Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

[Tubbythin]

When you get your invisible buddies to actually do something in a real science experiment, with actual control mechanisms, then you can call me a liar. Until then you are only lying to yourself.

But you have repeatedly demonstrated you have no idea what a control mechanism is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But you have repeatedly demonstrated you have no idea what a control mechanism is.

The fact you won't even cop to the actual empirical weaknesses of your pet theory says volumes IMO. Something as simple as a dimmer switch or an on/off switch would work as a control mechanism depending on the energy in question. It's extremely easy to measure and control EM energy.

Where do I get a joule of "dark energy"? How do I even measure dark energy vs some other form of acceleration? How would I go about "controlling" dark energy in an actual "experiment" to see if can cause acceleration as you claim?

 

[Reality Check]

So by definition your use of the term "dark energy" utterly erroneous and stupid because it could be "anything", including:...

You still do not get it.
The definition of dark energy is that it is the cause of the observed effect. That is the correct and intelligent definition.
We have a couple of good theories about what dark energy could be(and some not so good theories, e.g. look up dark fluid). Further empirical evidence will rule out some of these theories. Eventually the evidence will be strong enough so that a theory will be accepted as the best contender.
P.S. My personal opinion is that it will not be any of the current theories!

What pray tell (physically, as in actual physics) is a "repulsive term"?

Really simple, Michael Mozina: A replusive term is a term that produces a replusive force such as a physically, as in actual physics, non-zero cosmological constant.

Use of ordinary English would be something like "unknown acceleration, or "unexplained acceleration", not "dark energy'.

You would be right if your ignorance of the science had not blinded you to the fact that we do know things about the cause of this "unknown acceleration":

• It is very homogeneous.
• It is not very dense (roughly 10^−29 grams).
• It does not emit light: dark.
• The best theories to explain it treat it as an energy.

So a proper decription would be homogeneous, transparent, dark energy. But people are lazy so they just use dark energy.

You created a whole religion out of your own ignorance.

You created your personal religion out of your own ignorance.

Now 70+ percent of the universe is "dark energy" and most of the rest is "dark matter". I guess you guys just don't like to admit that the term "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer. You dreamed up mythical brand of energy that may or may not even exist. You did the same thing with exotic forms of mass that you now call "dark matter". The whole "dark" concept actually relates to your own human ignorance, not any actual property of the matter/energy itself.

Your ignorance is still deep and seems to be increasing !

The fact is that dark energy and dark matter are scientists saying "we do not know fully but this is what we do know".

As stated above dark energy is called dark energy because we know things about it (it is dark and acts like energy).
Dark matter is called dark matter because it is dark and acts like matter. The evidence is that dark matter is made of standard particles like non-baryonic matter. Examples of the standard non-baryonic particles are neutrinos and electrons. The usual particles proposed for dark matter come from extensions of the Standard Model, i.e. not that standard but definitely not exotic, e.g. have negative mass.

 

[Tubbythin]

The fact you won't even cop to the actual empirical weaknesses of your pet theory says volumes IMO.

You have also repeatedly demonstrated you have no idea what empirical means.

Something as simple as a dimmer switch or an on/off switch would work as a control mechanism depending on the energy in question. It's extremely easy to measure and control EM energy.

For what?

Where do I get a joule of "dark energy"?

Why do you want one?

How do I even measure dark energy vs some other form of acceleration?

Errm, by accounting for the other forms of acceleration quantitatively. But since you have no idea what quantitatively means you might struggle with that one too.

How would I go about "controlling" dark energy in an actual "experiment" to see if can cause acceleration as you claim?

Errm you don't. Just like you don't control the Sun in measurements of the Sun.

 

[Reality Check]

Where do I get a joule of "dark energy"? How do I even measure dark energy vs some other form of acceleration? How would I go about "controlling" dark energy in an actual "experiment" to see if can cause acceleration as you claim?

Lets see MM:
[sarcasm]
Where do I get a gram of "star"? How do I even measure star stuff vs some other form of stuff? How would I go about "controlling" stars in an actual "experiment" to see if can cause light as you claim?
[/sarcasm]

Does Michael Mozina believe that stars do not exist?
The answer according to all of the posts showing his continued ignorance of the meaning of the word empirical indicates that he does not!
This has gone beyond jaw dropping to

 

[Tubbythin]

When you get your invisible buddies to actually do something in a real science experiment, with actual control mechanisms, then you can call me a liar. Until then you are only lying to yourself.

Well until you justify the statement:

All you folks know is math and you're completely ignorant when it comes to actual "physics" and what is physically real and physically possible.

with actual evidence I think your opinions are likely to be treated with utter contempt on this forum.
As for being ignorant about actual physics, maybe you should try making a physics based argument. Not one from "if I give this theory a stupid name then it will automatically be a stupid theory". Which is... well... stupid. Nobody is going to take your claims about other peoples inability to do physics seriously until you show some ability to even comprehend what a scientific argument is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lets see MM:
[sarcasm]
Where do I get a gram of "star"? How do I even measure star stuff vs some other form of stuff? How would I go about "controlling" stars in an actual "experiment" to see if can cause light as you claim?
[/sarcasm]

http://www.uigi.com/hydrogen.html

Oddly enough your sarcasm simply highlights the fact that you can't even buy "dark energy" in any quantity, whereas procuring hydrogen (or any other element found inside of a star) is relatively simple.

 

[Tubbythin]

http://www.uigi.com/hydrogen.html

Oddly enough your sarcasm simply highlights the fact that you can't even buy "dark energy" in any quantity, whereas procuring hydrogen (or any other element found inside of a star) is relatively simple.

When was the last time you bought a gravitational field?
What about a top quark?
Anti-proton?
A tauon anti-neutrino perhaps?

 

[Michael Mozina]

When was the last time you bought a gravitational field?

I can't say I've ever actually needed to buy a gravitational field but technically I've gotten it free with every tangible (physical mass) item that I've ever purchased.

 

[Tubbythin]

I can't say I've ever actually needed to buy a gravitational field but technically I've gotten it free with every tangible (physical mass) item that I've ever purchased.

Still, abysmal argument.

 

[GeeMack]

When you get your invisible buddies to actually do something in a real science experiment, with actual control mechanisms, then you can call me a liar. Until then you are only lying to yourself.

Dark energy does something in a real science experiment, ongoing and occurring on a Universal scale. Wow. Oh, and you're a liar. You cool with that?

The Universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. We know this because we measure it. Measuring is a quantitative thing, Michael, involving actual numbers. You'd have to possess the qualifications to understand math at a level of about a nine year old child to get this. You don't, so don't worry about it. It's above your skill level.

The observation and measurement of this effect, the accelerated expansion, is the empirical evidence for its existence. You'd have to possess the qualifications to communicate at the level of about a twelve year old child to get this. You don't, so don't worry about it. It's above your skill level.

Since empirical evidence shows us that the effect exists, we assume there is a cause. You see, cause and effect? Simple science. You'd have to possess the qualifications to understand science at the level of about an eighth grade child to get this. You don't, so don't worry about it. It's above your skill level.

We call the cause of this measured expansion dark energy. It exists. It is causing a measurable effect. It doesn't emit light. If it did we would be able to observe and measure that, too. Dark energy seems quite an appropriate moniker. So you don't like the name. Tough crap, eh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still, abysmal argument.

At least it was amusing.

I missed your late additions to the list I see but they all seem to show up in actual experiments on Earth.

 

[Tubbythin]

At least it was amusing.

Mildly.

I missed your late additions to the list I see but they all seem to show up in actual experiments on Earth.

Yes, my late additions may lead to a little confusion I'll admit. That may be true about experiments on Earth but I still can't buy them in a shop. And I still don't see why all physical phenomena should be manifest on a scale of human conveinience circa 2010. There really is no argument for this.
What about a lump of neutron degenerate matter?

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.uigi.com/hydrogen.html

What makes you think that stars are made of hydrogen?

No star-sized ball of hydrogen (in fact no star at all) has been tested in a controlled experiment in a lab (your definition of empirical). Thus your answer to Does Michael Mozina believe that stars do not exist? has to be that stars do not exist.

There are observations (not controlled experiments in a lab) that show that the solar wind has protons (ionized hydrogen) in it. There are observations of neutrinos from the Sun that show that there is hydorgen undergong fusion in its core.
But then it is obvious that your logic means that the Sun does not exist since we have never had the Sun in a controlled experiment in a lab.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What makes you think that stars are made of hydrogen?

Me? I don't. Even still it's not an "extraordinary' claim to suggest it's made of hydrogen or any other elements that show up on Earth. If however you were claiming that the sun was entirely composed of some exotic form of "dark matter', *THAT* would be an extraordinary claim that required additional support.

No star-sized ball of hydrogen (in fact no star at all) has been tested in a controlled experiment in a lab (your definition of empirical).

No, but so what? I'm not asking you, nor expecting you to recreate large scale objects in a lab. I'm just expecting some kind of empirical cause/effect demonstration of concept when you make some extraordinary claim.

Hydrogen fusion has in fact been "lab tested", or I should say "tested on Earth" so even the claim that hydrogen fusion is the energy source of a sun isn't an extraordinary claim. If however you claimed "God provides the energy of a sun', that *WOULD* be an extraordinary claim that required additional support.

 

[Tubbythin]

Hydrogen fusion has in fact been "lab tested", or I should say "tested on Earth" so even the claim that hydrogen fusion is the energy source of a sun isn't an extraordinary claim. If however you claimed "God provides the energy of a sun', that *WOULD* be an extraordinary claim that required additional support.

But nobody is claiming that. So why bring it up?

 

[GeeMack]

But nobody is claiming that. So why bring it up?

Because his experience is with unwavering unevidenced faith, and he doesn't understand science or the non-faith based scientific position? Maybe something like those Christians who can't fathom the notion that some people simply don't hold a belief, so they cling to this incorrect position that atheists actually believe in gods but hate them or reject them for some reason.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But nobody is claiming that. So why bring it up?

Sure you did. You just called it "dark energy", "inflation' and "dark matter", none of which show up in real experiments on Earth. They are at least as impotent in the lab as any religious deity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because his experience is with unwavering unevidenced faith,

Yep. All you creationist have one thing in common, you all have unwavering, unevidenced faith in the unseen (in the lab).

 

[GeeMack]

Yep. All you creationist have one thing in common, you all have unwavering, unevidenced faith in the unseen (in the lab).

Either something causes the accelerated expansion of the Universe, or nothing causes it. What's your guess, Michael?