Science cannot solve the final mystery

[gnostic]

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

A lot of things that you detect and measure cannot be directly observed. Any time you use device or instrument to detect or measure, they are all done indirectly, whether it too distant or too tiny to see directly, you are using technology to do the detecting for you, hence indirect observation.

So when astronomers used radio telescopes, the images you see on computers are not direct observation. Xray, MRI, CAT scan, ultrasound, etc, all provide indirect images of a person's organs, without cutting and opening up the body.

 

[ppp]

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

So, before gamma rays could be detected directly they weren't physical? Radio waves? The higgs boson? Bacteria? Viruses? Neptune?

And you say I am out of my depth.

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

So, you can't do it and are trying to save face by shifting the burden of proof off of yourself. Typical.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

As an atheist, you don't and can't understand that I practice religion because of real experience, not belief.. The very fact that you believe my religion is belief based is evidence that you are an atheist.

As for asking for evidence that meet scientific criteria, that is plain silly, who cares what atheists demand, besides I have already explained, it is not a belief So even if you were given evidence that caused you to believe, that is still not going to help you understand. You must give yourself to God completely to transcend your beliefs, belief alone will not take you there.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A lot of things that you detect and measure cannot be directly observed. Any time you use device or instrument to detect or measure, they are all done indirectly, whether it too distant or too tiny to see directly, you are using technology to do the detecting for you, hence indirect observation.

So when astronomers used radio telescopes, the images you see on computers are not direct observation. Xray, MRI, CAT scan, ultrasound, etc, all provide indirect images of a person's organs, without cutting and opening up the body.

So what has that got to do with Policy's belief that dark matter is physical?

 

[rational experiences]

A man the designer of fallout said man owns caused the fall.

So you take a big think for yourself.

As one self is the teaching self proof.

I don't do organisation I do self.

The Jesus teaching.

I ask angrily prove me spirit is real. A man's voice said I had to live the experience by my choice. So I did.

That same man's voice told me he needed my help. I needed to learn. The advice he owned was too much for instant recognition teaching. I would live to learn...he hoped he wasn't too late.

Men sing songs...hope I'm not too late. Your owned answers.

You knew you review a human mans imposition caused sent machine controlled by man thought attack caused. History of causes predictable as you caused it.

So you preach to humans man owned the fall.

The fall from above to below burning gases light.

As you wanted it when only the heavens voiding owned it.

Direct man human advice.

So light is gas burning. You get gases yourself from ground cold fused mass alchemical converting.

What machines are built from.

Then you question why machines can image inner organ function by machine conditions.

Truly ignore your owned teachings proven by how science by want...control of everything ignores man's advice to himself.

All based on greed in trade by invention and control by the rich man.

Your man life warning.

You act abstractly to current thesis.

I want to control your minds by AI behaviour. I once owned my owned mind controlled. I gave it to machine biological attack. Now I inherit biological bad behaviour.

I want the activity of the control of biology is a self possessed mind inherited rich man scientists inherited men tal ity.

A tally of all life's natural.spiritual.biological losses.

The darkness is in your own heads. Missing natural conscious thinking.

 

[rational experiences]

Status as a man you are as the man a baby an adult a father by sex.

A man owning man biology is proven wrong by machine science.

You inherit your own warning.

Man about man.

All men can only be wrong with father.

Man taught baby man with holy mother correct thinker as man naturally a man invented the thesis science.

Was direct and correct.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, before gamma rays could be detected directly they weren't physical? Radio waves? The higgs boson? Bacteria? Viruses? Neptune?

And you say I am out of my depth.


So, you can't do it and are trying to save face by shifting the burden of proof off of yourself. Typical.

Haha, no one was saying anything about gamma rays one way or another before they were detected.

Dark energy is not physical, get over it!

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

You are playing games with numbers like an ENRON accountant. .I detect a distinct lack of knowledge in basic science that motivates your agenda.

Again the percentages of Dark Matter and Dark Energy have absolutely nothing to with the percentage of knowledge (?) of our universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are playing games with numbers like an ENRON accountant. .I detect a distinct lack of knowledge in basic science that motivates your agenda.

Again the percentages of Dark Matter and Dark Energy have absolutely nothing to with the percentage of knowledge (?) of our universe.

What are you talking about, what is the context of my comment your quoted?

What I explained was that science has no explanation for dark energy and dark matter as it does for the normal matter. Since 5% of the universal mass is normal matter, the other 95% of the mass of the universe and the dark energy and dark matter that constitute it is yet unable to be explained by science as it is able to explain the 5% normal matter.

Do you agree?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So folks can understand...

100% of the total mass of the universe is the total mass of the universe.
5% of that 100% is the mass of normal matter.
95% of that 100% is the combined mass of dark energy and dark matter.
Science can only explain that which it can observe which is the normal matter whose mass constitutes 5% of the 100% of universal mass..

Anyone not getting it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So folks can understand...

100% of the total mass of the universe is the total mass of the universe.
5% of that 100% is the mass of normal matter.
95% of that 100% is the combined mass of dark energy and dark matter.
Science can only explain that which it can observe which is the normal matter whose mass constitutes 5% of the 100% of universal mass..

Anyone not getting it?

Yes, we understand that you are using a poor metric.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, we understand that you are using a poor metric.

I dumbed it down as far as I can!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I dumbed it down as far as I can!

Yeah, not a good idea. You should realize that it makes a person look "dumb" when they do that to excess.

Let's reverse it. If it turned out the answer to Dark Matter and Dark Energy was relatively simple would that mean we had over 95% of all of the knowledge in the universe?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, not a good idea. You should realize that it makes a person look "dumb" when they do that to excess.

Let's reverse it. If it turned out the answer to Dark Matter and Dark Energy was relatively simple would that mean we had over 95% of all of the knowledge in the universe?

Of course not, just like we don't by far fully yet understand the 5% normal matter that science can observe and try to explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not, just like we don't by far fully yet understand the 5% normal matter that science can observe and try to explain.

Then your metric is of no value.

 

[gnostic]

As an atheist, you don't and can't understand that I practice religion because of real experience, not belief.. The very fact that you believe my religion is belief based is evidence that you are an atheist.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I wasn't always a nonbeliever.

Because of my older sister I was introduced to the Bible and Christian teachings. I was believer in God, Jesus and the Bible, from 15 to 34, though I never joined any church, so I wasn't practising Christian, especially during my 14-year hiatus, where I haven't touch the Bible, but I still believe during those years.

I remembered precisely when I began questioning my own faith, and it had nothing to do with any sciences.

I was working on my 2nd year on my website Timeless Myths, when I began section on Arthurian Legends, that I opened my Bible 1st time in 14 years; this was the year 2000. I was doing research on the Grail legend, and reading part on crucifixion and Joseph of Arimathea. I didn't just read the death and resurrection episode, but started from Jesus' birth, Matthew 1 & 2.

When I re-read these chapters, my view had changed, especially on the Messianic sign - Matthew 1:22-23 about the so-called Virgin Birth and Immanuel. When I cross-referenced this passage with the original sign, Isaiah 7:14-17, I realized that Isaiah's sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

That when I first began to question the validity of the New Testament, and this sign was the only one that had nothing to do with Jesus.

Comparing the New Testament against the Old Testament, where the NT authors and church teaching claiming the "messianic prophecies".

The 14-year hiatus and my experiences in reading mythological literature made me opened my eyes, viewing it more objectively.

You don't have to tell me that I have no belief. I had belief for 19 years. Like I said, my agnosticism started a couple of years, before I began questioning other parts of the Bible, like the Genesis Creation and Flood.

I didn't question the Flood and Creation stories, until 2003 I joined my first Internet forum, called Free2Code. Free2Code was a computer programmer forum, where they have small sections on non-computer topics, like music, art, politics, and of course, religion.

At this time, I wouldn't call myself a creationist, although I did believe in the Creation...BUT, I had never heard of "Creationism" before joining Free2Code. I didn't know there was anything called Creationism (or Intelligent Design, which was at this forum when I 1st heard of ID).

And I didn't know anything about Evolution and . Sure, I heard of mutations, but only in movies and TV series, but I had never understood real evolutionary biology before 2003.

Here, is where I was firmly on the road of being agnostic. I didn't join RF until 2006.

If you think I don't know anything about having belief and faith, think again.

 

[gnostic]

So folks can understand...

100% of the total mass of the universe is the total mass of the universe.
5% of that 100% is the mass of normal matter.
95% of that 100% is the combined mass of dark energy and dark matter.
Science can only explain that which it can observe which is the normal matter whose mass constitutes 5% of the 100% of universal mass..

Anyone not getting it?

But you still don't understand that these percentages are only based on observation of the Observable Universe.

The Universe most likely vaster than the Observable Universe (OU), but none of our current technology can perceive beyond the OU. For all we know, the Universe could be infinite in size. We simply don't know, because we don't have enough data.

The Big Bang model is only based on the Observable Universe only. And the BB cosmology only begin with finite time of 13.798 billion years (that the Planck's number).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then your metric is of no value.

Why am I not surprised, atheists are closeminded by design, your beliefs limit your understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why am I not surprised, atheists are closeminded by design, your beliefs limit your understanding.

Don't lie about others. Just own up to your error. Your incredibly poor argument had nothing to do with design.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't lie about others. Just own up to your error. Your incredibly poor argument had nothing to do with design.

I will give you some valuable advice, you of course are familiar with the saying, so and so can not think outside the box, well that situation inflicts most people to some degree, but with atheists it is extreme, hence their smallness of mind. Your belief system limits your mind's ability to apprehend the bigger picture. the stronger the belief, the less freedom of the mind to 'see' truth. So here is my advice, seek the deep mystery of life within you, it is not external to you. It is not as easy as believing in something like science, but the truth will set you free.