Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

What is Dark Energy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So, we still are that youngster that thinks he has a handle on a subject, but doesn't fully realize the amount of knowledge he still lacks?
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
      So, we still are that youngster that thinks he has a handle on a subject, but doesn't fully realize the amount of knowledge he still lacks?
      no. scientists are aware that they have no real idea what dark matter and energy are and that they might just be fudge factors.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        The extra mass could be caused by some other phenomena that we have not discovered yet, or some change in our calculation regarding gravity, or any other number of other things. Sure adding "dark matter" fixes the problem, but that is because it is a "fudge factor" and that is what fudge factors do. They provide a solution to a problem until the ACTUAL solution comes along. When astronomers believed in epicycles, they had to explain why planets seemed to go backwards in their orbits every so often. Well epicycles explained it perfectly and the math worked out exactly! Did that mean that epicycles were real? No. Because once they realize that the Earth went around the sun and so did the planets, then the retrograde problem went away because Earth was orbiting faster than the outer planets so they appeared to go backwards when we overtook them in our orbit.

        Nobody knows what dark matter is. It is just a label for unknown mass needed to explain certain observations. I personally think it makes more sense to believe that it is a flaw in our science and formulas, than there is some mysterious matter out there that we can't see or detect in any way but it has mass and yet no other physicality.
        Actually there is a theory that the gravitational effect of relativity is the cause of the extra mass.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          no. scientists are aware that they have no real idea what dark matter and energy are and that they might just be fudge factors.
          Was that the Enlightenment period? AKA the time period where Europe got Sophomore Syndrome! At least we now admit when we don't know something. Or am I exaggerating early modern European arrogance?
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Actually there is a theory that the gravitational effect of relativity is the cause of the extra mass.
            I am not a scientist but I am leaning toward "There is something fundamental that we don't understand about how the universe expands yet" Than that there is actually extra mass and energy at all. Occam's Razor and all that. It is far more likely that we just don't understand something crucial yet, than 80% of the universe is made up of undetectable mass and energy that magically expands the universe.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              It supposedly makes up the majority of the universe. Yet we can't see it. It also means that it should be right here among us. So why can't we find it on Earth? or in our Solar System? Why does it only exist "out there?" Why are we so special that it doesn't exist right here?


              also "dark" in Dark matter and energy doesn't refer to it being dark, but being "unknown"
              If dark matter exists, then it DOES exist "right here". But since we don't know what it is, we don't know how to detect it.

              I lean toward "dark matter" being real; I think it is the simplest explanation of the data that has already been mentioned in this thread. The main alternative to dark matter is MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics), but it is hard for the various MOND theories to explain everything that dark matter does (e.g. the bullet cluster).
              "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                If dark matter exists, then it DOES exist "right here". But since we don't know what it is, we don't know how to detect it.

                I lean toward "dark matter" being real; I think it is the simplest explanation of the data that has already been mentioned in this thread. The main alternative to dark matter is MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics), but it is hard for the various MOND theories to explain everything that dark matter does (e.g. the bullet cluster).
                I lean toward it being a mistaken idea about the expansion of the universe, or some unknown flaw in our math on the topic. Much simpler explanation that some invisible mass that we can't measure in any way.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  basically dark matter and energy are "fudge factors" used to explain holes in our current understanding and math regarding the universe. Neither has ever been detected. It will probably end up with new math and concepts that explain things like the expansion speed of the universe without dark matter or energy.
                  Also one of the arguments for Geocentrism against Modern World View.
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                    Also one of the arguments for Geocentrism against Modern World View.
                    no.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      no.
                      I wasn't saying it was a conclusive one.

                      I am saying it is used as one. Whether it is conclusive, can be actually debated.

                      Has JohnMartin brought this one up in a non-locked thread? What was the answer?

                      But as to its being used, I do frequent other Geocentrics sufficiently to know about what arguments they use.
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                        I wasn't saying it was a conclusive one.

                        I am saying it is used as one. Whether it is conclusive, can be actually debated.

                        Has JohnMartin brought this one up in a non-locked thread? What was the answer?

                        But as to its being used, I do frequent other Geocentrics sufficiently to know about what arguments they use.
                        This thread is not about Geocentrism, so don't derail it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          https://www.newscientist.com/article...f-dark-matter/

                          Looks like "modified gravity" may make "dark matter" unnecessary.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                            https://www.newscientist.com/article...f-dark-matter/

                            Looks like "modified gravity" may make "dark matter" unnecessary.
                            Very interesting. I look forward to learning more about this.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              https://www.newscientist.com/article...f-dark-matter/

                              Looks like "modified gravity" may make "dark matter" unnecessary.
                              This is basically another version of MOND. I am skeptical that it can explain gravitational lensing as well as dark matter does. And it would require a new theory to explain why the force of gravity does not fall off as 1/r^2, or the gravitational potential as 1/r. This is a very tall order.
                              "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                                https://www.newscientist.com/article...f-dark-matter/

                                Looks like "modified gravity" may make "dark matter" unnecessary.
                                and it looks like the mainstream fuddy duddies are agin' it! That is usually a clue that they are on the right track. Upending the status quo. Everyone mocks and say no, and then eats crow. Happens with every new revolution in science. Doesn't mean that this guy is correct, but whatever IS correct will be sure to upset the entrenched scientists with a stake in the old ideas.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X