Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

[_Jersey Girl]

There has been far too much nonsense, injustice and atrocity perpetrated in the name of God and religion through the ages for me to have any confidence in religion beyond the obvious wisdom and benefits of striving to treat others as one would like to be treated, which is the one thing on which all respectable religions seem to agree.

There has been far too much nonsense, injustice and atrocity perpetrated in the name of God and religion through the ages for me to have any confidence in the way that egocentric, greedy, and/or arrogant people choose to facilitate their religion beyond the obvious wisdom and benefits of striving to treat others as one would like to be treated, which is the one thing on which all respectable religions seem to agree and their self proclaimed adherents fail to live by.

There. I feel better now.

I don't think these things represent a failure of any particular god or a religion. They represent a failure on the part of human beings who project their own will upon the will of their god and use it as an excuse to do harm and exercise domination in the name of their god.

[_SPG]

Do you have a reference to 97% of our universe being in a higher quantum dimension?

Wanna bet that he does?

It's been a while since I did my research for on this. I remember I did some here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy There are a bunch of links inside to connects to other things. Unfortunately, when you are trying to prove someone, Wikipedia changes. But in case, I remember it said something like, "at the time of the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter almost completely destroyed each other. Only about 0.000000001% (I just remember was about 9 digit out) survived. Of that, about 97% was so hot from the explosion it instantly find itself in a higher plane.

The "tighter vibration" was something I saw on TV I think. Basically, the particles, like the electrons, worked in a tight circle, so small it might be like comparing an atom to our solar system.

In this article, I didn't look through it completely, or the links. It took days of reading before. But it does talk about Dark Matter and Dark Energy as "less dense" as our matter. It's energy and matter, but it might move through us and we would not know. It's particles, though equal in mass, could move through us like a bullet through out solar system. Though the article implied that the energy ascended, I might have inserted that word. But basically, Dark Matter is a less dense energy and matter around us.

So Chap, at your recommendation, I got this book [Lucretius, De Rerum Natura], went through it over the weekend.

It doesn't say anything that I haven't said

Erm, the point in suggesting that you should read this 2,000 year old book was not that you should think of its author as some kind of competitor for whatever prize it may be that you are going in for ...

Ok. I thought I was going to get an education. If that wasn't the point, what was?

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, SPG. Ethan Siegal has a blog called Starts With A Bang that I think covers astrophysics very well. It started out on Scienceblogs and then moved to Forbes a few years back. Here’s a recent entry on the antimatter puzzle. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 7ede585826

I really like him because he clearly identifies what physicists don’t know and why it matters. He also explains multiverse theory in a way I can understand.

I’m pretty sure he has posted on dark matter and energy.

I use Wikipedia as a reference tool, so I know what you mean. As we don’t know what dark matter and dark energy are, I don’t think we have a good handle on how they are created. I suspect the quantum dimension thing was someone’s speculation.

On the neutrinos, the issue isn’t size. Neutrinos don’t interact with the electromagnetic and strong forces, allowing them to pass though matter.

[_SPG]

Thanks, SPG. Ethan Siegal has a blog called Starts With A Bang that I think covers astrophysics very well. It started out on Scienceblogs and then moved to Forbes a few years back. Here’s a recent entry on the antimatter puzzle. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 7ede585826

I really like him because he clearly identifies what physicists don’t know and why it matters. He also explains multiverse theory in a way I can understand.

I’m pretty sure he has posted on dark matter and energy.

I use Wikipedia as a reference tool, so I know what you mean. As we don’t know what dark matter and dark energy are, I don’t think we have a good handle on how they are created. I suspect the quantum dimension thing was someone’s speculation.

On the neutrinos, the issue isn’t size. Neutrinos don’t interact with the electromagnetic and strong forces, allowing them to pass though matter.

Even so, on the neutrino things, there for a little while, it was the smallest thing we had.

Which sort brings me full cycle with this stuff. We don't know. A little while back, I mentioned some scientists are back-walking the Big Bang and everyone here thought I was a heretic. Today, when searching for my references, the search-engines were plugged with the "No Big Bang" headlines. The universe is eternal, no beginning. Of course, I was saying stuff like that a while back, that some processes are eternal, always was, always will be. And that before the Big Bang, there was stuff going on.

The internet isn't fast enough to keep up with all of the theories.

I have my own theories, which don't match anything I've read. And then when I read something that comes close, I study and use it to convey some of the ideas.

Like, I saw in a vision, (years before dark matter went public) that there 4 beings, even greater then the light, living in the dark. They were loving, sophisticated beings. The "light" was the odd one.

So, the Dark Matter and Dark Energy sort of matches that. In my vision, the dark male child, older sibling to the light, realized that the Light wasn't going to make it (live) and so used his own body and jumped into the light to support him. But the Light was blind to them all, thought himself the only one.

This sort of matches what we think of dark matter, that it supports our universe of light, that would have collapsed in on itself.

I see the universe as living beings, more then I see it as particles and quarks, and such. But, I don't ignore what we learn, or think we know. But see is as alive, as a part of who WE ARE. That to understand ourselves, we must understand the relationship between the dark matter and light. Not as a good and evil, but as parts seen and unseen.

[_Res Ipsa]

Perhaps Google knows you too well. There are papers from time to time that propose alternatives to the BBT. And some folks get excited. But the BBT is the best fit to the evidence that we have. I certainly don’t see evidence of a move to abandon it.

If by “knowing” you mean “impossible to be wrong,” then I agree that we don’t know. But that type of knowing only exists if formalized systems like logic or math. Outside of those kinds of systems, “knowing” is based on a sliding scale of confidence. In my opinion, it makes no sense to say “well, I’m only 60% confident, so the best thing to do is make up a different answer.”

[_SPG]

Perhaps Google knows you too well. There are papers from time to time that propose alternatives to the BBT. And some folks get excited. But the BBT is the best fit to the evidence that we have. I certainly don’t see evidence of a move to abandon it.

If by “knowing” you mean “impossible to be wrong,” then I agree that we don’t know. But that type of knowing only exists if formalized systems like logic or math. Outside of those kinds of systems, “knowing” is based on a sliding scale of confidence. In my opinion, it makes no sense to say “well, I’m only 60% confident, so the best thing to do is make up a different answer.”

I don't really have a problem with BBT, except that its incomplete. How can you says it's the best model we have there is NOTHING to explain how it happened. That we think things explained out from the center of point is like 1% of what happened. How did it get there? What happened up to that point? Since is really an illusion, and we just compare processes to other processes, how do we know how long it too? Maybe the gravity at the center was go high time (process) almost held still what seemed to happen really fast really took billions of years.

Of every freaking space anomaly we can think of, that BB would have all of them times a million. Imagine a universe with a mass to create billions of black holes, which can slow times almost to a stop, had all of that mass at the beginning. I don't know anyone can talk time around the BBT.

[_Chap]

Please.

You can't talk meaningfully about many of the questions touched on in recent posts without learning some real, hard physics and maths.

Knowing what you don't know is really important. For a start, it saves you wasting a lot of time and energy talking nonsense.

[_Res Ipsa]

It’s the best fit to the evidence. It was used to make predictions that were later confirmed. It is consistent with the physical laws we know. And the math works. No other theory does all that as well.

A good theory doesn’t just make stuff up so that it can answer questions. It explains the evidence we have. And when it doesn’t have evidence, it says “I don’t know.” We do not have evidence from before the start of the inflationary period. The laws of the universe don’t tell us what came before. We can speculate, but speculation isn’t a theory.

There is a ton of stuff written about the BBT. In the early stages, there wasn’t the baryonic matter that we experience as normal matter, so I don’t think time dilation is an issue. But you can read up on what the theory actually says yourself.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here is Ethan Siegal on why the BBT fits the evidence: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... a877191cc5

[_SPG]

Please.

You can't talk meaningfully about many of the questions touched on in recent posts without learning some real, hard physics and maths.

Knowing what you don't know is really important. For a start, it saves you wasting a lot of time and energy talking nonsense.

I found meaning the dumbest of words.

Depending on your standards, anything can be a waste of time.