Could this explian what Dark matter and Dark energy is?

[Blueyedlion]

You can always trust an atheist to turn the spice of life into sand

So when a scientist who is actually doing the experiments, talks about it, and with passion because obviously he's passionate about it. You're just going to dismiss it because it doesn't correspond to your knowledge -
the knowledge you gained by reading what he's working on....

I'm not dismissing the guy's passion, I'm dismissing your superficial and biased interpretation of what he is saying. Let me ask you a different question - why did you bring this up in the first place, what did you want to show us?

How is it my interpretation? I'm literally transcribing it down here for you word for word from his mouth. There is no bias here. Find me the bias i beg of you.

"Irrespective of what this person says" sounds a lot like dismissal to me.
"who seems to have a bit too much of a poetic bent for their own good" - "I'm not dismissing the guy's passion" we'll, yes you actually are. 

So what exactly is it about him I'm illuminating to you that is "superficial"?

"why did you bring this up in the first place, what did you want to show us?

Isn't it clear? Have you not read what I've previously written? I've expressed myself very simply in accordance with this question already.
For the sake of imagination. To help get minds out of their respective box.

[Alex K]

By " irrespective of what he says" I meant not his scientific findings, of which you don't cite anything, but his subjective and misleading harping on Neutrinos existing " in a different world " or such stuff .

You seemed to be jumpting on those bits to make some esoteric point - but maybe I'm being unfair, so this is why I asked what you want to tell us with your highlightet quotes

[Brian37]

I transcribed this interview some time ago from  a scientist outside the public radar, unfortunately it was too long ago for me to remember who it was. I thought it might be interesting for people on this forum to read because I've never heard it from scientists before.

Does this explanation make sense?

"All mater is made of energy so dark matter is the same as dark energy. The reason many scientists belief they have found two different things is because there is more praise over multiple discoveries then one.

Dark matter is going to be based on dimensional plains, when we start to understand how to define dimensions then we will be able to define it as an equation and then we will be able to look at that dark matter and say ‘we’ve got layers of dark matter here.’ its not like how we look at a doll and say “here’s the dolls head and the dolls head is holding space, so everything inside of it is the doll." Its not like that because inside of the doll there’s more dark matter so this doll is just one layer of the dimension, so if we were able to peel back the layer the doll wouldn’t really exist in the form we are familiar with, the doll would have a different set of properties of vibrating strings, a different vibration of energy. Because each layer which we can call a dimension has different ranges of vibration - similar to string theory.

We’re going to come across other dimensions of existence. The way we are measuring our space, the way we are measuring what we perceive with our eyes is strictly limited to our senses, they’re extremely limited to what we can do. But it’s a great way of perceiving everything around us for this human instrument, but when we start looking for the truth though it gets quite confusing because you’re going to want to not just use your limited senses. We need to expand beyond that, to do that, it is to be able to come up with a way to perceive other dimensional plains. To put layers of dimensions in perspective, imagine earth and that an alien is standing on top of it, the alien can resonate between 0 to 8 dimensions, you can resonate between 0 to 5. So then the alien can still stay on earth but go into a different dimensional plain. Universes can overlap and these are universes that are in inter-dimensional plains."

I am just going to cut to the chase, which is my tendency in dealing with any god belief or religion.

Under your avatar you are listed under "religious views" as "a belief in a god"......

No credible scientist I would call objective will ever claim to know everything. There would be no point in scientific method if humans already had all the answers. Having said that, there is TONS we do already know, and tons of bad claims humans have scrapped.

"God of the gaps" is what every religion pulls. But the evidence is in, there is literally far much more evidence for saying that humans make religions and god claims up, and absolutely ZERO evidence that religion or a god claim is required to explain anything.

There were no religions 200,000 years ago, much less 4 billion years ago, much less 13.8 billion years ago. Our planet has had 5 mass extinctions in evolutionary history as to which only 1 percent remains. A planet with a sun that is 1 of billions in just our galaxy alone. It is a galaxy so big, it takes 1 ray of light at the speed of light 100,000 years to cross. And our galaxy is merely 1 in a universe full of 100s of BILLIONS of galaxies in our observable universe.

So when you speculate about what "dark mater" is or how it works, it still would not require God or Allah or Jesus or Vishnu or Buddha to figure out. Humans make up all gods and all religions, but only science leads us to answers.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm not dismissing the guy's passion, I'm dismissing your superficial and biased interpretation of what he is saying. Let me ask you a different question - why did you bring this up in the first place, what did you want to show us?

How is it my interpretation? I'm literally transcribing it down here for you word for word from his mouth. There is no bias here. Find me the bias i beg of you.

"Irrespective of what this person says" sounds a lot like dismissal to me.
"who seems to have a bit too much of a poetic bent for their own good" - "I'm not dismissing the guy's passion" we'll, yes you actually are. 

So what exactly is it about him I'm illuminating to you that is "superficial"?

"why did you bring this up in the first place, what did you want to show us?

Isn't it clear? Have you not read what I've previously written? I've expressed myself very simply in accordance with this question already.
For the sake of imagination. To help get minds out of their respective box.

Before you continue yammering on about "science," keep in mind that Alex K is a physicist and surely knows more about this stuff than most of us on this forum combined.

Alex, we are so lucky to have you here; have I ever said that to you?  Shame on me if it took this long.  You are a valuable scientific resource!  

[robvalue]

I totally agree! We're very lucky to have him.

He's my safety net in case I accidentally start talking bollocks

[deleteduser12345]

Of course. Go collect your nobel prize.

[Blueyedlion]

Alex KBy " irrespective of what he says" I meant not his scientific findings,

Well then you should have said that clearly. Never honestly allow another to interpret what you say as anything other then what you mean exactly. That's the most fundamental requirement of communication.

of which you don't cite anything, but his subjective and misleading harping on Neutrinos existing " in a different world " or such stuff .

You are correct in not citing his scientific findings, which i will look now look into. However, can you please answer me why you think a scientist working on such a high caliber field of science, would be misleading?

You seemed to be jumping on those bits to make some esoteric point - but maybe I'm being unfair, so this is why I asked what you want to tell us with your highlightet quotes

I understand from the mindset of an atheist, the words of spirituality and the belief in another universe that's only supported by the evidence he and only a handful of his other colleges are privileged to, can appear esoteric and that my familiarity with his perspective can also appear alien, in contrast to what you're scientifically familiar with. However, my point in highlighting what i have, is only to show there are perspectives outside the established scientific view of things, to which you and others here appear to be strongly resistant to.

Also, I'm emailing him right now in query of what his said in regard to the videos - if i can receive a direct response from him, i'll post it here for you all to read.
Unless you would like to email him yourself, can you please tell me what you'd like to ask him to which i can forward him?

[madog]

   However, can you please answer me why you think a scientist working on such a high caliber field of science, would be misleading? 

 

He isn't the only one, maybe one of the latest? But from what I saw he hasn't found anything yet? .... They are trying to detect them way underground and they have been doing so now for a long time ... 

The point is the sensors have got to be incredibly sensitive as I believe they are recording or trying to record a neutrino colliding with something else .... when in the atmosphere other particles can give false readings hence the deep underground sensors ... as most other particles don't pass through the earth like neutrinos and other disturbances are shielded way underground that is why the underground sensors.

I couldn't see how the new attempt intended sifting out other disturbances and particles, but I am an no expert just an interested observer

But be clear, for all the spiritual talk of the scientist, if and when neutrino's are detected it will not help the ""God" cause in the least as they will be natural occurrences ... 

The Intelligent Design scientists that scavenge on any new real scientific work rather than do any real science will jump on any scrap to say "God" did it, but they only get short periods as they are always shot down when the empirical evidence  comes in .... 

Dog.

[Angrboda]

Neutrinos being weakly interacting has nothing to do with any vibrations or hidden dimensions, which is what you lead off your thread with. This 'vibrations' crap is nothing more than new age bullshit, and the flowery description of neutrinos does nothing to support it.

[ignoramus]

Alex, while we're talking about crap, I watched some NASA docos about the mysterious negative energy thought to be the answer to warp drive. Any thoughts?