Dark Energy May Not Exist At All

[Antman]

...Yet the humble ant uses the arch in constructing its underground habitats.

Et tu, Brutus? The ant is among the most noble of creatures. The arch they build is fractal.

 

[Muad Dib]

Et tu, Brutus? The ant is among the most noble of creatures. The arch they build is fractal.

You misconstrue my intent sir. It was never my intent to demean the ant and its contribution to our world. I apologize. I should have placed quotes around the word "humble".

As to your well founded point, much of nature is fractal. It was "civilization" that "needed" the comfortable reassurance of "linearity".

Fractals are a fairly recent development in our civilization's efforts to mathematically model our natural environment. Am I correct? One more small step toward enlightenment?

 

[Antman]

Yeah. I watched PBS, Hunting the Hidden Dimension, last night. Mandelbrot rocks. Another of the more highly advanced thinkers in human history ... dispossessed of what their contemporaries considered common sensibilities.

 

[Muad Dib]

I saw the previews of the show and have it recorded. Perhaps I can watch it tonight.

Public TV, History Channel and Nat Geo are some of my favorite channels.

 

[Antman]

Just one word. Plastics.

I mean, Hulu Desktop.

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

This assumes the ability to use reason.

The arch, when used in construction, is considered to be an indicator of a more advance technology in pre-history civilizations by some historians. Yet the humble ant uses the arch in constructing its underground habitats.

Did the ant develop the arch through reason or by a Darwinian trial and error process of evolution?

Should the earth be visited by alien archaeologists a million years from now and the human species has all gone to meet its maker, what will they hypothesize about us?

My bad, I should've used the term "higher reason"; I lose interest when someone throws Darwin at me, a person that didn't have enough b.... to defend his own theory later in life after he'd had time to re-visit what he'd said.

Oh well, this was a good discussion while it lasted.

 

[Muad Dib]

My bad, I should've used the term "higher reason"; I lose interest when someone throws Darwin at me, a person that didn't have enough b.... to defend his own theory later in life after he'd had time to re-visit what he'd said.

Oh well, this was a good discussion while it lasted.

Did Darwin not have the b**** to defend his theory or did he just want to keep his b**** much as Galileo did in 1632.

Moot point really as it was and is the scientific community that, eventually, validates, or invalidatesm, any proposed theory.

 

[creison]

Jão Maqueijo

Hello staff,
The THEORIA of Jão Maqueijo simply explains what the THEORIA of inflation can not.
I'm not saying that he is right.
but if he is wrong I want to see who in contrast to evidence-based formulas.
Maybe not so distant future we have the answer.
The truth is that EMC ² stops from here !
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEPIcjAPo2s&videos=Kf4P8ZXHb9c&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1"]YouTube - 1of5_Joao Magueijo's Big Bang[/ame]

Peace!
​

 

[Antman]

Perhaps, Galileo was wrong. Of course, maybe we have never been to the moon, so...


Also, from Publisher: Catholic Apologetics Publishing by Robert Sungenis

 

[smarteyeball]

Experts in advanced mathematics have recently proposed a new model to explain...

As undeniably interesting, and impressively computed and calculated as all these theories are - they are still just theories.

It is a never ending quest to seek ultimately unattainable answers.

Just like religion, science also uses arbitrarily delineated points in an attempt to provide an explanation that aims to comfort, or satisfy mankinds thirst for knowledge.

It's (subjectively) easy to draw a line, mark one point as the start, the other as the finish and then fill in the middle with explanations based on mathematics, speculation, sheer fancy or a mixture of all.

However, if those arbitrarily selected points are wrong to begin with, then all the complicated formulas or smoothly delivered sermons, no matter how well calculated, or how reasonable sounding they seem, will make what is invariably wrong, right.

As intertwined as religion and science are (much more than some care to acknowledge), the divergence of the two is that the latter is generally more willing to accept that it's theories are wrong and continually seek to adapt and adjust to new facts.

Either way, it's a fun and interesting ride seeking answers. But just like the bible, don't take scientific theories as gospel

 

[ten]

Your putting science and religion on the same level? Sorry, 1 has zero evidence the other only uses evidence.

 

[Zidane24]

   Warning

Discussing issues related to religion are not allowed due to rule three of SevenForums rules...please modify/delete your posts accordingly. See the rules here

 

[Antman]

Your putting science and religion on the same level? Sorry, 1 has zero evidence the other only uses evidence.

It exists when it is observed.

 

[Antman]

Discussing issues related to religion are not allowed due to rule three of SevenForums rules...please modify/delete your posts accordingly. See the rules here

The subject matter of the thread cannot be separated from the discussion. There are among us, those who pursue science in the quest for God, and those who pursue science in the quest for knowledge.

We can smartly remove Darwin from a discussion of cosmology. He was a biologist. We cannot remove gods as easily.

 

[smarteyeball]

Your putting science and religion on the same level? Sorry, 1 has zero evidence the other only uses evidence.

We can smartly remove Darwin from a discussion of cosmology. He was a biologist. We cannot remove gods as easily.

Yes. The correlation I drew between science and religion was not about evidence, but the inalienable desire humans have in seeking an answer for anything and everything.

Both science and religion attempt to fulfil that base need, and both contain facets of faith - regardless of methodology and out come.

   Warning

Discussing issues related to religion are not allowed due to rule three of SevenForums rules...please modify/delete your posts accordingly. See the rules here

yeah, yeah

 

[Zidane24]

The subject matter of the thread cannot be separated from the discussion. There are among us, those who pursue science in the quest for God, and those who pursue science in the quest for knowledge.

We can smartly remove Darwin from a discussion of cosmology. He was a biologist. We cannot remove gods as easily.

The subject matter of the thread was that dark energy may not exists...not that there may or may not be a god or if the explanation by science holds true or not. The warning was actually in contrast to the more current posts of the thread...not the actual subject matter of the thread itself

I believe you may have misunderstood Antman

 

[smarteyeball]

The subject matter of the thread was that dark energy may not exists...not that there may or may not be a god or if the explanation by science holds true or not.

Which is why, this is called the 'chillout room'

 

[Zidane24]

Which is why, this is called the 'chillout room'

oh I know...but I like to try and prevent a "future" problem before it starts...religion is a VERY touchy subject and others might feel offended by anything that gets posted further about it

 

[smarteyeball]

oh I know...but I like to try and prevent a "future" problem before it starts...religion is a VERY touchy subject and others might feel offended by anything that gets posted further about it

I realise that mate, but sometimes people will get offended no matter what.

It's just a friendly discussion

If it's deemed offensive, then I would question why does someone feel offended?

So, back on topic - Does Dark Matter exist? No. It's because space is really just fairy floss

 

[Antman]

I believe you may have misunderstood Antman

No, I completely understand. This is a great thread, replete with most participants expressing their enjoyment of what folly our knowledge really is.

The reference to Flatland was misunderstood, yet nonetheless, cogent. How that led us to Darwin's genatalia - well, that is moot. The offended party has abandoned the exploration.

There is a wonderfully revealing meta-discussion occurring here. It is not unlike Aero. If a member likes it, let them use it. If they do not...