1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Preternatural vs Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by nPeace, Jan 12, 2019.

  1. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    There are several different lines of evidence for dark matter as well as a few of its properties.

    1. The velocity curves for stars in galaxies.

    If we look at the matter that is visible in galaxies: stars, nebulae, etc, we can use the known laws of gravity to determine the velocities to be expected in the orbits of the stars. This is a very straight-forward calculation that can be done at the undergraduate level, but the results of those calculations do not match the actual observations of those stars. Furthermore, this is true for every galaxy we have done the calculations for, which is thousands of them.

    Now, at this point there are two primary ways to proceed: either assume the 'known' laws of gravity are wrong, or that there is some extra mass out there that was missed when we accounted for the visible matter.

    2. Dynamics of galactic clusters.

    We detect quite of few galactic clusters that are gravitationally bound. But, if we do our calculations based on the known laws of gravity and the visible matter, those clusters should NOT be gravitationally bound: there would be too little mass to keep the clusters together given the velocities we observe in those galaxies.

    Again, there are two main ways to proceed: either change the laws of gravity or postulate some unseen matter there that makes up the difference to make the clusters bound.

    It should be noted that 1 and 2 operate on very different scales of distance. 1 deals with the stars inside of galaxies and 2 deals with galaxies inside clusters. Often, these clusters of galaxies have hundreds to thousands of individual galaxies in them.

    it should be noted that the extra mass required to make 1 and 2 consistent with the known laws of gravity are also consistent with each other. In other words, the extra mass required is the same when systems are looked at in two very different scales and with very different internal dynamics.

    3. Large scale gravitational lensing.

    When light goes past a large enough mass, the direction of its travel is changed. Again, based on the known laws we can predict how much the line of travel will change based on the amount of mass present and its distribution.

    We know of many systems where there is gravitational lensing happening. Once again, if we use the amount of visible matter to predict the amount of change in the direction of light, the calculated results are not consistent with observations. And, again, there are two ways to proceed: either change the laws of gravity or postulate extra mass that isn't visible. And, once again, the amount of mass required to make the lensing calculations work is consistent with the amount of extra mass required in velocity curves and in galactic dynamics.

    Also, the test via lensing is very different than the tests based on dyanamics. So this is a very different sort of system that gives, again, the same results.

    4. Tight constraints on the laws of gravity.

    Given the multiple successes of the laws of gravity used in the calculations within the solar system, any changes to the gravitational laws must have *very* small effects within our galaxy. Remember that Newton's laws were used to predict the existence of Neptune from the motions of Uranus, which didn't agree with the calculations done with the known masses in our solar system. Einstein's extension was even more successful and to more decimal places than Newton's, with no known counterexamples in any observation.

    5. Small scale gravitational lensing (microlensing).

    Here, the comparison with 3 is similar to the comparison between 2 and 1. Instead of looking at the large scale deviations of light passing by very large galaxies, we look at much small deviations based on light going past portions of galaxies. This method can actually be used to map out *where* the missing matter is and its density distribution. Once again, it is *possible* that this could be explained by a modified theory of gravity or via some extra mass.

    And, indeed, a modified theory of gravity was proposed: it was called MOND. By adjusting some parameters in this theory, it was possible to explain thee previous observations while still not destroying the successes with the solar system results. This was possible, in part, because the distribution of the extra dark matter required in the above situations parallels the distribution of visible matter. So it was possible to modify the explanation of the gravitational force to align with what was seen.

    6. Evidence from colliding galactic clusters.

    The Bullet cluster is the first example of this, but others have also been found. In this, the observed gravitational lensing does NOT parallel the distribution of visible matter. Instead, as the clusters collide, the ordinary matter is slowed down due to gas pressure. The observed lensing doesn't come from areas where there is visible matter. Once again, we can use the lensing to plot out *where* the extra mass is and the amounts needed.

    So, by this, we have eliminated the possible modifications to the law of gravity to explain these observations.

    7. CMBR

    The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is one of the most important sources of information for precision cosmology. With it, we have been able to establish the overall age of the universe, its expansion rate, and a number of other parameters that were unknown when I was young.

    It turns out that 'ordinary' matter, which consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons, leaves a very specific signature on this background radiation. Because of this, we can determine very precisely how much 'baryonic matter' there is in the universe. The amount is, by the way, consistent with the visible matter we can see.

    It also turns out that the CMBR records, in a different way, the *total* amount of 'matter' (defined by the property that its pressure is inversely related to its volume, like a gas). And guess what? The total amount of matter does NOT agree with the amount of baryonic matter! The difference is again consistent with the amount of extra matter required for both dynamic and lensing observations.

    So, yes, we see many phenomena that we can measure in detail, from velocity curves, to lensing, to the background radiation. These *all* point to extra matter that we do not see: it is 'invisible'.

    But we can go further. What sort of properties would this 'dark matter' have? One of the early proposals was the dark matter could be made from massive neutrinos. This was attractive for a number of reasons: we know neutrinos exist, we know they are quite numerous, and even if they had very small mass individually, the numbers of them could easily be enough to supply the needed gravitational effect. It was even found that neutrinos do, in fact, have small masses. Unfortunately, their masses were too small and simulations with them don't give the type of gravitational dynamics (in particular galaxy formation) that is actually seen. Nonetheless, the fact that neutrinos interact so weakly with light shows that 'dark matter' can fit into the known properties of subatomic particles.

    Now, there are many proposals as to what the subatomic composition of dark matter might be. But that is a separate question from the *existence* of that dark matter, which is very well supported by multiple lines of observation.

    Now, since you want to make an analogy between dark matter and deities, what actual observations and what tests, alternative proposals, and data do you have for the existence of any deity?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    In controlled setting, where consultation with people who know how to fool others (illusionists) are done, there have been no established observations of paranormal phenomena.

    Many people are easy to fool. That often includes scientists. But when the possible 'tricks' are known and accounted for, no phenomena are left to explain.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  3. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    14,917
    Ratings:
    +10,425
    Religion:
    None
    Correct, science does not (yet) know what dark matter is but its effects can be observed and it can be measured.

    The term "dark matter" was coined because it does not react to the EM spectrum and is thus invisible.
     
  4. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    8,972
    Ratings:
    +4,036
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Well, it needs to have some weight. And that is why it has been postulated. Has God weight?

    Ciao

    - viole
     
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,460
    Ratings:
    +1,220
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Why do you, on the one hand, call it an "erroneous assumption", and "a philosophical assumption without basis", that physicists and cosmologists believe that the Laws of Nature are fixed?
    Then, on the other hand, say, "but it is possible that the Laws of Nature may vary from universe to universe, and yes there may be an ultimate Law or Laws, but in fact they are unknown."?
    Are you not making erroneous assumptions? :D

    You don't know that the laws of nature are not fixed, and since you can only assume that there are multiverses, and assume the possibility that the laws may vary within them... Someone could imo, rightly suggest you are making erroneous assumptions.

    I don't support Rubert Sheldrake hypothesis, for a number of reasons - not just because I support the creation model, but mainly because it's the only model that works without problems.

    Here are my reasons...
    1. It seems to me that by observation, it is a fact that the laws are fixed, and imo, that is a scientific law. So I say, get to work explaining why, and forget the rest. :D

    2. Everything man tries to explain by evolution has major problems, and imo, there is no need for evolution. :D
    Problems with morphic resonance: Of course the article used a wrong term by referring to the morphic resonance as a theory.
    A New Science of Life
    The morphic resonance hypothesis is rejected by numerous critics on many grounds, and has been labelled pseudoscience and magical thinking. These grounds include the lack of evidence for it and its inconsistency with established scientific theories. The idea of morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibility because it is overly vague and unfalsifiable. Furthermore, Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias. His analyses of results have also drawn criticism
    :bssquare:Origins - If the laws evolved, from what did they evolve.
    :bssquare:Constancy - If the laws evolved, why are they no longer evolving, and all existing simultaneously? Do you think we should search for traces of wxtinct laws?
    :bssquare:Causation - If the laws evolved, what caused them to? The main problem imo.

    3. I suppoer creation 100%. :D But seriously for all the right reasons creation not only explains everything perfectly, it is a time tested workable model with no problems whatsoever, and it makes sense. It also answers all questions about the universe, and when the most loved, and hated book is put alongside it, it's like the 'holy grail' to the future - it answers future questions also.

    I have said many times before, that the reason man will always create problems is due to the fact that they treat lightly, imo, a universal law - Cause and Effect (causality).
    It almost seems as though man is trying to get rid of it, but I don't see how they can.

    What makes sense to me, is that there must be a law, or laws that governs all laws, and the causality law says nothing can happen without a cause. So I really don't see how these hypothesized evolutionary processes work.

    Someone will raise the question... again... 'Well what caused the cause, and what caused the cause that caused the cause...
    :facepalm:
    Well why not first answer the question of what caused the evolution process? Since we can't get past that, why bother about anything else? :tonguewink:

    I would say though, that reasonably we accept that there must be a beginning - even if one argues that everything is in a loop, whatever.
    There must still be a first cause.
    Nothing, as far as I can see, explain that better than a first cause with intelligence.
    The creation model is perfect.

    When you say there is direct evidence that supports hypothesis' concerning the falsifiability of Quantum Mechanics. are you arguing against something said by one of the scientists? What point exactly?

    I see the problem with the multiverse idea, the same as the the idea of morphic resonance. Both just keep pushing back the problem with causality.
     
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,460
    Ratings:
    +1,220
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Thanks very much @columbus @Polymath257 @ChristineM @viole
    How many experimentable observations on Dark matter have been confirmed, collaborated, and are known to be more than ideas or guesses at best?
    Also, why is the hypothetical treated as a reality when no tests has confirmed it, and they may be fooled by their own suppositions that they are right.
    Underground experiment casts doubt on controversial dark matter claim

    I don't see how that is different to this:
    We know - not guess - know that there are paranormal occurrences.
    No one has been able to explain them naturally.
    There have been experimental observations.
    We know there is therefore a cause, even though that cause is invisible to us, and we don't know what it is made of - we don't know what it is.
    What tests have been done may well have not been enough, and may require more specific and advanced methods, so they are incomplete.


    New Dark Matter Experiments Prepare to Hunt the Unknown

    So I accept that something is there / not there. They call it Dark Matter. We call our something God.
    What's different?
    Give me a comparison difference. I'm not seeing any. :shrug:
     
    #26 nPeace, Jan 13, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
  7. columbus

    columbus Conservative Catholic from Hell

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    20,100
    Ratings:
    +12,612
    Religion:
    None
    Did you ignore @Polymath257 post #21?
    Or do you just not have enough science background to understand it?
    Tom
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,460
    Ratings:
    +1,220
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    @Polymath257 so you are agreeing that the only difference is identifying what is there, or are you denying that paranormal event are real?
     
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    As I pointed out above, the existence of dark matter is established, but the composition is in question. The article you link to shows that a specific, tentative detection concerning the composition was probably an error. It doesn't affect the astronomical evidence or refute it in any way.



    Well, it is different because we do NOT know there have been paranormal occurrences. What has been observed has always been explain naturally, usually by dishonesty on the part of those promoting the ideas.




    Once again, the proposed experiments are to determine the composition of something we know exists because of other evidence. There have been several proposals from the theories of subatomic particles that could show the composition of dark matter. But we have to actually look and see which, if any, of those proposals are correct.

    Well, the obvious difference is that we have multiple lines of evidence showing the existence of dark matter. The issue is what that dark matter is made of. We know some of the properties: it isn't ordinary matter (made of protons and neutrons), it doesn't interact strongly with light (otherwise it would be visible), it doesn't interact with ordinary matter strongly (otherwise we would have found the composition already). There are several proposed subatomic particles that fit these requirements, but we do not yet know which, if any, actually exist.

    That said, particle physics has been quite successful in predicting the existence of particles decades before the actual detection: from W and B bosons, to top quarks, to the Higg's boson, the time between prediction and the technical *ability* to detect them was decades.
     
  10. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I am denying that paranormal events are real. In every case, they have been shown to be mistakes or outright fraud.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    What makes evolution work? Reproduction, mutation, and differential survival that depends on the genetics.

    Sorry, but it is far from 'perfect'. In fact, it actually explains very little in the sense of making testable predictions that turn out to be correct.

    As for causality: I first flatly deny that causality is a requirement. In fact, we know of uncaused events in the real world.

    Second, even if causality were established, circular causation or infinite regress are both logically possible and neither needs to have a beginning.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Did you read what I wrote?
     
  13. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,460
    Ratings:
    +1,220
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    S
    Are you are saying that all paranormal occurrences are faked, or can be explained naturally.
    It would seem you are not speaking of paranormal occurrences.
    If science can explain them, you are obviously not on the same page I am on.

    What Science Can't Explain
    Science is powerful, but there is much it can’t explain. And when people see, hear or believe something that is not explained, science finds itself trying to prove things don’t exist, and that’s truly impossible.

    11 Eeriest Unsolved Mysteries of World War II
    Ghost trains, unexplained aerial phenomena, and disappeared men still haunt World War II scholars.




    All are fake or explainable naturally, you say?
    I am not saying that many things that seem unexplained can't be explained naturally, like some in the list above, but...
    Why do you think the science is the path to all truth, and can explain everything, or am I misunderstanding you?
    Please give me the scientific explanation for all the above, and give the evidence presented to show they are faked.

    Test are still being carried out, but due to the fact that this one is beyond science's ability to understand, it surpasses science's limits.
     
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,460
    Ratings:
    +1,220
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    It is perfect. I will present the testable predictions that turn out to be correct, shortly.

    What are those uncaused events exactly?

    Can you give an example of circular causation that would not require a beginning, or are you just speculating the possibility?

    Yes, I read your post. Why do you ask?
     
  15. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    The timing of a radioactive decay is uncaused. There is nothing different in a nucleus about to decay from one that won't decay for another billion years.

    Well, I don't believe in circular causation. But the mere definition shows that there is no first cause in that case.

    You seemed to ignore or misunderstand what was said.
     
  16. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Some things on that list are ordinary and easily explained (missing people, for example). Others are hoaxes (ghosts and ESP).

    Fake, legends, misunderstandings, or hoaxes. Yes. Provide actual evidence as opposed to stories and fables.

    Please give *all* of the evidence and we shall see what needs to be explained. yes the scientific method is, as far as I can see, the only way to knowledge: justified true belief.

    And, let's look at things under controlled conditions, with full access to all the evidence, and using correct statistics.

    For example, people disappear (meaning their friends and family don't know where they are) in very ordinary circumstances all the time. That doens't imply a paranormal.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,472
    Ratings:
    +5,107
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Contemporary physicists and cosmologists do not believe that the Laws of Nature are necessarily fixed or not, because the contemporary theories, hypothesis, theorems, and the Laws of Science are not dependent on them being true or not. This is basically unknown.

    The Laws of Nature may or may not be fixed. Contemporary Physics and cosmology is not dependent on either view being true.

    Scientists do not believe the Laws of Nature are fixed, tit is basically unknown, and the scientific theories, hypothesis. theorems and the laws of science are not fixed either in contemporary science, and they are all subject to change and falsification when new knowledge becomes available.


    Over whelming fundamentalist biased agenda against science. The science of evolution has no significant problems, and fundamentally has been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt,

    I do not support these views, because it is not remotely science.

    Likewise these views do not reflect sound science, and a distinct fundamentalist Christian agenda and not remotely supported by objective verifiable evidence.

    There is likely a universal law or laws that govern all laws, but the reality is it remains unknown that the ultimate laws are fixed.

    Not related to above assumptions, and the science of evolution is based on sound science,, and falsified beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The eternal timeless Laws.of Nature.

    Laws of Nature caused the evolution process, there is no other evidence of any cause.

    Unknown assumption

    It is possible that the eternal timeless Laws of Nature may be the first cause.

    '. . . as far as I can see" Ah . . . well you likely need glasses.

    There is absolutely no falsifiable theory, nor hypothesis for Intelligent Design.
    Unsupported assumption without evidence.

    Not one, but virtually all physicists and cosmologist support the falsifiability of Quantum Mechanics based on objective verifiable evidence.

    Likewise. 98%+ of scientists within the disciplines related to evolution support the science of evolution. 95% of all scientists support the science of evolution. This does not indicte that there is a significant problem with the science of evolution.

    The multiverse is not falsified by objective verifiable evidence, but it has considerable support and advocates and is the dominant view in physics and cosmology. Morphic Resonance is not even remotely science.

    No the concept of the multiverse does not push back the 'problem of causality.' The Laws of Nature are the timeless eternal cause.
     
    #37 shunyadragon, Jan 13, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2019
  18. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,454
    Ratings:
    +14,643
    Religion:
    Atheist
    @Polymath257 might find this interesting. An idea that was proposed but seems to be failing:

     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,767
    Ratings:
    +11,323
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Hmmm...negative mass isn't as interesting as it looks at first. It is difficult, for example, to make it consistent with relativity and causation. I'm not surprised this proposal fails miserably.

    There are other interesting possibilities to explain the accelerated expansion, including using the large gaps between galaxies and the resulting different expansion rates. Unfortunately, none of these have panned out as yet.

    This looks to me like another line of inquiry that needed to be done to be sure, but was very unlikely to give reasonable results.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,454
    Ratings:
    +14,643
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That is a science based channel through PBS. No hysterical jumping to claim that "This is the new solution". It goes over quite a bit of cutting edge science and they try to give as full of a story as possible in a short video.
     
Loading...