BS: in the beginning and now

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 05:02 PM

Excellent bullshit-buster of a post, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 02:50 PM

"...he seems to say that Darwinism is far from proven.."
It depends on whether you trust the scientific method or not. Absolute 'proof' is for math. Details in evolution theory change, but saying that means 'unproven' is a subjective use of the language.
    Evolution (not "Darwinism", which refers obliquely to what Darwin himself worked out), has been studied, refined, examined, re-examined and re-explained for many decades as various aspects of geology, anthropology, bio-chemistry and DNA research and even astronomy are refined with new and ever changing data. Details change.. but so far, evolution in general stands up to scrutiny as a description of HOW biological entities change. Those who wish preface it with a separate "WHY" are free to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 12:24 PM

I think thread drift is good and natural
however...

What makes sense to me is that:
In the beginning there was no beginning, we are still beginning.

A new study isn’t suggesting there was no Big Bang. It’s suggesting that the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. How can this be?

The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many folks confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’
The new model – in which our universe has no beginning and no end – comes from Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.
Their paper looks at a result derived from Einstein’s theory of general relativity known as the Raychaudhuri equation. WTF?

Basically his equation describes how a volume of matter changes over time, so its a great way of finding where physical singularities exist in your model. But rather than using the classical Raychaudhuri equation, the authors use a variation with a few quantum tweaks. This approach is often called semi-classical …

The upshot is that this work eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang. That is, it eliminates the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened, according to this model.

The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new take does nothing to question its legitimacy.

The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

There is ample evidence to show that the universe did undergo an early inflation in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, I explain this away as a artifact of what it looks like when time was at a virtual stand still do to gravitation stopping time in a black hole. The universe is thought to have expanded by a factor of 1078 in volume. For one, the universe is still expanding in every direction. The farther away an object is, The faster it appears to move away from an observer, suggesting that space itself is expanding (rather than objects simply moving through space at a steady rate). Soon we will see beyond our observablecurrent horizon of the farthest galaxies with new infra red telescopes.

Another key piece of evidence is the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is thought to be heat left over from this great cosmological event. It can be observed in every direction and has no single origin point. Scientists think the CMB began propagating through the universe about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when atoms began to form and the universe became transparent, says the ESA. I bet no one has read this far, so kofefe is found to be coffee.

What this new look at the beginning allows is the old cyclic universe theory which allows for an infinite existence with no beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Dec 19 - 06:21 PM

I skimmed the article Bill. He seems to contradict himself a bit , though it’s probably not as straightforward as that . On the one hand he seems to say that Darwinism is far from proven , and on the other that it has been tested - though not saying how !                      As you correctly point out . My quote was qualified by an indefinite , though I could provide more definite quotes from others

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 04:14 PM

Charmion... Oh, sure.. it's just similar to U.S. politics right now. I'll roll with the punch until someone goes to mostly personal insults. At that point, I usually stop.
   I enjoy trading opinions, but I only debate seriously with those I respect in general.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 03:26 PM

keberoxu — Himself is no longer in the Army, having passed the magic kicking-out age of 60, but he’s hardly “retired”. He’s still practising law, for one thing, so he goes to court and all that. And yes, he’s pursuing a doctorate. I think he has quite enough credentials for one lifetime, but that’s how he chooses to while away the hours. On the whole, I would rather have a legal scholar in the house than, say, somebody who’s fixated on (shudder) golf.

BillD, I completely agree with you on stating the opponent’s point; however, have you not noticed how often your point is re-stated in the most hostile terms your opponent can muster? In some battles of wits, that’s when the gloves hit the ice and the fight is on.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 03:11 PM

Pete..Karl Popper was right of course... the operative word being "may". Most scientists do not think so carelessly... and Popper himself knew the difference.

Popper on religion

Much more in the article.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:47 PM

A succint declarative:

Albert showed how Mass can be turned into energy.
I claim that with enough energy you can transmute mass into space time inside a black hole and further separate time and space, stopping time and generating space. This is my explanation for dark energy accelerating and generating more space.

dealing with 6 variables is hard to make succint.
nevermind :^?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:45 PM

It’s no surprise to me that atheists deny having faith in their beliefs .                                 “A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched ideology”. Sir Karl Popper

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:26 PM

One can take a metaphorical approach with comedic relief such as:

The Prophet by Donuel Gibran

And then a man stepped from the group of villagers and asked the Prophet “In these troubled times behind this veil of tears what should we be most wary of?” The Prophet said, “Beware the great long lasting lies and those who defend those lies. With this in mind, keep an eye out for the man who builds fake golden towers and temples so people may worship, pay and obey him. Having a Canadian Passport is also not a bad idea.”

Then a young woman approached the Prophet. She looked up at his pleasing appearance and asked ,”why do men seek to possess and control my body?” To this the Prophet said, “ Some men covet the divine curve, the flower of creation and some men want to have power over a woman's body in a misguided attempt to have power over creation and an advantage in the work space.”

Then a child asked, “why are some things beliefs and others just exist?” The Prophet said, “One demands evidence and the other does not. The standard of evidence should be the same but there are some who lack the reason to argue the evidence.”
“How will I ever know the difference?” asked the concerned child.
Donuel said “Unfortunately that is up to your free will in the long run.”

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:12 PM

"I also believe that one does not fully understand any concept until one can state it in simple declarative .."

In some thread a few years ago, I was commended for some post I made about arguments. I can't remember my exact clever phrase right now, but it was something like: "One cannot really defend one's own point unless one can clearly and accurately state the opponent's point."

All too often people intent on a position will argue right past each other.... both failing to see what the other is saying in their haste to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:10 PM

We finally measured gravity waves and it is a big deal
HOWEVER
Now that we have measured ufos and putting an end to the senseless lies, I claim it is a much bigger deal on the effect it can have on our planet. Having our entire population work out the technology that has been called impossible can help pure research and applied back engineering. I say 'can' because there are still those who want to throw road blocks in the way.

Folks this is no alien autopsy hoax.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: keberoxu
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:00 PM

Himself is retired, and pursuing a doctorate?!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 01:32 PM

I discovered literary and philosophy theory in graduate school, and I discovered that some writers heap in such complex words in extremely long sentences (filling entire paragraphs) that it takes a dictionary and breathing exercises to get through their tomes. And there are others who speak clearly, give excellent examples, and when needing to quote the pompous writers, keep it extremely brief or paraphrase.

Both types can claim important positions in their academic worlds, but I know which ones I'd much rather read.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 11:47 AM

My husband, known here as CET and elsewhere online as Himself, recently started working on a doctorate in law. The other day, he brought me a draft of a document his advisor calls a "framework statement" though it looks to me remarkably like a thesis proposal. It's about a Canadian legal case called Stillman and its effect on the jurisdictional reach of courts martial and the civil rights of military personnel.

I strongly believe that even the most complex idea can be stated in simple declarative sentences using basic words. I also believe that one does not fully understand any concept until one can state it in simple declarative etc. I was able to read the thesis proposal, replete as it is with terms of art, and restate it in plain words, thus probably earning a gig as a thesis editor.

But that's how I earned my living for more than thirty years. I'm an editor, and most of my clients were professionals whose projects typically end with extensive reports, especially engineers and program managers. Much of that time, I worked in the Department of National Defence, known to many as Jargon Heaven. Editing is painful and exacting, especially when its purpose is to convey complex information to intelligent but uninitiated readers who have a lot of competition for their time and attention. My clients knew they needed me if they wanted their projects to be funded. Many did not enjoy the editing experience, and some resisted it quite fiercely. These latter clients most resented the "dumbing down" of their special language, seeing it as an attack on their professional standing and authority.

But the few clients who sought out and even enjoyed the editing process had one important thing in common: they all wanted to share their ideas and experience, first with me, and then with any and every other person in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: keberoxu
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 10:48 PM

Bill D speaks of having met Donuel in person,
Donuel corroborates same.
The post about that meeting makes great good sense to me,
even though Donuel and I have never met.

I would not express myself as Donuel does,
nor would I take it all that personally that he does his thing.

My experience is one of growing up in a household
where even though we were all blood relatives,
we were wildly different from each other in some respects;
and you could either let it drive you demented,
or you could observe each other's differences with benevolent interest.
What I did come to understand was that
there was no way on God's green earth
that my relatives were going to alter
the ways that they expressed themselves.

I had one relative who seemed to have
five simultaneous channels of input, in terms of
perceptions. "Scattered" is putting it mildly!
But it was never personally intended to drive anybody crazy.

Me, I pretty much have one dedicated channel of input
and I can appear inflexible and intolerant because of same.

I can't really comment on the opening threads in this post,
I sort of read through them,
and nod, and keep going.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 06:11 PM

Genuinely begs the question, Bill... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 05:58 PM

I do not like BS... and you are correct that I don't like hearing or reading it. The question is what to do.. and when.

BS from some quarters comes with blinders on which makes responding useless--except for occasional addition of clarification and facts for any who 'might' be confused. Direct arguing with those wearing blinders is mostly useless (like the joke about trying to teach a pig to sing).

Conspiracy theories are especially awkward to deal with because they usually/often include.. and rely on... circular arguments about why we can't find the 'truth'. **(There was a cast, complex set of evil planning to blow up building on 9/11.. apart from Saudis and airliners! Why can't we prove it?.. Why because experts at high levels have hidden the evidence!)** Likewise the 100 MPG carburetor. The oil companies didn't want it, so the specs were hidden!.

Resident Trump may not know the formal names for bad rhetoric that I studied, but he has all the instincts for deploying it.

Mudcat has been a real boon to my continued education, as I have 20 years of examples of all levels of debate to compare & use.
   Some may remember this bit from a number of years ago... I saved it as a paradigm of jaw-dropping BS.. and I 'think' it was totally sincere..but *shrug*
   "I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning"
   No form of argument can combat that.

I have no idea how long I will follow Mudcat... Max says he'll keep IT going, but what will keep ME going?

Y'all take care.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 09:44 AM

Bill your knowledge of the principles and arguments of the question of 'what is truth' is imo more valuable today than ever before in your lifetime. The conspiracy theory conundrum confounds society in a similar manner as it did 90 years ago.

It seems to me you do not speak BS and you don't like to hear it.
Your analysis may be at least a footprint in the sand and at its most a credo for the future but the world needs to hear it.

Only you know the best format to present truth, whether its an anthropormorphic metaphorical tale or a succint statement of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 09:40 AM

Well let's see how it goes from here. I prefer not to be a target, right?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 07:34 AM

I see your perspective clearly but it may be overtaken with first impressions in which I daresay I did write obscurities decades ago, epecially when testing the waters. A new idea often comes to me while casting about. The new idea is rarely new but is only new to me.

I remember meeting Bill and recall I made an effort to tone it down.
I only regret not singing in my weak baritone average voice. There are many such voices.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 08:38 PM

I have a short fuse when I'm being patronised. That's for sure. This chap revels in self-regarding obscurantism, which is a ploy I've always detested in anyone who's tried it on. True scientists are communicators, who are able to speak about their mission in simple and direct language, but Donuel revels in deliberately tortuous verbiage, which confirms that he's maybe read a lot but actually knows very little. As with all of us, he has dimensions in real life that don't come across on a forum. Next time you have dinner with him, give him my love. I'm sure he's a luvly feller. I hope that this message will confirm to him once and for all that I find him to be an irritant who would be well advised to try to not wind me up. He's an idiot now but that doesn't mean that he's beyond redemption. I also can patronise, see.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 07:30 PM

Naaww, Steve.... Donuel can be confusing in his rhetoric at times, but he is no idiot. He lives near me, and I actually met him for lunch a few years ago. I wish I could visit YOU in person... but this ocean..(and I'd like to meet Pete too. We'd never agree on some things, but I have known people personally that I consider much harder to talk to.)
Don has so many interests that he can barely focus on just one... or rather, his focus shifts as he reads about new stuff. (Mine does too... but at my age, I have learned to just browse.)
   Remember when Don linked to cartoons that he created?...usually based on current events. Some of those were really brilliant.
You, Steve, are also pretty durned smart and aware... but you have a pretty short fuse when you think someone is wrong or careless. I prefer to debate and critique positions, not personalities. Over 20 years here have given me... ummm.. perspective. *grin*
   Your post yesterday at 6:52 Mudcat time was right on. We agree on everything except detailed usage and definitions. It's just a matter of emphasis...

again.. onward

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 06:12 PM

You are an idiot who thinks he's a clever idiot. In fact, you are just a plain idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 05:10 PM

I entertain myself by coming up with different scenarios for the elimination of various ancient or future civilizations due to natural disasters, climate, leadership and failure of a 2 cent piece of hardware or even a software mistake.

Good or bad Leadership makes for the best villains but other life forms (monsters be they virus or behemouths) are always popular.

I can think of nothing nerdier. Its like the ultimate Debbie Downer movie some would lable as action sci fi adventure.

Religious leadership of the Mayans were killers in one scenario and scientific mistakes did in millions in other imagined extinctions.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition or a 80 year old Hitler.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 11:08 AM

When I say Steve has personally ceased his eclectic knowledge quest, I am speaking generationaly in which we are all bounded our times and limited discoveries and relative enlightenment. Steve is just fun to use as an example because he is so insistant in his own inimical way.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 10:50 AM

I see Steve having ceased his eclectic knowledge quest and settled for the closest paradigm he is arguably comfortable with argueing.

New findings are strange because of our incomplete knowledge be that of 9 billion light years distant black holes or sculpted carvings several centimeters away from our eyes.

for example:
I am now stymied by the remarkable similarities between the sculpted artifacts of a unique handled device in the left hand of Assyrian 'gods' and the same devices in the hand of South American carvings of 'Kings'. There is even a rider on the Indian Garuda flying giant bird carrying this rectangular 'thing'. As far back as the Olmec sculptures there is evidence of a multicultural cosmopolitan civilization and evidence of India, chinese and African traditions.

It seems:
We are still in a dark age of assumptions regarding human culture and technology.

The religious can be enlightened as an astrophysicist and visa versa. I have heard Vatican priests that see past all the absurd insistant BS and scientists at NIH who are too religious for their own good.

I don't confuse my own awe at the mysteries we are immersed in and humility. The mysteries are so enormous that one has no other option than to be humbled.

The miracles of our current grasp of tech are awe inspiring and beyond grasp of any one person. There is the possibility we are in the midst of a hive evolutionary mind.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 06:52 PM

I agree with all that. The trouble with atheism is that it's seen as a sort of absolutist concept. Here's where I am: if you tell me that little seven-legged blue men have an outpost on the outer rings of Saturn, well I can ridicule you and make you the butt of a million jokes and laugh in your face, but what I can't do is prove that you're wrong. The reason I can't is that you've proposed a notion that, ridiculous though it is, can't be checked. You may have done that either because you're deluded or, far more vexatiously, that you want to be a contrarian. I see the proposal that there's a God who can neither be explained (because he's been deliberately put beyond science), nor can explain anything, as a similar concept. All I can say is that I don't know whether you're right or wrong. But that isn't to say that I'm squarely on the fence. If the word atheist is to have any practical use, it must be acknowledged that those of us who adhere to it must accept that we have to shrug and admit that we can't prove your ludicrous notion, mainly because you've chosen to make it ludicrous.

And even Richard Dawkins admits that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 05:20 PM

"...if you have a position you wish to promote then you need to argue it with evidence..."

In that, we agree. I understand your personal use of the term, and as you remember, I also respond with concern when someone's 'faith' requires them to ignore, distort factual scientific research. That is another issue from the one on popular definitions of the word atheist.

In practice, my position looks & feels very similar to atheism... I just prefer agnostic as a label. I simply do not "know" about certain things like "in the beginning"... so *shrug*

I know the arguments for.. and against.. the rationale that "all things that exist must have a "cause", therefore something must have 'caused' the Universe." Cosmologists speculate.. and theologians insist. I am neither. I would bet that the answer is technically un-knowable.... but I don't even "know' that.

Meanwhile, watching the science and semi-science puzzle over it at least is more interesting reading than rehashing convoluted theological contortions.

Onward....

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 04:13 PM

"Atheist simply means NOT believing in such a position."

Not to me does it. If I were to say I don't believe in your position, I'm arguing on your territory. Instead, I'm just saying that if you have a position you wish to promote then you need to argue it with evidence if it's to be on my radar for consideration. I do get directly interested when I'm told that evidence-innocent notions have "deep truths" or when such notions are foisted on young people in schools or on the citizens of countries that are led by religious zealots. Otherwise, have fun with your "beliefs." Reality is far more colourful and far more beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 10:18 PM

"Atheist faith" is a category error. It is a misunderstanding of what atheist actually means.

Faith means belief IN something....usually referring to some theological position. Atheist simply means NOT believing in such a position.

I prefer to NOT be called an atheist, because it is usually taken to mean DISbelief... or denial, and I simply can't prove anything about such claims. When people make assertions about some particular 'belief' system, my stance is to be skeptical... to doubt... to need better evidence than is usually offered.
   I understand why many people DO accept some theological position... all sorts and all kinds... from all over the world throughout history. I personally just don't **need** some absolute answer to 'the meaning of life' in order to live a decent, happy life.... but I am also resistant to anyone suggesting that I should--- and when those who DO have such beliefs attempt to insert their brand of belief system into either my life, or my country's political system, I object. I always feel it is reasonable to meet claims with explanations of why such claims fail to convince. There are good reasons to doubt and to expect that 'beliefs' be respected... but restricted to areas which do NOT impinge on how I live my life.

   I have debated all this before here.... there is little doubt about my position(s)..or lack of positions. It is kind of disappointing to see it rise over & over.

I was trying to read Donuel's speculations about new discoveries in physics and cosmology, when religion again crept in. I'll go back and try again...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 08:32 PM

I'm no crusading atheist, Bill. I merely shrug and ask for evidence. Invariably, I then shrug some more...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 08:29 PM

A "crusading atheist" - whatever that is supposed to be - is infinitely preferable to a crusading moron.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 03:57 PM

Oh dear Steve ; still crusading atheist ....    “....applying faith ....unless it’s atheist faith in a Godless explanation , it seems !

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 19 - 07:27 PM

"Whether one approaches cosmological questions from religion or science, the cosmology proceeds unconcerned and uninterrupted.

I support anyone's quest to understand the cosmic questions from any perspective they choose."

Bullshit. I support anyone's quest to understand any questions, cosmic or otherwise, from the standpoint of requiring evidence. You won't answer any cosmic question, or any other scientific question, by applying faith or evidence-innocent belief. I think you know this. So let's not cut the God Squad any slack on this. We've indulged them enough for far too many centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Nov 19 - 06:13 PM

I admire your knowledge of the subject Donuel , even though I differ from your position, but I appreciate your humility before all the problems of standard cosmology .

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Nov 19 - 07:08 AM

We'll leave that to the god-botherers who prefer to live in a fact-free and/or reality averse universe.

You missed-out Politicians - mind you I contend politics is a religion (aka belief system).

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 19 - 07:15 PM

Which came first, waves or particles?
I still can not reconcile all aspects of the double slit experiment even after watching a macro version of it happening in real time.
I see the beauty in cosmic systems but the moment I ask why,
understanding usually evaporates to nothing. Certainty becomes uncertain like an optical illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 19 - 06:46 PM

5 Mysteries the Standard model can't explain

1. Why do neutrinos have mass?
Three of the Standard Model’s particles are different types of neutrinos. The Standard Model predicts that, like photons, neutrinos should have no mass.

However, scientists have found that the three neutrinos oscillate, or transform into one another, as they move. This feat is only possible because neutrinos are not massless after all.

“If we use the theories that we have today, we get the wrong answer,” says André de Gouvêa, a professor at Northwestern University.

The Standard Model got neutrinos wrong, but it remains to be seen just how wrong. After all, the masses neutrinos have are quite small.

Is that all the Standard Model missed, or is there more that we don’t know about neutrinos? Some experimental results have suggested, for example, that there might be a fourth type of neutrino called a sterile neutrino that we have yet to discover.


2.

What is dark matter?
Scientists realized they were missing something when they noticed that galaxies were spinning much faster than they should be, based on the gravitational pull of their visible matter. They were spinning so fast that they should have torn themselves apart. Something we can’t see, which scientists have dubbed “dark matter,” must be giving additional mass—and hence gravitional pull—to these galaxies.

Dark matter is thought to make up 27 percent of the contents of the universe. But it is not included in the Standard Model.

Scientists are looking for ways to study this mysterious matter and identify its building blocks. If scientists could show that dark matter interacts in some way with normal matter, “we still would need a new model, but it would mean that new model and the Standard Model are connected,” says Andrea Albert, a researcher at the US Department of Energy’s SLAC National Laboratory who studies dark matter, among other things, at the High-Altitude Water Cherenkov Observatory in Mexico. “That would be a huge game changer.”

3.

Why is there so much matter in the universe?
Whenever a particle of matter comes into being—for example, in a particle collision in the Large Hadron Collider or in the decay of another particle—normally its antimatter counterpart comes along for the ride. When equal matter and antimatter particles meet, they annihilate one another.

Scientists suppose that when the universe was formed in the Big Bang, matter and antimatter should have been produced in equal parts. However, some mechanism kept the matter and antimatter from their usual pattern of total destruction, and the universe around us is dominated by matter.

The Standard Model cannot explain the imbalance. Many different experiments are studying matter and antimatter in search of clues as to what tipped the scales.


4.

Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?
Before scientists were able to measure the expansion of our universe, they guessed that it had started out quickly after the Big Bang and then, over time, had begun to slow. So it came as a shock that, not only was the universe’s expansion not slowing down—it was actually speeding up.

The latest measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope and the European Space Agency observatory Gaia indicate that galaxies are moving away from us at 45 miles per second. That speed multiplies for each additional megaparsec, a distance of 3.2 million light years, relative to our position.

This rate is believed to come from an unexplained property of space-time called dark energy, which is pushing the universe apart. It is thought to make up around 68 percent of the energy in the universe. “That is something very fundamental that nobody could have anticipated just by looking at the Standard Model,” de Gouvêa says.

5.

Is there a particle associated with the force of gravity?
The Standard Model was not designed to explain gravity. This fourth and weakest force of nature does not seem to have any impact on the subatomic interactions the Standard Model explains.

But theoretical physicists think a subatomic particle called a graviton might transmit gravity the same way particles called photons carry the electromagnetic force.

“After the existence of gravitational waves was confirmed by LIGO, we now ask: What is the smallest gravitational wave possible? This is pretty much like asking what a graviton is,” says Alberto Güijosa, a professor at the Institute of Nuclear Sciences at UNAM.


These five mysteries are the big questions of physics in the 21st century, Ramos says. Yet, there are even more fundamental enigmas, he says: What is the source of space-time geometry? Where do particles get their spin? Why is the strong force so strong while the weak force is so weak?

There’s much left to explore, Güijosa says. “Even if we end up with a final and perfect theory of everything in our hands, we would still perform experiments in different situations in order to push its limits.”

“It is a very classic example of the scientific method in action,” Albert says. “With each answer come more questions; nothing is ever done.”

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 19 - 11:00 AM

The speed of light can only slow down due to the medium it is in. Space energy is not bound by a speed limit when acted upon by gravity.
In turn space is shaped by mass' gravity. Good for you Pete, Space-Gravity-Time is flexible.
We still even have a huge discrepancy in answers from measuring the mass/size of a proton. The limits of knowing is omnipresent.

I wouldn't dismiss your special creation since I think creations are special.
You might see a conscience whim as a creation and I might see a sea of space energy that had finally absorbed all the mass type energy in existence and having a tiny quantum event, begin a release of the stored energy.

Since I was 6 I had a repeated dream of my own begining like a comet having to make a 'perfect' impact and location on Earth. That child like wordless sensation of perfection felt like a profound urgency.
I think differently now although I am probably not uninfluenced by my early thinking.
You can't dismiss my dream and I can not dismiss yours. :^/

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 19 - 07:07 PM

Sure there are measurements that can be made , but it still comes down to what you believe ; how those measurements are interpreted. If you can suggest that the speed of light ‘law’ might be more flexible to account for cosmic evolutionary problems , why dismiss it for a special creation?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Nov 19 - 09:07 AM

Whether one approaches cosmological questions from religion or science, the cosmology proceeds unconcerned and uninterrupted.

I support anyone's quest to understand the cosmic questions from any perspective they choose. Asking the questions is a wonder'ful thing to do. Insisting others must 'follow one path' is just arrogant, but no one has done that here Mossback. Commendable.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:49 PM

and as you say yourself it’s a matter of believe

Science is not something one "believes in". We'll leave that to the god-botherers who prefer to live in a fact-free and/or reality averse universe.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 01:22 PM

'HOW' is simply a question on the verge of being measured.

Several things will be learned at the same time;
The rate of black hole formation
The number/size of black hole mass in the universe
The proportion of black hole mass to new space formation

The new questions that will be raised are limtless

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 01:09 PM

For dark matter that is true enough. Acceleration of the universe by dark energy is my major thrust here. That too can be seen. I believe the mystery of WHY will be solvable. I offer one partial scenario. Partial because I know space can break many of our human conceived laws like the speed of light. How is simply a question that is on the verge of being measured.

When how what and why are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and satisfies scientific scrutiny we will believe it, but not because we 'believe'.

Even if the human mind is incapable of a solution I believe our humanly perseverence will continue to reveal new things

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 10:29 AM

and as you say yourself it’s a matter of believe

Er not exactly. If seeing is believing then gravitational lensing is real, measurable, and photographable. After that there is hypothesis because what causes it may not be seen, in any part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

What is more, given the right distances to stars/galaxies and the unseen thing, if there is relative motion the lensing will appear to move also. Given enough time.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 07:03 AM

He was fugal even when it came to finances.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 09:25 PM

And it won't be the last. He out-Goldberged Bach whilst paying explicit homage to him.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 09:00 PM

This is the second time you brought up those damn genius variations.
He was just showing off.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 08:10 PM

In the beginning was the Bay of Naples, the centre of the world. As for now we have Beethoven's late quartets, the last three sonatas and the Diabelli variations. The alpha, the omega, the beginning and the end of everything.