The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ThinkingMan on August 14, 2012, 08:34:24 AM

Title: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 14, 2012, 08:34:24 AM
So I was doing a bit of research into some Dark Energy theories, and I found some very interesting things.

Quote from: FAQ
Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A1: So the dark energy model here has some serious discrepancies. Yes, dark energy is theorized to be the accelerating force that is expanding the universe. The problem, however, is that dark energy accelerates space, not matter. What ever matter is caught "sitting still" within that space "moves" with it. Hence, this would not produce a gravitation like effect at all, as the matter itself is not moving, per say. Please see "Cosmological Constant" and "Alcubierre Drive."

A2: I simply have questions about the Universal Accelerator. Is it a machine of intelligent design? It is not stated to be of dark energy, or my previous statement would apply. But I am just wondering about the nature of the UA. It's been said that "no one knows what it is" by a few, but does anyone have guesses?
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Pongo on August 14, 2012, 09:01:52 AM
In order to account for observable red shift, astronomers had to come up with this odd special pleading case of dark energy expanding space and not matter so that they could keep their RE universe in light of the evidence. It's like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole and being completely satisfied with the results.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 14, 2012, 09:04:53 AM
Well the actually "dark energy" model they came up with was to fit a description that already existed. For some reason, other galaxies are moving farther and farther away, faster and faster. We do not feel these accelerations, and in order for that to happen, space itself must be accelerating.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 14, 2012, 12:38:57 PM
Once again Pongo demonstrates that he doesn't know what special pleading is.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Rushy on August 14, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
Dark Energy is also the force scientists use to explain why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, because gravity alone wouldn't explain their rigid structure. Even going as far as saying EM forces cause galaxy rigidity.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 14, 2012, 01:07:29 PM
Dark Energy is also the force scientists use to explain why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, because gravity alone wouldn't explain their rigid structure. Even going as far as saying EM forces cause galaxy rigidity.

EM is not Dark energy. I suppose this would hold true, if dark energy were completely surround the galaxy in high densities, it would hold the space together.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Rushy on August 14, 2012, 01:10:26 PM
EM is not Dark energy. I suppose this would hold true, if dark energy were completely surround the galaxy in high densities, it would hold the space together.

Where did I state that EM forces are equivalent to dark energy?
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 14, 2012, 01:27:58 PM
EM is not Dark energy. I suppose this would hold true, if dark energy were completely surround the galaxy in high densities, it would hold the space together.

Where did I state that EM forces are equivalent to dark energy?

Perhaps I misread your statement, but that's what it seemed to say.

But the point of this thread was not to discuss how galaxies are held together. I wanted to make a note on current dark energy theories that do not fit with that piece in the FAQ, and raise the rather repetitive question about the UA. Although, I'm not asking for absolute proof or anything like that, I'm just wondering what some thoughts on it are.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Kendrick on August 14, 2012, 01:34:14 PM
We all know that that galaxies are all small pinpoints of light in the celestial dome 6000 miles above us, all speculation should be done with that fact kept in mind.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 14, 2012, 01:48:22 PM
Kendrick, may I ask how you  "know" this? It seems as if you are implying that you have measured the distances yourself or something.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 14, 2012, 01:52:56 PM
We all know that that galaxies are all small pinpoints of light in the celestial dome 6000 miles above us, all speculation should be done with that fact kept in mind.

However, I'm not talking about galaxies. I understand your standpoint on FE, Kendrick. You're a true Zetetic. I was just wondering about people's ideas on the UA. What is the UA? How does it work? Any thoughts?

To really get this started, when someone says Universal Accelerator, it makes me think of some very futuristic propulsion system, perhaps driven by some sort of antimatter/fusion/other reaction. It would have to be of an incredibly massive size and have an almost limitless fuel supply. Anyone have any other ideas?
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 14, 2012, 02:10:19 PM
Hopes and dreams, because this is what it seems FET is run on!
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: markjo on August 14, 2012, 06:40:44 PM
Dark Energy is also the force scientists use to explain why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, because gravity alone wouldn't explain their rigid structure. Even going as far as saying EM forces cause galaxy rigidity.

Ummm...  No.  That's dark matter.  Dark energy is used to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:22:53 AM
UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 05:25:51 AM
Dark Energy is also the force scientists use to explain why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, because gravity alone wouldn't explain their rigid structure. Even going as far as saying EM forces cause galaxy rigidity.

Ummm...  No.  That's dark matter.  Dark energy is used to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Thank you Markjo, I was pondering on this matter and did some research. Then I saw your statement. That helps quite a bit. This delves into a physics theories I am only somewhat familiar with though. I simply stated the little that I knew about it.

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

I don't think there is a UA, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts on what one could possibly be.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:36:39 AM

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

I don't think there is a UA, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts on what one could possibly be.

My view is that it's pointless to debate any aspect of scientific theories which are disproved.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 05:38:21 AM

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

I don't think there is a UA, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts on what one could possibly be.

My view is that it's pointless to debate any aspect of scientific theories which are disproved.

At least someone gave me their viewpoint.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:40:19 AM
OK, let's discuss whether the giant dung beetle that pushes the Sun across the sky has a black shell or a green one.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 05:41:57 AM
OK, let's discuss whether the giant dung beetle that pushes the Sun across the sky has a black shell or a green one.

It's clearly green. Translucent as well.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 05:46:51 AM
OK, let's discuss whether the giant dung beetle that pushes the Sun across the sky has a black shell or a green one.

It's clearly green. Translucent as well.

Yes, that explains why we can't see it, which proves it must be there! Just like the Antimoon!
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 15, 2012, 11:19:25 PM

UA has been disproved by variance in the value of g at different locations on Earth. No data has been given by FE'ers to explain this.

I don't think there is a UA, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts on what one could possibly be.

My view is that it's pointless to debate any aspect of scientific theories which are disproved.

Good. I expect to see no more useless posts like this one from you then.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 15, 2012, 11:34:47 PM
"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy".  What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved"  Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable. 

The zetetic mind abhors such specious hypothesizing. It is enough to know we are accelerating. The exact mechanism is unknown, indeed perhaps unknowable. This is not unsettling to the mind only set on truth. Yet, after years of hearing globularists attack universal acceleration as "magic", we caved and offered up the placeholder name "Universal Accelerator" or occasionally even adopting the name "Dark Energy" to make the parallel more plain. The term "Dark Energy" in this context is analogous to Scientific Orthodoxy's "Dark Energy". It is not meant to represent the same phenomenon.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 15, 2012, 11:59:54 PM
"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy".  What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved"  Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable. 

I think you're confusing dark energy and dark matter.  Dark energy is a hypothesis to explain why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 12:05:39 AM
Not at all. The combined percentage of this imaginary "stuff" is now believed to be 97%.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 16, 2012, 12:25:53 AM
Dark matter plus dark energy might be 97%.  Once again, this is a hypothesis.  The experimental evidence may never pan out.  A competing hypothesis could fare better in the end.

Science doesn't claim to know everything, Ski, or else what would be the point of continuing research?
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 16, 2012, 12:35:12 AM
Funny how when RE science doesn't know everything, it is because we haven't figured it out yet.  But when FE science doesn't know everything, it is a nail in the coffin.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 12:43:00 AM
Dark matter plus dark energy might be 97%.  Once again, this is a hypothesis.  The experimental evidence may never pan out.  A competing hypothesis could fare better in the end.

Science doesn't claim to know everything, Ski, or else what would be the point of continuing research?

The hypothesis only exists because of experimental evidence that flies in the face of Scientific Orthodoxy! How disingenuous your statement is!
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 16, 2012, 12:53:36 AM
The hypothesis only exists because of experimental evidence that flies in the face of Scientific Orthodoxy! How disingenuous your statement is!

Yes, and models are changed over time due to these new observations.  If there were never any issues with Newton we wouldn't have moved on to Einstein's ideas.  This is hardly a secret, and it's how science progresses.

Successive models.  Newton was still close enough to reality to use in tons of situations though.  New models don't change the fact that old ones still work in certain situations.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 12:58:56 AM
So your 97% fairie-stuff mythology is likely to last indefinitely even if proven wrong. Sounds right.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 16, 2012, 01:12:28 AM
So your 97% fairie-stuff mythology is likely to last indefinitely even if proven wrong. Sounds right.

Only if it matches with future observations.  With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

I can see you're only interested in being dismissive, though, so there's little point in trying to explain how science works to you.

On a related note, i would love to hear a detailed explanation of what a zetetic does that isn't written by Lord Wilmore.  No offense to Wilmore, but his Discourse is very abstract.  I'd like to hear from a zetetic how these ideas transfer over to real world practice.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 01:39:04 AM
With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

True zeteticism is philosophy. I don't fancy myself a philosopher, but to be brief: At it's heart zeteticism is the minimization of inference and a reliance on direct observation and logic. One must seek to minimize (or eliminate) inductive reasoning in favour of the deductive.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 16, 2012, 01:48:34 AM
They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

It's a hypothesis, which I've taken pains to point out to you.  I think dark matter/energy have more support among scientists in the relevant fields, but that doesn't mean they'll ever become more than mere hypotheses, especially if predictions made by either idea are falsified in experiments.

This stuff is pretty far out there, though, I won't deny that :)
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 02:00:38 AM
The entrenched hypotheses of Orthodoxy are never touched. Only new even more "far out there" hypotheses are added to the models to protect the sacred Canon of Science. This is how you arrived at "Dark Energy" to begin with -- by building faulty assumptions upon faulty assumptions.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 16, 2012, 03:22:23 AM
They clearly are touched.  Newton's laws had to be completely rewritten with Einstein. We may need another complete rewrite to fit in these new observations, although I'd say we're too early into the investigation to say for sure.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 06:13:03 AM
"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy".  What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved"  Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable. 

The zetetic mind abhors such specious hypothesizing. It is enough to know we are accelerating. The exact mechanism is unknown, indeed perhaps unknowable. This is not unsettling to the mind only set on truth. Yet, after years of hearing globularists attack universal acceleration as "magic", we caved and offered up the placeholder name "Universal Accelerator" or occasionally even adopting the name "Dark Energy" to make the parallel more plain. The term "Dark Energy" in this context is analogous to Scientific Orthodoxy's "Dark Energy". It is not meant to represent the same phenomenon.

You are correct. It is a placeholder name. One to fill a hole in an observed phenomena. Like "God," "Thor," Zeus," and "Poseidon" before it. It is quite a fuzzy idea, that's why it's called a hypothesis. The phenomena is the acceleration of other galaxies as they move away. So scientists pondered "Why could this be? If they are accelerating away, we must be as well." After some "mathematics" on a level of which I do not yet understand, they determined that our galaxy is moving as well. We do not feel this acceleration. The only thing that fits with current scientific theory (relativity) is the acceleration of space. Space in which our galaxy is essentially not moving. So "dark energy" was hypothesized. A name given to a currently un-explained phenomena.

Thank you for explaining that your dark energy is not the same as science's. Perhaps you should use a different name? Because, as you can see, it could be easily confused. You don't have to, it's just a thought.

You seem so angry though Ski. I'm just asking a question. Do you have any ideas as to what this "universal accelerator" could be? Or is it the same as FEs "dark energy."
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: markjo on August 16, 2012, 07:49:39 AM
The entrenched hypotheses of Orthodoxy are never touched. Only new even more "far out there" hypotheses are added to the models to protect the sacred Canon of Science. This is how you arrived at "Dark Energy" to begin with -- by building faulty assumptions upon faulty assumptions.

You're kidding, right?  The "entrenched orthodoxy" has been turned on it's head so many times that it's not even funny.  Don't forget that the belief that the earth is flat was, at one time, the "entrenched orthodoxy".
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: trig on August 17, 2012, 01:14:50 PM
With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

And who says scientists absolutely believe in dark matter and/or dark energy? This is a total fabrication from you. There are no scientists declaring that either dark matter or dark matter exists. And no real scientist has closed his mind to alternatives. No real scientist will tell you that he is completely comfortable with either. It is clear that there has to be some big and yet unknown phenomenon that keeps these two problems open.

Of course, if there is a possibility that this matter is out there and is somehow detectable somebody will dedicate his career to the search, but that does not mean that they will ever claim its existence as fact. This "orthodoxy" you mention just does not exist.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 17, 2012, 01:31:09 PM
With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

And who says scientists absolutely believe in dark matter and/or dark energy? This is a total fabrication from you. There are no scientists declaring that either dark matter or dark matter exists. And no real scientist has closed his mind to alternatives. No real scientist will tell you that he is completely comfortable with either. It is clear that there has to be some big and yet unknown phenomenon that keeps these two problems open.

Of course, if there is a possibility that this matter is out there and is somehow detectable somebody will dedicate his career to the search, but that does not mean that they will ever claim its existence as fact. This "orthodoxy" you mention just does not exist.

Don't tell him that, he'll get upset! He may have nightmares, even wet the bed! I'm not cleaning it up.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: garygreen on August 17, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
Quote from: Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.

Quote from: Albert Einstein, "Ernst Mach", Physikalishe Zeitschrift 17 (1916), 102; Collected Papers vol. 6, Doc. 29
Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts, and point out the circumstances that promoted their justification and usefulness and how they evolved from the experience at hand. This breaks their all too powerful authority. They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer.

The usual FET description of the scientific community and method is patently false and intentionally misleading.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 17, 2012, 03:36:43 PM
Albert Einstein is doing a marvelous job of explaining Scientific Orthodoxy to you, and you still misrepresent him.

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. "
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 17, 2012, 03:42:26 PM
"Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts"

Selective quoting sure is fun.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 17, 2012, 03:49:19 PM
The sentence you just quotes hinges on the existence of the Orthodoxy. If Orthodoxy did not exist in the halls of science, he would not have made the quote. I am not ignoring the rest of the quote -- I highlighted part of it for the benefit of whomever posted it. Einstein is suggesting that scientists need take more seriously analyzing "the entrenched concepts". He is not saying the entrenched concepts do not exist. How can you twist the quote to say there is no entrenched ideas or a priori assumptions in the scientific community?  ???
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 17, 2012, 03:54:21 PM
And scientists are trained to question ideas the become entrenched.  I don't see what's so difficult about this  ???
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Ski on August 17, 2012, 03:56:33 PM
They clearly are doing a poor job as a whole if the Orthodoxy still exists, correct?
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 17, 2012, 04:01:09 PM
The Orthodoxy, as you put it, is constantly being questioned.  Change can be slow because scientists require more than telepathic contact with luminous moon creatures to completely rewrite everything.  They need reproducible demonstrations of shortcomings in existing models and new models that match with our observations better than existing ones.

It's happened in the past and continues to happen today.  Once again, I don't see the problem.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: garygreen on August 17, 2012, 05:07:51 PM
Albert Einstein is doing a marvelous job of explaining Scientific Orthodoxy to you, and you still misrepresent him.

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. "

That's the setup.  You're ignoring the end of the quote where Einstein says, "They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer."

Of course the exists a scientific orthodoxy.  No one is denying that.  Sometimes those orthodoxies are very difficult for the scientific community to abandon.  No one is denying that, either.  Nevertheless, many, many deeply held scientific orthodoxies have been uprooted throughout the history of science, like aether, caloric, absolute space, geocentrism, etc.

My point is that the description of the scientific community as one that never questions/abandons its most fundamental assumptions is patently and demonstrably false.  This is because, as my Feynman quote makes clear, science already knows that it does not currently (and might never) have access to the fundamental laws of physics.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: trig on August 17, 2012, 05:12:28 PM
The Orthodoxy, as you put it, is constantly being questioned.  Change can be slow because scientists require more than telepathic contact with luminous moon creatures to completely rewrite everything.  They need reproducible demonstrations of shortcomings in existing models and new models that match with our observations better than existing ones.

It's happened in the past and continues to happen today.  Once again, I don't see the problem.
Also, only Ski is claiming that the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are part of the beliefs of the "Orthodoxy". Neither Einstein nor any other scientist has been shown to even talk about Dark Matter or Dark Energy in any way consistent with the idea of "orthodoxy".
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: rayman on August 17, 2012, 06:39:50 PM
Dark Matter and Dark Energy as just place holder names for the physical phenomena they can't explain yet.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: markjo on August 17, 2012, 07:59:15 PM
Albert Einstein is doing a marvelous job of explaining Scientific Orthodoxy to you, and you still misrepresent him.

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. "

You do realize that you are quoting a man who upset the previous "scientific orthodoxy" with a theory that became the new "scientific orthodoxy", don't you?
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 20, 2012, 05:59:54 AM
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 20, 2012, 06:09:51 AM
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 20, 2012, 06:22:36 AM
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 20, 2012, 06:31:47 AM
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?

You should make an angry rant.  I bet you would make a good one.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: trig on August 20, 2012, 06:56:17 AM
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.
I completely agree with you. FET has just one hole: the complete and total incapacity to come up with one single prediction that is better than what real science predicts. Even the "the Earth looks flat" thing only comes up equally good as real science, and only if you are looking towards the sea or large lake from a place lower than 40000 feet or so, and you ignore the fact that the border between water and sky looks perfectly sharp.

And real science has more holes than anyone can count. If the number of holes was relevant in any way, FET would be unbeatable. Thankfully, the number of holes is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 20, 2012, 08:15:20 AM
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?

You should make an angry rant.  I bet you would make a good one.

Maybe I will.... But then wouldn't I get banned like TK?
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 20, 2012, 02:51:16 PM
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?

You should make an angry rant.  I bet you would make a good one.

Maybe I will.... But then wouldn't I get banned like TK?

No, not if you do it in the Angry Rants section.  You can even cuss at us there.
Title: Re: Dark Energy & the UA
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 21, 2012, 04:51:40 AM
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?

You should make an angry rant.  I bet you would make a good one.

Maybe I will.... But then wouldn't I get banned like TK?

No, not if you do it in the Angry Rants section.  You can even cuss at us there.

Eh. I can't get angry at people who are mentally challenged, it's not their fault.