Question for Atheists

[MeachTheMonster]

I said that dark matter had been observed. You asked for a link. I gave you one, in which the first sentence begins with "Scientists have for the first time directly observed dark matter..."

Now you're saying they didn't observe dark energy, when that is not what I said we had observed, and not what you asked for a link for.

Excuse me I typed dark energy but I ment dark matter. My point still stands they havnt directly observed dark matter. They are observing the effects of SOMETHING on the universe and explaining it with dark matter. Like I said this doesn't prove or disprove it's existence or it's roll in the universe.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

I mean.... "Dark Matter" is in concept a sort of theoretical umbrella term that is meant to account for a lot of shyt that happens in the universe.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I mean.... "Dark Matter" is in concept a sort of theoretical umbrella term that is meant to account for a lot of shyt that happens in the universe.

Yeah kinda like science's version of god.

 

[The Real]

Excuse me I typed dark energy but I ment dark matter. My point still stands they havnt directly observed dark matter. They are observing the effects of SOMETHING on the universe and explaining it with dark matter. Like I said this doesn't prove or disprove it's existence or it's roll in the universe.

We're incapable of observing dark matter directly through our senses, though. This is as direct as the observation gets- they even calculated the size and mapped out the shape of this particular filament of dark matter. They also observed its effects, as you pointed out. What could possibly be more direct than that, honestly? I'm legitimately interested in your answer to that.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Yeah kinda like science's version of god.

How many dumb analogies can you make?

 

[Robbie3000]

Yeah kinda like science's version of god.

Ummm no. Dark Matter and it's effects on the universe is observable and verifiable.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

That's not necessarily true. Our current laws of physics dont add up with the big bang. The fact that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate actualy clashes with the big bang theory. Our current laws of physics suggest that matter should be slowing down after an explosion not speeding up. So the universe should actualy be expanding slower and slower instead of speeding up. Scientist are going to have to prove there is something else in the universe effecting all matter to make it react this way, or their going to have to change the big bang theory.

that doesn't change the fact that the universe used to be infintely small at the beginning.

And haven't you heard of Dark Energy?

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Excuse me I typed dark energy but I ment dark matter. My point still stands they havnt directly observed dark matter. They are observing the effects of SOMETHING on the universe and explaining it with dark matter. Like I said this doesn't prove or disprove it's existence or it's roll in the universe.

they haven't "directly observed" a lot of things. Like Black Holes. There are some things in the universe that emit NO light. We have to observe their effects on other objects that we can see. I'm not really sure you're familiar enough with these subjects.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

We're incapable of observing dark matter directly through our senses, though. This is as direct as the observation gets- they even calculated the size and mapped out the shape of this particular filament of dark matter. They also observed its effects, as you pointed out. What could possibly be more direct than that, honestly?

They calculated the size and effect of SOMETHING in the universe. They describe this something as dark matter. But that doesn't prove that dark matter exists or that they were actually observing it, or that dark matter is what they think it is.

For example I can observe a tree's leaves shaking and theorize that the wind is blowing, but in reality there could be plenty of reasons why that tree is shaking.

 

[Robbie3000]

They calculated the size and effect of SOMETHING in the universe. They describe this something as dark matter. But that doesn't prove that dark matter exists or that they were actually observing it, or that dark matter is what they think it is.

For example I can observe a tree's leaves shaking and theorize that the wind is blowing, but in reality there could be plenty of reasons why that tree is shaking.

I think you are now just been argumentative for the sake of being argumentative

 

[MeachTheMonster]

How many dumb analogies can you make?

How is that dumb. religious people take some provable evidence about the universe then use an unknown unprovable entity to explain the rest and make it all fit. Scientist have even called dark matter the "God Particle" so are they making a dumb analogy too?

they haven't "directly observed" a lot of things. Like Black Holes. There are some things in the universe that emit NO light. We have to observe their effects on other objects that we can see. I'm not really sure you're familiar enough with these subjects.

Black holes can be observed consuming matter we can't actually see the black hole but we can see matter being sucked into it. Other things in the universe that we observe by looking at it's effects are distant planets. We observe their effects on the gravity and light around them. We know these theories are true because there are some planets that we can see and observe directly so we know what the effects should be, so it's easy to project that onto a planet we can't see. Dark matter falls into neither of these categories.

I think you are now just been argumentative for the sake of being argumentative

That is the essence of science. Question Everything. If scientists just accepted the theories of those before them than we would never learn anything new. This is the argument that allot of scientists are making. Not that the Big Bang Theory is wrong. But the unwillingness of anybody to question it or fund research not in support of it is stagnating our knowledge on the situation and hurting the scientific process.

You guys need to open your eyes and start to think outside the box. Scientists are just regular people making observations. You could walk out your door tomorrow and make an observation that changes the world, but you will never see it if you keep a closed mind.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

We don't observe dark holes by seeing matter fall into them, once any matter falls beyond the event horizon there is no visible light emitted. They observe black holes by watching how its gravity effects things around it or luminosity of things passing in front of it.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

We don't observe dark holes by seeing matter fall into them, once any matter falls beyond the event horizon there is no visible light emitted. They observe black holes by watching how its gravity effects things around it or luminosity of things passing in front of it.

so why is no visible light emited?

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

so why is no visible light emited?

because the gravity is so extreme not even light can escape it..it does however due to the sheer amount of energy/heat produced when consuming matter emit a large amount of x-rays. Lets be here real Meach, you really don't intrinsically know the material you're trying to act like you know.. you didn't even know Black Holes don't emit visible light

 

[Serious]

That's not necessarily true. Our current laws of physics dont add up with the big bang.

*stops reading here*


*continues reading braces self for tremendous ether*