J.Merrill

This was an intentional wrong claim. Like the others here on this forum. I know what dark matter is and what dark energy is. This was a personal experiment set in place to trigger the same response I have been getting from the beginning to help prove my point in my last post here. I'm doing a social experiment for school! Some peoples social skills are really poor in My Honest opinion. Again rather than explain I had a small mix up between the two constructs A (Dark Matter) and B(Dark Energy) You are instead resorting to just saying wrong and then reverted to name calling once more. ad hominem! A reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Rather than attack the user, attack the topic and be helpful! I really hope none of you are teachers because I wonder if you have ever considered how other feel when you intentionally insult one asking questions and comparing what they know to what they don't understand. I really enjoyed this social experiment. And it helps Me with my assignment so thank you all for being who you really are!!!! I can only wander though. If results might have changed if anyone here knew it was for a social experiment. What you do and how you act when you think no one is looking, determines the type of person you are. This is my last post here, and I have enough to right my paper!

I have demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment lol! Okay you act like a child that has to resort to personal insults to make your arguments some how logical. You have demonstrated zero understanding of what it is I asked in the first place as well as so many other people on here wrapped up in their opinions. Half the people that responded to me asking for a better understanding of photons, chose to insult me instead. So rather than point me in the right direction and revert my attention to what actually is, some of you reply with other questions that test my logical thinking. Rather than just tell me why it is not the case, and give me an example of what is in fact a more appropriate way to interpret things, that I just don't understand fully. And I clearly listed why I didn't understand it, I was clear to also mention I am aware what I'm questioning and why. It is a result of a limited understanding in the first place. And I Had one person that gave a good explanation, the rest just bathed in the ability for themselves to directly insult me. As one said to me " Sound like religious guilt" as to assume I have Religious thoughts that cloud my judgment. HOW PATHETIC. I will take my limited Knowledge and what I know I don't understand and get a meaning full answer from people that don't take pride in downgrading others. And some one dared to say I was narcissistic!!!! BAHUMBUG I learned a few different things here thanks to a few people those individuals know who you are! So thank you for that! But I will now exercise my right to leave.

Okay how about this could you enlighten me on the BB. Because any text book and or article I have read about the BB, specifically describes it as an explosion in in return is the reason behind the expansion the universe. Some just refer to it as a point that began to expand and is continuing to do so, but when asked the reasoning behind it they describe it as an explosion that took place?. For example this one I just typed in What is The Big Bang Theory. And there are many results that come up and none of them discredit the idea of an explosion that took place, as a matter of speaking this explosion is the reasoning behind the rapidly expanding universe according to what i read. And the idea behind the presence of dark matter is the reason why the expansion is accelerating. https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

Who besides you mentions Fred Hoyle?

I am not lecturing anyone, and have only used Deductive reasoning to make an argument valid in my favor, and to dismiss common knowledge as if it doesn't exist is quite baffling to me. The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang This is how it is explained. So the explanation is wrong then by default ? That does not make any sense at all. So out side of this what is the beginning of the BB do you propose.

This is like me saying, photons are conscious of being observed because of how they behave in the double slit experiment when being observed, ( aka the duality problem) that has not been explained and completely understood. So that theory matches observations. See the problem here? Well shoot I must be wrong again HAHAHA . I must be blissfully unaware of what I'm typing! Please. I encourage that you read the start of this forum, I was quite honest with myself in limited knowledge I process and I was inadvertently attacked when asking for an explanation, simply because one assumed my questions were aggressive. What kind of world is this. Have you ever thought that the BB was multiple events that will happen and one will continue to happen , assuming our observations are correct and correspond with it in theory. Oh wait that is the BB We are currently in universe we believe to be expanding based on observations. But the beginning of the BB was an explosion resulting in the first bit of expansion. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang. So yes there was an event that took place, it had a beginning the fact that the universe is still expanding is a direct result of that event. Ad hominem at its finest, direct insults just wont cut.

In this context we are assuming observations we link with knowledge we have acquired over time, we believe to be right further verifies assumptions we make. Sure we do this all the time that's part of science and its fun! Some times limited knowledge of what we think we know vs what we actually know conflict. Where would physics be today if we still held so tightly to gravity only affecting things with mass. Fg= m1*m2/r2 Newton proposed this and it worked!!! Until we discovered EVIDENCE it was a limited source of information's. What we accepted and thought we understood, based on what works is in my opinion what's wrong with science in the sense we just assume we are right. OOOPS back to the drawing board said Einstein because light is affected by gravity. There are things we can prove in science. And there are things we just assume we understand but we use knowledge we think we fully understand to have a clasp on things. Discussions can be had on a forum with out its turning into some egotistical ad hominin barrage of insults directly to an individual. And with out seeming extremely aggressive in text Context matters. If we want to have a meaningful disagreement, that's fine but when anyone resorts to name calling of classifying one as something. That is not worth my time.

There is not odd logic here and if people want to -rep someone with a different opinion that's fine I really don't care. A theory can never be proven, but must be "testable" through observation or experimentation. And despite some notable problems, BB Theory has remained largely consistent with the observations. As I stated we are only observing things that lead us to accept the BB as a possibility. Scientist observer and search for more evidence to further help explain the origins of out universe all the time. We as humans use methods around us we have devolved over time to conduct these test. (science). So when one comes up with a very well mapped out theory like the BB. They are tieing together loose ends with things we believe to understand how it works. Isaac Newton was a prime example of this. Newton's law of gravitation, statement that any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them. So then here came Albert Einstein and said nope gravity is not a force that affects only things with mass. And gravitational lensing was a prime example on how this was FALSE. And the Fact Black Holes have an effect on light. He theorized that can warp, bend it, push , or pull it space. Gravity was just a natural outcome of a mass's existence in space (Einstein had, with his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity, added time as a fourth dimension to space, calling the result space-time. So its not that Einstein proved newtons math equaled an impossible number in the context of 2+2 =5. But rather implied, if the math is wrong here and you cant correct the mistake and still verify the theory. Then its like claiming 2+2 = 5. And that's False.

If the BB could only be proved and not falsified it would not be a theory. Theories are verifiable and falsifiable, that is why they are theories. If they get proven to be Factual well then that means they cant be falsified. It is called the BB THEORY for a reason. Again this can't be argued. And I refuse to argue over it. Its a meaningless discussion. No one put me In charge but you clearly miss the underlining Theory part.

No this is not accurate at all. We are observing conditions that lead us to believe the big bang is a possible origin of the Universe. The statement we can prove the BB is false. It is yet another answer to things we have limited knowledge to. This cannot be argued I'm sorry. We could say the entire universe is spinning on a disc trapped inside a sphere, and things that were in the center slowly gravitate outward, things closer to the the edge move faster than the center. We can do experiments with objects and spin, to confirm some of these effects. But just because it works and observations match part of the assumptions doesn't mean anything. I actually don't mind, talking about it in this kind of context, but is some one is going to try insult me with it saying " this sounds like some religious guilt" Id prefer not to use it in that context, but nothing I said was offensive here. If some people on this forum really want to just simplify reply's down to ad hominem. It truly shows the extent of their own capability to have a meaningful debate or casual conversation.

Any phenomenon or event. You can apply this to anything. (I.E) The mathematical construct of numbers would not be a thing if humans did not occur. The birth of human children could not occur with out them either. Even if we some how started growing full sized people in giant glass jars. This cant occur with out humans. lol did you read the post I responded too, it makes more sense if you do. it was a counter argument to 2 + 2 can = 5 But that equation is misleading as a and b are both = 1+1 or just 2, and the equation is a+b = (a+b) +1 this is the same as saying (2+2)+1 simplified is (4) + 1 = 5

Sure I can study things with out knowing the cause, and I can even come up with conclusions based on things that exist now with out knowing the cause. But I certainly can't know the origin of these are true with out the Input. I can only speculate and try to understand with a Reasonable Explanation . But any one can explain something with observations they have made. And their explanation is only limited by their understanding. Religion and science both offer explanations for why life and the universe exist. Science relies on testable empirical evidence and observation. Religion relies on subjective belief in a creator. Before science was widely excepted as a method of approach to explain things, we had religion for what ever that is worth, because it was the best explanation we had for things we didn't fully understand at the time. Cause and Effect. People noticed things around them, and they thought of an origin based on observations and things they had limited knowledge about and that origin was a creator. Do we still not do that till this very day? But in this case it's science that is the method instead of religion. We are in attempt to understand things around us that we have a very limited understanding of still, although we gather and acquire knowledge based on things we see and we used methods to replicate these conclusions in order to test for the same result. And in doing so have a valid Idea that something exist. This is why its impossible to Prove and Disprove somethings, so eventually those things start being looked at as unreliable source of explanation. Like religion why? Because there are things Religion does not explain, but that doesn't make it not true. Just like I cant prove or disprove the big bang, but that doesn't make it not true either. What is true and will always be true is we will never know. So I think at this point we are in agreeance, in one form or another.

Well waves are disturbances traveling through a medium, so if the medium does not exist and the Propagation of the waves do, then what is it that allows this? Maybe a step toward proving the existence of dark matter perhaps?

When you solve for one or more variable you need to remember they are placeholders for whole numbers in this case ill solve for B b = b +1 or 1+1 So the same applies for A a = a + 1 1+1 so a+b = (2 + 2) + 1 or 2+2+1 = 5 A set of axioms should be consistent; it should be impossible to derive a contradiction from the axioms. A set of axioms should also be non-redundant; an assertion that can be deduced from other axioms need not be regarded as an axiom. In other words no mater what 2 + 2 should always = 4 This is not 2 + 2 = 5 But it was a good example of simple Algebra

"I said if you think" and photons are often described this way, containing both particle and wave like behaviors. And I am not arguing that , I am concluding light can not be possible with out the Physical presence of something much like sound. We cant Directly observe photons, they are theoretical constructs that reveal to us matter they interact with. Like your screen for example. What is registered there is a direct result of an interaction of the electromagnetic field or ( "PHOTONS" ) on Matter.