NationStates

Grave_n_idle wrote:

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'.

Norstal wrote:

New Heliopolis wrote:

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.

Albicia wrote:Of course.

New Heliopolis wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

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.

DaWoad wrote:

New Heliopolis wrote:
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 wrote:

DaWoad wrote:[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 wrote:

New Heliopolis wrote:
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.

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy...

New Heliopolis wrote: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...

Wikipedia wrote: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]

Avenio wrote:

New Heliopolis wrote: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;

Wikipedia wrote: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 wrote: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

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
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.

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

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

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

New Heliopolis wrote:

Norstal wrote: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.

New Heliopolis wrote: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...

Big Jim P wrote:I am God, so yes.

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:

Dakini wrote: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.

Farnhamia wrote:

Big Jim P wrote: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."*

Big Jim P wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:*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.

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.

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

Yes, I do.

Of course.