How are Dark Mtter and Consciousness different from Spirit?

[Brian37]

True, dark matter is just one explanation, that's why it's a hypothesis. I'm not even attempting to defend the idea, I'm discerning the difference between an informed proposition and an uninformed presupposition.

BINGO

Scientific method discovered dark mater.

"spirit" is simply a loaded cliche humans can twist to mean whatever they want. 


Humans do not understand that their is a completely different language going on when science uses a word, and when a layperson uses a word.

Same mistake theists make with words like "Law". They think it means a bunch of people in government deciding a regulation everyone has to follow. "Law" as scientific method uses, is not that. "Law" is a word in scientists use to describe consistent tested and falsified data repeatedly.

Same mistake they make with the word "Theory". Laypeople stupidly take that to mean "guess". No, in scientific language "Theory" also is language used to describe observations based on repeated experimentation.

"spirit" has many meanings, and depending on religion it can be a casual non literal word, but most of the time for the superstitious it is a literal claim of the super natural existing, like a demon, or a good spirit, or the spirit of a loved one in ghost form.

You cannot plug the ill defined naked assertion of "spirit" into a scientific "hypothesis", much less a "theory".

The better option to explain why the word "spirit" exists, is that people merely like the idea of such.

[Jackalope]

As CD said, dark matter is just one explanation for what we are observing. One other that occurs to me right now is, the deficiency of matter may explain our observation that the universe is expanding.  What we see as the galaxies being held together is really just a blink of the eye in the vast eons of the universe. So there may indeed be enough matter for that blink.

On your first point, it happens to also be the best explanation (so far).

On the second point, not really. We can look back ~13 billion years in time and see that it's not merely a blink in time.

[Alex K]

Galaxies require large amounts of matter in a cluster to generate the gravitational force that is needed to hold them together; by observing their light, it was found that galaxies contained far less visible matter than was necessary to keep them from drifting apart, meaning there was an unseen form of matter that generated gravity but didn't emit light - dark matter. We can't observe dark matter directly, but we can observe its effects.

Meanwhile, generations of ancient primitives generated the idea of the spirit as early attempts to understand the nature of consciousness, their ideas have been refuted. The end.

There you go!
The use of spirit as an explanation is basically and end of discourse. What I’m looking for is further discussion.

As CD said, dark matter is just one explanation for what we are observing. One other that occurs to me right now is, the deficiency of matter may explain our observation that the universe is expanding.

The 25% dark matter is already taken into account in the equations of cosmic expansion in most calculations, leaving it out would not only not provide an explanation for the expansion, it would also give you the wrong numbers for it.

What we see as the galaxies being held together is really just a blink of the eye in the vast eons of the universe. So there may indeed be enough matter for that blink.

I don't understand what you mean - you would literally have to believe that there is no cosmic history and everything was created just now as it is including the light from the far past coming towards us looking as if all that history had played out, because without dark matter or an alternative, there is not enough gravity and galaxies and galaxy clusters would have all been torn apart by their rotation within several millions of years.

But there are enough independed lines of evidence for dark matter now anyways.They just should have called it differently. If it were called "Non-Baryonic pressureless component" or something similarly boring, people at least wouldn't think that it must be something terribly mysterious all the time. Imagine the press had called the Higgs Boson the God Particle or something stupid like that, we wouldn't hear the end if it! ... oh wait...

[Rhondazvous]

There you go!
The use of spirit as an explanation is basically and end of discourse. What I’m looking for is further discussion.

As CD said, dark matter is just one explanation for what we are observing. One other that occurs to me right now is, the deficiency of matter may explain our observation that the universe is expanding.  

The 25% dark matter is already taken into account in the equations of cosmic expansion in most calculations, leaving it out would not only not provide an explanation for the expansion, it would also give you the wrong numbers for it.

What we see as the galaxies being held together is really just a blink of the eye in the vast eons of the universe. So there may indeed be enough matter for that blink.

I don't understand what you mean - you would literally have to  believe that there is no cosmic history and everything was created just now as it is including the light from the far past coming towards us looking as if all that history had played out, because without dark matter or an alternative, there is not enough gravity and galaxies and galaxy clusters would have all been torn apart by their rotation within several millions of years.

But there are enough independed lines of evidence for dark matter now anyways.They just should have called it differently. If it were called "Non-Baryonic pressureless component" or something similarly boring,  people at least wouldn't think that it must be something terribly mysterious all the time. Imagine the press had called the Higgs Boson the God Particle or something stupid like that, we wouldn't hear the end if it! ... oh wait...

What I’m saying is that after the Big Bang, the time of the galaxies’ formation was minimal compared to the entire existence of the universe. And now they are moving apart. Otherwise the whole universe would be one big galaxy with all matter being held together by gravity.

But like you and CD said, there is a balance of forces at work and dark matter is needed for both gravity and expansion.

[Brian37]

There you go!
The use of spirit as an explanation is basically and end of discourse. What I’m looking for is further discussion.

As CD said, dark matter is just one explanation for what we are observing. One other that occurs to me right now is, the deficiency of matter may explain our observation that the universe is expanding.  

The 25% dark matter is already taken into account in the equations of cosmic expansion in most calculations, leaving it out would not only not provide an explanation for the expansion, it would also give you the wrong numbers for it.

What we see as the galaxies being held together is really just a blink of the eye in the vast eons of the universe. So there may indeed be enough matter for that blink.

I don't understand what you mean - you would literally have to  believe that there is no cosmic history and everything was created just now as it is including the light from the far past coming towards us looking as if all that history had played out, because without dark matter or an alternative, there is not enough gravity and galaxies and galaxy clusters would have all been torn apart by their rotation within several millions of years.

But there are enough independed lines of evidence for dark matter now anyways.They just should have called it differently. If it were called "Non-Baryonic pressureless component" or something similarly boring,  people at least wouldn't think that it must be something terribly mysterious all the time. Imagine the press had called the Higgs Boson the God Particle or something stupid like that, we wouldn't hear the end if it! ... oh wait...

No shit, every time I hear the media use the term "God particle", I want to throw a fucking brick at my TV.

Ok how about the "Allah particle", or the "Yahweh particle" or the "Bhrama particle" or the "Thor particle"......

Scientific method never has, or will ever prop up ANY religion, because that is not what scientific method is there for.

[Rhondazvous]

How about the ABBA particle? Betcha won’t argue wit dat.

[Brian37]

How about the ABBA particle? Betcha won’t argue wit dat.

Crap, you got me on that one. Hell yea, I'd be all over dat! Still wouldn't be worth it though, you see how I get treated here when talking about ABBA.   

[The Grand Nudger]

Dark matter, spirit and consciousness are all hypothetical existences that cannot be directly observed, but only inferred as explanations for that which can be observed.

Right off the bat, there is an implied parity of observational weight or volume (and nature) between the three that isn't representative of the actual situation.

Consciousness is not hypothetical, and is directly -and- indirectly observed to such an extent that it's inclusion in this list of three seems absurd.

Dark matter is an open hypothetical, and is indirectly observed.

Spirit is a thoroughly discredited hypothetical, that has never been directly or indirectly observed - and worse, a hypothetical whose purpose for existence has long since yielded to more accurate and factual explanations.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I guess the wind is on the same level as mystical bullshit too.

[Brian37]

I guess the wind is on the same level as mystical bullshit too.

Yea, I agree. We once didn't know the atom molecular makeup of the atmosphere, but even then we certainly knew air existed because the motion of it had an affect trees and grass and our hair.

Air is translucent, but that doesn't make it magical. Once you start a proposition with a naked assertion, no matter what follows, your answer will be flawed.