Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

[Walker]

It is only within and around galaxies that general relativity applies. Outside of them spacetime
is basically flat and can be treated as Euclidean even though Newtonian gravity is still universal

Well, it's rather that we only apply general relativity within and around galaxies, and it only works at the galactic scale if we bung in dark matter, which doesn't show up anywhere on a smaller scale. At the inter-galactic scale, we chuck in dark energy to account for the fact that Newtonian gravity apparently isn't universal.

So, it can’t be seen or touched by scientists, and it’s believed by scientists to exist by inference of action upon the observable.

Are you talking about God, or dark matter?

If talking about dark matter, then logically, shouldn't the same standard of proof be acceptable as evidence of God, by those who infer the existence of dark matter?

[surreptitious57]

If talking about dark matter then logically shouldnt the same standard of proof be
acceptable as evidence of God by those who infer the existence of dark matter ?

No because science can actually investigate dark matter which is a physical phenomenon but it cannot investigate God
Dark matter is incredibly elusive but it exists whereas God is metaphysical so his existence can never be demonstrated

[uwot]

So, it can’t be seen or touched by scientists, and it’s believed by scientists to exist by inference of action upon the observable.

Exactly.

Are you talking about God, or dark matter?

Well, on this occasion, dark matter and dark energy; although the same thing applies to gravitational, electromagnetic and all other fields.

If talking about dark matter, then logically, shouldn't the same standard of proof be acceptable as evidence of God, by those who infer the existence of dark matter?

It's a fair point. The thing is that you can do very specific experiments to test a scientific hypothesis, and the results will either agree with predictions or not. The problem with any hypothesis predicated on a being that can violate the laws of nature is that there is no result that cannot be attributed to a miracle, so you can never show that a specific result supports the hypothesis.

[uwot]

Dark matter is incredibly elusive but it exists...

Strictly speaking, the phenomenon that is attributed to dark matter exists. Dark matter is just one of several hypothetical causes.

[henry quirk]

.

[uwot]

Conceivably. Now, if you can just perform an experiment to demonstrate this, the Nobel Prize is in the post.

[henry quirk]

HA!

Yeah, step one: prove 'god'.

Easy-peasy.

[Walker]

Conceivably. Now, if you can just perform an experiment to demonstrate this, the Nobel Prize is in the post.

First, perform an experiment that yields definitive evidence for dark matter, if the first one hasn't been done since July.

“Particle physicists' attempts to understand dark matter have yet to yield definitive evidence for dark matter in the lab.”

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-experimen ... inary.html

[uwot]

Conceivably. Now, if you can just perform an experiment to demonstrate this, the Nobel Prize is in the post.

First, perform an experiment that yields definitive evidence for dark matter, if the first one hasn't been done since July.

Walker, if it is your tireless mission to persuade me that you are a complete fucking idiot, congratulations I am beginning to believe you. If it isn't, then perhaps you missed this:

Dark matter is incredibly elusive but it exists...

Strictly speaking, the phenomenon that is attributed to dark matter exists. Dark matter is just one of several hypothetical causes.

[Walker]

Well, scientists demand to see God in the lab.

Scientists can't even see dark matter in the lab.

Just sayin.

No need to get all defensive.

(No need to leap to full Alinsky.)

[Greta]

I can't speak for others but I have reviewed your material and provided positive feedback numerous times.

Indeed you have. It is very encouraging, and if I sound ungrateful, I apologise.

A couple of assumptions coming from you today, and each time you seem to have been wrong too.

Well, I was just pointing out to gaffo that no one has mentioned the revamp.

I can only say so many times that your work is awesome and manages to fill gaps that almost no one else is covering. It's brilliant. Amazing.

Without side by side comparisons, though, people can only only pat you on the back unless arguing or wanting to add ideas. It's too hard to be sure what's new material and what's not ... hmm, are those panels "new new" or were they new from the last iteration, or was it the version before that when it changed? ...

So I hitch onto the conversations, be they "appropriate" or not.

If you want useful feedback you'd need to at least point people to the specific parts that changed - what has changed, and maybe even comparing with what came before and give the rationale for making the change. The lack of direction creates free ranging discussions that then frustrate you.

Imagine that I published my short stories in a collection. So I post links here and ask for feedback. A while later I return and say, 'Hi everyone, remember my book? I've done some editing. Would you like to re-read the whole thing and provide feedback?'.

For the record, not too sure about the angle that quarks and electrons are slowed by big bang stuff. It's like saying that big bang stuff is slowed by big bang stuff.

PS. Only WIMPS talk about dark matter

[uwot]

Well, scientists demand to see God in the lab.

Yup. That seals it.

[Walker]

PS. Only WIMPS talk about dark matter

The nerdiness is rather endearing.

[Walker]

Well, scientists demand to see God in the lab.

Yup. That seals it.

I'm not drawing conclusions.

I wouldn't presume.

Just pointing to some facts.

[Walker]

.

That would be the dark fudge(ing).



It's just a play on words, a modicum of levity, so please no more Alinsky-folks freakouts?