Do you belive in God?

[New Heliopolis]

Not only are you 'explaining it badly', but you're talking nonsense. If there was convincing evidence of the supernatural having 'an effect on our world', it would be 'the natural'.

Not entirely, and there is such evidence. There's a reason the observable modifier is used when describing, well, any theory in physics.

Now, as to why not entirely, if it's a thing in violation of our local rules, it's not natural even when it's interacting with us.

[Big Water]

Yes, I do.

[New Heliopolis]

The only thing that's less presumptuous than affirming anything is denying something.

Sorry, what? Affirming something whilst ignoring other possibilities is more presumptuous, ignorant, and arrogant. Like I said before, you resort to god/theology explaining things that are scientific instead of using science to explain it. You can't do that.

When did I do that?

Seriously, point to the specific instance where I did that.

[Albicia]

Of course.

[Farnhamia]

Of course.

Why "Of course"?

[DaWoad]

Not only are you 'explaining it badly', but you're talking nonsense. If there was convincing evidence of the supernatural having 'an effect on our world', it would be 'the natural'.

Not entirely, and there is such evidence. There's a reason the observable modifier is used when describing, well, any theory in physics.

Now, as to why not entirely, if it's a thing in violation of our local rules, it's not natural even when it's interacting with us.

[citation needed]

[New Heliopolis]

Not entirely, and there is such evidence. There's a reason the observable modifier is used when describing, well, any theory in physics.

Now, as to why not entirely, if it's a thing in violation of our local rules, it's not natural even when it's interacting with us.

[citation needed]

And given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

In it, you'll note that observation is kind of a required step. And since there was, in fact, evidence that the universe is expanding more than it should...

Well, observation actually had to support it.

[DaWoad]

[citation needed]

And given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

In it, you'll note that observation is kind of a required step. And since there was, in fact, evidence that the universe is expanding more than it should...

Well, observation actually had to support it.

not what I wanted a citation on, though I thank you for that anyway. What I'm looking for is a source that shows something in violation of our local rules please.

[New Heliopolis]

And given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

In it, you'll note that observation is kind of a required step. And since there was, in fact, evidence that the universe is expanding more than it should...

Well, observation actually had to support it.

not what I wanted a citation on, though I thank you for that anyway. What I'm looking for is a source that shows something in violation of our local rules please.

Our ability to even observe the edges of the universe that go beyond where they should.
So...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_cosmos

To confirm that dark energy is, in fact, a presumption, and not a fact...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy...

The rest is my own theory, not an observation but a way to explain it.

[Avenio]

To confirm that dark energy is, in fact, a presumption, and not a fact...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy...

A couple paragraphs down from that;

A recent survey of more than 200,000 galaxies appears to confirm the existence of dark energy, although the exact physics behind it remains unknown.^[5][6]

[Coast Land]

I believe in god, or some sort of higher force "the powers that be"

But I also believe that to each his own, in my opinion it's irrational to think that "God" favors just one group of people over another, even under the notion that "god loves everyone he just holds the chosen people on a higher bar of expectations"

On that same note I also believe it's irrational to think that everyone across history and the continents are all wrong, Christians in Europe and the middle east believe their religion to be correct and they claim they've felt god, and likewise with the world's populations of Muslims and Jews, not to mention Daoists and Buddhists and Hindus. All of these groups claim to have felt the divine in their understanding, whether it be the Abrahamic God or Nirvana or the Dao or any Deity out there.

I believe in a higher force, but I do believe that people choose to worship and understand the higher force as best they can that fits with their own lifestyle and preferences. Personally, I grew up Muslim but within the last year or two I've finally come to terms that I'm a Witch at heart, but my mother is still Muslim. She's most comfortable being Muslim, I'm most comfortable being Wiccan, and my grandmother is most comfortable being Presbyterian.

To each his own

[New Heliopolis]

To confirm that dark energy is, in fact, a presumption, and not a fact...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

A couple paragraphs down from that;

A recent survey of more than 200,000 galaxies appears to confirm the existence of dark energy, although the exact physics behind it remains unknown.^[5][6]

Checked the sources for those, am noting confirmation isn't necessarily perfect...i.e., it exists from an inference, which I made a different form of that has little to do with gravity. You'll also note that my inference has less presumptions.

What I'd really like to see, honestly, is what these processes the two scientists used were.

[Outlying States]

I believe in god, or some sort of higher force "the powers that be"

But I also believe that to each his own, in my opinion it's irrational to think that "God" favors just one group of people over another, even under the notion that "god loves everyone he just holds the chosen people on a higher bar of expectations"

On that same note I also believe it's irrational to think that everyone across history and the continents are all wrong, Christians in Europe and the middle east believe their religion to be correct and they claim they've felt god, and likewise with the world's populations of Muslims and Jews, not to mention Daoists and Buddhists and Hindus. All of these groups claim to have felt the divine in their understanding, whether it be the Abrahamic God or Nirvana or the Dao or any Deity out there.

I believe in a higher force, but I do believe that people choose to worship and understand the higher force as best they can that fits with their own lifestyle and preferences. Personally, I grew up Muslim but within the last year or two I've finally come to terms that I'm a Witch at heart, but my mother is still Muslim. She's most comfortable being Muslim, I'm most comfortable being Wiccan, and my grandmother is most comfortable being Presbyterian.

To each his own

Hear, hear.

To each his/her own

[New Heliopolis]

Dark matter requires virtually no alterations to physics at all. It doesn't even require an additional gauge field. All it requires is the existence of a very large amount of electrically neutral matter. Nucleosynthesis of neutron complexes can't explain it, for rather technical reasons, but it can be easily explained by adding a Z₂ graded Lie-ish algebra, called a Lie superalgebra to the symmetries in the standard model. This particular superalgebra is called supersymmetry, and it's the only acceptable way to combine internal symmetries and space-time symmetries in a non-trivial way by exploiting a small loophole in the Coleman-Mandula theorem. The fact that it's the only one that does fit into the loophole, and the fact that it solves many different problems in physics makes it a very appealing addition, especially since it's incredibly simple and requires almost no change to the standard model.

Except we don't have confirmation that supersymmetry applies.

[New Heliopolis]

Though honestly, I'm going to have to debate my own theory now. I have my own questions.

Time for new thread.

[Avenio]

Checked the sources for those, am noting confirmation isn't necessarily perfect...i.e., it exists from an inference,

Observation, not necessarily inference. We know how dark energy would have acted in the universe if it existed, and this survey's specific goal was to look for said effects, which it found.

which I made a different form of that has little to do with gravity. You'll also note that my inference has less presumptions.

No, not really. Dark energy fits in within modern cosmological views of the universe; from my understanding of it, it helps solve the problem of the missing mass at the Big Bang and could have even been the force that drove early the early inflationary event very soon after the Big Bang.

What I'd really like to see, honestly, is what these processes the two scientists used were.

Ask and ye shall receive.

[Norstal]

Sorry, what? Affirming something whilst ignoring other possibilities is more presumptuous, ignorant, and arrogant. Like I said before, you resort to god/theology explaining things that are scientific instead of using science to explain it. You can't do that.

When did I do that?

Seriously, point to the specific instance where I did that.

It doesn't just do so for no reason, though. There's some reason it does. Possibly a failure in the Conservation of Energy, but...then that raises its own questions, actually more helpful to the possibility of things like the supernatural. And like I said, it's only a start. I still have to find that one writing of Kaku's that I can use as a source...

That's what you're doing. Deferring to god or the supernatural to explain scientific, physical things. You can't do that.

[Big Jim P]

I am God, so yes.

[Farnhamia]

I am God, so yes.

*hands Big Jim a slip of paper reading, "You are the 37th player to post that statement. Thank you for your contribution."*

[Furious Grandmothers]

I created Him, so yes.

[Smuggar]

Bats aren't birds.

Rabbits don't chew cud.

The circumference of a circle divided by its diameter is not exactly 3.

These are just lies perpetuated by liberal 'scientists' to attempt to discredit the Holy Word of God.

Finally, someone on NSG with some sense!

[Big Jim P]

I am God, so yes.

*hands Big Jim a slip of paper reading, "You are the 37th player to post that statement. Thank you for your contribution."*

Thank you. Of course you know, all the others are lying. There is only one true God: Me.

[Furious Grandmothers]

*hands Big Jim a slip of paper reading, "You are the 37th player to post that statement. Thank you for your contribution."*

Thank you. Of course you know, all the others are lying. There is only one true God: Me.

I know. I created You.

[Salandriagado]

Any reason for that? Have you tried finding the 'answer' in any shape or form AT ALL since then? I highly doubt that your faith in all things metaphysical would fly out the window once secularism reared its ugly head.

Because the existence of any god makes precisely the same amount of sense as believing the Santa or the Easter bunny, or less, in the case of all falsifiable gods.

Of course I believe in God. The Bible says it, therefore God exists, because the Bible is 100% true.

Yes, I do.

Of course.

Care to explain your reasoning?

[Huaraka]

Spiritual/New Age/Buddhist