Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Subduction Zone]

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.

LOL! More projection.

Instead of making false claims about others, which is a sign of anger, try to find some actual evidence for your beliefs. If your beliefs are true you should be able to do that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

I am familiar with your story, but your mistake is to imagine you had began the religious journey when you only had mere belief and faith. The journey generally begins with a revelation of some kind, usually after a concerted faithful effort to understand your present religion, something that makes you want to delve deeper into the mystery of life and how is it you came into existence.

Read what I has said to SD about the limitation of beliefs, whether it be of atheism, agnosticism, or theism, a mind in a box. True religion explores the mystery of life beyond belief systems, scientific or religious, and thus actual realization of God becomes possible. The very idea will raise alarm in all minds limited by their belief that has either no God existing, or has God as existing separate from you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL! More projection.

Instead of making false claims about others, which is a sign of anger, try to find some actual evidence for your beliefs. If your beliefs are true you should be able to do that.

Haha, you are projecting..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haha, you are projecting..

Nope, but nice try. I don't have to make false claims about others. I merely request evidence. Odd that none has been given.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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).

Yes, these percentages are based on contemporary science, google them and you will see the sources of what I'm conveying. I agree that the real truth is yet unknown to science, and science imho will never solve the final mystery, religion will, not as a belief system like science and the church, but as an individual realization.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope, but nice try. I don't have to make false claims about others. I merely request evidence. Odd that none has been given.

Someone who requests evidence needs something to support their belief, if you already understood, you don't need anyone to bring you evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

Absolutely and completely false as previously described. Again and again the amount of Dark Matter and Energy in our universe does not remotely equate to the amount of knowledge of our universe. Your ignoring the posts that rationally explained this.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not completely unknowns. Like many things in our physical existence we cannot see like the basic particles of matter our scientific knowledge is based on their effect, and not seeing them. Are you asserting that because we cannot 'see' the basic particles of matter we cannot explain anything about them.

Dark Energy and Matter are descriptive are descriptive predictive models of 95%+ of our universe, and can be explained by the nature of the behavior of gravity in our universe. We do know some things about Dark Matter and Energy

Dark Energy and Dark Matter | Center for Astrophysics.

All the atoms and light in the universe together make up less than five percent of the total contents of the cosmos. The rest is composed of dark matter and dark energy, which are invisible but dominate the structure and evolution of the universe. Dark matter makes up most of the mass of galaxies and galaxy clusters, and is responsible for the way galaxies are organized on grand scales. Dark energy, meanwhile, is the name we give the mysterious influence driving the accelerated expansion of the universe. What these substances are and how they work are some of the major challenges facing modern astronomers.


Our Work
Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian scientists study dark matter and dark energy in multiple ways:

• Observing galaxies to measure the effects of dark matter on their structure and evolution. The next-generation Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) will provide new details in large galaxies, and detect dwarf galaxies too faint to see using current instruments. Since dark matter models predict many more dwarf galaxies than we observe, surveys of this type are very important.
  Mapping Dark Matter
  
  
• Creating theoretical models of dark matter behavior from observational data. Since we don’t have direct measurements of dark matter behavior, researchers have to infer what the particles might be like from indirect evidence.
  Does Some Dark Matter Carry an Electric Charge?
  
  
• Measuring cosmic acceleration by mapping the position of tens of thousands of galaxies. The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) is an ongoing astronomical project that has provided some of the best observational data on dark energy.
  A One-Percent Measure of Galaxies Half the Universe Away

Invisible Glue
Dark matter isn’t simply dark: it’s invisible. Light of all types seems to pass through as though it’s completely transparent. However, dark matter does have mass, which we see by its gravitational influence.

Studies of galaxies show stars and gas moving as though there’s a lot more mass than we can see pulling them along. Based on the motion of what we can observe, galactic dark matter resides in a “halo” surrounding the ordinary matter of the galaxy. Astronomers also study dwarf galaxies, which are less bright and therefore harder to observe, but which contain a higher fraction of dark matter than their larger cousins.

Galaxy clusters can contain hundreds or thousands of galaxies, each of which have their own dark matter halo. However, the cluster has its own dark matter, which outweighs everything else put together. This dark matter influences how individual galaxies and hot gas move inside the cluster. Astronomers can measure how much invisible mass is inside a cluster by the motion of the visible material, much as they do with galaxies. Researchers can also determine the amount of cluster dark matter by the way its gravity affects light. This effect is called gravitational lensing, and it provides an independent measure of how much mass is in a cluster and where it resides.

One particular galaxy cluster, known as the Bullet Cluster, provides some of the best evidence we have for the existence of dark matter. This cluster is made up of two smaller clusters that collided sometime in the past. During this collision, the hot gas interacted to produce a shock wave, similar to that made by a bullet. However, gravitational lensing shows that most of the mass of the combined cluster is collected around the galaxies, not in the center where the gas is. That provides us with the first independent measurement of how much gas and dark matter are in a galaxy cluster, where in most clusters the plasma and dark matter occupy the same regions.

Using fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), astronomers determined that dark matter is about 27% of the contents of the universe, in terms of its overall contribution to the total mass and energy content of the cosmos.

More to follow . . .

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Absolutely and completely false as previously described. Again and again the amount of Dark Matter and Energy in our universe does not remotely equate to the amount of knowledge of our universe. Your ignoring the poats that rationally explained this.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not completely unknowns. Like many things in our physical existence we cannot see like the basic particles of matter our scientific knowledge is based on their effect, and not seeing them.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter | Center for Astrophysics.

All the atoms and light in the universe together make up less than five percent of the total contents of the cosmos. The rest is composed of dark matter and dark energy, which are invisible but dominate the structure and evolution of the universe. Dark matter makes up most of the mass of galaxies and galaxy clusters, and is responsible for the way galaxies are organized on grand scales. Dark energy, meanwhile, is the name we give the mysterious influence driving the accelerated expansion of the universe. What these substances are and how they work are some of the major challenges facing modern astronomers.


Our Work
Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian scientists study dark matter and dark energy in multiple ways:

• Observing galaxies to measure the effects of dark matter on their structure and evolution. The next-generation Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) will provide new details in large galaxies, and detect dwarf galaxies too faint to see using current instruments. Since dark matter models predict many more dwarf galaxies than we observe, surveys of this type are very important.
  Mapping Dark Matter
  
  
• Creating theoretical models of dark matter behavior from observational data. Since we don’t have direct measurements of dark matter behavior, researchers have to infer what the particles might be like from indirect evidence.
  Does Some Dark Matter Carry an Electric Charge?
  
  
• Measuring cosmic acceleration by mapping the position of tens of thousands of galaxies. The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) is an ongoing astronomical project that has provided some of the best observational data on dark energy.
  A One-Percent Measure of Galaxies Half the Universe Away

Invisible Glue
Dark matter isn’t simply dark: it’s invisible. Light of all types seems to pass through as though it’s completely transparent. However, dark matter does have mass, which we see by its gravitational influence.

Studies of galaxies show stars and gas moving as though there’s a lot more mass than we can see pulling them along. Based on the motion of what we can observe, galactic dark matter resides in a “halo” surrounding the ordinary matter of the galaxy. Astronomers also study dwarf galaxies, which are less bright and therefore harder to observe, but which contain a higher fraction of dark matter than their larger cousins.

Galaxy clusters can contain hundreds or thousands of galaxies, each of which have their own dark matter halo. However, the cluster has its own dark matter, which outweighs everything else put together. This dark matter influences how individual galaxies and hot gas move inside the cluster. Astronomers can measure how much invisible mass is inside a cluster by the motion of the visible material, much as they do with galaxies. Researchers can also determine the amount of cluster dark matter by the way its gravity affects light. This effect is called gravitational lensing, and it provides an independent measure of how much mass is in a cluster and where it resides.

One particular galaxy cluster, known as the Bullet Cluster, provides some of the best evidence we have for the existence of dark matter. This cluster is made up of two smaller clusters that collided sometime in the past. During this collision, the hot gas interacted to produce a shock wave, similar to that made by a bullet. However, gravitational lensing shows that most of the mass of the combined cluster is collected around the galaxies, not in the center where the gas is. That provides us with the first independent measurement of how much gas and dark matter are in a galaxy cluster, where in most clusters the plasma and dark matter occupy the same regions.

Using fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), astronomers determined that dark matter is about 27% of the contents of the universe, in terms of its overall contribution to the total mass and energy content of the cosmos.

More to follow . . .

Seriously, I don't know where you are coming from, you totally misunderstand what is being said to you. I suggest you reflect on the material in these links..
We only see 5% of the universe | Boing Boing
What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

 

[shunyadragon]

Example of contemporary research on Dark Matter and Energy

Phys. Rev. D 101, 043531 (2020) - Understanding the suppression of structure formation from dark matter-dark energy momentum coupling

Understanding the suppression of structure formation from dark matter-dark energy momentum coupling
Finlay Noble Chamings, Anastasios Avgoustidis, Edmund J. Copeland, Anne M. Green, and Alkistis Pourtsidou
Phys. Rev. D 101, 043531 – Published 24 February 2020

ABSTRACT
Models in which scalar field dark energy interacts with dark matter via a pure momentum coupling have previously been found to potentially ease the structure formation tension between early and late-Universe observations. In this paper, we explore the physical mechanism underlying this feature. We argue analytically that the perturbation growth equations imply the suppression of structure growth, illustrating our discussion with numerical calculations. Then we generalize the previously studied quadratic coupling between the dark energy and dark matter to a more general power-law case, also allowing for the slope of the dark energy exponential potential to vary. We find that the structure growth suppression is a generic feature of power-law couplings and it can, for a range of parameter values, be larger than previously found.

 

[shunyadragon]

Seriously, I don't know where you are coming from, you totally misunderstand what is being said to you. I suggest you reflect on the material in these links..
We only see 5% of the universe | Boing Boing
What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

You do not know where I am coming from, because of your lack of knowledge of science, misuse of the English language ( eg: Science knowledge is not based on what we can see)

Again and again there is absolutely no relationship between what cannot be 'seen' and the knowledge of science.

Your argument is based on the falcious supposed 'arguing from ignorance', and lack of knowledge of science.

Respond to the science provided. Dark Matter and Energy are not completely unknowns. Like all science the 'knowledge is based predictive models in theories and hypothesis, and NOT whether we can actually see them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Example of contemporary research on Dark Matter and Energy

Phys. Rev. D 101, 043531 (2020) - Understanding the suppression of structure formation from dark matter-dark energy momentum coupling

Understanding the suppression of structure formation from dark matter-dark energy momentum coupling
Finlay Noble Chamings, Anastasios Avgoustidis, Edmund J. Copeland, Anne M. Green, and Alkistis Pourtsidou
Phys. Rev. D 101, 043531 – Published 24 February 2020

ABSTRACT
Models in which scalar field dark energy interacts with dark matter via a pure momentum coupling have previously been found to potentially ease the structure formation tension between early and late-Universe observations. In this paper, we explore the physical mechanism underlying this feature. We argue analytically that the perturbation growth equations imply the suppression of structure growth, illustrating our discussion with numerical calculations. Then we generalize the previously studied quadratic coupling between the dark energy and dark matter to a more general power-law case, also allowing for the slope of the dark energy exponential potential to vary. We find that the structure growth suppression is a generic feature of power-law couplings and it can, for a range of parameter values, be larger than previously found.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Dircetly observable?? Neither are the basic particles of matter. Are you asserting we do not know anything about them?

Failure to respond coherently in terms of science is your modus operandi. Are you asserting you know more than the peer reviewed scientific references provided?

You do not know where I am coming from, because of your lack of knowledge of science, misuse of the English language ( eg: Science knowledge is not based on what we can see)

Again and again there is absolutely no relationship between what cannot be 'seen' and the knowledge of science.

Your argument is based on the falcious supposed 'arguing from ignorance', and lack of knowledge of science.

Respond to the science provided. Dark Matter and Energy are not completely unknowns. Like all science the 'knowledge is based predictive models in theories and hypothesis, and NOT whether we can actually see them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again and again there is absolutely no relationship between what cannot be 'seen' and the knowledge of science.

Your argument is based on the falcious supposed 'arguing from ignorance', and lack of knowledge of science.

Respond to the science provided. Dark Matter and Energy are not completely unknowns. Like all science the 'knowledge is based predictive models in theories and hypothesis, and NOT whether we can actually see them.

Let me ask you directly, do you have any academic qualifications? Are you a scientist? Are you an armchair scientist? Please provide evidence of your scientific qualifications if any? For some reason I am lost as to your understanding of what is being said to you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Failure to respond coherently in terms of science is your modus operandi. Are you asserting you know more than the peer reviewed scientific references provide?

You do not know where I am coming from, because of your lack of knowledge of science, misuse of the English language ( eg: Science knowledge is not based on what we can see)

Again and again there is absolutely no relationship between what cannot be 'seen' and the knowledge of science.

Your argument is based on the falcious supposed 'arguing from ignorance', and lack of knowledge of science.

Respond to the science provided. Dark Matter and Energy are not completely unknowns. Like all science the 'knowledge is based predictive models in theories and hypothesis, and NOT whether we can actually see them.

See my last post concerning your scientific qualifications, something is amiss with regards to your understanding of what is being conveyed to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone who requests evidence needs something to support their belief, if you already understood, you don't need anyone to bring you evidence.

Not true at all. In fact the opposite is true. If one understands finding evidence is easy. If one only has mere belief then finding evidence is a problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me ask you directly, do you have any academic qualifications? Are you a scientist? Are you an armchair scientist? Please provide evidence of your scientific qualifications if any? For some reason I am lost as to your understanding of what is being said to you.

Yes, and I cite per reviewed scientific articles and research to support my argument, and you have failed to coherently respond. You need not respond to me, but it is necessary for you to respond to

See my last post concerning your scientific qualifications, something is amiss with regards to your understanding of what is being conveyed to you.

You did NOT cite scientific articles concerning the nature of the scientific knowledge of Dark Matter and Energy

Your references were layman references that described the amount of Dark Energy and Matter in our universe, which has absolutely no relationship to the scientific knowledge of Dark Matter and Energy.

There are unanswered questions and scientific references you have not coherently responded to.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not true at all. In fact the opposite is true. If one understands finding evidence is easy. If one only has mere belief then finding evidence is a problem.

Haha only a seriously demented individual would want to find evidence for something they already understand. Like does a flame burn, ouch. Let me try that again, ouch. Oh you are so right SD, .the more I understand a flame burns, the easier it is to find evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, and I cite per reviewed scientific articles and research to support my argument, and you have failed to coherently respond. You need not respond to me, but it is necessary for you to respond to


You did NOT cite scientific articles concerning the nature of the scientific knowledge of Dark Matter and Energy

Your references were layman references that described the amount of Dark Energy and Matter in our universe, which has absolutely no relationship to the scientific knowledge of Dark Matter and Energy.

There are unanswered questions and scientific references you have not coherently responded to.

Yes what? What are your scientific qualifications? Please, no prattling on, just provide your qualifications.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haha only a seriously demented individual would want to find evidence for something they already understand. Like does a flame burn, ouch. Let me try that again, ouch. Oh you are so right SD, .the more I understand a flame burns, the easier it is to find evidence.

Wrong again. You had to mischaracterize the argument. A good sign that you know that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes what? What are your scientific qualifications? Please, no prattling on, just provide your qualifications.

Are you in any position to make such a demand?