Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Left Coast]

Religious practice is infinite and timeless in its scope, a totally open mind to apprehend reality,

Which religious practice? They are not all the same.

 

[gnostic]

What is your point posting this, there are endless hypotheses and research going on wrt dark energy and dark matter, but until now they are not directly observable as is the material universe which represents 5% of the mass of the total universe, ie., omnipresent dark energy, dark matter, and the 5% ordinary matter.

Not being directly observed or detected, don’t mean it cannot be indirectly observed or detected. And it also don’t mean, we cannot know or explain what it is.

I have already a number of examples, where what scientists cannot be directly observed, can detect them indirectly.

Like Dark Matter, individual quark cannot be directly observed. It is also the case with neutrino.

The difference between quarks and Dark Matter is that quark can interact with all 4 fundamental forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, EM & gravitation), because it have all 3 properties, it have mass, charge & spin).

While Dark Matter would only interact gravitational force, hence it must have mass. But Dark Matter don’t have electric charge, therefore it cannot be observed directly, but the gravitational effects on large structures (eg galaxies) and stars are notable.

But Dark Matter isn’t the only particle that have mass but no charge. I am talking about neutrino. Neutrinos can interact with both gravitational force and with weak nuclear force, because it has no charge, so like Dark Matter, neutrinos don’t interact with EM force.

But while Dark Matters can move large objects (stars and galaxies), neutrinos on the other hand are so small and light in mass, that neutrinos can pass right most solid objects, including human bodies, metal and even planets. And since neutrinos don’t interact with EM, it can also not be observed or detected directly.

So Dark Matters have of the same properties as neutrinos, but they also differed in other areas.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are speaking for yourself, it has already been realized by all those who have.

I am not speaking for myself. I references peer reviewed scientific articles and no response on your part.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sort of, the narrower the field of expertise, the more one may understand about it, but it comes at the expense of the larger picture. Religious practice is infinite and timeless in its scope, a totally open mind to apprehend reality, the specialist filters out that which is not in their field of interest, mind in a box closed to that outside of it.

Ancient religious beliefs offer no objective verifiable evidence for the scientific knowledge of the nature of our universe.

Still waiting. . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, then I am amazed why you do not understand what has been explained to you, it is not rocket science. Science does not understand the 5% of existence it does study, not alone the 95% it is aware of but can't because it is incapable of observing it.

Accept that you may have wasted a lot of precious lifetime in materialistic endeavours associated with the 5%, while with appropriate religious practice, you may have realized the 95%.

Fwiw, I don't have an academic background, my training was space and aerospace with the military, mainly satellite remote sensing and coms. I have spent more of my life has been engaged in religious practice, than in secular pursuits, until now and I am 79 yo.

Still waiting for a coherent response concerning the scientific references. Nothing offered by you yet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which religious practice? They are not all the same.

True, the practice I refer to is that of transcending the 3D time space ego mind by ceasing all thought, when the mind is still and free from thought, the awesome oneness of all that is is present, divine being. The divine kingdom is within, not outside.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not being directly observed or detected, don’t mean it cannot be indirectly observed or detected. And it also don’t mean, we cannot know or explain what it is.

I have already a number of examples, where what scientists cannot be directly observed, can detect them indirectly.

Like Dark Matter, individual quark cannot be directly observed. It is also the case with neutrino.

The difference between quarks and Dark Matter is that quark can interact with all 4 fundamental forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, EM & gravitation), because it have all 3 properties, it have mass, charge & spin).

While Dark Matter would only interact gravitational force, hence it must have mass. But Dark Matter don’t have electric charge, therefore it cannot be observed directly, but the gravitational effects on large structures (eg galaxies) and stars are notable.

But Dark Matter isn’t the only particle that have mass but no charge. I am talking about neutrino. Neutrinos can interact with both gravitational force and with weak nuclear force, because it has no charge, so like Dark Matter, neutrinos don’t interact with EM force.

But while Dark Matters can move large objects (stars and galaxies), neutrinos on the other hand are so small and light in mass, that neutrinos can pass right most solid objects, including human bodies, metal and even planets. And since neutrinos don’t interact with EM, it can also not be observed or detected directly.

So Dark Matters have of the same properties as neutrinos, but they also differed in other areas.

These are hypotheses, they are not based on direct observation and measurements. Science is still in its infancy, look how far it has come in the last century and a half, and look at the applications. From horse and buggy to space travel and AI, now looking at FTL. Exciting times for all, there should be no antagonism, Religion is about the whole otherwise know as God, while science mostly confines itself to matter, one looks inwards, the other looks outwards.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not speaking for myself. I references peer reviewed scientific articles and no response on your part.

Oh, that explains it, you will never solve the final mystery by reading peer reviewed scientific articles, a thinking mind can never apprehend the whole of existence, to realize this, your mind must be free of thought.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ancient religious beliefs offer no objective verifiable evidence for the scientific knowledge of the nature of our universe.

Still waiting. . .

God is within, not outside, any real meaningful evidence will need to be subjective not objective. Realization of truth is not the same as knowledge of truth, one is real, ie., non-conceptual, the other is conceptual.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Still waiting for a coherent response concerning the scientific references. Nothing offered by you yet.

Science can not directly observe dark energy or matter, plenty of hypotheses but no evidence. I don't need to waste time on hypotheses, I know what the 95% is, it was known as ether to the metaphysicians and spirit to religion. When you practice religion properly, there will come a time when the mind will transcend 3D space time reality and experience the oneness beyond, it is a spiritual experience. The cosmos is alive, it is the source of you, you are an expression of it, but to realize it you must go within.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't have any!

That explains the nonsense of your posts and the failure respond to the science cited.

 

[shunyadragon]

God is within, not outside, any real meaningful evidence will need to be subjective not objective. Realization of truth is not the same as knowledge of truth, one is real, ie., non-conceptual, the other is conceptual.

This is your religious belief one of many diverse and conflicting subjective beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science can not directly observe dark energy or matter, plenty of hypotheses but no evidence. I don't need to waste time on hypotheses, I know what the 95% is, it was known as ether to the metaphysicians and spirit to religion. When you practice religion properly, there will come a time when the mind will transcend 3D space time reality and experience the oneness beyond, it is a spiritual experience. The cosmos is alive, it is the source of you, you are an expression of it, but to realize it you must go within.

Then you will remain intentionally ignorant hiding in the dark cave and not willing to seek the light of reason in science concerning the physical nature of our universe. The same light that makes it possible fos to use the computers and the internet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That explains the nonsense of your posts and the failure respond to the science cited.

Tell me sir, do you accept the scientific claims that 95% of the mass of the universe is dark energy and dark matter, and 5% normal matter?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is your religious belief one of many diverse and conflicting subjective beliefs.

No sir, it is your belief that it is a belief, when one realizes something, it transforms the individual into a new higher state of understanding, understanding is not the same as belief. A belief can stunt one's understanding, realization otoh brings about an enlightened state.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then you will remain intentionally ignorant hiding in the dark cave and not willing to seek the light of reason in science concerning the physical nature of our universe. The same light that makes it possible fos to use the computers and the internet.

I acknowledge the advances of science and their application, but unfortunately in the hands of evil, the consequences can be awful. Fortunately there are forces of good that will eventually arise to bring about an appropriate order of good, and these forces are of a divine spiritual nature, So sir, please try and keep an open mind to apprehend the bigger picture. And btw, I await a response to my last post concerning the relative percentages of stuff that constitute the universe.

 

[rational experiences]

Science says I know about what I can't see.

Particles he said formed fusion when fused heated melt stick the particles together burning as dark mass dark energy as it ended with no light.

The status what fusion is.

So I can remove darkness and give it light to get particle release. Unless it's instantly extremely cooled and pressurised the particle will consume itself.

What I know without seeing it.

 

[gnostic]

I acknowledge the advances of science and their application, but unfortunately in the hands of evil, the consequences can be awful.

Now you are trying to change the subject.

Venturing into good and evil.

This is ridiculous.

Sciences alone are just knowledge and trying to understand the physical and the natural world...that have nothing to do with good or evil.

Sure people can misuse science, but often it is the political leaders, military leaders and corporations that often misuse sciences for their own agenda, eg profits/money, powers.

It is people that exploit resources for profits or for powers, corruption, start wars, etc. Greed and powers are what corrupt most people.

Even military/political leaders with strong religious belief, are not immune to greed and corruption, and there are long history that show they started many wars, using religions as propaganda.

I have yet to a single scientist running country and directing policies and law, or to see a single scientist as “general” or other ranks, leading military to war.

There are more warmongers among religious leaders than among scientists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Now you are trying to change the subject.

Venturing into good and evil.

This is ridiculous.

Sciences alone are just knowledge and trying to understand the physical and the natural world...that have nothing to do with good or evil.

Sure people can misuse science, but often it is the political leaders, military leaders and corporations that often misuse sciences for their own agenda, eg profits/money, powers.

It is people that exploit resources for profits or for powers, corruption, start wars, etc. Greed and powers are what corrupt most people.

Even military/political leaders with strong religious belief, are not immune to greed and corruption, and there are long history that show they started many wars, using religions as propaganda.

I have yet to a single scientist running country and directing policies and law, or to see a single scientist as “general” or other ranks, leading military to war.

There are more warmongers among religious leaders than among scientists.

Science is knowledge as you say, but it is a stretch to imply all science is innocent. I mean nuclear bombs and missiles were not created by religious folk. There are many research grants made to scientists doing work for the military, intelligence agencies, etc.. But it was not my intention to change the subject, so I am happy to let this digression end here. Oh and I do agree though also that evil definitely afflicts some religion, which makes them hypocrites as well.

 

[gnostic]

I acknowledge the advances of science and their application, but unfortunately in the hands of evil, the consequences can be awful. Fortunately there are forces of good that will eventually arise to bring about an appropriate order of good, and these forces are of a divine spiritual nature, So sir, please try and keep an open mind to apprehend the bigger picture. And btw, I await a response to my last post concerning the relative percentages of stuff that constitute the universe.

You still forgetting that scientists don’t make government policies or start wars.

I’ll grant you that the atom bombs were made by scientists and engineers, but who ordered them to be used, and who actually dropped those bombs at the Japanese cities.

Since you are determine to make science as bad guys, what about the design and construction of the motor vehicles, planes and ships. Each of these can be use for both non-military and military purposes.

Would you still demand that all planes, ships and automobiles to cease to be made even for non-military purposes?

And though nuclear fission, the “splitting of atom” was discovered in 1938, before World War II started, this discovery was never intended for military purposes.

But the nuclear physics actually started with discovery of radioactivity and radioactive decay back in 1896, so before even World War I. No one here, knew it would lead to making nuclear fission bombs, several decades later.