That dark matter..
zecri77: All who have any kind of thought into the Matter aka..universe and who the fruk nose???feel free
MJ59: Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total mass–energy density or about 2.241×10−27 kg/m3.
That stuff hey?
MJ59: La matière noire est une forme de matière censée représenter environ 85% de la matière dans l'univers et environ un quart de sa densité masse-énergie totale, soit environ 2,241 × 10−27 kg / m3.
There ya go!
Adam Southworth: I don't believe dark matter/energy exist. I think this invisible stuff might be a kluge to avoid problems with our present theory of gravity. As far as I know, physicists/cosmologists simply extrapolate from what we observe and our experience of matter/energy to more invisible stuff which explains what we observe.
I know "dark energy" is what physicists invoke to explain a force which propels the universe apart and is thought to constitute roughly 69% of the universe, whereas "dark matter" is what they invoke to explain a force which draws matter together and is thought to constitute roughly 25% of the universe. This means that what we observe is no more than 5% of the universe.
I don't know what explains what we observe, but I consider the concepts dark matter/energy almost Epicurean attempts at a materialist account of things we don't understand to reconcile them with present science. If you believe everything is matter, and you want to explain something you don't understand, you postulate more matter to explain it. This is what Epicurus did nearly 2,500 years ago. His fundamental theory was that everything is atoms and void... And he knew men were afraid of things they don't understand and tended to ascribe them to gods or spirits. Thus, he gave materialist accounts of unexplained phenomena to reconcile them with his materialist model and dispel men's superstitious fear of the unknown - or, to frame it a different way, to undermine men's faith in gods.
Whatever it is that propels the universe apart or draws it together, we believe the value Ω (omega), the average density of the universe, will determine the fate of the universe. And in the case of the cosmological constant (which dark energy attempts to explain), we have a fine-tuned force to 119 powers of ten which led to the emergence of life. The physicist Paul Davies likens the chance this force would take this value to getting 400 heads in 400 coin flips. So these forces are powerful, unobserved, gave rise to life against immense odds and determine the fate of the universe...And we don't know what they are. I believe this puts us in a far worse place than Epicurus nearly 2,500 years ago. We see powerful forces which inspire religious awe or superstitious fear (however you choose to frame it) and want to reduce them to atoms and void. And like Epicurus, many scientists today are engaged in a cultural battle with religion. The absence of a physical explanation of 96% of a reality, which created life against all odds and determines the fate of the universe, is an unenviable place to start.
yippeskippy: Excellent post Adam why do you say it's a cultural battle though? I've noticed a shift with religious people. Not all of them throw science out the window like they used to. In fact I believe there are more than you think, they simply don't let go of certain parts of their belief system, and attribute everything else to allegory.
AretoNyx: I wouldn't group all religions as the same nor even sects of religions. Muslim, Jewish, and Christians vary but there are so many other religions besides Abrahamic one's. There are those that make excuse interpreting such as a bleach cure all ...but science has little to do with that and not much religiously it seems either rather but to get money in scam. Though some call such scams religions cults and all ... Science can be done by any one. Not sure how it is a cultural battle either.
Blackshoes: Well stated Adam However, your last sentence is bias?
(The absence of a physical explanation of 96% of a reality which created life against all odds and determines the fate of the universe is an unenviable place to start."
Science cannot explain the supernatural nor does it understand what it doesn't know.
That doesn't make it unenviable? It just makes it unknown to those that know no better.
"It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions.
We are not to consider the world as the body of God: he is an uniform being, void of organs, members, or parts; and they are his creatures, subordinate to him, and subservient to his will.
No being exists or can exist which is not related to space in some way. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere, and body is in the space that it occupies; and whatever is neither everywhere nor anywhere does not exist. And hence it follows that space is an effect arising from the first existence of being, because when any being is postulated, space is postulated."
Adam Southworth: I think an atheist activist would hope physical explanations would be mundane, consistent and complete. That doesn't seem to be the case for dark matter/energy. These phenomena are not well explained by general relativity and - as best we can tell - starkly implausible for purposeless forces.
Atheistic explanations are without the full knowledge needed to make any logical and reasonable conclusion.
“God [is] the author of the universe, and the free establisher of the laws of motion.”
“A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him… The more I study nature, the more O stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”
“Science brings one nearer to God.”
BlueShirt1: "Last warning! Stay on topic or else!" - Blackshoes (in his own thread)
Blackshoes . . .
Q1: What does God have to do with dark matter?
Q2: Do you know what hypocrisy is?
Blackshoes: Blue It is on topic! I didn't bring up the religious relationship and implication with the universe and science!
OMG Don't you even read the post I've been responding to, before you judge!
swampandfire: back in the day they thought god existed because it was the limit to what we humans can think.
swampandfire: @Blackshoes, it just seems an irony that science can lead you to God, while in another just as valid way simplicity can.
Well, that is what I believe and has been a long-standing opinion of far greater men of science than I.
The irony if there is any at all, is those who don't see God within all things
“As we conquer peak after peak we see in front of us regions full of interest and beauty, but we do not see our goal, we do not see the horizon; in the distance tower still higher peaks, which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects, and deepen the feeling, the truth of which is emphasized by every advance in science, that ‘Great are the Works of the Lord’.”
Sir Joseph J. Thomson
“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
Adam Southworth: Einstein was ambiguous as to whether God was transcendent or coextensive with nature. If the former, the claim "The more I study science, the more I believe in God" is close to a tautology. This is arguably no more than to say: "The more one learns about nature, the more one believes in nature." Einstein took a hard realist stance against people like Bohr and Heisenberg.
That said, Einstein also talks about a "mind" or "Author" of nature. He was impressed not just by the fact that nature exists and can be understood, but by its regularity and concinnity.