It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science does it again: Big Bang going out the window?

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 

no. i'm suggesting that there is no evidence for dark matter.

we are unsure of how galaxies form, and how the universe seems to expand at an accelerated rate. the principle of dark matter is offered as an explanation.

that explanation has no evidence to back it.

i'm fine with theorizing, in fact i embrace it, but to create the idea of dark matter with no evidence backing it beyond observed effects that we do not understand is crazy.

we should focus more on what we do not understand rather than creating things to fill in the gaps of our understanding.




posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Chronon
 


In a process called Vacuum Instability, the Higgs Boson particle may become unstable and the result would be the creation of new space or what we would call a universe.
That's fascinating. While they have insufficient data for the calcs at this point, I wonder if the prediction would be able include the conditions which may exist in the subsequent universe. Would the physics of that universe be the same as the predecessor?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


Here's a source that's a bit more coherent. This does not toss the Standard Model out. It expands upon it, possibly providing clues about the nature of dark matter and gravity.

The Standard Model, which has given the most complete explanation up to now of the universe, has gaps, and is unable to explain phenomena like dark matter or gravitational interaction between particles. Physicists are therefore seeking a more fundamental theory that they call "New Physics", but up to now there has been no direct proof of its existence, only indirect observation of dark matter, as deduced, among other things, from the movement of the galaxies.
phys.org...




I may already have this new physics ( Dark matter, gravity etc ), elaborated quite some time ago in my posts
elsewhere. But I tend to call this hypothesis



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadMax7
the standard model actually is insane. All we see and are came ultimately from a little microbe (though none say where that came from) in a pond after the earth cooled after it came together as dust circling a sun (how did that get there again?) after a big bang of nothing were nothing existed.

And we all suck it in because we cannot handle external help outside our realm of understanding, time, dimension and space.

Wow! That is insane.

Erm, sorry but you are mixing up two things. The standard model is about physics, particles etc. Microbes in a pond is about the origins of life which has nothing to do with the big bang unless you are implying (my Godometer is starting to vibrate here) that these all describe something from "nothing".......unless we accept "external help".......oh no there we go my Godometer is ringing loudly.

Where did God come from?

THis is insanity : I don't know whey the word is the way it is. I have difficulty understanding the concepts put forward by those who are investigating these things. So I will deride them for their efforts and invent a mythical creature who has existed forever who created everything out of thin air as an explanation.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


where did God come from? u assume that God is born out of the same method we are born.


Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by instigatah




this answer will go for both you and Easypleaseme

perform ur own critical thinking analysis.

let's start from the top. and top in this sense means the plane we are on and perceive to be the top. reality!

now here in external reality, we see objects.. 'objects'.. take note of this word. we see objects as they interact with eachother. and understand that some objects react with others, some merge with others to form new constructs, action an reaction, 1+1=2 etc. things are simple and straight forward.

but as we look either deeper into things through scientific inspection of the objects on earth in this reality that we interface with, or further and out into space past our middle point.. things start to become illogical. we have peered into the quantum realm and realized, that things dont work quite the way the work in our logical realm. in the quantum realm, it seems to scientists, that if they hit a pool ball on a pool-table in a certain direction and with a certain force, sometimes it may go straight, but sometimes it may curve, sometimes it will multiply itself into 9 clones and travel in 9 directions simultaneously. in effect.. 1+1 does not equal 2 in the quantum realm.

we also recognize that it seems that reality is manifest from some element or transformation from the quantum into the physical. the bible has already said this. the invisible forms the visible.

now to answer something from nothing.

understand now, that the spiritual is the realm of quantum consciousness. essentially we acknowledge as is stated in the bible. the rules of time and space do not apply as they do on this plane of existence. things become illogical. and through the analysis of machines it would APPEAR TO BE 'Random'. however, where we will agree, is that there is a link between physical reality, and invisible or what i call 'Spiritual Reality'.

what is claimed by mystics, and i fully agree, is that God was not forged out of the LOGICAL process of creation as we would hope to analyse and summarize it. via logic, we require 1+1 to equal 2. but for the spirit.. the laws of exchange do not apply. the philosopher's stone my boy. the spirit of God does not require anything to materialize something. and in that same way God can materialize multiple somethings out of nothing. and set rules to them and how they interact for the design of a grand computer system as you would have it. Math is totally blown out of the water.. it is only a small manifestation of the entirety of existence. there are simply places where the numbers will not take you without your own direct and conscious involvement.

in this same way that the rules of logic as it pertains to creation do not apply for manifestations from God. they are probably even further 'deluded' for how he himself was forged. but ill tell u what. i dont need to know that. what i need to know is how to get to his level and the bible tells us all these things. as well as all other religions, encoded in different ways to pass on the message.

NOTE AGAIN: i am NOT saying that we should reject science. not at all. i am saying that we should not forget that God is the designer and live accordingly while we develop our science. but science will be led back to an intelligent creator eventually. and it will lead to an explosion in the understanding of the makeup of existence and of technological advancement. Religion will become down to a science, and science will respect and work in conjunction with the Science of Religion. all roads lead to rome.

we can crack the codes and in my case translate the mystical concepts into real world applications. but we are limited in what is available in tools to work with. if our tools are limited, we can only produce limited scientific product. thus scientific advancement based on contributions from mystical adepts is hampered based on the level of technology available to them.

what id say is, those guys were good! damn good! the stuff that has been passed down to us is really solid and full of wisdom. i see fully how many fantastic scientific claims coincide with the claims of mystic adepts. not the frauds.. the true adepts of spiritual understanding.

edit on 5-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by filledcup
 

no. i'm suggesting that there is no evidence for dark matter.
What about this?

Catching a bullet: direct evidence for the existence of dark matter

It's certainly direct evidence for something, though the authors don't claim to know what that something is, so it's called "dark matter" as a place holder name until they figure out what causes these observations.



we are unsure of how galaxies form, and how the universe seems to expand at an accelerated rate. the principle of dark matter is offered as an explanation.
You seem to be confused between dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy is the term given the unknown cause of the force causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, not dark matter. However it's not hard to mix them up...I've accidentally stated one when I meant the other before.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 





Then they grab a steel rod and thrust it into the fire. Nothing obvious happens. They think "Ahh well, God it is then."


Actually the rod gets hot and their hand gets burned. They verbalize the name of God strongly.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 





HOW.. would they do that, without admitting the bible said it first? in the beginning all was dark and void and God said let their be light. didnt light somehow burst forth thru the darkness? what was the catalyst for this reaction? it could not have ignited itself. this much is ignored!


God cleaned up the atmosphere and then there was light. Seems clear.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 


well written thread.

you summed up exactly my thoughts on the matter in far more elegant way than i could ever put it.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 


An interesting interpretation bringing bible and science together.
reluctant-messenger.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by filledcup
my point, science will only be able to avoid acknowledging God for so long.


And suddenly the blatantly incorrect and misleading title of your article makes perfect sense.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chronon
 


In a process called Vacuum Instability, the Higgs Boson particle may become unstable and the result would be the creation of new space or what we would call a universe.
That's fascinating. While they have insufficient data for the calcs at this point, I wonder if the prediction would be able include the conditions which may exist in the subsequent universe. Would the physics of that universe be the same as the predecessor?


If you find any interesting speculation revolving around this question, I would like to know.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


If you find any interesting speculation revolving around this question, I would like to know.

I would speculate that there is a chance that there would be little resemblance in the physical laws of different universes. No specifics.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 


Dark matter is a currently unknown aspect or affect of gravity. Just leaving this here, so in the future I can tell people I told you so.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


You mean like this MOND ?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe
 


Hm, perhaps. Im not quite sure what that theory entails though, regarding the envisioned mechanism of gravity and the fundamental makeup and nature of space, energy and matter. My simple and general thoughts regarding the issue is that Gravity has different relative affects according to perspective, but also absolutely and objectively is not just one simple entity. There is a medium regarding space and energy, which allow/cause gravity to exist, and then that phenomenon which is forced to exist due to the conditions of this reality, exists in some manner, and also has affects on other aspects of the universe, and can itself be affected by other aspects of the universe. So I believe that 'dark matter' is the term used to describe an unknown affect of the totality of the phenomenon known as gravity.

To be a little more clear, I believe 'dark matter' is a reaction between gravity and 'dark energy'. But I also believe 'dark energy' is a result or affect of 'gravity'.
edit on 5-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
op is aligning the greatest science the world has ever known with fairy tales - winr



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by filledcup
 


Dark matter is a currently unknown aspect or affect of gravity. Just leaving this here, so in the future I can tell people I told you so.

Lol, I somehow had a sneaky suspicion that, you would show up and make such a claim



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
To be a little more clear, I believe 'dark matter' is a reaction between gravity and 'dark energy'. But I also believe 'dark energy' is a result or affect of 'gravity'.
There are others who think dark matter observations may be related to gravity, though the authors of the paper I linked above claim the bullet cluster observations rule out modified gravity theory as the cause of those observations.

However what's shocking is that you think the attractive force of gravity may be related to not only the attractive force of dark matter, but also the repulsive force of dark energy, because it seems like a self-evident contradiction that an attractive force explains observations of a repulsive force.

It would be less of a contradiction to speculate the cause is "moogles" because according to physicist Richard Feynman nobody has ever proven that they don't explain all unexplained observations.

For those unfamiliar with "moogles", Feynman explains them just after 5 minutes into this video on the scientific method:



This is also relevant to the topic of this thread because the OP source mentions string theory, and Feynman's explanation of moogles highlights the issue with string theory.
edit on 5-8-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

However what's shocking is that you think the attractive force of gravity may be related to not only the attractive force of dark matter, but also the repulsive force of dark energy, because it seems like a self-evident contradiction that an attractive force explains observations of a repulsive force.



Yes I am glad you brought this up, and I can tell that you have given this much thought.

Heres how I see it. Big bang, galaxies begin swirling and forming, there is energy that is going into making the matter of the galaxies, subatomic energy, and these are all swirling outwards away from the 'singularity', 'space' is incrementally at the same rate (ying yang, tug of war, hour glass kinda thing) stretching or existing into the 'space' between the materially subatomic energy, as macro galaxies spin more and more through time (and space) space is increasing in area, expansion of space, dark energy, which in time, is proportional in some manner to the velocity and total galactic angular momentum of galactic clusters of material, galaxies create major gravitational warpings in space, which allow the galaxy to exist, and this process is directly related to the expansion of space, where the stretching dark energetic space meets the rim of the dynamic gravity well of the galaxy, there exists some action, 'dark matter',




top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join