Dark Energy is real: WiggleZ galaxy project proves Einstein was right again

Thanks, great graphics!

This mysterious energy, that defies gravity, makes up about 72 percent of the Universe, with the remaining 24 percent constituting dark matter, and 4 percent making up the planets, stars and galaxies that we normally hear about.

Agreed dark energy still fits with all known theories of gravity, but the MOG theory of gravity by John Moffat credibly modifies Einstein's gravity equations to eliminate the undetectable "dark matter", to correct black hole theories for the singularity problem, and many other advances.

http://en.wikiped...ysicist)

1. The discovery of acceleration was an enormous shock, because it went against everything we thought we knew about gravity,

2. WiggleZ says dark energy is real. Einstein remains untoppled,

3. . . . knowing that dark energy exists has advanced astronomers' understanding of the origin, evolution and fate of the Universe,

Have these scientists considered nuclear rest mass data:

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

Is Dark Energy simply another name for Neutron Repulsion [1,2]?

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON
Journal, in press (2011) 19 pages

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?" The
Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Will the people who did not believe dark energy and dark matter existed please admit they failed! We know who you are. Government workers wearing white suits will soon be knocking on your door.

Agreed dark energy still fits with all known theories of gravity, but the MOG theory of gravity by John Moffat credibly modifies Einstein's gravity equations to eliminate the undetectable "dark matter", to correct black hole theories for the singularity problem, and many other advances.

Dark matter has been indirectly detected and we know it is there.

Dark matter has been indirectly detected and we know it is there.

Actually, no.

A force discrepancy was indirectly detected.

I don't recall anyone claiming to have actually detected a cloud of invisible WIMP particles.

Is this a:

a.) "Neutron Repulsion Video"?

www.youtube.com/w...yLYSiPO0

b.) Or a "Dark Energy Video"?

Nuclear rest mass data for every nucleus with two or more neutrons confirms "neutron repulsion" [1].

Would Professor Drinkwater say that these data confirm "dark energy"?

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy" Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001):

http://www.omatum...tnuc.pdf

Einstein fudges his model so it doesn't collapse, they find the universe is expanding so his model doesn't need the fudge, years later data suggests the universe is accelerating so the fudge goes back in, proving Einstein was... Psychic. :)

The cult of personality wins again Einstein is right even when he is wrong

Rgds
James

I don't mean to be pessemistic, but it appears that all they have done is confirm that all their observations for distance of galaxies measure up to each other. I don't see how einstein is even involved in this.

The title of this article should be "Wiggle Z proves that different galactic measurement types are consistent with each other."

And it should continue in the article that "This puts constraints on any types of observational bias that we have when using these methods, because if there is any observational bias, it would have to affect each method the same way.

As for einstein's gravity and dark matter...it means nothing. It only more confirms more that certain measurements are probably right as they are measured. Which most people already assumed...

A question, a question...

When the redshifts are measured, how do we know that the remote stars and galaxies are not just on some large path that will eventually turn them moving closer towards us?

As for einstein's gravity and dark matter...it means nothing. It only more confirms more that certain measurements are probably right as they are measured. Which most people already assumed...

Is that because none of them are using anything but the old physics equations that as this guy says:

Although the exact physics required to explain dark energy still remains a mystery, knowing that dark energy exists has advanced astronomers' understanding of the origin, evolution and fate of the Universe,

: are not exact?

If I keep plugging the same equations into the Source Engine, I'm still gonna get Half Life 2...

lengould100: Thanks for pointing out Moffat's work. The great thing about his theory is that it will be falsifiable based on the LHC work. If they do not find a Higgs then he will have a lot of evidence in his favor. If they do find a Higgs he will have to totally revise/discard his theory. I look forward to the LHC reports in the future. They are speculating that they will find or rule out the Higgs by the end of 2012. That puts a strong timeline on MOG support.

I should have added that the only thing the WiggleZ has provided is further proof that our present theory of gravity doesn't correctly explain the rotation of galaxies. The discrepancy can be corrected either by postulating a huge mass of undetectable matter (6x all known detectable) which only interacts with detectable matter via gravity, or that the equations of gravity we're presently using aren't sufficiently precise. And, if detecting or not the Higgs boson is a factor in the existence of dark matter or not, that would be news to me. Though I admit that is one possiblity, i haven't the time to stay totally current in these issues. Is someone proposing the existence of huge masses of unattached Higgs bosons in tight bands around the outsides of galaxies?

@Lengould

Don't make me disagree with you when I'm on your side. They've done the simulations with theoretical and still unfound particles that support the conclusion of dark matter without modification of gravity. So I believe that this gives no evidence to either side, especially since MGT has been teased out the same way as dark matter theory.

Now, on your side, believe if you fiddle with the numbers enough, you can find something that will work in any scenario...ergo dark matter theory will have a hard time dying, because this method of looking has often found things, such as neptune and pluto.

Einstein fudges his model so it doesn't collapse, they find the universe is expanding so his model doesn't need the fudge, years later data suggests the universe is accelerating so the fudge goes back in, proving Einstein was... Psychic. :)

The cult of personality wins again Einstein is right even when he is wrong

Rgds
James

wrong^2 = right

He was right in that there must exist gravatational energy in empty space by virtue of the curvature of space,...not really a fudge, although his motivation seemed to be for a static universe.

That annoys me that the researchers don't find anything wrong with a smooth uniform surface of dark energy. So it doesn't interact with the rest of the universe in any way except to expand it equally at all parts. Why don't they just call it the cosmological constant? That is all it is as they see it, the cosmological constant with an expansion modifier on it.

Maybe Einstein was smarter than we gave him credit for...

lengould100: You said: "And, if detecting or not the Higgs boson is a factor in the existence of dark matter or not, that would be news to me." I was not saying that. What I was saying is the MOG by Moffat predicts there is no Higgs. The standard model predicts there is. They can't both be correct. Finding or not finding the Higgs will differentiate the two.

railroad tracks, anyone?

It is all illusion.

What I was saying is the MOG by Moffat predicts there is no Higgs. The standard model predicts there is. They can't both be correct. Finding or not finding the Higgs will differentiate the two.

If I remember correctly, Higgs predicted the Higgs Boson, not the standard model. It fits within the standard model's framework, but there are plenty of alternates that would fit within, and outside the standard model without disrupting it.

Based on it's likelyhood of being the right choice within the standard model, the chance of finding it is pegged at 6 to 1 against. So it's a fractional chance to those who believe the standard model is correct.

Not saying there is anything currently wrong with MOG, but just stirring the pot with some facts.

thermo:

What I was saying is the MOG by Moffat predicts there is no Higgs. The standard model predicts there is. They can't both be correct. Finding or not finding the Higgs will differentiate the two.

I think you should qualify this statement. I thought Moffat's theory predicted a fifth force/particle, that "weakens" gravity on small scales. The Higgs boson might still exist but possibily at a different energy level.
(full disclosure: I think it would be cool if MOG were correct.)

So... this article proves that the universe is increasing in its rate of expansion? Is that it? Its big, yes, but isn't the term dark energy misleading? or are they just trying to avoid calling it the dark force? haha,

To be honest I don't see how dark energy relates to a wave versus a particle in this experiment, or all of the previous ones (including papers and journals).

As far as I know, it could be a massless partical that simply spread out like water. Unfortunately neither theory really addresses how this force has an impact on space other than expansion.

How about this. Space it made up zero point dimensions, that have fixed orientations relative to each other, but can vary in density, ie gravitational fields. This would mean that light slows as it approaches a gravitational well, and it increases when space is expanded. (Didn't someone try to prove this?)

What if the speed of light was just slower back then?

@that_guy

I think your statement is the truest. This study seems to confirm the consistency of various forms of measurement within the universe. And this in itself is great. It does not prove that space has an energy level. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe, should it be occurring at all, is not proved and if it is happening, it could have a variety of causes.

When physics theories start getting that complex something is not right about these theories...

"The cult of personality wins again Einstein is right even when he is wrong

Rgds
James"

I couldn't agree more, James. Great remark, and btw, many internetpages show the overwhelming evidence that Einstein was an incorrigible plagiarist, and even worse: he also destroyed the work of good experimentists, for instance the work of Dayton Miller.

So what is this "dark energy", what causes the "exponential expansion" of the "universe" (an idea strongly based on the big bang theory)? Anti-matter galaxies anyone (idea by prof. Santilli: repulsive gravity between matter and anti-matter)?

It is clear what fundamental contributions Einstein made and what was from others. The notion that Einstein was a plagiarist is ridiculous. This shows an immature conception of how science works. You don't get to be Einstein by stealing others work! The only thing that I find hard to believe is that he was unaware as he says, of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment.

Anti-matter galaxies anyone (idea by prof. Santilli: repulsive gravity between matter and anti-matter)?

Wouldn't there have to be an even mix of galaxies and anti-galaxies,... and since occasionally galaxies collide wouldn't such a galaxy / anti-galaxy collision be,.. ummm, obvious for lack of a better word.

A suggestion for the Mods:

Wouldn't it make more sense to include cosmology/anstro-physics in the Physics category, rather than in Earth. IOW, have Physics/Cosmology separate from Earth sciences.

And to make sure the Mods gets this post,..... Boobies.

When physics theories start getting that complex something is not right about these theories...

I agree.

Here is another thing I cannot understand. If the expansion of the universe is accelerating wouldn't most of the redshift we observe have occurred in the last few billion years and not in the first few billion years after the Big Bang? Where am I going wrong on this?

Next interesting result I'm watching for is the experiment to determine if antimatter has negative gravity. (I'm guessing not)

Here's a question. If background radiation is the radiation emitted at the big bang, and it traveled outward from a "point source" much faster than the matter, why is it still around here?

Where should it be,... over "there". Remember that spacetime expanded as well.

@Question:

Here is another thing I cannot understand. If the expansion of the universe is accelerating wouldn't most of the redshift we observe have occurred in the last few billion years and not in the first few billion years after the Big Bang? Where am I going wrong on this?

I'm not sure there is a problem in what you say. The difference between redshifts of light from 13 to 12 billion years ago would be smaller than of light from 4 to 3 billion years ago. I believe this is true. It isn't a problem. The scale just isn't linear.

@lg100: The CMB is everywhere. I'm not sure what else to say. I am pretty sure the problem in your question is that it didn't travel outward from a "point source". The empty spaces aren't. They have a residual temperature of 2.7K, the CMBR.

@Noumenon: Such vulgar language. My ears! Always seemed like these articles were in the wrong place.

When physics theories start getting that complex something is not right about these theories...

I agree.

Nature is simple.

Binary thinking is the problem.

Trying to force Nature to fit "what should be."

Strong, short-range forces become weak at long range.

Weak, long-range forces become powerful at short range.

On the scale of atoms and molecules, likes attract/unlikes repel.

On the subatomic scale of neutrons protons and electrons, unlikes attract/likes repel.

Those who insist on fitting Nature into one of the either/or boxes of binary thinking will be forever frustrated and angry.

E.g., insults, anger, and frustrations in:

www.physorg.com/n...-ic.html

When physics theories start getting that complex something is not right about these theories...

Hypothesis, not theory.

When physics theories start getting that complex something is not right about these theories...

It's a mistake to presume anything of reality,... that it should be intuitively simple and therefore intellectually satisfying.

Pyle: I still don't get. From what I have read you have to go back in time to about 6 billion lightyears before we observe a redshift of 1. From there on back it goes up in a nearly parabolic curve until at around 13 lightyears the redshift increases to about 6. This just doesn't seem right if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. It would seem to me it should be the opposite, while the redshift at 13 billion lightyears would be the most, the rate of change should be the fastest nearest to the present time. Isn't the universe expanding much faster today? Wouldn't a faster expansion equal a faster rate of change in the redshift?

@Question, you're not taking into consideration wind resistance.

Ok, sorry,...redshift measures the expanding space,.. so the further the light has to travel the more space it encounters to shift the light spectrum,.. so wouldn't a expanding universe be a function of the RATIO of distance to redshift? It which case it would be possible higher (lower) ratio closer in time, as you suggest.

@Q: redshift is a ratio, observed wavelength over emitted wavelength - 1. It isn't linear. You seem to be thinking of it as such. If the wavelength doubles the redshift is 1. If it doubles again the redshift is 3. Again 7. The older light is 3 times as old with 7 times the redshift. If you accelerate the expansion the same concept holds and the redshift of the older light is even larger.

And oh yeah. Wind resistance. tks noumie

Redshift measures the expanding space,.. so the further light travels the more space it encounters to shift the light spectrum.

While that is true, I mentioned that. But that is not what I'm questioning, I am questioning the rate at which the redshift changes.

Redshift measures the expanding space,.. so the further light travels the more space it encounters to shift the light spectrum.

While that is true, I mentioned that. But that is not what I'm questioning, I am questioning the rate at which the redshift changes.

Ok you're right,sorry, Pyles answer made better sense.

@omatumr:

Those who insist on fitting Nature into one of the either/or boxes of binary thinking will be forever frustrated and angry.

Yeah. Frustrated with the likes of you. Crank away, but come up with something more and stop with the same tired old WRONG nonsense. Neutrons decaying into Hydrogen atoms does NOT expand space. It takes up more space, but it does not expand space. You can't or won't learn more about what you are talking about so stop talking. It is beyond irritating to see your smug congratulatory statements on every other article right before you plug your same old tired rejected ideas.

Oops. That wasn't nice. I wasn't supposed to say anything at all, was I? Hmmmmph.

@Q: redshift is a ratio, observed wavelength over emitted wavelength - 1. It isn't linear. You seem to be thinking of it as such. If the wavelength doubles the redshift is 1. If it doubles again the redshift is 3. Again 7. The older light is 3 times as old with 7 times the redshift. If you accelerate the expansion the same concept holds and the redshift of the older light is even larger.

And oh yeah. Wind resistance. tks noumie

I can understand that the redshift would be larger the further one looks back in time. That is not the question. I am referring to the rate at which the redshift changes. The rate of change in the observed redshift is much greater between 12 and 13 billion lighyears than it is today between the present time and 1 billion lightyears. How can that be when the universe is expanding faster today than it was 13 billion years ago?

The Tao of Pooh"

May help dogmatic religionists and wannabe scientists (identical twins) realize the futility of trying to win arguments.

The first story, "The Vinegar Tasters" (pp. 1-7) illustrates the advantage of accepting what is, whether or not it fits your idea of what should be.

..... "with kind regards".

Q:It is math. You don't seem to be considering the redshift equation. If you were at the point where the 12 bln year old light emanated the redshift from the 13 bln year old light would be say .4. Now their redshifts, as observed from here, are say 5 and 6. The redshift of the 1 billion year old light is say .5. More than 1 billion year old light under slower expansion. In 12 billion more years at some distant observation point the redshift from here and the one billion year old light source would be like 5.8 and 6.9

All of these numbers are bogus of course. I could have taken the time to make them accurate, but I am lazy. Sorry. I think it gets the point across, maybe??? Just trying to help.

It may not be a simple relation like that. Cosmological scales involve a spacial metric and the mechanics of general relativity. It's not simply redshift as due to a galaxy moving away,.. but involve the expansion and curvature of space.

Thanks for your efforts Pyle. That is exactly the point I am trying to make, and yes you do have your figures wrong, they are not even close. You have the differences backwards. Between 12 and 13 billion light years it is closer to a redshift difference of 2, the whole number two. And at one billion light years there is about a redshift difference of .1, one tenth. It is a redshift of 1 at about 6 billion lightyears. Again how is it possible that the rate of redshift change is much greater between 12 and 13 billion lightyears than it is between the present time and 1 billion lightyears? After all isn't the universe expanding much faster today than it was 12 billion years ago?

Next interesting result I'm watching for is the experiment to determine if antimatter has negative gravity. (I'm guessing not)

Here's a question. If background radiation is the radiation emitted at the big bang, and it traveled outward from a "point source" much faster than the matter, why is it still around here?

To elaborate on my above reply, due to the expansion of space itself, distances can exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe.

Q: I'll give it one last try. byol = billion year old light
Observed now, using your numbers, redshift of 1 byol = .1
observed 12 bln yrs ago redshift of 1 byol = .09 for instance. This is because expansion has accelerated. I totally made up that number, but it is the right idea assuming expansion has accelerated.

Observed now, you say the difference between 12 and 13 byol is redshift 2
Observed 12 billion years in future difference between 12 and 13 byol will be 2.3. Again, I totally made up that number, but they move in the right direction if accelerating expansion is assumed.

Redshift gets bigger, faster the older the light without accelerating expansion. With it, only more so. CMBR, less than 1 billion years older than Gamma ray bursts with redshift 8 have red shift over 1000.

Hopefully I helped somebody and wasn't way off.

Pyle: I cannot quite follow you last posting but below is a link that shows clearly that the further one looks back in time the faster the Z rate increases. Isn't that the opposite of what you are claiming?
http://www.astro....l200.gif

No, that is exactly what I said, I thought. "Redshift gets bigger, faster the older the light" This is because the formula for redshift is (observed wavelength/emitted)-1. If the wavelength is given time to double the z = 1 if the time doubles again, with no accelerated expansion the z = 3, triples, z = 7. With some acceleration it might go 1.1, 3.2, 7.3. The older gets bigger faster because you are comparing it to it's emitted wavelength and it started stretching faster more recently when it was already long.

I think I see what you are saying but I still have a problem with it. For example if you have a redshift of 1 which doubles the wavelength wouldn't it take longer to double it again? Now you have double the length to increase the Z with a factor of 1 to 2. In other words you have to double the velocity of the expansion to accomplish this in the same time period. But if that were happening, after several doubling, wouldn't we be able to notice this increase in redshift in the nearby universe? We don't, we have to go back about 6 billion lightyears to observe a Z of 1.

When physics theories start getting that complex something is not right about these theories...

Newtons classic gravitational formulation is pretty simple. Einsteins are much more complicated. Yet Einsteins equations have proven correct time and time again.

Complexity is simply not a valid criteria for judging correctness.

What gets me about the cosmic expansion theory is it clearly contradicts itself and other known physics.

According to estimates of the universe's mass, and according to the escape velocity formula and schwartzchild radius formula, the universe would be a black hole if it's KNOWN mass were contained inside a radius of 10billion light years.

10 billion light years is only SLIGHTLY smaller than the known observable universe. In fact, almost all of the mass that is actually observed is inside the 10 billion ly distance, because beyond about 13 to 13.5 billion ly everything is so heavily red shifted most stuff would not be detectable anyway.

Thus the universe could NOT have expanded from less than 10 billion ly, because it would have been a black hole before then.

When physics theories start getting that complex something is not right about these theories...

Newtons classic gravitational formulation is pretty simple. Einsteins are much more complicated. Yet Einsteins equations have proven correct time and time again.

Complexity is simply not a valid criteria for judging correctness.

You may be correct but Einstein theory of gravitation may not be the final gravitational theory. For example his theory does not explain "weight" that I am aware of. If not that is a glaring omission,isn't it?

Man...

where have you been?

Accelerated reference frames...

Weight ends up being one of the easiest things to explain in Relativity.

When physics theories start getting that complex something is not right about these theories...

The Universe need not be simple because we say so.

Man...

where have you been?

Accelerated reference frames...

Weight ends up being one of the easiest things to explain in Relativity.

How does gravity create or cause an "accelerated reference frame"? Where does the energy gained by a falling object come from?

I understand Question.

The mutual interaction taking place for a point of emission, a point of detection, an exponential rate of expansion of space and time...

...if I weren't so dense, the holy grail analogy can not be far off...

...an infinite musical keyboard expanding AND moving, all the notes, of which, are fixed, progressing geometrically from their frequencies perspective, exhibiting ever increasing gaps of frequency range, between each fixed frequency, the spaces between each note physically expanding exponentially.... just give me time...the holy grail analogies need more time...no more trains or elevators or twins will do here...

By the way, your German counterparts are discussing this exact same article in a German forum as well.

Yet, the dark energy subject turn their focus on Heisenberg's Uncertainty ...you guys go GR, and they go QM...
go figure...

Hushpuppy: The Germans are just better at math.

Pyle

lol. My melting pot (family) is German/American with an over unity of hard sciences (all post doc grads).

We just mutual agree we to say (to those outside the family), we are the better complimentary halves to each other.

Of course, you see the tight rope act of diplomacy in the reply to your comment. A "peace activist", if you will.

:)

To know that you do not know is best.
To pretend to know what you do not know
Is a disease" - Lao-tse ~500 BC

The quote explains the disease that afflicts Western science today.

Illustrated by the Three Vinegar Tasters in the book "Tao of Pooh":

www.edepot.com/ta...ers.html

Unwilling to be guided by experimental observations, e.g.,

Dark energy is proposed; Neutron repulsion is ignored:

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

www.youtube.com/w...yLYSiPO0

Ah, I see.
I see a translation. A quoted translation. I am a professional translator. (Not only)

With all due respect, I will ask you not to quote Lao-tse without a Translator's Note. My request insures your protection against a translator's insufficiency or incompetence.

There are hundreds of equivalencies to these translated quotes....knowing your limitations is best, dishonest ignorance is pathological...in short, you have no idea what Lao-tse spoke, said or meant. You do know the 'quote' is in English. And English, as well as any language, has intrinsic bias, not just the 'contamination' of the translator.

The quoted translation airs your rationalization to cope with...yes, a sick world. Mutual accusations are here. The world proclaims you sick. You proclaim the world sick. And no one is the wiser just yet.

Ah, I see. I see a translation. A quoted translation.

I am a professional translator. (Not only)

Thanks, hush 1, for this information.

I would appreciate your comments on the possibility that "made" and "became" are two translations of the same original word in scriptural stories that

a.) God "made" the universe, and

b.) God "became" the universe.

A great deal of the conflict between science and spirituality seems to arise from the idea that

a.) An infinite God "made" a finite universe in some imaginary event (Big Bang), versus

b.) An infinite God became the infinite universe.

Thanks, hush 1, for your assistance.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

One to one equivalency in meaning when translating is not possible for us, at present.

Obviously, for every language (at present approx. 7000+) a translation exists for every original word of scripture.

Or not.

Called "Untranslatability". At that point the translator can paraphrase. (Actually a translator can do more than this)

The "great deal.." is probably a reference to semantics existing within a single language. (No consensus about meaning)

One way to "beat the system" is to know all 7000+ languages.
Translation is no longer needed. Then only two more barriers exist:
.1)Words assigned more the one meaning.
.2)Consensus to meaning.

Nature has other "plans" for our languages. Unless we find a way to retrieve extinct languages, we are gonna do some serious repeating. The "mother" of all learning.

I never tired to quote Wittgenstein and for the sake of the English readers here, in English:

"The limits of your language(s) are the limits of your world."

Your Welcome

Thanks again, hush 1, for your comment.

Can we agree that the apparent conflict between science and spirituality arises from the definition (image) of an infinite God that "made" our finite universe in some imaginary event ("Big Bang") at the beginning of time, t = 0?

Can we also agree that there would be little or no conflict between science and spirituality with the definition (image) of an infinite God that "became" our infinite universe?

Again, hush 1, I appreciate your assistance.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Yes. You and I can agree. We can agree all we want. Obviously, the rest of those of science and/or spirituality must agree as well (consensus).

Actually, I quipped on another thread, universal consensus is easy.

.1)Everyone agrees there is climate.
.2)Everyone agrees climate changes.
(I left the thread after the second assertion - no longer having the need to demonstrate universal agreement)

The vocabulary we use depends on agreement. The greater the agreement(consensus), the more the vocabulary is use (math).

Words are maps. Maps are never territories. At least not in the Universe of our Words. There are languages without words. By no stretch of the imagination there is consensus. With or without words.

Typo corrections:
use=used

You two should get a room.

No seriously. I lost Manuel's point and am afraid how it is going to tie back to dark energy / cosmological constant / expansion. Hush1 isn't funny at all but actually making valid points about linguistics, which I can't stand without cognitive science thrown in and philosophy tossed out.

Yes. You and I can agree. We can agree all we want. Obviously, the rest of those of science and/or spirituality must agree as well (consensus).

Thanks again, Hush 1.

I will not try to speak for you, but I suspect that we also agree with the late Dr. Michael Crichton on the value of consensus in science:

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science.

If it's consensus, it isn't science.

If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

--Michael Crichton, The Caltech Michelin Lecture, 17 January 2003

By way of explanation, Hush 1:

In gratitude for 50+ years of continuous discovery since I started research on the origin of the solar system in 1960,

In the final book (in progress) summarizing my career, "A Journey to the Core of the Sun"

I hope to be able to help the scientific community realize that the apparent conflict between science and spirituality is foolish.

It may even hinge on which word was selected ("made" or became") to translate the same original word in ancient scriptures.

Experientially, the insights that I have received into the messages carried by experimental data have been like "manna from heaven" much like spiritual insights during meditation.

- Oliver

Sorry @Om,

But ancient manuscripts bare no relationship with universe creation - However it was done. One must at some point decide that the universe started long before man came into being. And furthermore that anything we have to say about it is merely an interpretation of what we have thus far seen.

This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that what is said about it in any old document - no matter how it is interpreted is nothing more than someones story and any relationship with the real world is simply accidental.

Hush1 isn't funny at all but actually making valid points about linguistics, which I can't stand without cognitive science thrown in and philosophy tossed out.

Consensus.

My comments never left the realm of meaning assigned to words and language. Pyle is right. On all counts.

The conflict stems from application ("the WORK of science"). Math enjoys consensus. The definitions enjoy consensus. Applications of math have no consensus. I being over-simplistic to demonstrated to all readers a conflict does not arise from consensus.

Again, Pyle is right. Your hopes are in vain. No one can understand the foolishness of conflict without consensus to words, languages, definitions and meanings thereof.

I'd add that science is recognized to have made "progress" when consensus is reached. Usually this occurs after some demonstrable feat. A prediction. A repeatable observation. But in any event the consensus of the scientific body is usually the signal that "AH HA! We understand more!" Expansion has been in that consensus area for quite a while now. Everyone is searching for the new idea to pull the consensus to, but so far, no dice. (Look hush, no linguistics! Now say something funny already.)

kevinrtrs did it.
:)
Physorg servers donated in token gesture of appreciation to new Kevinrtrs Foundation. All members here please re-registered.

Can we also agree that there would be little or no conflict between science and spirituality with the definition (image) of an infinite God that "became" our infinite universe?

I would agree. I would also say that there would also be no intersection of science and spirituality if this were true. I would then ask, what is the point of that "image" of a god? Does it provide anything meaningful at all? How would the Universe be any different if that were true or if it were not? How could we ever support the hypothesis? Feel free to respond via PM so this doesn't become another one of "those" threads.

Can we also agree that there would be little or no conflict between science and spirituality with the definition (image) of an infinite God that "became" our infinite universe?

I would agree. I would also say that there would also be no intersection of science and spirituality if this were true. I would then ask, what is the point of that "image" of a god? Does it provide anything meaningful at all?

Thanks, Skultch.

I suspect that "images" of god (G) and universe (U) are inherently flawed.

Is that why religions and the "Big Bang" encounter so much resistance?

If G and U are undefinable, are they simply different aspects of reality?

Others have pondered this issue:

1. Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung

http://press.prin...042.html

2. Isaac Newton

www.isaacnewton.c...lium.htm

kevinrtrs did it.
:)
Physorg servers donated in token gesture of appreciation to new Kevinrtrs Foundation. All members here please re-registered.

I think I understood this one. And it was funny

I suspect that "images" of god (G) and universe (U) are inherently flawed.....If G and U are undefinable, are they simply different aspects of reality?

If they were /both/ different aspects of the same reality, what does that even mean? If they are undefinable, then what does that say about religion? If they are essentially the same thing, just different descriptors or something, doesn't that mean that religion, being contingent upon an intervening creator, is completely baseless?

If G and U are different views of infinite reality, perhaps spirituality and science are different approaches to the same reality.

If G and U are different views of infinite reality, perhaps spirituality and science are different approaches to the same reality.

Right, but that's not what I'm asking. If this is true, what are the implications of an interventionist creator? If the creator is not separate, but IS its creation, doesn't that then mean that there couldn't ever be evidence of said intervention, even in principle? Does that not completely remove religion from the realm of science forever? Doesn't that then mean that prayer is utterly pointless to a person who needs at least /some/ evidence to move this religion thing from hypothesis into theory?

Skultch, you agreed. "Right....(then comes the self dialogue: One of the approaches is NOT reconcilable within your understanding)

One reality, Many approaches.
Many will attack this.
Not because this lacks potential to resolve conflict.
Because,odds are, one of the (infinite)approaches will NOT be reconcilable within one's own understanding.

Omatumr asks too much (of humans).
It is easy to write: Omniscient Understanding=no conflict.
More conjecture for us. "Conflict", the word, is obviously "useful" to us. We even project this meaning to our understanding of everything:
Life and Death conflicts with each other.

1. If this is true, what are the implications of an interventionist creator?

2. If the creator is not separate, . . . doesn't that then mean that there couldn't ever be evidence of said intervention, even in principle?

1. If G and U are different views of one reality, which is the creator?

G or U?

2. If we are integral parts of infinite G/U, might we be able change our attitude toward "what is" instead of seeking divine intervention to change "what is"?

My understanding of spirituality is extremely limited, but I understand that meditation is a process of accepting "what is" rather than seeking divine intervention to change "what is."

Life and Death conflict(s) with each other.

Like up and down.

True. Now what? Who besides me or you will understand this?

Opposites coexist.

Life/death
Up/down
Etc.

True again. Sure. And no more 'conflicts'.
Reality check: There are as many truisms as there are conflicts.

1. If G and U are different views of one reality, which is the creator? G or U?

This is a nonsensical question, mostly because of our understanding of causality.

2. If we are integral parts of infinite G/U,

BIG if. I don't see the value in considering it, since we are incapable of understanding this premise in any meaningful way.

My understanding of spirituality is extremely limited, but I understand that meditation is a process of accepting "what is" rather than seeking divine intervention to change "what is."

This is also my understanding, and is why I enjoy learning about Zen and why I only learn about religion as a way of learning about humanity.

Skultch, you agreed. "Right....

My usage of the word 'right' was meant as an affirmation that I understood his meaning, not that I agreed. This is a common usage in the US.

Oliver, you still haven't addressed my question, possibly due to my lack of eloquence. The heart of the matter I'm trying to get to is 'evidence.' OK, lets use your hypothetical that G became the U. Where's the evidence? Could their ever be any evidence, even in principle? This strikes to the heart of my world view, because I'm recently warming up to the theory that all this philosophy is a big waste of time and my time would be better spent improving myself, my family, and humanity in general.

I'm recently warming up to the theory that all this philosophy is a big waste of time and my time would be better spent improving myself, my family, and humanity in general.

Well said Skultch. Philosophy is mostly crap unless you can use your understanding to "improve yourself, your family, or humanity."

Oliver, you still haven't addressed my question, possibly due to my lack of eloquence.

The heart of the matter I'm trying to get to is 'evidence.'

I too lack eloquence.

There seem to be two different paths to knowledge:

a.) Evidence from scientific experimentation and observation

b.) Insights from spiritual (experiential) excursions

Most of us here are naturally more familiar with path a.)

Those experiences do not qualify us to discount path b.)

Drs. William James William James (1842 1910), Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1957) and advocates of many different religions claim to have gained information from path b.)

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." - Albert Einstein

b.) Insights from spiritual (experiential) excursions

I see B as merely the inspiration for A. I too am in awe of nature. I see how B can be a 'path' to knowledge, but not a 'source' of knowledge, in and of itself. In this sense, the 'spirit' seems to be merely a catch-all, or placeholder, for our ignorance. Replace spirit with simple mystery and I'm with you.

I don't see anything about that Einstein quote (or any of his other quotes) that leads me to think he was capable of finding actual and practical knowledge from "B."

How could one possibly go about confirming this "knowledge" if it's from "B?" It seems to me, the only way to be beneficially confident in any science (even this mystical science) is for it to "fit" with the knowledge in which you are VERY confident. Spirituality (B) seems to circumvent this process, and is therefore wholly unreliable.

I see B as merely crap. Sorry, but proposing that "God BECAME the universe" is merely a severe breach of Ocam's Razor done to support an emotionally imature need.

Check it out for yourself and then decide:

"Be still and know that I am God." - Psalms

1. Go away from noise and distraction,
2. Sit alone, quiet the mind, perhaps by
3. Meditating on uplifting thoughts, verses.

E.g.,

a.) "Be still and know that I am God."

b.) "To know that you do not know is best.
To pretend to know what you do not know
Is a disease" - Lao-tse ~500 BC

c.) The message in "The Vinegar Tasters"

d.) The Biblical 123rd Psalms

e.) The possibility that an infinite "God" became the infinite universe, instead of

f.) An infinite "God" made the finite universe.

Check it out for yourself and then decide if your own experiences qualify you to discount what Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, William James, Carl Jung, Wolfgang Pauli et al. claim to have discovered.

Check it out for yourself and then decide if your own experiences qualify you to discount what Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, William James, Carl Jung, Wolfgang Pauli et al. claim to have discovered.

And what is that, exactly? A guess from ignorance? Philosophical playtime? That's all I see that you are positing. How could anyone 'discover' 'infinity' ? We don't have the tools to even come close, and it seems like a logistical impossibility, to me, anyway. Until we get into an actual discussion about that, instead of you merely saying the same thing in different ways, I will be left unchanged in my thinking, which is unfortunate.

And, btw, synchronicity is utter BS, IMO. There are 7 billion people, each doing 1 million things every day. Coincidences happen. All the time. Confirmation bias is all the explanation I need, afaik. One must totally ignore this to believe in some sort of supernatural (immaterial) connectivity.

I feel like we are going nowhere fast....

Thanks for your opinions.

I definitely recommend meditation on:

"To know that you do not know is best.
To pretend to know what you do not know
Is a disease" - Lao-tse ~500 BC

Oliver K. Manuel

Thanks for your opinions.

I definitely recommend meditation on:

"To know that you do not know is best.
To pretend to know what you do not know
Is a disease" - Lao-tse ~500 BC

Done it. Believe it. Couldn't agree more. However, that only gets us so far. At some point we have to have confidence in something and proceed from there.

I'm confused. I'm not just spouting my opinion. I'm trying to encourage discussion with you, in order to challenge my preconceived notions, and the only thing I'm getting back is a recommendation that I shouldn't be so confident in mainstream ideas, be they physical or philosophical.

I'm fine with discussing epistemology, but so far, the only thing you have contributed to the "discussion" is a challenge to the mainstream theory. I think I have directly asked for you to describe your alternative, yet you seem to refuse. I need details from you to change my mind.

Am I crazy like it says on my bracelet? ;) (gotta go out with a joke :P)