Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

That is fine, but you're applying whatever you speculate on and believe it to be as the cause. Be aware of that.

There is no mathematical formula for dark energy. Many physicists believe it doesn't even exist.

You have made the choice to believe in its existence, which is wonderful and fine.

I'm not speculating about anything. I'm explaining what science states.

Yes, there are formulas for dark energy. That you claim otherwise exposes your ignorance on the matter.

I haven't made choices about "believing" in dark energy, I'm explaining that science doesn't doubt it's existence and the name was applied to continual, ubiquitous, steady measurements of objects with mass.

 

[Unification]

I can, but I don't see the point. The type of people who are willing to argue so ignorantly about obvious principles that all of science takes for granted aren't the type to take any article seriously

Since we started discussing DE, I've looked up about eight articles on DE, but the language is so far beyond the language of this thread, that I've not bothered.

I've asked you several questions that you've not answered. Why not answer them? What is your problem with dark energy? Do you know what it does? Do you understand how it is measured?

It's ok if you don't know, but I can't correct your misconceptions if o don't know what they are, and throwing stones at any and every sentence that discusses DE isn't helpful and indicates a motive of mudslinging and willful ignorance.

I have no problem with dark energy.

It is not measured.

You believe in the unknown, unmeasurable, untestable, unseen power and believe that it's permeating the entire universe. It's really that simple.

 

[Unification]

I'm not speculating about anything. I'm explaining what science states.

Yes, there are formulas for dark energy. That you claim otherwise exposes your ignorance on the matter.

I haven't made choices about "believing" in dark energy, I'm explaining that science doesn't doubt it's existence and the name was applied to continual, ubiquitous, steady measurements of objects with mass.

Why is it called dark "energy" if you don't even know what it is? It may not even be energy. You believe it's energy and there is nothing wrong with accepted belief.

Scientists state they don't know and many scientists state they don't believe it exists.

There are no formulas. That's a blatant lie that no physicist would acknowledge.

 

[prometheus11]

Saying something is doing something in no way says what that something is. You do not know its "dark energy" doing that something. There are studies that eliminate dark energy and centralize on misperceptions of time, time dilation, and gravity.

Question for you, is the existence of "dark energy" necessary?

Nothingness was not meant in the context in which you're perceiving.

The movements of objects which are mathematically defined as "dark energy" is due to. _____________?

Fill in the blank, please.

 

[prometheus11]

I have no problem with dark energy.

It is not measured.

You believe in the unknown, unmeasurable, untestable, unseen power and believe that it's permeating the entire universe. It's really that simple.

It is exactly as known, measured, testable, and seen as gravity.

Fix your misconceptions on this.

 

[prometheus11]

Why is it called "gravity" if you don't even know what it is? It may not even be energy. You believe it's energy and there is nothing wrong with accepted belief.

Scientists state they don't know and many scientists state they don't believe it exists.

There are formulas for gravity and dark energy. That's a blatant truth that every physicist would acknowledge. It's the measurements and formulas that make the names a good idea.

 

[Unification]

The movements of objects which are mathematically defined as "dark energy" is due to. _____________?

Fill in the blank, please.

Due to "the unknown."

That blank is all speculation/belief which is fine.

You're asking me to fill in my belief/speculations of the unknown.

 

[prometheus11]

Nope. Im saying that the measurements of moving matter is called "gravity" and "dark energy" by scientists. They and I have no issue with you disbelieving or calling it something else. The people who spend their careers working in those fields will continue to use the labels in place.

 

[prometheus11]

So even though we have precise mathematical models that describe exactly the movements of matter due to these "unknown forces" we should not clarify with names like "gravity" and "dark energy?"

What about "unknown force G," and "unknown force DE?"

That ok?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d,

I assume a very intelligent person might prove current science about dark energy and gravity to be wrong, but that would be a fantastic discovery that would add to our understanding of gravity or denergy. Are you intending to make scientific discoveries in what is unknown about dark energy or gravity? If so, I would be interested in the avenue of your research and the progress of your work.

The problem that I have with the concept of dark energy as it is presently being presented by science is that it an integral part of big bang theory....which is, imo, a most ridiculous theory. I support a steady state theory...an infinite eternal universe where no beginning needs to be imagined and even more bizarre, no non-existence needs to be imagined from which the imagined beginning brings forth existence from non-existence... Other than that, I see in the omnipresence of space that dark energy is said to occupy, an energy frequency continuum that can be represented by such concepts as...dark energy...aether...spiritual energy....zero point energy...

 

[Mycroft]

I voted no; because, well, no.

 

[Unification]

So even though we have precise mathematical models that describe exactly the movements of matter due to these "unknown forces" we should not clarify with names like "gravity" and "dark energy?"

What about "unknown force G," and "unknown force DE?"

That ok?

Lol, you haven't caught on to what I've been trying to help you see.

The names are perfectly fine.

 

[Shad]

Any hypothesis will still not assume anything as true or fact. There have been some facts stated regarding "dark energy" here. The scientific method states a hypothesis must be able to be tested. Can dark energy be directly tested?

A hypothetical can be a construct with no evidence at all and can not be tested in science. It is a thought experiment. However dark matter and energy are based on evidence, not direct, then inferred which makes it a hypothesis. Dark matter is a working hypothesis since it has been accepted on the basis of further research. The further research is about developing ways to detect it directly. There has been progress towards a few methods and tools of detection hence it is being tested, and has been tested for years. Some results show the detection method developed didn't work while other results are still being evaluated.

"Dark energy" is still hypothetical.

It is an accepted as a working hypothesis which assumes dark matter and dark energy as axiom. So as per "Any hypothesis will still not assume anything as true or fact." is factually incorrect.

Whether the tests result in anything direct or more inferences we just have to wait. I understand some people have claimed that dark matter and energy are fact. However I am not one of those people. I am merely pointing out that you are treating the hypothesis incorrectly to how it is viewed by those working on it.

 

[McBell]

The meaning of words does matter, unless we are going to say that apples are really oranges.

Not when the scientific community calls it dark energy and he is merely whining about not liking what it is called.

 

[McBell]

You summed it up well...only.. "The belief in dark energy is nothing more than a flimsy justification for assigning whatever you like to whatever you like whenever you like to."

Except that "dark energy" refers to a specific something...
Care to try again?

 

[McBell]

Saying something is doing something in no way says what that something is.

Yes and no.
We do know what that something is.
It is dark energy.
That we know next to nothing about dark energy is beside the point.

You do not know its "dark energy" doing that something.

As a matter of fact, we do.
How do we know?
Because we have assigned that particular label to that particular thing.

There are studies that eliminate dark energy and centralize on misperceptions of time, time dilation, and gravity.

There are hypotheses..
Now is not the time to forget your semantics....

Question for you, is the existence of "dark energy" necessary?

Answer for you, I have no idea.
Question for you, what do you think, is dark energy necessary?

 

[YmirGF]

The problem that I have with the concept of dark energy as it is presently being presented by science is that it an integral part of big bang theory....which is, imo, a most ridiculous theory. I support a steady state theory...an infinite eternal universe where no beginning needs to be imagined and even more bizarre, no non-existence needs to be imagined from which the imagined beginning brings forth existence from non-existence... Other than that, I see in the omnipresence of space that dark energy is said to occupy, an energy frequency continuum that can be represented by such concepts as...dark energy...aether...spiritual energy....zero point energy...

For most cosmologists, the definitive refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. Stephen Hawking described this discovery as "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory."

That Hawking fellow is such a dolt, eh Bendy?

<Source linkey-poo>

 

[Unification]

Not when the scientific community calls it dark energy and he is merely whining about not liking what it is called.

Not at all, the name is great.

 

[Unification]

Except that "dark energy" refers to a specific something...
Care to try again?

Yes, the unknown that is causing the expansion of the universe in acceleration.

 

[Unification]

Yes and no.
We do know what that something is.
It is dark energy.
That we know next to nothing about dark energy is beside the point.


As a matter of fact, we do.
How do we know?
Because we have assigned that particular label to that particular thing.


There are hypotheses..
Now is not the time to forget your semantics....


Answer for you, I have no idea.
Question for you, what do you think, is dark energy necessary?

You really do not know what it is... you know the name given to it.

Because a name was given/assigned to something, doesn't make its existence a matter of fact. This is no different than saying its a matter of fact that rainbow unicorns exist because they were given/assigned a name.

Sure, they all are hypotheses.

Lol, why does there have to be a "cause" for the universe expanding. Why not call it "spontaneous" and leave it alone?