5 ms·

>One of the recent most convincing things was the bullet cluster as described here.[1] We saw two galaxies collide where the "observed" matter actually underwen

>One of the recent most convincing things was the bullet cluster as described here.[1] We saw two galaxies collide where the "observed" matter actually underwent a collision but the gravitational lensing kept moving un-impeded which matches the belief that the majority of mass in a galaxy is collisionless dark matter that felt no colliding interaction and passed right on through bringing the bulk of the gravitational lensing with it. How can you possibly even begin to explain that without dark matter? [1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2006/08/21/dark-mat...

douche 9y ago
We don't understand how matter acrually works on a large scale. Inventing imaginary terms that we can't observe to satisfy the equations in the models to match the observed reality seems a poor practice.
- hwillis 9y ago
  We understand that when two galaxies hit each other, the visible mass gets all tangled up and suns and nebula smash into each other. Meanwhile the invisible mass continues onwards, oblivious to everything else. We CAN observe it and we have. Seriously this is basic object permanence. We can see hidden things moving around by themselves. Dark matter is still there even when there's normal matter on top of it.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  No. When the model is wrong, you build a new model. A bunch of weakly interacting particles is the new model.
- gaius 9y ago
  Right it's like when people say, I don't believe in Creation, that stuff is just nonsense. And you say, so what's your alternative theory then? And they reply, well there was a "big bang" and everything just sort of appeared, for no reason. Really, that's the alternative explanation?
  - hwillis 9y ago
    Well yes, if you ignore all the evidence of something then you can confidently say there is no evidence. Christian genesis: There was a garden of Eden, and a god. Evidence: No garden of Eden, no evidence of angels or god, no reason those things would suddenly stop being apparent. Direct contradictory evidence that YHWH[1] was a minor god in the original jewish pantheon rather than an actual creator god. Big Bang: The universe started for an unknown reason and rapidly expanded outward. Evidence: The universe is visibly expanding outwards and formed in a way consistent with an explosion. Did you think that the big bang theory was just something someone thought of, and then they looked for evidence? Evidence came first, then the big bang was proposed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
    - shakna 9y ago
      > Christian genesis: There was a garden of Eden, and a god. That's a really bad example to go to. The tale of Eden follows a poem, and if you take both literally, then you end up with contradictions. For why? Genre. Neither were intended to be literal. They were designed to convey meaning. > YHWH[1] was a minor god in the original jewish pantheon rather than an actual creator god. Origins are highly disputed, but El seems to be the most likely title, who is the head of the Caananite pantheon, and influential enough to be remembered in Babylon. Not a minor deity. I understand you were responding to a statement which sort of ignores the basic premises of science, but that doesn't mean your narrative should ignore a scholarly approach to documents whose origins predate writing.
      - hwillis 9y ago
        >Neither were intended to be literal. They were designed to convey meaning. Even Genesis has direct geographical references to it. It has directions. Calling it a metaphor is moving the goalposts. Ad reductio Abrahamic religion is simply that god made whatever we can't understand. It's not like I'm saying the world wasn't made in seven days. I'm saying that god said we were kicked out of where we came from and would never be allowed back, and that place doesn't exist. I'm saying god says he talks to us and appears to us, and those things don't happen. The basic, central tenants of the bible aren't real. These are important things, not minutia. >Origins are highly disputed, but El seems to be the most likely title, who is the head of the Caananite pantheon, and influential enough to be remembered in Babylon. Not a minor deity. That's not true. The introduction of Yahweh to the Semetic religion was very visibly followed by a shift in personal names referencing El (eg Michael) to names referencing Yahweh. Yahweh was an individual, entirely separate god that aggressively replaced El, and El was relegated to an increasingly minor role. The thing called YHWH in 1200 BC is a 4th tier divine warrior, and the thing called YHWH now is a sole god. Bare minimum, the Semetic religion was demonstrably polytheistic before it was monotheistic, and that alone massively undermines the bible.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lightlyused 9y ago
Parallel universes?

douche 9y ago

We don't understand how matter acrually works on a large scale. Inventing imaginary terms that we can't observe to satisfy the equations in the models to match the observed reality seems a poor practice.

hwillis 9y ago
We understand that when two galaxies hit each other, the visible mass gets all tangled up and suns and nebula smash into each other. Meanwhile the invisible mass continues onwards, oblivious to everything else. We CAN observe it and we have. Seriously this is basic object permanence. We can see hidden things moving around by themselves. Dark matter is still there even when there's normal matter on top of it.
Avshalom 9y ago
No. When the model is wrong, you build a new model. A bunch of weakly interacting particles is the new model.
gaius 9y ago
Right it's like when people say, I don't believe in Creation, that stuff is just nonsense. And you say, so what's your alternative theory then? And they reply, well there was a "big bang" and everything just sort of appeared, for no reason. Really, that's the alternative explanation?
- hwillis 9y ago
  Well yes, if you ignore all the evidence of something then you can confidently say there is no evidence. Christian genesis: There was a garden of Eden, and a god. Evidence: No garden of Eden, no evidence of angels or god, no reason those things would suddenly stop being apparent. Direct contradictory evidence that YHWH[1] was a minor god in the original jewish pantheon rather than an actual creator god. Big Bang: The universe started for an unknown reason and rapidly expanded outward. Evidence: The universe is visibly expanding outwards and formed in a way consistent with an explosion. Did you think that the big bang theory was just something someone thought of, and then they looked for evidence? Evidence came first, then the big bang was proposed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
  - shakna 9y ago
    > Christian genesis: There was a garden of Eden, and a god. That's a really bad example to go to. The tale of Eden follows a poem, and if you take both literally, then you end up with contradictions. For why? Genre. Neither were intended to be literal. They were designed to convey meaning. > YHWH[1] was a minor god in the original jewish pantheon rather than an actual creator god. Origins are highly disputed, but El seems to be the most likely title, who is the head of the Caananite pantheon, and influential enough to be remembered in Babylon. Not a minor deity. I understand you were responding to a statement which sort of ignores the basic premises of science, but that doesn't mean your narrative should ignore a scholarly approach to documents whose origins predate writing.
    - hwillis 9y ago
      >Neither were intended to be literal. They were designed to convey meaning. Even Genesis has direct geographical references to it. It has directions. Calling it a metaphor is moving the goalposts. Ad reductio Abrahamic religion is simply that god made whatever we can't understand. It's not like I'm saying the world wasn't made in seven days. I'm saying that god said we were kicked out of where we came from and would never be allowed back, and that place doesn't exist. I'm saying god says he talks to us and appears to us, and those things don't happen. The basic, central tenants of the bible aren't real. These are important things, not minutia. >Origins are highly disputed, but El seems to be the most likely title, who is the head of the Caananite pantheon, and influential enough to be remembered in Babylon. Not a minor deity. That's not true. The introduction of Yahweh to the Semetic religion was very visibly followed by a shift in personal names referencing El (eg Michael) to names referencing Yahweh. Yahweh was an individual, entirely separate god that aggressively replaced El, and El was relegated to an increasingly minor role. The thing called YHWH in 1200 BC is a 4th tier divine warrior, and the thing called YHWH now is a sole god. Bare minimum, the Semetic religion was demonstrably polytheistic before it was monotheistic, and that alone massively undermines the bible.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lightlyused 9y ago

Parallel universes?