New data suggests the universe is clumpier than thought

MOG

I guess we'll just have to wait for more data...and more data...and some more...data...
When will it become apparent that the universe was DESIGNED? Unfortunately it will be too late for some to change their minds and humble themselves before the one who designed it.
There's a clear disagreement here - firstly the inflation theory wants to have a thoroughly smooth universe and yet all the observations so far clearly contradicts that. Clumpiness is everwhere, even in the MBR as shown by recent measurements. Secondly, how to arrest an inflationary period once started and then to have enough pertubations left over to form stars and galaxies without upsetting the applecart? Magic of the first kind is required if only pure physical processes are involved.

And how much data do you have to back your claims, Kev?

When will it become apparent that the universe was DESIGNED?

So you concede then that it is NOT yet apparent? Interesting. :-)

It may very well be, but even if it was designed there is value in trying to infer what those design blue prints look like. No scientist will ever be able to answer the question "why is there something instead of nothing at all?", which means they will never be able to prove you wrong.

But to suggest that there is no value in investigating the methods of the creation (by design or happenstance) is simply ignorant.

What if no one ever tried to figure out planetary motion? For a long time there were major contradictions within the theories governing celestial bodies. If we had just said, "well gee there are just so many problems, it must just be because thats the way god made it" what then? You have brought up some major problems with out current theories, but only by taking those problems as challenges to overcome have we ever advanced. Without our curiosity and our attempts to explain and understand we would still be living in grass huts dying of old age at 35.

Yes Kevin. Magic. You keep the faith. We'll keep making progress without you. Have you thrown away all your electronic gadgets yet? Obviously not, since you are still posting. Way to bite the hand that feeds you. Admit it. If you were alive 100 yrs ago, you would be calling science back then a waste of time. Now here you are, reaping the benefits of all that hard work and disrespecting the industry that provides your long life, comfort and ability to communicate. A-hole.

the pictures looks like brain tissue.

oh yeah is space expanding? i dont think so.

waiting for your replies...

I like to think that while in the Genesis garden of Eden God commanded man to name everything. And Science is the best tool for learning everything that there is and giving it a name and understanding its place. The true Christian should not scoff at science but embrace the fulfilling of our original God given purpose.

how do you get uniform distribution when galaxies are constantly merging, potentially breaking and splitting off into smaller galaxies (which may themselves become larger galaxies in time)...seems to me that uniform distribution would be unlikely given the dynamic nature of the universe.
we also haven't eliminated the possibility that more matter is being spewed out into the universe still (or have we?), which would also explain this pretty easily....
random thinking sorry...

There is another form of gravity besides gravitational waves that is not being taken into consideration. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are still king of the hill, and will continue to remain that way. P.S.: MOG does not work on universal scales!

Agreed. MOG. May be missing a few minor parameters yet, but still a lot more rational now than Einstein Gravity and Dark Matter.

P.S.: MOG does not work on universal scales!

Huh? That is where it works better than Einstein Gravity. Dark Matter is a plug to make EG work. Might DM really exist, yes. But if MOG can be refined then who needs Dark Matter. In MOG, DE is still needed to explain expansion, but one less Dark is better in my book.

MOG should provide significant predictable differences from EG, the problem, to date, is that DM has filled the holes. If parameter-less MOG makes equally accurate calculations then why keep plugging DM into EG?

In going from nothing to something and then somethng huge the universe would have existed as a quantum dot for a very brief instant. At such time it would have been subject to quantum principles, including uncertainty. Hyperinflation would, in turn, freeze the resulting irregularities and imprint them onto the the large scale universe. Why would these effects not be sufficient to account for the current clumpiness?

kevinrts - you are violating the comment guildlines, for which you have been reported. Please read them for clarity. This is a science forum, not a religious forum. Post appropriately please.

I guess we'll just have to wait for more data...and more data...and some more...data...
When will it become apparent that the universe was DESIGNED?

If the universe is expanding there will always be more data. You fail to understand that science is about study, and objective learning. Its ironic to me that your quick fix answer to all is only supported by the disproof of scientific theory.

Even if Einsteins theories or theories on dark matter are completely incorrect, which any scientist will admit is a possibility, that still does not support the existence of a creator. The only thing that does is the egocentric fear of accepting inevitability and lack of control, which pushes the insecure to believe in a god to begin with. Its also what scientists face head on every day to get the answers that work in every day life.

God is an psychological coping mechanism for those who are to afraid to face the facts. Prove me wrong.

Where did this conversation go wrong? This is an article about theoretical physics on a science site. It doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to discuss religion...

I think the conclusion of this study lacks imagination. While I want to promote MOG and Slam DM theory, the reality of the matter is that there only has to be a slight change in one minor bit of information to get different results. And for that fact of the matter, we have no idea what a singularity is truly like, or more importantly, if a true singularity below the planck scale is even possible.

Assuming all the other assumptions about the universe and its history are correct; if the BB started from a proto singularity, and not an infinitely dense/small singularity, then that could affect calculations well within these parameters.

I guess we'll just have to wait for more data...and more data...and some more...data...

What do you care about data godder? What do you care about learning how things actually ARE?

When will it become apparent that the universe was DESIGNED?

By your Grand Magician? Never.

Unfortunately it will be too late for some to change their minds and humble themselves before the one who designed it.

Your threats are only for scaring children and the feeble-minded. Thinking people resent them.

Magic of the first kind is required if only pure physical processes are involved.

Magic is not a physical process. The universe does not operate by magic no matter how much you godlovers want it to.

Tell me something kev, why do you believe in a god who would create a fabulous and intricate universe, give us the means to figure it out, and then condemn us for doing so?

Whats that- he doesnt you say? Then it must be just YOU and all those other fearful cowering religionist dron

Where did this conversation go wrong? This is an article about theoretical physics on a science site. It doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to discuss religion...

Godders showed up trying to reinstate the Dark Ages, as usual.

Where did this conversation go wrong? This is an article about theoretical physics on a science site. It doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to discuss religion...

Sorry. I was the first to respond to Kev. I kinda feel obligated in a way. I also needed a reason for this thread to show up in my activity so I can learn from people who really know this stuff.

Well, I did try to make my post more about Kev's disrespect of human progress and not get to atheistically evangelical, so at least I'm improving. :)

I like to think that while in the Genesis garden of Eden God commanded man to name everything. And Science is the best tool for learning everything that there is and giving it a name and understanding its place. The true Christian should not scoff at science but embrace the fulfilling of our original God given purpose.

But then they would still believe in a grand creator who grants only true believers their wishes, and only if they vilify all unbelievers and heretics.

Everyone who wants to be a constructive part of humanitys future should cast off all superstition, and everything that divides people and sets them against one another.

MOG

So, I'm super new to this theory. I understand the overview in Wiki. I have one question at this point. According to Wiki, MOG might be able to explain the origin of inertia. I looked up the reference, and saw this:

We find that when a particle is accelerated, a force is experienced that is proportional to the particle's mass and acceleration and acts in the direction opposite to that of the acceleration.

- http:
//arxiv.org/abs/0710.3415

Isn't this the opposite of inertia? I'm confused.

Everyone who wants to be a constructive part of humanitys future should cast off all superstition, and everything that divides people and sets them against one another.

There are some exceptions, though. Baseball, for one. Religion will be dead and gone before those guys stop being superstitious. There's just something about a 65-70% failure rate for the best of the best that brings it out.

Also, I believe there is personal value in fooling yourself by wrongly making sense of the world. Sure, being right is better, but if it reduces stress, it can increase productivity. All I'm saying is there is a middle ground here. Let's not overreact and become less constructive.

Sorry. I was the first to respond to Kev. I kinda feel obligated in a way. I also needed a reason for this thread to show up in my activity so I can learn from people who really know this stuff.

Trolls troll

As to your questions about inertia and MOG...I hesitate to refer you to many commenters on this site haha. Although, if YYZ is able to explain it to you, I would trust him to be accurate and in depth. I would trust Pyle to correctly answer your main questions as well I think. I have a general idea of modified gravity theories, but I would be lying if I said I had any significant knowledge in the area.

the pictures looks like brain tissue.

oh yeah is space expanding? i dont think so.

waiting for your replies...

Yeah, I've always thought these cosmological maps look like a network of some kind. I would also remind everyone what Schrodinger said in his book "What is Life?" He made the very astute observation that the laws of physics only say what CAN happen, but it is life that determines what ACTUALLY happens. The fact that the laws of physics, including statistical analysis, doesn't recreate the observed structure of the universe isn't evidence that the laws of physics are wrong, it might just be evidence that early life in the universe helped guide the universe into it's present form, without violating any laws of physics. The analogy of course would be Earth. If a physicist with no knowledge of life looked at the Earth, they would see patterns of matter that are so improbable that they would begin to question the laws of physics as they understand them...

MOG

So, I'm super new to this theory. I understand the overview in Wiki. I have one question at this point. According to Wiki, MOG might be able to explain the origin of inertia. I looked up the reference, and saw this:

We find that when a particle is accelerated, a force is experienced that is proportional to the particle's mass and acceleration and acts in the direction opposite to that of the acceleration.

- http:
//arxiv.org/abs/0710.3415

Isn't this the opposite of inertia? I'm confused.

Inertia is also the tendency of a body to resist acceleration. That might be the force they're referring to.

Please note, that in microwave radiation the black holes and many dense objects composed of sparse dust or plasma will become substantially more transparent, because such radiation penetrates the event horizons more easily. Therefore the increasing of clumpiness of matter at free space (i.e. above CMBR scale) will be followed/balanced with decreasing the inhomogeneity of matter bellow CMBR scale.

If we would observe the Universe in microwave light, it would appear substantially more irregular and random.

Ah so; a prediction! I ask the community; has zephyr/jigga given enough info in his maunderings to his word-calc theories to credit them if this prediction should prove true; and what are the chances that this will in fact be observed, irrespective of his theories?

In other words (or more words) is he predicting something that is obviously likely to be the case, or is this something unexpected?

Or perhaps this has already been observed and aetherman is merely being dishonest?

According to Wiki, MOG might be able to explain the origin of inertia.

Moffat has floated an origin of inertia with MOG, but I don't think it passes muster. Yet anyway. He also has an idea about expansion, but it throws us in the middle of a bubble and therefore breaks the Copernican principle and is shied at as well (by Moffat himself). Ultimately it is going to take more people looking at MOG to move it forward and that probably isn't going to happen unless Moffet or Toth or anyone can come up with a real solid prediction that knocks a hole in GR, or they find the phion (Higgs equivalent responsible for Moffat's proposed fifth force). DM is pretty firmly entrenched and the math for MOG is wicked. Moffat is getting up there and I really think his focus now is to lay the foundations for a theory that might be able to pick up where GR leaves off.

I am in no way an expert on any of this. I was interested and dug a little bit. You can probably get better info if you try.

btw, since I adopted MOG as my pet theory I have gained a new respect for Zehpyr's persistence. That doesn't mean I don't think he isn't a bit nuts. Just persistent.

Loop quantum gravity and its spin foam might just give the aether crowd an out in the end. It might end the GR, MOND, MOG, "you name it" debates as well. This is all so much fun to follow. And Kev would have us quit and pray instead.

Of course, I claimed the Perlin noise structure of Universe before six years already here at PhysOrg forum discussions. The above thoughts around CMBR scale can be extrapolated further easily. For example, if we are observing the Universe expansion in the wavelength shorter than the wavelength of CMBR, then from the same model follows, the Universe will collapse in EM radiation shorter than the wavelength of CMBR and its entropy as a whole remains unchanged. The Universe is symmetric about CMBR dimensional scale, which should manifests with very wide spectrum of phenomena, which weren't predicted, neither observed yet. From AWT follows the positive rest mass of short wavelength photons, their gravitational action and clumping. On the other hand, the photons of radiowaves should behave like tachyons and they should exert a negative pressure of radiation (it can be just tested). AWT is quite rich in its predictions, if you try to think about it: it's the whole physics upside down.

Yeah, I've always thought these cosmological maps look like a network of some kind.

Dark Matter filaments!

People, who are thinking about string theory or LQG theory should realize, what these theories have in common: it's the concept of stringy or foamy space-time. After then we can just ask, how such geometry of space-time foam will appear for observer formed with it? We can imagine the Universe like moire of two overlapping pieces of foam: at the human observer scale the Universe appears extremely sophisticated and complex, but both larger and smaller objects, than 2 cm in size are becoming gradually more and more regular, spherical and symmetric. The atom nuclei and their counterparts (neutron stars) are probably the most deterministic objects, falling into realm of general relativity and quantum mechanics theories.

But with further increasing of the distance form human observer scale the deterministic perspective of vanishes back again and at the cosmological scale the Universe appears as random and fuzzy, like the Universe at the Planck scale. This symmetry is quite apparent there.

The water surface analogy provides a deeper way, how to think about geometry of Universe. At such surface many various waves and solitons are spreading: some of them are faster, some of them are slower. The intriguing property of water surface is, the solitons of the wavelength corresponding the CMBR wavelength (~ 2 cm) are spreading in lowest speed - for such solitons the water surface will appear as large, as possible. Such solitons correspond just the human observers. The water surface is still covered with surface waves corresponding the light and with Brownian noise, which corresponds the CMBR radiation and gravitational waves in this model. Due the Brownian noise the transverse waves of both larger, both smaller wavelenghts will disperse into longitudinal waves gradually and this dispersion will determine the visibility scope for the surface solitons in similar way, like the particle horizon of Universe.

We could say, the water surface is a pocket model of our Universe.

The dimensional scale of CMBR radiation is significant with the fact, at this wavelength / energy density the effects of quantum mechanics and general relativity just compensate mutually. The smaller or larger objects we observe, the more these two theories are becoming significant. This is why these theories were revealed later, then classical mechanics and they got a deserved success in prediction of various phenomena, so that some people (Max Tegmark) started to speculate about mathematical Universe.

IMO such thoughts were a bit premature, because technology advanced further and now we can observe even the phenomena, which are apparently violating both relativity, both quantum mechanics again. In water surface analogy it corresponds the situation, when the surface waves at large scale are dispersing into underwater in such a way, we can detect them again at the short scale like the Brownian noise. Our Universe appears tangled and looped, like the spreading of light inside of foam.

The vary fact that as we explore more the more questions arise is a sign that we know about 5% of the story. To say, the universe, is designed or a naturally occurring is premature. In 5 years from now, as more data comes in, you all will look back and say this is much weirder and wilder than we all could have comprehended. It is laughable to conjuncture about what you are about to discover, you have no idea...

I already told you that. Space dont expanding at all.

All denser, like quarks and phtons expanding all a time.

I can told why and how!

You cant never told why and how space expanding. THATS, BECAUSE SPACE DONT EXPANDING AT ALL!

SPACE IS NOTHING!

.

Google: Eternal Horn of plentys youtube

.

I guess we'll just have to wait for more data...and more data...and some more...data...
When will it become apparent that the universe was DESIGNED?

Ummmmm, Never? The universe only appears to be designed to those too ignorant to see it as it is. You see it the way you want it to be, not the way it really is.

When will it become apparent that the universe was DESIGNED

The concept of completely chaotic Universe is dual to concept of Universe, which is so complex, it must be formed with some highly intelligent deity. The compiled computer program with high entropy density doesn't differ from byte noise too much. For our animal pets the intelligent behavior of human creatures appears completely unpredictable. They can recognize only the most apparent temporal/spatial patterns in it - the rest of it is simply ignored in similar way, like we are ignoring subtle density fluctuations of vacuum.

It has it's geometric representation in holographic theory. If you project the shadow of highly regular motion in three dimensions to the plane, the motion of shadow will be more localized (similar to particle) and more chaotic too. The chaotic Universe can therefore appear more deterministic, if we consider higher number of dimensions for its description.

IMO the whole problem is in definition of intrinsic state of the Universe. Many formally thinking people tend to consider flat empty Universe as the initial form of Universe. But we can ask "why just flat"? "why just zero - why not 2.1504, for example?" "why the whole Universe should share the same quality/quantity"?

IMO such state is quite unnatural, anthropocentric and it brings more questions than answers. IMO just the undefined, random state is the intrinsic state of observable reality.

At first science seems to lead to atheism. But this is just like the beginner's luck at the slot machine. A deeper understanding of science and the universe consistently points to an allmighty God, who left His blueprint in the uniformity of nature.

"theory suggests that there should be a certain uniformity everywhere you look, the only irregularities coming from fluctuations in the density of matter itself."

There IS a certain uniformity. Looking at the image, it looks uniformly like cotton-candy for lack of a better word. There aren't straight boxes in one place, spheres in another, and pinwheels elsewhere.

Maybe the problem is that we are trying to force human notions of uniformity on something that is uniform in a non-humanocentric way?

kevinrtrs,

When will it become apparent that the universe was DESIGNED? Unfortunately it will be too late for some to change their minds and humble themselves before the one who designed it."

Two words that disprove your designer. Gnats. Mosquitoes.

But seriously, so, basically, you don't know either, and you fool yourself into thinking you do by saying, "Well it was obviously designed."

So if you know, then tell us who designed the designer? And who designed that designer, and the one before that, etc. etc. You don't solve the riddle, you just replace "the big bang" with "my designer." Your answer isn't an answer, it's just ego stroking.

Oh, and one more thing, explain why looking at that image above, what exactly is it that makes it OBVIOUS the universe was DESIGNED?

that guy,

"It doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to discuss religion..."

I think I speak for everyone here when I say we aren't discussing religion, we're discussing ignorance and how it conflicts with the scientific methods in use worldwide.

Maybe a stupid question, if gravity doesn't account for the "non-uniformity" of the universe, but the existence of "dark matter & energy" does, because dark matter/energy accounts for the "missing" mass, then what is different about the missing mass as opposed to what we can directly see that makes filaments form?

In other words, shouldn't the universe be as uniform (just more so) with the additional dark-stuff as it would be without it if gravity were the only force acting on large-scale distribution? What is it about dark matter/energy that prefers filaments over "uniformity"?

Science is all about reliable and testable human observation, while religion is superstition - according to popular belief. But popular belief can be wrong as the Third Reich demonstrates.

Science is indeed all about observation of:

- the multiverse
- p-branes
- a singluarity
- dark energy
- dark matter
- a huge explosion/expansion 13 billion years ago from "nothingness"
- cosmic strings, black holes, galaxy formation, star birth, planet formation, Oort cloud
- the first living cell appearing from a "primordial soup"
- millions of years of supposed Darwinian evolution from common ancestors
- modern man descending from an unknown common ancestor with apes

All these things have been "observed" by scientists?

When will it become apparent that the universe was DESIGNED? Unfortunately it will be too late for some to change their minds and humble themselves before the one who designed it.

You've really got me scared now, Kevin!
Do you think I'll burn in hell for thinking there may be a natural explanation for the excess clumpiness?

Actually, this looks like yet more support for the idea that there have been many big bangs, and that some of them interact gravitationally even though their particles (including photons) are forever tied to their own space, because particles are just excitations of space, meaning that they are tied to that space, while ours are tied to ours. Simple, really.

the pictures looks like brain tissue.

oh yeah is space expanding? i dont think so.

waiting for your replies...

Look up Mandelbrot sets and diagrams. Everything looks like brain tissue, or rather brain tissue looks like everything else.

"Do you think I'll burn in hell for thinking there may be a natural explanation for the excess clumpiness? "

No, the Bible says people are in danger of hell fire as a result of their sins. The blood of Jesus is the only medicine for sin, and the antidote for death.

Science seems smart but we will spend perhaps 80 years on this planet, but an eternity being dead. A really smart scientist would be able to find out if there is life after death.

I like to think that while in the Genesis garden of Eden God commanded man to name everything. And Science is the best tool for learning everything that there is and giving it a name and understanding its place. The true Christian should not scoff at science but embrace the fulfilling of our original God given purpose.

The only 'true' Christians died 2000 years ago. Everything else has been nothing but a bad copy. Especially after the acceptance of the Heresies of Paul.

the pictures looks like brain tissue....

IMO this similarity is not accidental at all. The dark matter fluctuations are traces of extradimensions in 3D space and the brain serves as a low dimensional simulator of hyperdimensional reality, which we are living in. IMO it's result of evolution. The similar density fluctuations you can observe inside of every dense particle system.

http://www.youtub...cjPSZeAg

that guy,

"It doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to discuss religion..."

I think I speak for everyone here when I say we aren't discussing religion, we're discussing ignorance and how it conflicts with the scientific methods in use worldwide.

I'd like to point out that if it weren't for the God troll saying his bit, you wouldn't be saying your bit...so obviously, your statement only applies to the people agreeing with you, and not all the commenters as a whole.

While I was more specifically referring to the god trolls with my statement, I think it is good advice to have our conversations around them rather than with them.

You cannot reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into, so interacting with them is not going to change their minds.

You cannot reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into, so interacting with them is not going to change their minds.

Probably true, especially for the Kevs, Marjons, and Zephirs here. You never know, though. I've got a hippy conspiracy loving friend that responds to reason and evidence. There's hope, even for the aggressive and confident.

I can't speak for others, but I respond to Kev because of the possible teenager who has recently been exposed to this whole science and progress vs design and humble ignorance debate. There are smart kids out there brought up by ignorant nuts, and it's in our best interest to keep them rational until they can escape. Most materialists I know were raised very religious. Luckily, I had no such struggles.

We find that **WHEN** a particle is accelerated, a force is experienced that is proportional to the particle's mass and acceleration and acts in the direction opposite to that of the acceleration.

Isn't this the opposite of inertia? I'm confused.

Inertia is also the tendency of a body to resist acceleration. That might be the force they're referring to.

But it's described in a way that implies the inertia isn't doing anything /until/ the acceleration is applied. It's as if they are saying the force is dormant until acted upon. This isn't intuitive. What if we could negate the outside forces? Shouldn't 'inertia' make things accelerate by themselves?

Still confused.

Skultch: You should be confused. Inertia is one of those things that is hard to grasp. I don't get it. I know what it is, but why? I just accept it. Not because I "believe" in it, mind you. but because I experience it, it is observed, like gravity. We just aren't 100% sure where it comes from. Unless your Zephyr of course.

The science that we all benefit from through applicable technology is observational science and engineering. Much of those scientific inventions were in fact done by religious people. After all, it is God who gives us the ability to reason.

Reason and knowledge only has meaning in a theistic universe, because knowledge requires an external standard of truth that exists outside the subjective human brain.

On the other hand, there is historical science. This kind of science has given us hypotheses like the big bang and evolution. These human artifacts are ultimately unverifiable, and rely on indiction rather than direct observation. They fit into the realm of metaphysics, or faith if you will.

Inertia is one of those things that is hard to grasp. I don't get it. I know what it is, but why? I just accept it.

This is what the religion is called. IMO it's healthy to ask the questions about reason of common things.

it is God who gives us the ability to reason

This is the belief of the same category. Some reasoning is missing here.

A deeper understanding of science and the universe consistently points to an allmighty God, who left His blueprint in the uniformity of nature.

In your mind, that is. Your mind is significantly flawed. Dont worry, youre not alone, there are many of you with such debilitations out there.

So, what are you going to do with this revelation Ive given you? Are you going to continue indulging in your comfortable fantasies or are you going to see them for what they are and struggle to cast them off?

Reality is the only thing there is. It is obvious we dont know all there is to know about reality, because we keep discovering new things every day. Yet you are still compelled to make decisions about the bulk of it. This alone should tell you that the METHOD you use to make decisions, is critically flawed. The fact that you dont realize this, is a measure of the degree of your own dysfunction.

Science is not only more complex than you realize; it is more complex than you CAN realize.

Much of those scientific inventions were in fact done by religious people.

Human brains are flawed in so many wonderfully diverse ways. Ever hear the term idiot savant? An individual can be a bonafide genius in a very narrowly defined manner, and remain a simpleton about most other things.

It is the same to varying degrees with most of us. We can be entirely competent and rational in our everyday affairs and still fail to see how GULLIBLE we are to the most abject nonsense. A hindu scientist makes a discovery and proclaims that vishnu guided his hand, and an equally competent moslem scientist rejects it on this basis. And believers like YOU would reject the work of either because they are both godless, in your mind.

...ultimately unverifiable, and rely on indiction rather than direct observation. They fit into the realm of metaphysics, or faith if you will.

And how can YOU claim they are unverifiable? How could YOU possibly know?? You are another Liar for Jesus.

Dear GhostOfOtto,

My mind is flawed? So is yours. Human thinking is limited by definition, since we are all limited. Our senses cannot process every type of information, and our brain cannot understand or know all things.

Your own agressive style for instance weakens your reasoning, and is a sign of insecurity of you ask me. If you would employ a less obnoxious attitude, some of your arguments migt actually increase in strength. Stop trying to bully people and try to engage in dialogue I say. That would probably mean coming out of your comfort zone, which can be scary.

You say that reality is the only thing there is. I agree. However, you seem to limit that reality to the confines of the material. I think that is arbitrary. There is no fundamental law against the existence of the spiritual. One day science itsself could even discover the existence of the spiritual, just like it once discovered the existence of Oxygen.

If you would employ a less obnoxious attitude

Bite me. No wait- your supercilious xian attitude is every bit as obnoxious. Mine is a bit more honest.

My mind is flawed? So is yours.

Absolutely. But I can recognize my tendency to indulge in wishful fantasies, and realize they can affect my judgement. Can you? It takes a little effort and practice.

There is no fundamental law against the existence of the spiritual.

Sure there is. Its the law which proclaims that all things which can explain nothing, and which present no evidence for their existance, DO NOT EXIST.

Plus theres this obvious flaw of ours to fantasize, and there are others only too eager to capitalize on it. Which explains all your organized religions.

just like it once discovered the existence of Oxygen.

Theres evidence for O2. The more that science discovers about the nature of the universe and ourselves, the more 'evidence' for the metaphysical evaporates. There never was any to begin with.

However, you seem to limit that reality to the confines of the material.

I confine reality to the confines of the real.

There is no fundamental law against the existence of the spiritual.

Nope, but until some evidence is provided it remains imaginary.

One day science itsself could even discover the existence of the spiritual, just like it once discovered the existence of Oxygen.

No, not like discovering oxygen, because oxygen is just small, not immaterial.

orgon: I love your quote of me. I didn't know you were a quote miner as well as a deluded crank. You left out

Not because I "believe" in it, mind you. but because I experience it, it is observed, like gravity.

So NO this is not what religion is called. Religion is faith. Understanding how inertia works without understanding what causes it is not religion. Maybe trusting that inertia won't stop working is some sort of belief, but it is grounded on solid evidence, just like the sun ris

"Its the law which proclaims that all things which can explain nothing, and which present no evidence for their existance, DO NOT EXIST"

Is that a universal law? If so, where does it come from? Laws are immaterial. So if this law really exists, you have just provided proof against material atheism.

On a different note: The God hypothesis does have explanatory power. It offers explanations for the uniformity of nature, the existence of universal logic, absolute morality, and the origin of life and death. All things for which secular science fails to provide convincing answers.

The bit about observation is superfluous - science believes in many things it cannot observe. One would be that life started spontaneously from dead matter - something believed to be true, but ultimately unobserveable and unfalsifiable. Faith, in other words.

"Theres evidence for O2. The more that science discovers about the nature of the universe and ourselves, the more 'evidence' for the metaphysical evaporates"

I think you failed to understand the analogy. I was speaking about science before the existence of oxygen was experimentally confirmed. Oxygen was a fact all the time, but people did not know for a fact it existed until they found the evidence. The same could happen with the spiritual one day.

The more science discovers the more is revealed of the immense complexity and uniformity of nature. God is not a god-of-the-gaps. Even if science would discover some theory of everything, we would still have to question why the laws of nature are this way, and how we can explain and understand them. Science ultimately cannot answer the fundamental questions about why the universe exists and why we exist, without stating the obvious.

"Nope, but until some evidence is provided it remains imaginary."

That is a logical fallacy. You may not have seen the evidence, but that does not mean the evidence does not exist. This is why the Bible says: seek and you will find. If you are not willing to invest any time, nothing will come out. That is a valid principle even in the secular world.

But your argument fails for another reason. Lets apply the same thinking to principles like love or beauty. Very few people would argue that these things actually don't exist and are imaginary, but there is no direct physical evidence for their existence either.

We believe that our wife or spouse or family member really loves us, instead of will-less brain chemistry, but we cannot measure it on the love-o-meter. We accept it as true by faith. The same is with the love of God. The human heart believes and knows, but we cannot observe directly.

understand the analogy. I was speaking about science before the existence of oxygen was experimentally confirmed. Oxygen was a fact all the time, but people did not know for a fact it existed until they found the evidence. The same could happen with the spiritual one day.

We've looked at all the evidence you godders have presented. Archeology has shown that none of the bible stories ever happened. Hermeneutics has uncovered the extent of fabrication and adulteration in your books. Physics has shown that the universe was not created the way Moses or Gilgamesh said it was. Common sense tells us the flood never happened. When was that by the way?

As I said the more we learn the less tenable your myths become.

We believe that our wife or spouse or family member really loves us, instead of will-less brain chemistry... The same is with the love of God.

Your family members exist. Your god does not. You denigrate them by brainlessly adoring your myths before them.

-And if there is a god created a 6000yo universe and made it to look billions of years older, or if he erased all the evidence for your fables, or if made life to appear as though it evolves when it does not, or if he fabricated a few million years of evidence for savage past of overpopulation and resultant tribal war, or if he gave us such weak and defective brains just for the hell of it... Then he is a lying deceiving god and can be readily dismissed.

Because he is not needed to explain ANYTHING about the existence of the universe or the human condition, other than to demonstrate how utterly clueless so many of us are. Because we can tend to think we can get something for nothing just by wishing for it hard enough, with the proper deference and supplication, and REVERENCE, and all that.

"Archeology has shown that none of the bible stories ever happened"

Can you give me a specific example? Which Bible story according to you has been proven untrue by merit of archeology?

Reversely, I can give many examples where archeology confirms the Biblical account:

In 1993 in Tel Dan a broken peace of basalt dated to the 8th century BC speaks of king Hadad killing king Joash and referring to him as the King of the house of David, thus confirming David as a historical person. The same story is found in 2 Kings 13.

The Assyrian king Sargon was thought to be a Biblical invention. His name can be found only in Is. 20:1. Until in 1843 Paul-Emil Botta uncovered the remains of Korsabad and made Sargon one of the best known kings in history.

Similarly, king Belshazzar was thought to be a fictional character in the book of Daniel, until his name was found in ancient Babylonian inscriptions.

So the assertion that archeology disproves the Bible is verifiably untrue.

Furthermore, even the most liberal Bible critic accepts that messianic prophecies in for instance Micah 5, Zachariah 9, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 were written hundreds of years before Christ. Yet Jesus fulfilled all of these with His birth, triumphal entry, crucifixion and burial.

You speak about fabrication of Bible text without providing evidence. That is not very scientific. There in fact is not a shred of evidence that any of the Bible books constitutes a fraud.

Since the bold assertions by the 19th century school of "higher criticism", scholars have moved increasingly in favour of the authenticity of the text. One powerful example are the dead sea scrolls, confirming that the OT books were part of the Jewish canon in 100 BC with virtually the same text as we have now.

Yeah so? And spiderman lives in NYC.

Examples... There were no Solomon or David kingdoms. At the time jesusalem was a little hilltop village, per the evidence. Orthodox Jews have confirmed this. There never 2M Hebrews living in goshen. There was never an exodus through a Sinai and a levant which at the time were under Egyptian control, and spotted with Egyptian military outposts. There was no murderous, genocidal joshuan rampage through Palestine.

And there is maybe one offhand reference to a Jesus-like preacher, one among many wandering about the area at the time.

So the assertion that archeology disproves the Bible is verifiably true.

This of course is not to minimize the outrageous, blatant confabulation in your book. My favorite happens to be the phony ending tacked onto mark, put there by someone who needed the marys to rush off proclaiming to the world that the messiah could escape death. Because it would play better with the rubes.

Physics has not at all provided a final blow to the alternative of divine creation. The standard model is rife with problems and fudge factors. People have a problem believing that all the matter in the universe came from nothing caused by nothing or by an exploding singuality. Anyway, no one was there to observe it, so the claim is based on faith not evidence.

Reputable scientists like Paul Davies admit to this. The secular theories lack convincing answers to essential questions such as galaxy and star formation and the origin of life. Even this very article is testimony to the fact that science is really clueless about the origin of the universe.

The image seems astonishingly orderly containing many overlapping or superposed patterns. But if looking out billions of light-years is also looking back billions of years, how do you account for the similarity across time? There are two, maybe three, distinct vertical troughs, not quite a billion light years wide. But they are the same size a vastly different distances. And the numerous billion light year wide bubbles are impossible to miss. It seems that "matter" and collects and glows brightest where the bubble wave fronts collide or intersect. But shouldn't the bubbles be smaller in the past and larger now, or visa versa? Can someone explain?

Furthermore, even the most liberal Bible critic accepts that messianic prophecies in for instance Micah 5, Zachariah 9, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 were written hundreds of years before Christ. Yet Jesus fulfilled all of these with His birth, triumphal entry, crucifixion and burial.

Ha! No, the stories were concocted, and altered, and translated, and INTERPRETED as such to make this appear to be the case. Obviously. Moslems did the same thing with biblical fables- you think they were the first?

This also involves excluding all the apocrypha which spin different tales. And which are selectively canonized depending upon sect and period.

You know, I am thinking you are well aware of the archeological evidence I mentioned because you've apparently been participating in discussions of this sort for some time. You're aware that biblical scholars generally agree on these, and you also KNOW that legitimate historical context does validate myth.
Cont->

But you selectively present your evidence in a public forum, knowing it does not represent the truth; it is rather meant to deceive, and you know this full well. And most of the people reading these comments know this as well.

So you are indeed a Liar for Jesus. And not just any Jesus but the Jesus of your own particular sect. Jesus trismagistus? What do you call him? Jesus of the Justifiable Means?

Is no one monitoring these comments? Are there no religion chat rooms for you all to go to? Or does anyone know of a good science news/comments site that simply trashes the off-topic drivel? It is becoming tiresome to have to wade through all the low-brow religious (and anti-religious) smack-talk. You are all so self-righteous (both sides) that it makes my teeth ache. Give it up already.

Is no one monitoring these comments? Are there no religion chat rooms for you all to go to? Or does anyone know of a good science news/comments site that simply trashes the off-topic drivel? It is becoming tiresome to have to wade through all the low-brow religious (and anti-religious) smack-talk. You are all so self-righteous (both sides) that it makes my teeth ache. Give it up already.

So what would you do maytag? Let them show up and spout whatever they want and let it stand uncorrected?

No, the Bible says people are in danger of hell fire as a result of their sins. The blood of Jesus is the only medicine for sin, and the antidote for death.

-Is this really the sort of thing you want to remain unchallenged here?

Many of them have come and gone. If you've no stomach for the fight then maybe bill maher will change your mind?

I see that you really have no evidence yourself, just more baseless rants. In fact the Egyptian records reveal that Jerusalem was a strong and walled city in 2000 BC in Canaanite times.

I have already mentioned the Tel Dan stone. Just recently parts of the palace of David were uncovered by Israeli archeologists. The conquest of Canaan is becoming clear from other recent finds. The city of Jericho was already uncovered in complete accordance with Biblical records.

The Egyptian sothic (Manetho) records are being revised and have shown gaps and inconsistencies. The classic dating of the Exodus in the time of Ramses must probably be revised and pushed back to the times of dynasty 13 around 1445 BC (Amenemhet IV). There is plenty of evidence for semitic slaves in Egypt around that time, and evidence of plagues that left the country severely weakened. Later the Hyksos (probably the Amelekites) invaded Egypt and met little resistance.

Here's maher with some very good reasons to fight religionism in whatever form:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-And I've been through this before, johann of the lying god, and so have you. You know what the facts are despite the salespitch. This is a good place to start, for anyone interested:
http://en.wikiped...nimalism

The city of Jericho was already uncovered in complete accordance with Biblical records.

-Lie.

"Kenyon reported that her work showed Garstang to have been wrong and the Germans right - Jericho had been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Her result was confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction to 1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%." -wiki

-Ones enough to expose you.

I see that you really have no evidence yourself, just more baseless rants. In fact the Egyptian records reveal that Jerusalem was a strong and walled city in 2000 BC in Canaanite times.

More obfuscation.

"at the time of the Davidic and Solomonic kingdoms, Jerusalem may have been unpopulated, or at most populated by only a few hundred residents, leading to the conclusion that this is insufficient for an empire stretching from the Euphrates to Eilath."

"The archaeological remains that are still considered to actually date from the time of Solomon are notable for the fact that Canaanite material culture appears to have continued unabated; there is a distinct lack of magnificent empire, or cultural development - indeed comparing pottery from areas traditionally assigned to Israel with that of the Philistines points to the Philistines having been significantly more sophisticated." -wiki

I have already mentioned the Tel Dan stone.

-More misrepresentation.

"Scholars agree that the first part should be read (beyt), meaning "house". However, the second part can be read as 1) (dod), which means "uncle" or "beloved" or as 2) (David). The phrase therefore can mean either "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David".[52] Since the stele recounts the victory of an Aramean king over "the king of Israel" [53] the translation of --- as "the House of David" is not illogical." -wiki

-Which only means that Hebrew myths were already in place and their enemies knew they referred to themselves in this manner. There is clearly no archeological evidence for anything other than Canaanite hilltop villages at the time of davids great kingdom.

Just recently parts of the palace of David were uncovered by Israeli archeologists.

-Another fabrication.

"The Bronze and Iron Age remains of the City of David, the original urban core of Jerusalem identified with the reigns of David and Solomon, were investigated extensively in the 1970s and 1980s under the direction of Yigal Shiloh of the Hebrew University, but failed to discover significant evidence of occupation during the 10th century BC, In 2005, Eilat Mazar found a Large Stone Structure which she claimed was David's Palace, but the archaeology is contaminated and impossible to date accurately. Finkelstein and Silberman feel the archaeological evidence from surface surveys indicates that Judah at the time of David was a small tribal kingdom, although both do accept that David and Solomon were likely historical figures in Judah about the 10th century BC (describing David as a "bandit leader").

-So David was the original robin hood? That would actually make some sense.

Johann, as I recall you have a religionist website where these facts of yours are posted. Are your readers aware that you only post partial, dated info that only reinforces your agenda? This is lying, don't you realize that?

Shootist,

Would you consider the apostle Peter to be a true Christian? Look how he endorses Paul in the Bible:

James disagreed. Paul's teachings were heresy to those closest to Jesus.

But the 2nd Council of Nicea is where it all went terribly wrong.

Jesus saves, Moses invests.

"Nope, but until some evidence is provided it remains imaginary."

That is a logical fallacy. You may not have seen the evidence, but that does not mean the evidence does not exist.

Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Oh yeah baby! You better watch out for the noodly appendage. It will be the last thing you ever don't see. Well, unless a clump of Dark Matter gets you.

The New, latest 'Unified Field Theory' ( facebook.com/pages/Unified-Vorticii-Theory-UVT-by-Anton-Kole/102745859787252 ), fits in just nicely with the latest data. The Universe 'should' be just like it is. Clumpy.

Well, as long as we are free associating...
I see Rohrschach playing with paper and ink again.

Actually the image is called:
Prime Number Cloud

(Not MUH nor MOG but Grothendieck)
Here in motion (rotation, expansion not depicted):

http://www.youtub...dk4Kmei4

Hey we missed a party:
http://www.freep....RONTPAGE
http://www.youtub...2nSTcKZY

-Notice the one moslem-looking cop glancing up at the signs and looking rather agitated? And what are all those cops with the star of dawad on their chests doing milling about?

Per the topic it appears a large clump of the universe has coagulated in Dearborn. Will fusion be initiated? Is their enough agitation, enough gravity? Will some sort of order manifest itself amidst all this chaos or are we seeing yet more unfortunate entropy and decrepitation? Time is not infinite you know. So very little to waste.

Parking is an art and science.
Parking is everything.

P.S.: MOG does not work on universal scales!

Huh? That is where it works better than Einstein Gravity.

It is a matter of opinion on my part that MOG does not work on universial scales. On the galactic scale MOG has had some success except I believe the galaxy rotation curve idea needs some work as well as the universal scale part. MOG and inertia is an interesting combination.

"and regarding [archeologist Eilat Mazars] identification of the city wall at the site at that time,
As she admits, the chronological data recovered in her excavations indicate that the sole Iron Age fortification system extending in this area was in use during the 8th7th centuries BCE. However, according to the biblical sources the Solomonic city-wall must have passed here, hence [she maintains] the fortification system in question must be Solomonic in date.
Mazar was also cautioned by one epigrapher following the 2008 confusion over the inscription on the Shelomit seal,
In the mad dash to report biblical artifacts to the public or connect discoveries with the most obscure persons or events reported in the Bible, there is sometimes a tendency to compromise the analytical caution that objects of such value so dearly deserve."

-This is why Religionists who hold their agendas above science, should have their titles stripped and their access to these sites prohibited.
Cont->

ANY other researcher who allowed preconceived notions or the chance for personal gain to taint their work would Be similarly sanctioned. Liars like Eilat enable like johann to lie with some degree of authority. This should not be allowed.

Of course it also enables the state of Israel to claim their god-given right to Palestinian land as stated in their constitution, something which another tenured professor at tel aviv university, shlomo sand, is also vehemently against. This puts dilate work in the same category as the piltdown man, which reinforced the euro idea that humans originated in Europe, reinforcing their right to rule the world.

Dilate = Eilats... spellcheck
Here is shlomo in an excellent lecture. Ignore the idiot cameraman.
http://www.youtub...a_player

The image seems astonishingly orderly containing many overlapping or superposed patterns. But if looking out billions of light-years is also looking back billions of years, how do you account for the similarity across time? There are two, maybe three, distinct vertical troughs, not quite a billion light years wide. But they are the same size a vastly different distances. And the numerous billion light year wide bubbles are impossible to miss. It seems that "matter" and collects and glows brightest where the bubble wave fronts collide or intersect. But shouldn't the bubbles be smaller in the past and larger now, or visa versa? Can someone explain?

An excellent question Mayday. Hope you are still scanning replies for an answer.

The reason is that the picture you are looking at is a supercomputer *simulation* of the simultaneous evolution of all the contents of the cosmos, NOT just from the POV of observations made from Earth (i.e. observations limited by the speed of light).

Back to MOG,

It is a matter of opinion on my part that MOG does not work on universial scales.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't mean you are right. MOG has been shown to explain curvature of galactic arms, which Einstein's Gravity cannot without dark matter. If dark matter doesn't exist... On to the "Universal" scale. It can explain the CMBR as well as the clumpiness. Moffat and Toth have done some preliminary simulations showing this.

The problem with MOG is that it is just another fudge to the laws of physics that works at some scales. I suspect that "messed up" laws generally reflect interacting systems (ie interacting universes). In other words, although we cannot see the light from other big bangs, they happen none-the-less and we "see" them with gravity. It would also be illogical to assume that a natural process would only occur once. I'm sure a "physics of the multiverse" would be nice and simple, with no need to worry about such tiresome problems as "how could matter have won out over anti-matter", "how could such an unlikely thing as life exist", etc, etc.

@Pyle:
Dark matter is a product of dark energy, in my opinion, which nullifies MOG on universal scales. Again, MOG has been successful in some areas on the galactic scale, except MOG does not completely explain galaxy rotation curves, in my opinion, down to the ultramicroscopic level.

@DavidMcC:
I agree that MOG, for the most part, is a fudge with some success. I like your idea about the missing anti-matter residing in another universe for a simple explaination.
The Big Bang singularity is what determined life. My math shows the odds are in favor of intelligent life existing prior to the Big Big Bang.

Just saw (but didn't finish) an episode of "Inside the Wormhole" and it brought up something I'm surprised I hadn't heard of before. "Dark Flow" Supposedly, there is evidence that most of the Universe is moving in a common direction (towards another Verse?) They said this supported the BB, string, and many worlds theories.

Thoughts?

Edit: According to wiki, it's a relatively small portion of the CMB, not 'most' of the Universe. Also, it's possible that the velocity is a result of different physical laws, instead of another Verse and it's gravity.

I finished the episode. According to the main proponent of the "Dark Flow" theory, it will take him ~3 years to complete the analysis. He expects much more of the visible Verse to show that common movement.

It's way too early for confident theories, but for the first time, I am warming up to the finite Verse, possible MultiVerse theories in a significant way.

Re: Dark Flow There has been at least one recent paper refuting it. News article:
http://atramateri...niverse/
Paper in JCAP from iop science:
http://iopscience.../04/015/

Penrose et al had something to say about it too, if I remember correctly, but I couldn't find it off hand. I think it doesn't fit with their concentric circles, brane bouncing.

Anyway anisotropies in the CMBR may account for the apparent flow. Nothing definitive, so we'll keep watching.

In response to TM and DMC: MOG isn't a plug. It is a new set of equations that reduce to Einstein's gravity on smaller scales, just as Einstein's gravity reduces to Newtonian gravity. Is MOG correct? I don't think we have enough to rule it out yet. Certainly in its earlier forms it was shown not to be better, but they made adjustments.
That's what science is, test, revise, test... It might not pan out. IMHO its on the short list of real alternatives. My pet theory, for now.

"Re: Dark Flow There has been at least one recent paper refuting it.."

This recent paper by Dai et uses observations of supernovae to look for signs of dark flow, with as you point out null results. A version of the paper is available on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/...00v2.pdf

An earlier study of galaxy clusters using WMAP also found no evidence of bulk motions: http://arxiv.org/...81v2.pdf

And Kaiser has concerns about the original analysis: http://arxiv.org/...33v1.pdf

I think the jury is still out on the question of dark flow (but, it's not looking good).

I am soooo disappointed, yyz. Not even you can dig up more on MOG despite my constant rambling on about it. As I said in another thread, "Right now DM has the biggest number of scientific minds treating it as the best hypothesis with no other real contenders even close (poor, misunderstood MOG)." ;)

@Pyle,

"I am soooo disappointed, yyz. Not even you can dig up more on MOG despite my constant rambling on about it."

LOL. My reluctance to comment on MOG stems from my ignorance of its details, I guess. :^)

I haven't had a chance to read Moffats' book on MOG and I've only seen a handful of papers that have been published (most pre-2010). Add to that, most of my background is in observational astronomy (as opposed to theory) and the math is, as you've noted elsewhere, rather daunting.

One problem I've had looking at earlier papers on MOG wrt galaxy clusters has to do with errant assumptions used in the analysis of X-ray observations at the time. X-ray gas in galaxy clusters was usually assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium; that has since been shown not to be the case in MOST galaxy clusters. A 2005 paper by Brownstein and Moffat looks at 106 galaxy clusters and uses observationally derived masses and densities for some clusters now known to be incorrect.

con't

con't

It's rather inconvenient having to look up source material on all these clusters to determine what assumptions were used to derive certain parameters (and if those parameters are still valid). The 2005 MOG-GC paper: http://arxiv.org/...22v1.pdf

More accurate values are now available for most of these clusters, so it will be interesting to see how MOG fares compared to these corrected parameters. Better values have now also been derived for the Bullet Cluster, and I look forward to a new MOG comparison using these refined parameters (the 2007 MOG-Bullet Cluster study: http://arxiv.org/...46v3.pdf )

Hopefully, MOG enthusiasts (MOGgers?) will find new blood to continue investigation of the theory, since it has not been shown to be in direct conflict with observation. Hang in there Pyle, there may be hope for poor misunderstood MOG after all.

MOG's development is going to be restricted by the success of the LCDM model. As long as LCDM continues to perform, the scientific community will continue to ignore alternate unproven theories.
Laymen like me who have strong aversions to the "dark" and spooky are much more susceptible to the arguments made by those with alternate theories. I think the aether and Electric Universe cults show that.
Since being directed towards MOG I have felt it is different, mainly because, as you said, it hasn't been shown to be in direct conflict with observation, and because it has potential to make predictions that are different from the LCDM model. More recently Moffat and Toth have developed it into a parameterless version so there is no plug to fit the data. The formulas either work or don't and so far they think they work. Aesthetically this feels so much better than observing the light and then guessing where the dark must be.

Direct observation of DM, ie. Soudan, will end speculation, but I feel 100% confirmation that the bubbles are the result of DM collisions is highly doubtful.
Its possible that we'll solve the riddle in collider experiments, witnessing DM creation, but I have a feeling that LCDM is only going to gain momentum as time progresses unless we find MOG's phion or some fatal flaw in LCDM. As long as LCDM still works, recruiting minds to work on MOG will be very difficult.
In any event, I find it interesting to chase it around.
As always, thank you yyz for your efforts and your interest.