the universe is expanding, when the only thing we know for sure is that it is moving farther away from us faster. That assumption of an expanding universe is based on another ASSUMPTION, that the universe is moving in a linear fashion. That assumption falls apart if the universe is itself a vortex, the most common shape throughout the universe!

The beauty of physics is you are allowed to reject conventional assumptions and assume something different, like a universal cosmic vortex to explain observed phenomena. You should try it some time!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Just my 2 cents but for the sake of argument let's assume that dark matter consists of a single quantum string at rest and it is everywhere in the universe. 

As more stars are formed following the Big Bang they radiate energy. This energy is absorbed by the DM strings closest to the stars and they start to vibrate which in turn pushes the DM strings nearest to them away. This happens in all directions so it appears as though everything is moving apart. The more stars, the more energy radiated and absorbed by the DM strings (or are they now dark energy strings instead) and the more inflation of the universe.

Pure speculation on my part but it makes sense on a simplistic level.

Speaking of which the concept of what is beyond the visible horizon of the universe is equally fascinating. What if we are living in an infinite universe with cycles of Big Bangs occurring randomly throughout? Could the background radiation just be echos of other Big Bangs that have occurred at immense distances from our own?

The answers to questions like these will probably never be answered in my lifetime but we didn't know about planets around other stars until the last 2 decades and that is a relatively short span in the history of human knowledge and an infintisimal [sp?] fraction of time in the universe.


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I added back what you edited out.
> 
> *If Dark Matter exists then it has to exist everywhere in the universe*, not just at the extremes, at least not without an explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No one has said it doesn't.* I don't think you understand _at all_ what you're trying to  talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, since you acknowledge that Dark Matter must exist everywhere in the universe, then why does it ONLY accelerate matter at the farthest extremes of the universe?????
Click to expand...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI]Picard's Epic Double Facepalm - YouTube[/ame]



It doesn't, you idiot. Maybe you need to start with something easier for you to understand.


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No one has said it doesn't.* I don't think you understand _at all_ what you're trying to  talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, since you acknowledge that Dark Matter must exist everywhere in the universe, then why does it ONLY accelerate matter at the farthest extremes of the universe?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't, you idiot. Maybe you need to start with something easier for you to understand.
Click to expand...

From the point of the Big Bang the universe is expanding and slowing down. So how can that part of the universe be decelerating if Dark Matter is accelerating the entire universe as you falsely claim?

You are very good a spewing insults about how stupid I am, but you not smart enough to explain anything!!!


----------



## Bloodrock44

Maybe this universe is just an atom floating around in God's little toe?


----------



## edthecynic

Bloodrock44 said:


> Maybe this universe is just an atom floating around in God's little toe?



Or an electron in someone else's universe!


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, since you acknowledge that Dark Matter must exist everywhere in the universe, then why does it ONLY accelerate matter at the farthest extremes of the universe?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't, you idiot. Maybe you need to start with something easier for you to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the point of the Big Bang the universe is expanding and slowing down. So how can that part of the universe be decelerating if Dark Matter is accelerating the entire universe as you falsely claim?
Click to expand...




Holy crap.  You are really not getting this.


----------



## HenryBHough

Dark matter DOES exist.

If it suddenly didn't Joe Biden would be president.


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't, you idiot. Maybe you need to start with something easier for you to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> From the point of the Big Bang the universe is expanding and slowing down. So how can that part of the universe be decelerating if Dark Matter is accelerating the entire universe as you falsely claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap.  You are really not getting this.
Click to expand...


I get that you have no answers.


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the point of the Big Bang the universe is expanding and slowing down. So how can that part of the universe be decelerating if Dark Matter is accelerating the entire universe as you falsely claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap.  You are really not getting this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that you have no answers.
Click to expand...




None that you are capable of understanding, it seems.


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap.  You are really not getting this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you have no answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None that you are capable of understanding, it seems.
Click to expand...

None that you are capable of expressing would be a more honest answer!


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you have no answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None that you are capable of understanding, it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None that you are capable of expressing would be a more honest answer!
Click to expand...



Let someone else try:

Where is the centre of the universe?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
Click to expand...


Well God is all of it.  Dark energy, Dark matter, apparent energy and apparent matter.  God is nature, which we have the means to understand and God is nature beyond our means to understand.

If we were capable of fully understanding God, we would be God or something close.

When I think of God, I am reminded of an experience I had decades ago, which literally killed me.  

I would love to explain it to you, but with the exception of those things that are translatable, there's truly no means to convey to another, what happened, as it defies pretty much everything we 'know', from our common experiences.

Suffice it to say that this 'existence' is something which is happening simultaneously with something else.  "Death" is much akin to 'walking from one room into another'.   You just go, with the full understanding that you were here, but you're going 'there'.  There's no remorse in leaving, it's wholly without emotion, pure reason. There are no regrets, no sadness, no anxiety.  No since of loss.   At that time, I was 'given' a choice. But it wasn't actually a choice, very hard to explain, but for the sake of the explanation: I 'chose' to stay because I 'knew' that I still had serious responsibilities here and that others seriously depended upon me and that my leaving would leave them in a bad place.  

I expect that had my body been decimated, that I would have just gone on, knowing that I had no means to stay and that would have been that.

But the processes were amazing.  Impossible to describe, really, but 'time' as we casually think of it, shifts.  

I'll use the phrases 'Speed up' and 'slow down', which aren't precisely accurate, 'phase and sync' are probably closer, but whatever gets the idea across will do, to an extent.  It's a perception thing.  

I guess the best way to describe it would be to consider, if a mountain could reason, it would likely have a perspective much different from our own.  We use values like second, minute hour year, century and so on... imagine if you had no perspective of day.  

But Imagine what 'the world' would look like, if what is a year to us, went by, perceptively, as a fraction of a second. 

The movement of humanity would be imperceptible.   "Night" and "Day" would average to a glow.  Rain and drought, heat and cold would average to a flat consistent states and, so on.

Now imagine the inverse, a fraction of our second, let's call it a thousandth of a second, passed in our year?  The planet, our environment would appear FROZEN to us.  A century would, two decades beyond the average human life, would be come and gone in a hundredth of a second.  But what we perceived as frozen, unmoving fixed features, were in fact, moving just as you and I would normally see them. Nothing changed but the perception of time. 

It all happens in the same 'time'.  All that differs is how it is perceived as 'real', by us, with our gear.  If you could control your means to exist within differing phases of time, you could turn to stone, or become apparently invisible, literally being in MANY different places, occupying the same space, with anything, at the same 'time'. Apparently defying the laws of physics.  Being, 'apparently', SUPER-NATURAL.  Despite your being perfectly natural, just capable of shifting the phase of time.  It's mighty interesting stuff to think about.

Now... I know, what little I know of this, as a 'fact', because I experienced it.  (Please spare me the 'brains use of hormonal discharges at death and all that crap, which I am sure occurs, but just because we are aware of a given process, does not mean that we understand everything about it.)

But I imagine that dark energy and matter are forces in play which are on the edge of our means to perceive.  We may discover its composition tomorrow, which would be great.  But we may never fully understand the forces and properties that such possesses and the role they play or the purpose of such in the grand scheme of things, because our minds are only designed to get us through this 'verse'... this reality, this environment.  It's a wonderful tool, but at the end of the day it is only considering information which is set against a very narrow scope of parameters.

Now, without being able to define every facet of the understanding, I believe that 'life' is multifaceted. 

That 'where' we are, is simply a point in an infinite series of reflections.  What we look out and 'see' in the night sky is the atomic scale of another fractal 'verse' and that we can only 'see' to a given extent, imagine to another, but somewhere beyond infinity there is another and another and another ... .  What's more, I believe that it turns inward in precisely the same way.  That 'inside' us, stands someone looking out at their night sky, seeing the 'stars' and galaxies of our atomic substructure, and 'within' them, are others who look out and see the atomic structure of the former entities 'verse'. With time expanding outwardly and contracting inwardly.  

The terms 'outward' and 'inward', 'expansion' and 'contraction' being poorly suited for the explanation, but as close as I am able to get. (If someone has a better way to explain it, I'd love to hear it, as I have hammered on this stuff for a long time and anything that could help get the point across would be great.)

With regard to whether '_God can be measured_', one would need to at least have some means to understand the composition of God to do so and, clearly we do not and likely will never get sufficiently close to even know what questions might be asked to begin experiments which might some day, lead to an understanding of such.

At the end of the day, I doubt any of it matters a wit.  As we have other purposes for being here and our understanding why we're here and what makes it work, not being relevant to any of it, what so ever.

Anywho, that's my two cents.  I've enjoyed the thread very much and am looking forward to reading more as the discussion unfolds.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well God is all of it.  Dark energy, Dark matter, apparent energy and apparent matter.  God is nature, which we have the means to understand and God is nature beyond our means to understand.
> 
> If we were capable of fully understanding God, we would be God or something close.
> 
> When I think of God, I am reminded of an experience I had decades ago, which literally killed me.
> 
> I would love to explain it to you, but with the exception of those things that are translatable, there's truly no means to convey to another, what happened, as it defies pretty much everything we 'know', from our common experiences.
> 
> Suffice it to say that this 'existence' is something which is happening simultaneously with something else.  "Death" is much akin to 'walking from one room into another'.   You just go, with the full understanding that you were here, but you're going 'there'.  There's no remorse in leaving, it's wholly without emotion, pure reason. There are no regrets, no sadness, no anxiety.  No since of loss....
Click to expand...


You lost me at the paragraph where you make it seem like you have experiential knowledge of death.

Or are you going to link to documentation of some other Monkeys experiential knowledge of death?


No matter... either way, I call "bullshit!"




The Monkey who documents experiential knowledge of what lay beyond death's door gets to end the need for religion on this world.  

That would be huge!  ​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well God is all of it.  Dark energy, Dark matter, apparent energy and apparent matter.  God is nature, which we have the means to understand and God is nature beyond our means to understand.
> 
> If we were capable of fully understanding God, we would be God or something close.
> 
> When I think of God, I am reminded of an experience I had decades ago, which literally killed me.
> 
> I would love to explain it to you, but with the exception of those things that are translatable, there's truly no means to convey to another, what happened, as it defies pretty much everything we 'know', from our common experiences.
> 
> Suffice it to say that this 'existence' is something which is happening simultaneously with something else.  "Death" is much akin to 'walking from one room into another'.   You just go, with the full understanding that you were here, but you're going 'there'.  There's no remorse in leaving, it's wholly without emotion, pure reason. There are no regrets, no sadness, no anxiety.  No since of loss....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost me at the paragraph where you make it seem like you have experiential knowledge of death.
> 
> Or are you going to link to documentation of some other Monkeys experiential knowledge of death?
> 
> 
> No matter... either way, I call "bullshit!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Monkey who documents experiential knowledge of what lay beyond death's door gets to end the need for religion on this world.
> 
> That would be huge!  ​
Click to expand...


Well, you're entitled to be an idiot.  

  And I gotta say, it really seems to suitcha.  

So, it serves reason that you'd go with what fits best.

 Feel better? ​


----------



## Mr. H.

God is neither energy nor matter.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Mr. H. said:


> God is neither energy nor matter.



No?  KEWL!  

Now you're basing this on what?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

OH no... 

Not again! 

Nothing coming to mind?  

Man I HATE it when perfectly good assertion, falls flat on its face due to a total lack of reason.


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> None that you are capable of understanding, it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> None that you are capable of expressing would be a more honest answer!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let someone else try:
> 
> Where is the centre of the universe?
Click to expand...

Well, at least you are trying.

The Universe & Big Bang Theory | Universe History, Age & Structure, Space Exploration | Space.com

Universe  Overview

The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old  that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age  it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.

*After inflation, the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate.* As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.

snip/

Roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang, matter cooled enough for atoms to form during the era of recombination, resulting in a transparent, electrically neutral gas. This set loose the initial flash of light created during the Big Bang, which is detectable today as cosmic microwave background radiation. However, after this point, the universe was plunged into darkness, since no stars or any other bright objects had formed yet.

About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.

*Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity,* about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well God is all of it.  Dark energy, Dark matter, apparent energy and apparent matter.  God is nature, which we have the means to understand and God is nature beyond our means to understand.
> 
> If we were capable of fully understanding God, we would be God or something close.
> 
> When I think of God, I am reminded of an experience I had decades ago, which literally killed me.
> 
> I would love to explain it to you, but with the exception of those things that are translatable, there's truly no means to convey to another, what happened, as it defies pretty much everything we 'know', from our common experiences.
> 
> Suffice it to say that this 'existence' is something which is happening simultaneously with something else.  "Death" is much akin to 'walking from one room into another'.   You just go, with the full understanding that you were here, but you're going 'there'.  There's no remorse in leaving, it's wholly without emotion, pure reason. There are no regrets, no sadness, no anxiety.  No since of loss....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me at the paragraph where you make it seem like you have experiential knowledge of death.
> 
> Or are you going to link to documentation of some other Monkeys experiential knowledge of death?
> 
> 
> No matter... either way, I call "bullshit!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Monkey who documents experiential knowledge of what lay beyond death's door gets to end the need for religion on this world.
> 
> That would be huge!  ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're entitled to be an idiot.
> 
> And I gotta say, it really seems to suitcha.
> 
> So, it serves reason that you'd go with what fits best.
> 
> Feel better? ​
Click to expand...


And you sir, are entitled to insult, dodge and redirect.  But that still doesn't document experiential knowledge of death, either personal or second hand, on your part.


Considering that your pointless, personal insults and over-formatting will now go down in history as tantamount admission that my call of "bullshit!" on your post is righteous.....
​


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> OH no...
> 
> Not again!
> 
> Nothing coming to mind?
> 
> Man I HATE it when perfectly good assertion, falls flat on its face due to a total lack of reason.



​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me at the paragraph where you make it seem like you have experiential knowledge of death.
> 
> Or are you going to link to documentation of some other Monkeys experiential knowledge of death?
> 
> 
> No matter... either way, I call "bullshit!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Monkey who documents experiential knowledge of what lay beyond death's door gets to end the need for religion on this world.
> 
> That would be huge!  ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're entitled to be an idiot.
> 
> And I gotta say, it really seems to suitcha.
> 
> So, it serves reason that you'd go with what fits best.
> 
> Feel better? ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you sir, are entitled to insult, dodge and redirect.  But that still doesn't document experiential knowledge of death, either personal or second hand, on your part.
> 
> 
> Considering that your pointless, personal insults and over-formatting will now go down in history as tantamount admission that my call of "bullshit!" on your post is righteous.....
> ​
Click to expand...


No?

Are you sure?

Let's take a look at what "Document" means and see if you're correct.

Document: a piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record.

*Uh oh!  It turns out that based upon objective reference authority, I DID document experiential knowledge of death, and from first hand, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE! * 

Go figure.

Now to be fair, the above contributor is a known advocate of socialism, on this here board.

Socialism rests in Relativism.

Relativism rejects Objectivity.

Objectivity is ESSENTIAL TO TRUTH, TRUST, MORALITY AND JUSTICE.

Therefore, absent objectivity, the Relativist is incapable of recognizing truth, thus has no means to trust and no potential basis on which to understand or rest any sense of soundly reasoned morality.  Absent a sound sense of morality, the lowly relativist is incapable of serving or otherwise recognizing, thus cannot serve, justice.

Now for those that missed my documented experiential knowledge of death, I am providing such for your consideration. 

I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed conveying it:



AVG-JOE said:


> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
Click to expand...


_Well God is all of it.  Dark energy, Dark matter, apparent energy and apparent matter.  God is nature, which we have the means to understand and God is nature beyond our means to understand.

If we were capable of fully understanding God, we would be God or something close.

When I think of God, I am reminded of an experience I had decades ago, which literally killed me.  

I would love to explain it to you, but with the exception of those things that are translatable, there's truly no means to convey to another, what happened, as it defies pretty much everything we 'know', from our common experiences.

Suffice it to say that this 'existence' is something which is happening simultaneously with something else.  "Death" is much akin to 'walking from one room into another'.   You just go, with the full understanding that you were here, but you're going 'there'.  There's no remorse in leaving, it's wholly without emotion, pure reason. There are no regrets, no sadness, no anxiety.  No since of loss.   At that time, I was 'given' a choice. But it wasn't actually a choice, very hard to explain, but for the sake of the explanation: I 'chose' to stay because I 'knew' that I still had serious responsibilities here and that others seriously depended upon me and that my leaving would leave them in a bad place.  

I expect that had my body been decimated, that I would have just gone on, knowing that I had no means to stay and that would have been that.

But the processes were amazing.  Impossible to describe, really, but 'time' as we casually think of it, shifts.  

I'll use the phrases 'Speed up' and 'slow down', which aren't precisely accurate, 'phase and sync' are probably closer, but whatever gets the idea across will do, to an extent.  It's a perception thing.  

I guess the best way to describe it would be to consider, if a mountain could reason, it would likely have a perspective much different from our own.  We use values like second, minute hour year, century and so on... imagine if you had no perspective of day.  

But Imagine what 'the world' would look like, if what is a year to us, went by, perceptively, as a fraction of a second. 

The movement of humanity would be imperceptible.   "Night" and "Day" would average to a glow.  Rain and drought, heat and cold would average to a flat consistent states and, so on.

Now imagine the inverse, a fraction of our second, let's call it a thousandth of a second, passed in our year?  The planet, our environment would appear FROZEN to us.  A century would, two decades beyond the average human life, would be come and gone in a hundredth of a second.  But what we perceived as frozen, unmoving fixed features, were in fact, moving just as you and I would normally see them. Nothing changed but the perception of time. 

It all happens in the same 'time'.  All that differs is how it is perceived as 'real', by us, with our gear.  If you could control your means to exist within differing phases of time, you could turn to stone, or become apparently invisible, literally being in MANY different places, occupying the same space, with anything, at the same 'time'. Apparently defying the laws of physics.  Being, 'apparently', SUPER-NATURAL.  Despite your being perfectly natural, just capable of shifting the phase of time.  It's mighty interesting stuff to think about.

Now... I know, what little I know of this, as a 'fact', because I experienced it.  (Please spare me the 'brains use of hormonal discharges at death and all that crap, which I am sure occurs, but just because we are aware of a given process, does not mean that we understand everything about it.)

But I imagine that dark energy and matter are forces in play which are on the edge of our means to perceive.  We may discover its composition tomorrow, which would be great.  But we may never fully understand the forces and properties that such possesses and the role they play or the purpose of such in the grand scheme of things, because our minds are only designed to get us through this 'verse'... this reality, this environment.  It's a wonderful tool, but at the end of the day it is only considering information which is set against a very narrow scope of parameters.

Now, without being able to define every facet of the understanding, I believe that 'life' is multifaceted. 

That 'where' we are, is simply a point in an infinite series of reflections.  What we look out and 'see' in the night sky is the atomic scale of another fractal 'verse' and that we can only 'see' to a given extent, imagine to another, but somewhere beyond infinity there is another and another and another ... .  What's more, I believe that it turns inward in precisely the same way.  That 'inside' us, stands someone looking out at their night sky, seeing the 'stars' and galaxies of our atomic substructure, and 'within' them, are others who look out and see the atomic structure of the former entities 'verse'. With time expanding outwardly and contracting inwardly.  

The terms 'outward' and 'inward', 'expansion' and 'contraction' being poorly suited for the explanation, but as close as I am able to get. (If someone has a better way to explain it, I'd love to hear it, as I have hammered on this stuff for a long time and anything that could help get the point across would be great.)

At the end of the day, I doubt any of it matters a wit.  As we have other purposes for being here and our understanding why we're here and what makes it work, not being relevant to any of it, what so ever.

Anywho, that's my two cents.  I've enjoyed the thread very much and am looking forward to reading more as the discussion unfolds.

_


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> None that you are capable of expressing would be a more honest answer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let someone else try:
> 
> Where is the centre of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least you are trying.
Click to expand...




But will you?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're entitled to be an idiot.
> 
> And I gotta say, it really seems to suitcha.
> 
> So, it serves reason that you'd go with what fits best.
> 
> Feel better? ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you sir, are entitled to insult, dodge and redirect.  But that still doesn't document experiential knowledge of death, either personal or second hand, on your part.
> 
> 
> Considering that your pointless, personal insults and over-formatting will now go down in history as tantamount admission that my call of "bullshit!" on your post is righteous.....
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Let's take a look at what "Document" means and see if you're correct.
> 
> Document: a piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record.
> 
> Uh oh!  Now look at that.  It turns out that
> I DID document experiential knowledge of death, and from first hand, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE!
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Now to be fair, the above contributor is a known advocate of socialism, in this here board.
> 
> Socialism rests in Relativism.
> 
> Relativism rejects Objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is ESSENTIAL TO TRUTH, TRUST, MORALITY AND JUSTICE.
> 
> Therefore, absent objectivity, the Relativist is incapable of recognizing truth, thus has no means to trust and no potential basis on which
> _>snip!<_​
Click to expand...



At the risk of repeating myself, "Bullshit!!"


`​


----------



## HelenaHandbag

Well, this promising thread sure got sucked into a black hole fairly quickly.

My condolences, Joe.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you sir, are entitled to insult, dodge and redirect.  But that still doesn't document experiential knowledge of death, either personal or second hand, on your part.
> 
> 
> Considering that your pointless, personal insults and over-formatting will now go down in history as tantamount admission that my call of "bullshit!" on your post is righteous.....
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Let's take a look at what "Document" means and see if you're correct.
> 
> Document: a piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record.
> 
> *Uh oh!  Now look at that.  It turns out that based upon objective reference authority, I DID document experiential knowledge of death, and from first hand, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE! *
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Now to be fair, the above contributor is a known advocate of socialism, on this here board.
> 
> Socialism rests in Relativism.
> 
> Relativism rejects Objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is ESSENTIAL TO TRUTH, TRUST, MORALITY AND JUSTICE.
> 
> Therefore, absent objectivity, the Relativist is incapable of recognizing truth, thus has no means to provide or be worthy of trust and, they possess no potential basis on which to understand or rest a sense of soundly reasoned morality.  Absent a sound sense of morality, the lowly relativist is incapable of serving or otherwise recognizing justice.
> 
> Now for those that missed my documented experiential knowledge of death, I am providing such for your consideration.
> 
> I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed conveying it:
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.
> Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Well God is all of it.  Dark energy, Dark matter, apparent energy and apparent matter.  God is nature, which we have the means to understand and God is nature beyond our means to understand.
> 
> If we were capable of fully understanding God, we would be God or something close.
> 
> When I think of God, I am reminded of an experience I had decades ago, which literally killed me.
> 
> I would love to explain it to you, but with the exception of those things that are translatable, there's truly no means to convey to another, what happened, as it defies pretty much everything we 'know', from our common experiences.
> 
> Suffice it to say that this 'existence' is something which is happening simultaneously with something else.  "Death" is much akin to 'walking from one room into another'.   You just go, with the full understanding that you were here, but you're going 'there'.  There's no remorse in leaving, it's wholly without emotion, pure reason. There are no regrets, no sadness, no anxiety.  No since of loss.   At that time, I was 'given' a choice. But it wasn't actually a choice, very hard to explain, but for the sake of the explanation: I 'chose' to stay because I 'knew' that I still had serious responsibilities here and that others seriously depended upon me and that my leaving would leave them in a bad place.
> 
> I expect that had my body been decimated, that I would have just gone on, knowing that I had no means to stay and that would have been that.
> 
> But the processes were amazing.  Impossible to describe, really, but 'time' as we casually think of it, shifts.
> 
> I'll use the phrases 'Speed up' and 'slow down', which aren't precisely accurate, 'phase and sync' are probably closer, but whatever gets the idea across will do, to an extent.  It's a perception thing.
> 
> I guess the best way to describe it would be to consider, if a mountain could reason, it would likely have a perspective much different from our own.  We use values like second, minute hour year, century and so on... imagine if you had no perspective of day.
> 
> But Imagine what 'the world' would look like, if what is a year to us, went by, perceptively, as a fraction of a second.
> 
> The movement of humanity would be imperceptible.   "Night" and "Day" would average to a glow.  Rain and drought, heat and cold would average to a flat consistent states and, so on.
> 
> Now imagine the inverse, a fraction of our second, let's call it a thousandth of a second, passed in our year?  The planet, our environment would appear FROZEN to us.  A century would, two decades beyond the average human life, would be come and gone in a hundredth of a second.  But what we perceived as frozen, unmoving fixed features, were in fact, moving just as you and I would normally see them. Nothing changed but the perception of time.
> 
> It all happens in the same 'time'.  All that differs is how it is perceived as 'real', by us, with our gear.  If you could control your means to exist within differing phases of time, you could turn to stone, or become apparently invisible, literally being in MANY different places, occupying the same space, with anything, at the same 'time'. Apparently defying the laws of physics.  Being, 'apparently', SUPER-NATURAL.  Despite your being perfectly natural, just capable of shifting the phase of time.  It's mighty interesting stuff to think about.
> 
> Now... I know, what little I know of this, as a 'fact', because I experienced it.  (Please spare me the 'brains use of hormonal discharges at death and all that crap, which I am sure occurs, but just because we are aware of a given process, does not mean that we understand everything about it.)
> 
> But I imagine that dark energy and matter are forces in play which are on the edge of our means to perceive.  We may discover its composition tomorrow, which would be great.  But we may never fully understand the forces and properties that such possesses and the role they play or the purpose of such in the grand scheme of things, because our minds are only designed to get us through this 'verse'... this reality, this environment.  It's a wonderful tool, but at the end of the day it is only considering information which is set against a very narrow scope of parameters.
> 
> Now, without being able to define every facet of the understanding, I believe that 'life' is multifaceted.
> 
> That 'where' we are, is simply a point in an infinite series of reflections.  What we look out and 'see' in the night sky is the atomic scale of another fractal 'verse' and that we can only 'see' to a given extent, imagine to another, but somewhere beyond infinity there is another and another and another ... .  What's more, I believe that it turns inward in precisely the same way.  That 'inside' us, stands someone looking out at their night sky, seeing the 'stars' and galaxies of our atomic substructure, and 'within' them, are others who look out and see the atomic structure of the former entities 'verse'. With time expanding outwardly and contracting inwardly.
> 
> The terms 'outward' and 'inward', 'expansion' and 'contraction' being poorly suited for the explanation, but as close as I am able to get. (If someone has a better way to explain it, I'd love to hear it, as I have hammered on this stuff for a long time and anything that could help get the point across would be great.)
> 
> With regard to whether 'God can be measured', one would need to at least have some means to understand the composition of God to do so and, clearly we do not and likely will never get sufficiently close to even know what questions might be asked to begin experiments which might some day lead to an understanding of such.
> 
> At the end of the day, I doubt any of it matters a wit.  As we have other purposes for being here and our understanding why we're here and what makes it work, not being relevant to any of it, what so ever.
> 
> Anywho, that's my two cents.  I've enjoyed the thread very much and am looking forward to reading more as the discussion unfolds.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself, "Bullshit!!"
> 
> 
> `​
Click to expand...


Well, I've always said, ya can't hide a powerful intellect.  

And that's one powerful argument you're hiding there.

Thank you for taking the time to present it.  

By all outward appearances however, you spent vastly more time writing your baseless response, than you did considering that to which it responded.

And _that's just *rude*_.  

But this is what one should expect from the relativist and never less so, than where such is comprised of the heavily leveraged anti-theist.  

So again, thanks for the quip.  And if you manage to form an original thought, please be sure to let me know.  I love exceptions that make rules.  I frankly can't get my fill of 'em.


----------



## Drake_Roberts

edthecynic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> None that you are capable of expressing would be a more honest answer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let someone else try:
> 
> Where is the centre of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least you are trying.
> 
> The Universe & Big Bang Theory | Universe History, Age & Structure, Space Exploration | Space.com
> 
> Universe  Overview
> 
> The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old  that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age  it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.
> 
> *After inflation, the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate.* As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.
> 
> snip/
> 
> Roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang, matter cooled enough for atoms to form during the era of recombination, resulting in a transparent, electrically neutral gas. This set loose the initial flash of light created during the Big Bang, which is detectable today as cosmic microwave background radiation. However, after this point, the universe was plunged into darkness, since no stars or any other bright objects had formed yet.
> 
> About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.
> 
> *Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity,* about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.
Click to expand...


Never been a science guy myself, but this one question has always bugged me: If the universe is ever expanding, and no new matter or energy can be created or destroyed, how is that possible? Wouldn't the matter and energy have to come from somewhere?


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let someone else try:
> 
> Where is the centre of the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you are trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But will you?
Click to expand...

IOW, you can't explain how the expanding universe could have been decelerating at a space/time closer to the Big Bang if Dark Energy is accelerating matter now.


----------



## Unkotare

As I recommended earlier, you should move on to another topic since the concepts involved in this one are clearly beyond you. Nothing wrong with that, but you're just wasting your time and frustrating yourself (as well as doing no favors to your personal image).


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> As I recommended earlier, you should move on to another topic since the concepts involved in this one are clearly beyond you. Nothing wrong with that, but you're just wasting your time and frustrating yourself (as well as doing no favors to your personal image).


You are delusional!


----------



## Unkotare

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


----------



## edthecynic

Unkotare said:


> As I recommended earlier, you should move on to another topic since* the concepts involved in this one are clearly beyond you.* Nothing wrong with that, but you're just wasting your time and frustrating yourself (as well as doing no favors to your personal image).


Speak for yourself! You STILL can't explain how the universe was expanding and slowing down at a time close to the Big Bang if Dark Energy was accelerating matter throughout the universe. Rather than admit that is a hole in the Dark Matter theory, you are reduced to insulting my intelligence, especially when you didn't even know the universe was slowing down before it was accelerating!!!


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Well, I've always said, ya can't hide a powerful intellect.
> 
> And that's one powerful argument you're hiding there.
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to present it.
> 
> By all outward appearances however, you spent vastly more time writing your baseless response, than you did considering that to which it responded.
> 
> And _that's just *rude*_.
> 
> But this is what one should expect from the relativist and never less so, than where such is comprised of the heavily leveraged anti-theist.
> 
> So again, thanks for the quip.  And if you manage to form an original thought, please be sure to let me know.  I love exceptions that make rules.  I frankly can't get my fill of 'em.





Dude... I'm just not buying your tale about stepping through death's door and returning.



And it was you who first made it personal... what flavor response did you expect?  


`​


----------



## freedombecki

AVG-JOE said:


> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together. Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
Click to expand...

The Bible and the song says "in him there no darkness is."


----------



## edthecynic

freedombecki said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter. The reason this energy might in some sense be God is based on the Biblical teaching that God is invisible yet holds everything together.Could Dark Energy Be God? | God and Brain​
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible and the song says* "in him there no darkness is."*
Click to expand...

Isa 45:7 *I *form the light, and *create darkness*: I make peace, and create evil: *I the LORD do all these things.*


----------



## Drake_Roberts

edthecynic said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> God can be measured?
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible and the song says* "in him there no darkness is."*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isa 45:7 *I *form the light, and *create darkness*: I make peace, and create evil: *I the LORD do all these things.*
Click to expand...


Create evil. If only more people understood that.


----------

