Understanding Cosmology (Post 1)

[shunyadragon]

You disappoint me that you did not understand what I was referring to, I will try to convey it again and hope you understand this time what the 5% matter refers to. Hint, it is not dark matter or dark energy.

Dark matter is not of the 5% matter of the human senses, that's all you need to understand, there is the 95% dark energy + dark matter and the 5% normal. Got it?

No it is not all I need to understand, Your consistent lack of basic knowledge of Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics is a problem.

OK, lets tke the 95% and 5% figure, now what???? What next.??? What is your purpose of harping on these figures??

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No it is not all I need to understand, Your consistent lack of basic knowledge of Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics is a problem.

OK, lets tke the 95% and 5% figure, now what???? What next.??? What is your purpose of harping on these figures??

Because it shows present human science, while post stone age, due to its present humble evolutionary state, naturally knows practically nothing about 95% of the universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are not reading my posts, I said I love atheists, that's not hostile, that they are in error is a factual observation, that is not hostile, that an atheist may find my observation hostile is their own hostility at work.

You have shown hostility toward atheists. As far as I have observed the atheists have not shown any hostility toward you, they disagree with you concerning your confused view of cosmology, There is absolutely no relationship between atheism and the science of cosmology

God is omnipresent, there is no beyond. God is the creator and also the destroyer, Existence itself never had a beginning, only material things have beginnings and endings.

This is your belief. It has nothing to do with the topic of the sciences of cosmology. God should be in harmony with science or there is a contradiction. You previously associated atheism with science which remains a problem.

Agreed, science is limited and cannot know God, but the thread is posted in the Science and Religion Forum so the topic of God does arise.

No. posts and categories have different topics, The topic here is cosmology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because it shows present human science, while post stone age, due to its present humble evolutionary state, naturally knows practically nothing about 95% of the universe.

Your again arguing a vague 'arguing from ignorance' concerning what your claim science does not presently know. which is not true. This a false meaningless argument, because all sciences have current limits as to what the know and do not know. The knowledge of science increases over time. Science has measured the mass and properties of dark matter and dark energy in our universe' They have found that dark matter is not evenly distributed in the universe giving some understand to the nature of dark matter and the influence on the galaxies, and the rest of matter of the universe we know a lot about.

To put things in perspective There are observed properties of the distribution of mass, effects. and nature of the matrix of the universe we call "dark matter and dark energy. These are just names of we attach to the nature of the universe we cannot present observe directly. The observed properties of what is called dark matter is not hypothetical. The question of exactly what is dark matter is hypothetical.

There is a severe problem of with your arguing the logical fallacy to justify some sort of religious argument. which is logically incoherent compounded by your lack of knowledge in cosmology.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you do not accept that dark matter is physical, then nothing else that you have to say about the subject matters. Science says that dark matter is physical. Do you accept that dark matter is physical?

Dark matter is at this point the best hypothetical explanation for gravitational effects on galaxies, which cannot be explained by observable baryonic matter.

Science doesn’t “say dark matter is physical”. Science doesn’t progress by handling down the word to those believers waiting to receive it. Cosmologists speculate that dark matter consists of particles interacting with baryonic matter only through gravity.

Before you patronise or belittle other posters about their limited understanding of cosmology, perhaps consider the limitations of your own. Not to mention the limitations of all human knowledge. A little humility and a recognition that we all know but little, is as important in physics as in all aspects of human enquiry.

 

[ppp]

Dark matter is at this point the best hypothetical explanation for gravitational effects on galaxies, which cannot be explained by observable baryonic matter.

Science doesn’t “say dark matter is physical”. Science doesn’t progress by handling down the word to those believers waiting to receive it. Cosmologists speculate that dark matter consists of particles interacting with baryonic matter only through gravity.

Before you patronise or belittle other posters about their limited understanding of cosmology, perhaps consider the limitations of your own. Not to mention the limitations of all human knowledge. A little humility and a recognition that we all know but little, is as important in physics as in all aspects of human enquiry.

I appreciate that you are getting fussed at my use of the word "says" and how some usages of that word might imply some sort of absolute certainty. But no, I reject ,your attempt to play on ignorance in one aspect of a subject as an inability to say anything with confidence. Contingent confidence, but confidence nonetheless.

Also, @RestlessSoul , you are pointing out that we know it is there due to physical interactions with physical phenomena. What do you think we mean when we say that something is physical? Something other than physical interactions with physical phenomena? What would it take for something to be non-physical? Have you given any of that any thought at all?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I appreciate that you are getting fussed at my use of the word "says" and how some usages of that word might imply some sort of absolute certainty. But no, I reject ,your attempt to play on ignorance in one aspect of a subject as an inability to say anything with confidence. Contingent confidence, but confidence nonetheless.

Also, @RestlessSoul , you are pointing out that we know it is there due to physical interactions with physical phenomena. What do you think we mean when we say that something is physical? Something other than physical interactions with physical phenomena? What would it take for something to be non-physical? Have you given any of that any thought at all?

Well if an object of study is not physical, then it stands to reason that physics is not best equipped to study it. There are many aspects of human experience that lie beyond the remit of science. But at some point theoretical physics always wanders onto philosophy's territory, and why not? The ancient Greeks, and Renaissance Europeans wouldn't have recognised the distinction anyway. Nor, I'd imagine, would early Chinese or Arab astronomers.

What do you think we mean when we say we know something? Is that even a question which is proper to science?

 

[ppp]

Well if an object of study is not physical, then it stands to reason that physics is not best equipped to study it. There are many aspects of human experience that lie beyond the remit of science. But at some point theoretical physics always wanders onto philosophy's territory, and why not? The ancient Greeks, and Renaissance Europeans wouldn't have recognised the distinction anyway. Nor, I'd imagine, would early Chinese or Arab astronomers.

What do you think we mean when we say we know something? Is that even a question which is proper to science?

I do not mind answering your questions, but when you begin by ignoring mine it erodes my confidence that you have any interest in reciprocation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have shown hostility toward atheists. As far as I have observed the atheists have not shown any hostility toward you, they disagree with you concerning your confused view of cosmology, There is absolutely no relationship between atheism and the science of cosmology

This is your belief. It has nothing to do with the topic of the sciences of cosmology. God should be in harmony with science or there is a contradiction. You previously associated atheism with science which remains a problem.

No. posts and categories have different topics, The topic here is cosmology.

Ok, so that is your belief.

This is God's position on harmony. Isaiah 45:6-7 The Lord God is one. I create the light, and the darkness, I create good and I create evil, I the Lord do these things.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your again arguing a vague 'arguing from ignorance' concerning what your claim science does not presently know. which is not true. This a false meaningless argument, because all sciences have current limits as to what the know and do not know. The knowledge of science increases over time. Science has measured the mass and properties of dark matter and dark energy in our universe' They have found that dark matter is not evenly distributed in the universe giving some understand to the nature of dark matter and the influence on the galaxies, and the rest of matter of the universe we know a lot about.

To put things in perspective There are observed properties of the distribution of mass, effects. and nature of the matrix of the universe we call "dark matter and dark energy. These are just names of we attach to the nature of the universe we cannot present observe directly. The observed properties of what is called dark matter is not hypothetical. The question of exactly what is dark matter is hypothetical.

There is a severe problem of with your arguing the logical fallacy to justify some sort of religious argument. which is logically incoherent compounded by your lack of knowledge in cosmology.

Science knows practically nothing of 95% of the universe, and you as an example of a self-proclaimed scientist probably aren't even aware that the universe is alive and conscious.

 

[danieldemol]

Science knows practically nothing of 95% of the universe, and you as an example of a self-proclaimed scientist probably aren't even aware that the universe is alive and conscious.

Ha ha, what science doesn't know you don't either if we are to define knowledge as demonstrable truth in my view.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ha ha, what science doesn't know you don't either if we are to define knowledge as demonstrable truth in my view.

Humans derive their consciousness from the Cosmos, you, like I, are expressions of the Cosmos, yes?

 

[danieldemol]

Humans derive their consciousness from the Cosmos, you, like I, are expressions of the Cosmos, yes?

Humans obtain their consciousness from a specific arrangement of minuscule parts of the cosmos.

When you say we are expressions of the cosmos you appear to be using a vague poetic expression with meaning I don't understand (or that could just be my cold speaking) to express one's self is to make one's thoughts or feelings known paraphrased from source define expression - Google Search

But I would say we are not the whole cosmos making its thoughts or feelings known, only small parts of it making their feelings known.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Humans obtain their consciousness from a specific arrangement of minuscule parts of the cosmos.

When you say we are expressions of the cosmos you appear to be using a vague poetic expression with meaning I don't understand (or that could just be my cold speaking) to express one's self is to make one's thoughts or feelings known paraphrased from source define expression - Google Search

But I would say we are not the whole cosmos making its thoughts or feelings known, only small parts of it making their feelings known.

The Cosmos exists as a unity, within this unity are a myriad expressions, from electrons, atoms, flowers, humans, stars, etc..
If the Cosmos was dead, its expression would be lifeless. If the Cosmos is alive, all expressions are alive, from the infinitesimal to the infinite.

Conscious Control of an Electron | Bryan | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research

Conscious Control of an Electron​

Ronald Bryan

Abstract​

I consider the possibility that the electron, not a human observer, precipitates the collapse of the electron's wavefunction when it is detected. This would seem to endow the electronic wavefunction with an elementary consciousness. If so, then perhaps a human consciousness could interact with the electronic consciousness to flip its spin. I propose an experiment to test this possibility, namely one in which the electron is the single valence electron of a magnesium ion immersed in a 50-gauss magnetic field. A dye laser shines on the ion and is tuned to bring about laser induced fluorescence (LIF) at a wavelength of 280 nm. The LIF is so strong that if the ion were shining in the visible range, it could be seen with the naked eye. Instead it is shining in the near ultra-violet, and a photomultiplier is used to detect the light. If a person can now lower the electron's energy minutely, then this will flip the electron's spin and the LIF will cease. If the person can succeed in flipping the electron's spin once again by raising its energy, then LIF is restored. By initiating LIF for long and short periods, such a person could send a lengthy International Morse Code message which could be read by anyone observing the ion’s output. We would see if a person succeeding in this task could send a message from increasingly distant points. If so, then the person's control could not be mediated by any fields currently known to physicists: electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational. We would hypothesize a new kind of controlling field which does not weaken with distance, nor be attenuated by obstructions. Such a field might mediate distant healing and remote viewing. It might be identified with Chinese qi. We hypothesize that this conjectured field propagates in higher dimensional space-time to avoid obstructions, and converges on the target to avoid weakening. In this space, the field might travel faster than light does in the lower four dimensions of space and time.

 

[danieldemol]

The Cosmos exists as a unity, within this unity are a myriad expressions, from electrons, atoms, flowers, humans, stars, etc..

what does it even mean to exist as a unity?

Would you say that Russia and Ukraine exist as a unity? They are parts of the universe.

If the Cosmos was dead, its expression would be lifeless.

This is an assertion, a dead body can have living parts within it.

Conscious Control of an Electron | Bryan | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & ReResearch

Why would I even read something with a title named concious control of an electron? We consciously control electrons every time we turn a light on in my view.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

what does it even mean to exist as a unity?

Would you say that Russia and Ukraine exist as a unity? They are parts of the universe.

This is an assertion, a dead body can have living parts within it.

Why would I even read something with a title named concious control of an electron? We consciously control electrons every time we turn a light on in my view.

There is one Cosmos, there is not a second, it is a unity,

Russia and Ukraine are human labels, names, and yes, they are separate expressions of the Universe.

Yes, the electrons are alive, the Universe is alive, but all created things have beginnings and endings, relative life and death.

Funny.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes, the electrons are alive, the Universe is alive, but all created things have beginnings and endings, relative life and death.

I think I understand, to you to have a beginning means to be alive and to have an ending means to be dead.

So a rock had a beginning = alive in Dhyan language.

Now I just need to understand what you mean by conciousness, is the rock conscious?

 

[shunyadragon]

Science knows practically nothing of 95% of the universe, and you as an example of a self-proclaimed scientist probably aren't even aware that the universe is alive and conscious.

I guess thia is the bottom of your religious agenda which is false concerning the nature of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and your intentional ignorance of Physics and Cosmology.

I believe our dialogue has ended,

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so that is your belief.

This is God's position on harmony. Isaiah 45:6-7 The Lord God is one. I create the light, and the darkness, I create good and I create evil, I the Lord do these things.

Citing scripture is not an argument from the perspective of a discussion on cosmology.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think I understand, to you to have a beginning means to be alive and to have an ending means to be dead.

So a rock had a beginning = alive in Dhyan language.

Now I just need to understand what you mean by conciousness, is the rock conscious?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, but obviously rudimentary.