Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1749 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not "observing" it.
Sure it is. Observing an effect caused by an object is observing it.

When you look at a flower you are observing the selected frequency reflection and scattering by the surface of the flower. The plant itself is not emitting light. When someone slaps you you observe it through various pain signals sent to your brain. There are many ways that observations can be made. Your personal prejudices do not apply.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1750 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not "observing" it.
Of course it is. We are detecting the effects of the dark matter on the gravitational field. When we use light to detect something, we are using the effect of that thing on light. When we use electrical current to detect something, we are using the effect of that thing on electrical current. All are observations of the thing causing the effects.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1751 May 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it is. Observing an effect caused by an object is observing it.
When you look at a flower you are observing the selected frequency reflection and scattering by the surface of the flower. The plant itself is not emitting light. When someone slaps you you observe it through various pain signals sent to your brain. There are many ways that observations can be made. Your personal prejudices do not apply.
Exactly right.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1752 May 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it is. Observing an effect caused by an object is observing it.
When you look at a flower you are observing the selected frequency reflection and scattering by the surface of the flower. The plant itself is not emitting light. When someone slaps you you observe it through various pain signals sent to your brain. There are many ways that observations can be made. Your personal prejudices do not apply.
No, it is not, and your analogy is flawed.

Observing a flower is a process of interpretation through our sensory apparatus.

Observing the "effect" of a flower, say, the honey assembled from its nectar is NOT observing the flower.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1753 May 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is. We are detecting the effects of the dark matter on the gravitational field. When we use light to detect something, we are using the effect of that thing on light. When we use electrical current to detect something, we are using the effect of that thing on electrical current. All are observations of the thing causing the effects.
Wrong.

All "observation" ultimately occurs due to our senses.

This idea of "observing" dark matter, or anything, by exterior effects it has on its environment is to add another layer of cause and effect.

You observe the "effect" of a flower when you look at it with your eyes, and impulses travel to the brain.

So far, there is no "flower" to observe for dark matter. There is nothing to observe to produce the image in the brain. The best you have is an effect caused by something THAT HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1754 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not, and your analogy is flawed.
Observing a flower is a process of interpretation through our sensory apparatus.
Observing the "effect" of a flower, say, the honey assembled from its nectar is NOT observing the flower.
Wrong. When we observe the flower, we do not see the flower itself, but rather the light reflected from the flower. In other words, we detect the effect the flower has on the ambient light.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1755 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
All "observation" ultimately occurs due to our senses.
This idea of "observing" dark matter, or anything, by exterior effects it has on its environment is to add another layer of cause and effect.
You observe the "effect" of a flower when you look at it with your eyes, and impulses travel to the brain.
In other words, we see the light, not the flower itself. In particular, we see the effect that the flower has on the light.
So far, there is no "flower" to observe for dark matter. There is nothing to observe to produce the image in the brain. The best you have is an effect caused by something THAT HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED.
In the case of dark matter, we use the effect that dark matter has on passing light. The lensing of the light allows the detection of the dark matter, just as the reflection of light allows the detection of a flower. Both are examples of observation.
Amused

Gardner, MA

#1756 May 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Why did you use tusks to tackle an animal?
<quoted text>
Because he was in Tennessee. In Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1757 May 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
I should also point out that the measured matter and energy densities were *way* too low to cause re-collapse. So the likelihood of eternal expansion was considered the most likely possibility.
Now, we know there is dark matter, which was not on the original tally of matter and which makes up quite a large contribution. We also know the cosmological constant is not zero, which means the range of possibilities is much larger. In particular, it seems that our universe is geometrically flat but will expand forever at an increasing rate.
I approve of terms such as "the range of possibilities is much larger" (I assume that means larger than the likelihood of eternal expansion? only faster and faster? of if not, what?) because the words are not making much of a claim to certainty. I also like the term "it seems that" even when you seem to think something is more likely. the lack of dogmatic assertions of certainty make me more comfortble with your scientific preferencess, which - as an agnostic about more than religion - I find much preferable to scientific assertions.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1758 May 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Already in my "liked" list.... hilarious!
Proof to 100%, that there cannot possibly be any god at all-- what sort of god would permit such as these examples of insanity, to represent it?
how can you assume there could not be an awful creator god, capable of creating disgusting things? I certainly hope there isn't a mostly bad creator god - sort of like the Biblical one - but it is far more likely than an allgoodallpowerful one, which is the one version I do strongly believe to be impossible.

obviously I do not believe in any sort of God (unless god is defined as all that exists, which is a really unusual definition), but there are degrees of disapproval of various gods and or God.
My degree of disapproval of the "creation" - the world as I know it, at least - and of the Biblical version of a Creator. at least match. Both of them quite horrid.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1759 May 24, 2013
Normal Flora wrote:
<quoted text>And of course the fact that this fits perfectly into the math like no other explanation does.
are you sure that math mirrors reality, whatever that is?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1760 May 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, we see the light, not the flower itself. In particular, we see the effect that the flower has on the light.
<quoted text>
In the case of dark matter, we use the effect that dark matter has on passing light. The lensing of the light allows the detection of the dark matter, just as the reflection of light allows the detection of a flower. Both are examples of observation.
You are so full of shit.

No, you are not observing dark matter.

You are observing the lensing effect of light.

You are postulating dark matter from something you observe. There is no image constructed in the brain associated with something identified as dark matter, as there is with observing a flower. We do not postulate a flower. We observe it.

You OBSERVE the lensing effect of light. You DO NOT OBSERVE dark matter.

Nobody has ever observed dark matter, and nobody knows what it looks like, even if it exists.

It could be medium-toned matter.

Who the hell knows? Nobody.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1761 May 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, we see the light, not the flower itself. In particular, we see the effect that the flower has on the light.
<quoted text>
In the case of dark matter, we use the effect that dark matter has on passing light. The lensing of the light allows the detection of the dark matter, just as the reflection of light allows the detection of a flower. Both are examples of observation.
Detecting is not observing.

You detect there is "something" causing an "effect" on light.

When you find it, we will all observe it.

So far, nobody has observed it.

I fully allow that you are so detached from reality that you might think you have observed it, because you read about it and have seen calculations involving it.

That is sad, but you are still wrong.

A blind man can "detect" a splinter in his ass.

He can't observe it.
Amused

Gardner, MA

#1762 May 24, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> how can you assume there could not be an awful creator god, capable of creating disgusting things?...
"If there is a creator, he has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles." J.B.S. Haldane
Amused

Gardner, MA

#1763 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so full of shit.
No, you are not observing dark matter.
You are observing the lensing effect of light.
You are postulating dark matter from something you observe. There is no image constructed in the brain associated with something identified as dark matter, as there is with observing a flower. We do not postulate a flower. We observe it.
You OBSERVE the lensing effect of light. You DO NOT OBSERVE dark matter.
Nobody has ever observed dark matter, and nobody knows what it looks like, even if it exists.
It could be medium-toned matter.
Who the hell knows? Nobody.
It could be grey matter, but not in the case of creationists, who either always lacked gray matter or had it atrophy into non-existence from lack of use.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1764 May 24, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
"If there is a creator, he has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles." J.B.S. Haldane
the bad thing about stars is that they can explode - presumably even if they have planets with some sort of life on them - or expand (which is destined to eventually fry us on earth if we do not do it first with global warming due to all the fossil fuel profiteering and political lies protecting it). Only the nice lady bugs are nice, not the ones that look like them only more orange, and which bite.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1765 May 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

In other words, we see the light, not the flower itself. In particular, we see the effect that the flower has on the light.
When light reflects from a flower, the rays are refracted by the cornea and focused on the retina, and an electrical impulse is carried via the optic nerve to the brain, where an image is conceived of as a "flower".

You are trying to tell me that happens with dark matter?

Describe the image your brain recognizes as "dark matter".

Do you believe absolutely anything somebody with a telescope tells you?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1766 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
When light reflects from a flower, the rays are refracted by the cornea and focused on the retina, and an electrical impulse is carried via the optic nerve to the brain, where an image is conceived of as a "flower".
You are trying to tell me that happens with dark matter?
Describe the image your brain recognizes as "dark matter".
Do you believe absolutely anything somebody with a telescope tells you?
No, I am not saying this happens with dark matter. I am saying that isn't the only way to observe something. Observation is done by measuring the effects something has on something else. We have observed dark matter through its effects on light.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1767 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Detecting is not observing.
You detect there is "something" causing an "effect" on light.
When you find it, we will all observe it.
So far, nobody has observed it.
I fully allow that you are so detached from reality that you might think you have observed it, because you read about it and have seen calculations involving it.
That is sad, but you are still wrong.
A blind man can "detect" a splinter in his ass.
He can't observe it.
Sight isn't the only way to observe something.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1768 May 24, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be grey matter, but not in the case of creationists, who either always lacked gray matter or had it atrophy into non-existence from lack of use.
That's fascinating, Abused.

But I'm not a creationist.

Why are you telling me?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 8 min Patrick 56
Stump a theist with 2 questions 12 min Thinking 42
Our world came from nothing? 15 min Thinking 461
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 56 min fadu singh 22,212
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr CunningLinguist 227,477
Bill Maher's "dirty secret": He's deeply religi... 2 hr Thinking 3
Why I have rejected ATHEISM because of the JEWS 3 hr Thinking 3
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••