(September 12, 2014 at 4:02 am)Alex K Wrote:

Quote:Is it not invisible? I would say that observing effect is not the same as observing the cause (the force) itself. I was agreeing with everything else you were saying. How was I being disingenuous?

Because one can never detect a force itself, only its effect. Detecting a force itself is a meaningless term. That's what detecting means: you have a detecting apparatus, and it shows an effect.

Fair enough.

I guess the fact that it's referred to as 'energy' and many of the energies that we interact with we are capable of observing led to my misunderstanding.

So, beyond this, does anyone have any opinion on whether this "force" possibly affects anything else in our reality other than the expansion of the universe?

I got a better idea....

The universe is expanding and it is accelerating.
Those are facts.

You don't like the 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' explanations?
Tell us what are the causes instead.

Go ahead, we'll wait....

---

(September 12, 2014 at 4:09 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: So, beyond this, does anyone have any opinion on whether this "force" possibly affects anything else in our reality other than the expansion of the universe?

Right now?
I'd say we don't have enough information to determine if this force affects anything in our universe.

(September 12, 2014 at 4:16 am)LostLocke Wrote: I got a better idea....

The universe is expanding and it is accelerating.
Those are facts.

You don't like the 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' explanations?
Tell us what are the causes instead.

Go ahead, we'll wait....

---

(September 12, 2014 at 4:09 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: So, beyond this, does anyone have any opinion on whether this "force" possibly affects anything else in our reality other than the expansion of the universe?

Right now?
I'd say we don't have enough information to determine if this force affects anything in our universe.

I didn't say anything about liking or disliking the explanations, moreso that they're very interesting variables to be adding to the equation at this point with regard to expansion of our understanding of reality. A unification with quantum theory will be really mind blowing someday I'm sure.

(September 12, 2014 at 4:56 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: I didn't say anything about liking or disliking the explanations, moreso that they're very interesting variables to be adding to the equation at this point with regard to expansion of our understanding of reality. A unification with quantum theory will be really mind blowing someday I'm sure.

Oy vey...
They are not variables.

(September 12, 2014 at 5:14 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 4:56 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: I didn't say anything about liking or disliking the explanations, moreso that they're very interesting variables to be adding to the equation at this point with regard to expansion of our understanding of reality. A unification with quantum theory will be really mind blowing someday I'm sure.

Oy vey...
They are not variables.

And you're confident of this why?

With what has been observed in quantum physics and epigentics regarding the potential of things in the environment to influence results, it seems like it would be negligent to rule out "dark matter" and "The Force" as possible variables.

(September 11, 2014 at 12:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Public opinion in science over the past hundred years is that Darwn's theory of evolution is "true". It seems to be widely accepted because of it’s simplicity. But is it actually true?

New evidence suggests that gene mutations can either be expressed to some degree or silenced based on the specific circumstances of each individual organism. This evidence, therefore, seems to negate the assumed “truth” that gene mutations are responsible for evolution of life and the differentiation of species on earth.

Further, epigeneticists are now reporting evidence that gene expression is dynamic and influenced by all aspects of the environment. The expression markers are said to change regularly within a single lifetime as a result of environmental stimuli. This new evidence now leaves open to question every possible variable imaginable as being influential in the development and life of the organism, even those mysterious unknowns (“dark matter”, “dark energy”, “god”, “chi”, “cosmic rays”, etc).

I'm curious as to atheist perspective on this, as "atheism" seems to be a very absolute with regard to a perspective on what "cannot possibly be".

NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN........

Newton got physics right but also postulated Alchemy, so if we go by this fucked up logic we should throw out physics.

Darwin certainly could not have known how right he was so some of the minor observations for his time could be slightly off, BUT MINOR. The collective theory as a whole is FACT. And DNA backs it up.

Darwin used observation, not prayer. Darwin didn't fill in the gaps with an invisible sky hero.

And this isn't even a difference between physics and alchemy like Newton.

Whomever sold you this bullshit argument really needs to find a skyscraper and test gravity and see if that is just a "theory".

(September 12, 2014 at 5:23 am)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 5:14 am)LostLocke Wrote: Oy vey...
They are not variables.

And you're confident of this why?

With what has been observed in quantum physics and epigentics regarding the potential of things in the environment to influence results, it seems like it would be negligent to rule out "dark matter" and "The Force" as possible variables.

No one says they aren't, but since their effects have yet to be observed, we just have no reason to even postulate them as variables. We have to work things out a little bit more.

And again, I don't really see how epigenetics would "prove wrong" the ToE. Speciation due to genetic mutations has been widely observed, and epigenetics can only influence a phenotype to a certain degree. Also, you have to take into account that the offspring of a species will most likely live in the same environment as the generations before, so there might not be that much of a difference in gene expression.

Even if it were to live in a completely different environment, it's not like if you put a dog embryo in particular conditions you will have a cat. You will have a horribly deformed dog, or no dog at all.

(September 12, 2014 at 4:09 am)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 4:02 am)Alex K Wrote: Because one can never detect a force itself, only its effect. Detecting a force itself is a meaningless term. That's what detecting means: you have a detecting apparatus, and it shows an effect.

Fair enough.

I guess the fact that it's referred to as 'energy' and many of the energies that we interact with we are capable of observing led to my misunderstanding.

So, beyond this, does anyone have any opinion on whether this "force" possibly affects anything else in our reality other than the expansion of the universe?

So we're getting somewhere here.

The thing with Energy is exactly the same as with Forces. You may have more or less intuition for the one than for the other, but they are both theoretical concepts which are not identical to the phenomena you observe, but only constructs which can be used to describe them.

Energy has Units Force x Distance, which means that it describes a quantity which more or less measures the capability to exert force on something while it moves a distance. This quantity is conserved (cannot be destroyed and created at least in flat spacetime), and therefore it a useful theoretical quantity to consider.

Anyways, coming back to dark energy. If it indeed has the form of the cosmological constant (for which there is no evidence against), it is difficult to come up with *other* effects. It is basically the energy level of empty space as seen by gravity. As you may know, the Einstein Field Equation basically says

Spacetime Curvature = some numbers * Energy-Momentum density of stuff.

If you add a constant on either side of this equation, it amounts to a constant energy density of empty space (=dark Energy). I am not aware of any other observable that could yield an independent measurement for the forseeable future. That's a pity, isn't it. Even though it seemingly only yields one single observable, it does make predictions, namely *how* exactly this accelerated expansion should be accelerated. One can therefore in principle test it by looking at the rate of relative expansion over time, and in a Universe in which dark energy dominates, this rate should be constant. If it changes, it's a more complicated beast, which can for example be described by quintessence models for dynamical dark energies. But, again, there's no evidence for that yet.

The cosmological constant is not a fudge either - it was a free parameter in the theory from the beginning, and Einstein first put it in out of prejudice, and then removed it again out of prejudice. From a modern perspective, the only thing that is surprising about it is how little of it there is. The standard model of particle physics produces vacuum energy density from quantum effects which are much larger than the observed dark energy by at least, say, 40 orders of magnitude, which has to cancel with the cosmological constant input parameter. This so-called hierarchy problem is the thing that confuses people, not that there should be dark energy at all. People were aware of this theoretical weirdness and were therefore hoping that the total cosmo constant would be set to exactly zero by some symmetry principle. This was of course famously proven wrong around the 2000s.

(September 12, 2014 at 5:23 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: With what has been observed in quantum physics and epigentics regarding the potential of things in the environment to influence results, it seems like it would be negligent to rule out "dark matter" and "The Force" as possible variables.

"A force." Not "The Force." You seem strangely hung up on this need to give a name and identity (and even additional properties!) to something that is still not fully understood. Are you aware that you are doing this?

(September 12, 2014 at 8:02 am)Tonus Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 5:23 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: With what has been observed in quantum physics and epigentics regarding the potential of things in the environment to influence results, it seems like it would be negligent to rule out "dark matter" and "The Force" as possible variables.

"A force." Not "The Force." You seem strangely hung up on this need to give a name and identity (and even additional properties!) to something that is still not fully understood. Are you aware that you are doing this?

Yes, that Tonus says. You tend to give words more magical meaning beyond what scientists actually mean by them, and then voice your doubts about what the scientists allegedly claim about nature.
Your approach involves quite a bit tubular cellulose leftovers from the last harvest.