Understanding Cosmology (Post 1)

[shunyadragon]

The purpose of my enquiry to try to 'see' the underlying reality represented by the language/conceptualization of both science and religion wrt things.

So wrt the electron, the fuzzyball description is a start, but what is it made of? Is it fluidic in form? Etc..

Simply material with a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of a proton with a positive charge.
and are fermions, which means no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state.

An Electron may gain energy prior to its decay to its ground state by emitting a photon. Now this implies that the fuzzyball's mass and size can change. So what is the constituent 'stuff' of the Electron?

Again the stuff of electrons is material with a positive charge. To understand deeper than this you have to be more in tune with Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics.

Now I understand that science may not speculate on some of these, and that's ok, but if I contemplate ideas that are not scientific, please put your religious hat on and try and see it from a non-scientific view.

Different subject, put your religious hat on and give this a try, The spirit of God is said to be omnipresent, it is not material. Is there anything in science that is said to be universally omnipresent, andnot material?

Simple answer is no. Science only deals the knowledge acquired Methodological Naturalism based on objective verifiable physical evidence,

As far as my belief. I believe that God Created the Natural Laws and the nature of our physical existence and it exists in a natural deterministic way. Not rigid determinism, but natural determinism where the variation outcomes of all cause and effect events we see in Nature is not random but determined within a range of possible outcomes. In math we call this Chaos Theory.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Simple answer is no. Science only deals the knowledge acquired Methodological Naturalism based on objective verifiable physical evidence,

As far as my belief. I believe that God Created the Natural Laws and the nature of our physical existence and it exists in a natural deterministic way. Not rigid determinism, but natural determinism where the variation outcomes of all cause and effect events we see in Nature is not random but determined within a range of possible outcomes. In math we call this Chaos Theory.

Oh, I understood that the reality represented by the scientific concept of 'dark energy' was omnipresent and with dark matter constituted 95% of the mass of the universe, and thus not material as is the 5% that scientist study.

 

[Audie]

Well when you reach 5% of what your recent random acquaintances on the internet know, come back and we can discuss the other 95% of reality.

I'm not expecting that to happen and woo woo is so boring.

 

[ppp]

Oh, I understood that the reality represented by the scientific concept of 'dark energy' was omnipresent and with dark matter constituted 95% of the mass of the universe, and thus not material as is the 5% that scientist study.

Did you seriously just suggest that matter is not material?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Simply material with a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of a proton with a positive charge.
and are fermions, which means no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state.

Again the stuff of electrons is material with a positive charge. To understand deeper than this you have to be more in tune with Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics.

So bear in mind the fuzzy nature of the electron as we now look at Electro Magnetic Wave radiation, now I understand there is a cutoff frequency/wavelength, Planck yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did you seriously just suggest that matter is not material?

Are you referring to my mention of Dark Matter in the 95% of the mass of the universe? If yes, then please be assured it is not material as in the matter of the 5%.

 

[ppp]

Are you referring to my mention of Dark Matter in the 95% of the mass of the universe? If yes, then please be assured it is not material as in the matter of the 5%.

Your assurance is not of value.
It is simply silly to claim that a finding of physics about matter is somehow not material. Matter. Do you know what matter means? I mean, seriously.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your assurance is not of value.
It is simply silly to claim that a finding of physics about matter is somehow not material. Matter. Do you know what matter means? I mean, seriously.

Just look up 'dark matter' and see for yourself.

 

[ppp]

Just look up 'dark matter' and see for yourself.

Been there done that. Took the classes . Did the math. Material. Physics is about the material world. How do you not get that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Been there done that. Took the classes . Did the math. Material. Physics is about the material world. How do you not get that?

Ok, let's start from the beginning again, my comment was...."I understood that the reality represented by the scientific concept of 'dark energy' was omnipresent and with dark matter constituted 95% of the mass of the universe, and thus not material as is the 5% that scientist study."

So I was saying that I understood that 95/6% of the mass of the universe was dark anergy and dark matter, as distinct from the 4/5% material universe science studies directly.

"All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend."

 

[shunyadragon]

Just look up 'dark matter' and see for yourself.

The problem her is you are arguing science' Particle Physics, and Quantum Mechanics without a background of knowledge. In a previous post you seriously questioned the sciences of cosmology with strong emphasis of a religious agenda. You have not attempted to get the background knowledge and aske serious question to 'under stand' the Physics.'

If you look up "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" in more detail you will realize your limited layman view is inadequate to understand it nonetheless seriously question the science. Not a good position on your part to debate. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the least understood nature of our universe.

Dark matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen. Such effects occur in the context of formation and evolution of galaxies,[1] gravitational lensing,[2] the observable universe's current structure, mass position in galactic collisions,[3] the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters, and cosmic microwave background anisotropies.

In the standard lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the mass–energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a form of energy known as dark energy.[4][5][6][7] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[a] of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass–energy.

The concepts of Dark Matter is a descriptive hypothetical indirect factor of the nature of our universe. None the less it is measured mass as based on the electromagnetic and gravitational nature of our universe. Yes, the actual nature of Dark Matter is unknown.

The Question remains is your goal to increase your scientific knowledge of our physical existence, or take the stance of a combative 'arguing from ignorance' arguing what science does not presently know to justify your objections to the sciences of cosmology? Remember you are combatively association atheism with science, which is a religious agenda,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem her is you are arguing science' Particle Physics, and Quantum Mechanics without a background of knowledge. In a previous post you seriously questioned the sciences of cosmology with strong emphasis of a religious agenda. You have not attempted to get the background knowledge and aske serious question to 'under stand' the Physics.'

If you look up "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" in more detail you will realize your limited layman view is inadequate to understand it nonetheless seriously question the science. Not a good position on your part to debate. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the least understood nature of our universe.

Dark matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen. Such effects occur in the context of formation and evolution of galaxies,[1] gravitational lensing,[2] the observable universe's current structure, mass position in galactic collisions,[3] the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters, and cosmic microwave background anisotropies.

In the standard lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the mass–energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a form of energy known as dark energy.[4][5][6][7] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[a] of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass–energy.

The concepts of Dark Matter is a descriptive hypothetical indirect factor of the nature of our universe. None the less it is measured mass as based on the electromagnetic and gravitational nature of our universe. Yes, the actual nature of Dark Matter is unknown.

The Question remains is your goal to increase your scientific knowledge of our physical existence, or take the stance of a combative 'arguing from ignorance' arguing what science does not presently know to justify your objections to the sciences of cosmology? Remember you combatively association atheism with science, which is a religious agenda,

Being frank is not being combative, atheism is a belief system based on a creation from non-consciousness, I love atheists, nevertheless.

You claim to be a religious person and a scientist to boot, if you believe that be true, so be it, but do be aware always that reality is on the other side of belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

Being frank is not being combative, atheism is a belief system based on a creation from non-consciousness, I love atheists, nevertheless.

Yes, but the academic science of atheists is the same science of Theists, Agnostics, and Deists. I believe attitude reflects a religious agenda and not simply being frank'

I am Frank Frank without tolerance of religious agendas involving science.

You claim to be a religious person and a scientist to boot, if you believe that be true, so be it, but do be aware always that reality is on the other side of belief.

There is no problem with my view. The religious belief of Creation should not be in contradiction with the objective verifiable evidence of academic science. The problem is ancient scripture of ALL ancient religions of the world without science, is in contradiction with science. Science is indifferent to the beliefs of atheism.

IF God exists the physical nature of our physical existence is in harmony with God's Creation. There is a problem with ancient world views of Gods in contradiction with science.

 

[ppp]

The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend."

• "Can't see" is irrelevant. We cannot see microwaves or neutrinos or air. The universe is full of material things that we cannot see,
• "Can't detect" is false. We only know that dark matter is there because we have detected it through material means. We only know that dark energy is there because we have detected it through material means.
• "Can't comprehend" is a somewhat arrogant of you. Are you able to discuss the differences in our comprehension of either phenomenon over the last 25 years in any detail? How either phenomenon was discovered? What the existence of either has been confirmed?

So I was saying that I understood that 95/6% of the mass of the universe was dark anergy and dark matter, as distinct from the 4/5% material universe science studies directly.

You seem to think that dark matter and dark energy are "non-material". You also seem to think that scientists are not able to detect or study either. These are both very odd things for you to think.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, but the academic science of atheists is the same science of Theists, Agnostics, and Deists. I believe attitude reflects a religious agenda and not simply being frank'

I am Frank Frank without tolerance of religious agendas involving science.

There is no problem with my view. The religious belief of Creation should not be in contradiction with the objective verifiable evidence of academic science. The problem is ancient scripture of ALL ancient religions of the world without science, is in contradiction with science. Science is indifferent to the beliefs of atheism.

IF God exists the physical nature of our physical existence is in harmony with God's Creation. There is a problem with ancient world views of Gods in contradiction with science.

If only you were also frank without tolerance for atheistic agendas involving religion.

Creation and destruction are an eternal process of Existence, science only deals with temporary things that have beginning s and endings, religion deals with the timeless Existence.

The physical nature of our physical existence is an expression of eternal Existence/God, the former (physical existence) is an effect, the latter (eternal Existence/God) is cause. Contemporary science does not know and cannot know the eternal Existence as it can't presently detect it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

• "Can't see" is irrelevant. We cannot see microwaves or neutrinos or air. The universe is full of material things that we cannot see,
• "Can't detect" is false. We only know that dark matter is there because we have detected it through material means. We only know that dark energy is there because we have detected it through material means.
• "Can't comprehend" is a somewhat arrogant of you. Are you able to discuss the differences in our comprehension of either phenomenon over the last 25 years in any detail? How either phenomenon was discovered? What the existence of either has been confirmed?

You seem to think that dark matter and dark energy are "non-material". You also seem to think that scientists are not able to detect or study either. These are both very odd things for you to think.

Yes, matter as science knows it is comprised of atoms, the reality represented by such concepts as dark energy and dark matter is not atomic.

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

 

[Pogo]

Ok, let's start from the beginning again, my comment was...."I understood that the reality represented by the scientific concept of 'dark energy' was omnipresent and with dark matter constituted 95% of the mass of the universe, and thus not material as is the 5% that scientist study."

So I was saying that I understood that 95/6% of the mass of the universe was dark anergy and dark matter, as distinct from the 4/5% material universe science studies directly.

"All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend."

yup and it was a statement totally ignorant of physics beyond a number you read in the popular press.

 

[Pogo]

If only you were also frank without tolerance for atheistic agendas involving religion.

Creation and destruction are an eternal process of Existence, science only deals with temporary things that have beginning s and endings, religion deals with the timeless Existence.

The physical nature of our physical existence is an expression of eternal Existence/God, the former (physical existence) is an effect, the latter (eternal Existence/God) is cause. Contemporary science does not know and cannot know the eternal Existence as it can't presently detect it.

if only you could understand that we have a whole lot of concrete relations that specifically avoid imaginary possibilities.
You are free to posit ideas, but don't expect us to do anything but question them until you can create a formal logical construction.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, matter as science knows it is comprised of atoms, the reality represented by such concepts as dark energy and dark matter is not atomic.

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

No, you are not even in the country in your understanding of physics.
Stop embarrassing yourself and theists in general.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

yup and it was a statement totally ignorant of physics beyond a number you read in the popular press.

So fine, if you think the 95% dark to 5% physical atomic matter number is not what science is saying, please provide me with the numbers that you believe are correct?