Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Ben Dhyan]

NEWSWARS is not a reliable scientific journal. There is no relationship between what we can see in our physical universe and our scientific knowledge can explain concerning our universe.

The scientific knowledge of Dark energy, Dark Matter and Quantum MEchanics is increasing over time regardless of what we can 'see.'

Oh come on, I posted a link from NASA also. If you have read my posts, I have said just that, science will continue to gain understanding of existence, such that who knows, maybe religion and science will be one subject eventually.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Aha. You are using mass and knowledge interchangeably.

No I am not, is English your first language? To say that physical matter constitutes 5% of the mass of the universe is not saying that physical matter is mass, only that it has mass. It follows that if I say the science only can explain physical matter which constitutes 5% of the universe is not implying that science can only explain the 5% of the mass of the universe, rather it is the physical matter being referred to.

 

[gnostic]

Haha, so NASA's explanation that dark matters are responsible for the formation of galaxies is the equivalent in knowledge as science's explanation of the 5% physical matter!
With a claim like that, you can't be serious and rather are avoiding admission that science does not understand the 95% like they do the 5%.

I will not play games with you, until you admit you were wrong, I do not intend to deal with your dishonesty.

I gave you my answers, right or wrong, agree or disagree, it have no bearing to the questions I have asked you repeatedly, which you repeatedly avoided.

Where did you get the percentage number - the 100% - from?

Did you get it based on calculations from observations? Or did you just make up the percentage?​

ESA’s Planck and NASA’s WMAP are based on calculations from observations of the CMBR. I would like to know where you got your 100% from.

You’re the one being dishonest, when you avoid answering my questions. How did you get the 100%? Is it pure fabrication or is it from calculation based on observation?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I gave you my answers, right or wrong, agree or disagree, it have no bearing to the questions I have asked you repeatedly, which you repeatedly avoided.

Where did you get the percentage number - the 100% - from?

Did you get it based on calculations from observations? Or did you just make up the percentage?​

ESA’s Planck and NASA’s WMAP are based on calculations from observations of the CMBR. I would like to know where you got your 100% from.

You’re the one being dishonest, when you avoid answering my questions. How did you get the 100%? Is it pure fabrication or is it from calculation based on observation?

Ok, I will accept your "I gave you my answers, right or wrong, agree or disagree" and move on to your 100% question.

God is all that exists, a 100% of all that exists. All the science knows exists is dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter, which together make up 100% of all that exists. . Therefore God and the universe are one and the same, the only distinction is a conceptual one.

 

[ppp]

No I am not, is English your first language?

Fine. You are using matter and knowledge interchangeably.

...if I say the science only can explain physical matter which constitutes 5% of the universe.

If you say that, you are making a false statement. ( And a little redundant. Matter is physical). And the 5% is not just dark matter, but also dark energy. Two different things with two different effects.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Just because today science lacks the answers doesn't mean tomorrow it will as well.

It always will. It's not capable of elevating our understanding to complete knowledge.

 

[ppp]

It always will. It's not capable of elevating our understanding to complete knowledge.

I don't think we currently have the ability to know that

 

[gnostic]

Ok, I will accept your "I gave you my answers, right or wrong, agree or disagree" and move on to your 100% question.

God is all that exists, a 100% of all that exists. All the science knows exists is dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter, which together make up 100% of all that exists. . Therefore God and the universe are one and the same, the only distinction is a conceptual one.

Finally.

While the divisions of fractions do add up to 100%, given both NASA & ESA, the latest publication or data release 2013 comes from observations of the Planck spacecraft, hence from ESA, not from NASA, however they do work together in the Planck mission.

The point being, the image of the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), show mapping of relic temperatures of the early universe, in what the Big Bang (most recent) model referred to this event in the BB timeline as the Recombination Epoch that started around 377-378,000 years after the Big Bang (start of expansion of the universe).

What happened here in this Recombination Epoch was that ionized atomic nuclei bonded with electrons for the first time when the the universe was cool enough to form electrical neutral atoms (hydrogen being the most abundant, followed by helium and then lithium, the 3 lightest elements to exist).

The result of such bonding between elements’ nuclei resulted in two other major events:

1. the opaque plasma universe (pre-Recombination eras) became transparent universe,
2. and the decoupling of photons from the nuclei, where the photons can travel freely in space.

The decoupling of photons at this period, occurred throughout the universe, is known as the Surface of Last Scattering, is what the image of CMBR is, the energy/temperature release during this photon decoupling.

Both WMAP & Planck provide the distributions of the universe’s masses. That’s where percentages come from, calculations based on the CMBR observations.

Yes, of course these 3 percentages of masses in the observable universe, do add up to 100%, but they only pertained to the percentages of masses, not to percentages of “scientific knowledge”, interchangeably or synonymously, which you and paarsurrey were saying, which is wrong.

And sciences only speak of the “Universe” in modern cosmology, as the “Observable Universe”, with no mention of god, or using Universe and God, interchangeably, as you have done, because the word “God” is heavily loaded with theology concept, and the way you link Universe and God, make every ambiguous and obscure.

You are trying to mix sciences (Natural Sciences) with religious & supernatural “God”, is mixing nature with superstitions. That’s not what sciences are doing.

Either you go with evidence-based science or go with religious belief of this imaginary god. Mixing religions and sciences together, would only cause more confusion and more complications to both science and religion.

If you want to believe in God, that’s your choice, but if you want to mix your personal belief with science, then you need evidence to support your claims, especially scientific knowledge accumulating towards or leading to 100% “realisation of God”.

Hence, my reason of asking repeated questions regarding to this percentage claim of yours.

It is really frustrating that I have to repeat my answers to your questions, and I have been honest with my answers (even if you disagree with them), only to have you repeatedly avoid mine...until now.

Why do you play this evasive cat-and-mouse game? It isn’t honest tactics, this evasion you have used.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Fine. You are using matter and knowledge interchangeably.


If you say that, you are making a false statement. ( And a little redundant. Matter is physical). And the 5% is not just dark matter, but also dark energy. Two different things with two different effects.

If you think I am using the concept of matter and the concept of knowledge interchangeably, you need always to provide the exact quote where you think someone was doing this to be able to support your claim!

Dark matter is not physical. Science only can explain physical matter which constitutes 5% of the universe. Science can not explain dark energy and dark matter as it does physical matter.

How can the 5% mass of the physical matter be also the mass of dark energy and dark matter?

Sir, you are out of your depth and I am sorry but I am not going to waste my time further responding to nonsense!

 

[gnostic]

It always will. It's not capable of elevating our understanding to complete knowledge.

Sciences have been test and try again method, sometimes they get their hypotheses and theories, sometimes they get them wrong, but the important thing is that Scientific Method have correcting mechanisms, where scientists should be able to learn from past mistakes.

Astronomy from ancient and medieval times were bit of successes, but lots of failures (errors in observations), before the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century.

But even with telescopes, there were still limitations of what can be observed using the early telescopes, where astronomers would still misidentify objects observed.

For instances, the Milky Way was viewed as band of cloudy before the telescopes.

With the telescopes, they were able to observe more stars, and for a couple centuries, it was thought that the Milky Way was only galaxy in the universe, and Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A & Virgo B, and few others were misidentified as nebulas, not as separate galaxies.

These misidentification of galaxies weren’t corrected until 1919 and later, by Edwin Hubble, who used the Hooker Telescope. His discovery also revealed that the Universe is even larger than anyone have imagined, and it led to a number of different theoretical astrophysics models on cosmology, including the expanding universe model during the 1920s, that would later be popularly named the Big Bang model in 1949.

Hubble didn’t have complete knowledge on astronomy and astrophysics. Over the decades that followed Hubble 1919’s discovery, technology have advanced over the decades, improving observations not only optical astronomy, but also radio astronomy, and later space telescopes, and each times, we learn new things as well as learning from their mistakes, hence always updating.

My point in this history lesson, is that science (like my astronomy example) cannot have complete knowledge, and if you seriously think sciences have to know everything, then you don’t understand science at all.

Scientists are always learning, always correcting and updating, always investigating. There are always more to learn.

And though there are limitations to science, but so there are in philosophy and in religions too.

The Bible, the Quran, and all other ancient and medieval scriptures are nothing more than bunch of archaic superstitions with no real knowledge about nature. The only real values in the Bible and Quran are their moral codes, but even then, the law and morality are outdated and barbaric. The current justice systems, today, may not be perfect, but relying on the Bible or the Quran alone will be steps backwards, centuries backwards.

But then again, there is no such things as “perfect knowledge” or “perfect justice”. Perfection is a myth, by wishful, backwards and narrow-minded people; perfection is nothing more than illusion and delusion, like this complete knowledge rubbish.

We don’t live in utopia or in paradise, we don’t live forever, and we don’t live in world where we can know everything.

Great as Newton, Einstein, Planck, Darwin, Hawking, etc, as great as their works are, they don’t have complete knowledge, and each one have made their shares of mistakes, and the most important things you can do when you make mistakes, is to learn from them.

So please, enough with this complete knowledge nonsense.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Finally.

While the divisions of fractions do add up to 100%, given both NASA & ESA, the latest publication or data release 2013 comes from observations of the Planck spacecraft, hence from ESA, not from NASA, however they do work together in the Planck mission.

The point being, the image of the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), show mapping of relic temperatures of the early universe, in what the Big Bang (most recent) model referred to this event in the BB timeline as the Recombination Epoch that started around 377-378,000 years after the Big Bang (start of expansion of the universe).

What happened here in this Recombination Epoch was that ionized atomic nuclei bonded with electrons for the first time when the the universe was cool enough to form electrical neutral atoms (hydrogen being the most abundant, followed by helium and then lithium, the 3 lightest elements to exist).

The result of such bonding between elements’ nuclei resulted in two other major events:

1. the opaque plasma universe (pre-Recombination eras) became transparent universe,
2. and the decoupling of photons from the nuclei, where the photons can travel freely in space.

The decoupling of photons at this period, occurred throughout the universe, is known as the Surface of Last Scattering, is what the image of CMBR is, the energy/temperature release during this photon decoupling.

Both WMAP & Planck provide the distributions of the universe’s masses. That’s where percentages come from, calculations based on the CMBR observations.

Yes, of course these 3 percentages of masses in the observable universe, do add up to 100%, but they only pertained to the percentages of masses, not to percentages of “scientific knowledge”, interchangeably or synonymously, which you and paarsurrey were saying, which is wrong.

And sciences only speak of the “Universe” in modern cosmology, as the “Observable Universe”, with no mention of god, or using Universe and God, interchangeably, as you have done, because the word “God” is heavily loaded with theology concept, and the way you link Universe and God, make every ambiguous and obscure.

You are trying to mix sciences (Natural Sciences) with religious & supernatural “God”, is mixing nature with superstitions. That’s not what sciences are doing.

Either you go with evidence-based science or go with religious belief of this imaginary god. Mixing religions and sciences together, would only cause more confusion and more complications to both science and religion.

If you want to believe in God, that’s your choice, but if you want to mix your personal belief with science, then you need evidence to support your claims, especially scientific knowledge accumulating towards or leading to 100% “realisation of God”.

Hence, my reason of asking repeated questions regarding to this percentage claim of yours.

It is really frustrating that I have to repeat my answers to your questions, and I have been honest with my answers (even if you disagree with them), only to have you repeatedly avoid mine...until now.

Why do you play this evasive cat-and-mouse game? It isn’t honest tactics, this evasion you have used.

I have never implied that mass equates with knowledge, rather that science has in depth knowledge of physical matter of the universe which constitutes 5% of the mass of the universe, and lacks this knowledge wrt dark energy and matter that constitutes the 95% rest of the mass of the universe.

I accept that to your atheistic mind, I am mixing God with the Universe, but I am not an atheist and it is to me a no brainer, there can not be two or more omnipresent realities, just one that is conceived of differently by the various cultures and human institutions of cultures, and even within the subdivisions of human institutions.

The thing is, I am not beholden to any one contemporary human institutional belief or understanding, I realize the transcendent truth of them and leave them be. If you want to insist that the reality represented by God in the sense I am using the concept, is not the same as the reality represented by the concept of universe, please do so and we can end this discussion here.

 

[gnostic]

If you think I am using the concept of matter and the concept of knowledge interchangeably, you need always to provide the exact quote where you think someone was doing this to be able to support your claim!

Dark matter is not physical. Science only can explain physical matter which constitutes 5% of the universe. Science can not explain dark energy and dark matter as it does physical matter.

How can the 5% mass of the physical matter be also the mass of dark energy and dark matter?

Sir, you are out of your depth and I am sorry but I am not going to waste my time further responding to nonsense!

Yes, Ben, you are wasting your time, when you don’t bother to learn what you don’t know, and making up claims that don’t exist.

You have also wasted our times too, with your misunderstanding and making one false claim after another.

I am glad that we agree with that.

 

[ppp]

If you think I am using the concept of matter and the concept of knowledge interchangeably, you need always to provide the exact quote where you think someone was doing this to be able to support your claim!

You mean like the first and second time that I said it, where I quoted your post to which I was directly responding?

Dark matter is not physical.

Think about that statement real hard. Now go out and find a mainstream scientific publication that says that Dark matter is not physical.

How can the 5% mass of the physical matter be also the mass of dark energy and dark matter?

My mistake, I meant 95%.

Sir, you are out of your depth and I am sorry but I am not going to waste my time further responding to nonsense!

I am glad to give you a way to escape in the form of a typo.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You mean like the first and second time that I said it, where I quoted your post to which I was directly responding?


Think about that statement real hard. Now go out and find a mainstream scientific publication that says that Dark matter is not physical.


My mistake, I meant 95%.


I am glad to give you a way to escape in the form of a typo.

You never quoted my exact words, you just made the claim.

Physical objects are made of matter, a planet of made of matter, they are two different concepts, google physical matter and you will have many hits!

I will accept your mistake, we can all make them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, Ben, you are wasting your time, when you don’t bother to learn what you don’t know, and making up claims that don’t exist.

You have also wasted our times too, with your misunderstanding and making one false claim after another.

I am glad that we agree with that.

I am always learning gnostic, but my mind is open, the reality represented by the concept of God is known by me, and the reality represent by the concept of universe is known by me, I am an expression of it, I live move and have my being in it, I am not separate from it, I am it (I am not referring to my personal self).

 

[rational experiences]

The scientist chooses a natural subject. Pulls it apart so destroys holding. Then says I can put it back together.

Knowing in full comprehension he can't.

In created creation he takes energy matter any type converts it. It gets destroyed. So the advice whilst pulling apart is I can't put it back together again.

So he chooses subjects that he claims his human intelligence applies as answers to what his intelligence denotes is the mystery.

His own self not being able to put it back together as it was.

Knowing he never personally created any being.

As even his sperm he pre owns in forming another human. His creator concept a man human denoted by sperm ownership.

So as he wants by personal human presence I own means self in entirety.

Using the word I own do own. And the imposition is I own ship. Owner of his freely moving body is his teaching.

So hence his next advised status I will he then looks at his self body. Isn't prepared to pull himself apart is he?

So his mind says you'd better accept the word mystery owned a human intelligence status of acceptance...why the word was used taught and imposed.

As he knows if science said beginning before biology was intense heat biology naturally gets destroyed. Answer already existed. He wants however so doesn't accept the answer.

Why mystery was imposed by men who imposed laws in life for the purpose of controlling self destructive human chosen behaviours.

 

[ppp]

Physical objects are made of matter, a planet of made of matter, they are two different concepts, google physical matter and you will have many hits!

I didn't ask for you to repeat your opinion. I asked for you to provide a mainstream scientific publication that supports your claim that, "Dark matter is not physical."

Dark matter is not physical.

I'll save you the trouble. There is none.

I will accept your mistake, we can all make them.

Yes. We all do.

 

[rational experiences]

I didn't ask for you to repeat your opinion. I asked for you to provide a mainstream scientific publication that supports your claim that, "Dark matter is not physical."


I'll save you the trouble. There is none.



Yes. We all do.

Physical man said as a science law is proven by can you walk upon it.

As man is physical also but not mass.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't ask for you to repeat your opinion. I asked for you to provide a mainstream scientific publication that supports your claim that, "Dark matter is not physical."


I'll save you the trouble. There is none.



Yes. We all do.

Dark matter can't even be detected directly, so if it were physical, logically it would be able to be detected.

Show me a mainstream scientific publication that supports your claim that dark matter is physical?

 

[gnostic]

I accept that to your atheistic mind, I am mixing God with the Universe, but I am not an atheist and it is to me a no brainer, there can not be two or more omnipresent realities, just one that is conceived of differently by the various cultures and human institutions of cultures, and even within the subdivisions of human institutions.

But as I have said, if you are going to mix your religion and your belief with sciences, then you will need evidence or evidence-based data to support your claims on any regarding to science.

Sciences, especially with "Natural Sciences", which include physics and astronomy, required evidence.

While I can understand your belief in the religion you believe in, and in the god(s) you believe in, but if you are going to make claims where there are no dividing line between your belief and science, then it is not wrong of me (or anyone else for that matter) to ask that you support your claims with evidence or with data from scientific sources.

Without evidence or data, your claims, your concepts and your personal view don't hold much weight when you make claims regarding to science subjects or issues.