Dark Radiation?

[Traveler]

If Dark Matter and Dark Energy is not enough now we also have Dark Radiation to contend with.  No one has any idea what any of this dark stuff is.  It is just that as we learn more about our universe and what it is doing – our best thinkers try to make some sense of it by inventing new terms to explain 95% of what we think the universe may be made up of. 

 

I realize that many like my beloved wife are quite satisfied with the concept that G-d created the universe - but I would point out that G-d, as the creator of the universe, is not exactly what the scriptures say.  The scriptures say that G-d created the heaven and the earth.  That heaven can be understood to mean the universe is speculation at best.  When scripture was given to mankind there was not much of an understanding of heaven – even in terms of our galaxy.  I am not sure many of my religious friends have much of a concept of the magnitude of our very common Milky Way Galaxy – that is only like 100,000 light years across.   It will be another 45 to 50 thousand years before the more dense parts of our galaxy will be able to realize that we have a modern civilization on our little earth; capable of using light as a communication medium.  Everything we know anything about belongs to the 5% and to be “real” we really do not know much about that 5%.  At least not enough to brag about.

 

Is there a religious meaning that our understanding is being advanced.  Is G-d allowing us to learn new things or is some other entity screwing with our understanding of things – and if there is another entity messing with our minds – why would G-d allow this to happen and not make any effort to correct the false and distracting concepts?  Are we on the threshold of human advancement?  Is knowledge going to change what manner of men we are?

 

BTW – one thing I have not seen addressed = because of what we now know about the expansion of our universe is – how long ago was the Big Bang? – if it was the Big Bang that started everything.  Since the expansion of the universe is accelerating and not decelerating it means the universe is significantly younger than we thought – but this means that many other clocks would require adjustments.  Though it is not near enough to explain a “young earth” as many interpret the scripture.

 

Is this a time of revelation of things that were never known before by man?  Or are our scriptures enough?

 

 

The Traveler

Edited June 3, 2016 by Traveler

[Traveler]

I do not know if anyone even cares - but I have been reading some of the White papers concerning Dark Radiation.  This is defined or speculated on our current model (standard model) of sub atomic particles.  In essence the 5% of the universe we know about is comprised of two kinds of sub atomic particles (fermions and bosons).  Light as we know it belongs to the boson category.  The assumption and speculation is that dark energy and dark matter is similar and symmetric to standard matter and energy.

Many years ago I wondered if spirit matter as defined by Joseph Smith was indeed like empirical matter we all are familiar with but is different in that the constant similar to the speed of light defines this difference.  This would mean that dark energy and dark matter are not really dark but actually matter that exists in dimensional space but not in time.  A defination of eternial if you will - not quite the defination we all think of becasue there is no time as we have in our empirical space time.  This would mean that to realize the difference from our empirical matter that time and light must be changed.  Currently we do not have any idea how to do that.  I do not think we will increase our knowledge of the dark elements of our universe until we overcome the possible constant of the speed of light.  In short, we are not going to figure out the dark stuff until we are able to transcend the speed of light – among other things. 

Perhaps it would be better to change the name from dark matter, dark energy and dark radiation to invisible matter, invisible energy and invisible radiation – but then that may upset the religious community and confuse the issue of scripture understanding of the things in the heaven that were created by G-d but is said in scripture to be invisible.

 

The Traveler

[Windseeker]

On 6/3/2016 at 4:33 PM, Traveler said:

I realize that many like my beloved wife are quite satisfied with the concept that G-d created the universe - but I would point out that G-d, as the creator of the universe, is not exactly what the scriptures say.  The scriptures say that G-d created the heaven and the earth.  That heaven can be understood to mean the universe is speculation at best.  When scripture was given to mankind there was not much of an understanding of heaven – even in terms of our galaxy.  I am not sure many of my religious friends have much of a concept of the magnitude of our very common Milky Way Galaxy – that is only like 100,000 light years across.   It will be another 45 to 50 thousand years before the more dense parts of our galaxy will be able to realize that we have a modern civilization on our little earth; capable of using light as a communication medium.  Everything we know anything about belongs to the 5% and to be “real” we really do not know much about that 5%.  At least not enough to brag about.

I'm pretty sure God creating the universe is not "speculation at best"

 

Worlds without Number

Edited June 7, 2016 by Windseeker

[Traveler]

On 6/6/2016 at 0:42 PM, Windseeker said:

On 6/6/2016 at 0:42 PM, Windseeker said:

I'm pretty sure God creating the universe is not "speculation at best"

 

Worlds without Number

 

A careful read of the scripture account of creation we learn that G-d created the heaven and the earth.   In the revelation in which G-d told Moses that he created a singular heaven for this earth he also told Moses (Moses 1:37-38) that there are many heavens (plural) and that an earth and its heaven will pass away and another (heaven and earth) shall come.  We also learn that earths and their associated heavens are so many that mankind (at least at the time the revelation was given) cannot number them but that they are numbered to G-d.   At least we know that the ancient numbering system at the time of Moses was incapable of representing the number of earths G-d has created.   Anciently they did not know about large number as we have defined even in just the last 100 years.  Currently is it estimated that the number of atoms in the universe is 4X10((79)) or 4X10((81)).  Though those are very large and unthinkable numbers – even a rather poor software programmer can generate greater numbers on accident with infinite loops.

From a scientific perspective our galaxy is capable of meeting the ancient scriptural criteria of un-numbered earths and their associated heavens.  But wait – our galaxy is part of a greater singular structure we have labeled a super cluster and we have given it the name, Lanaikea which can meet the ancient scriptural criteria of un-numbered earths and heavens millions of times over.  And the Lanaikea super cluster is just one of who knows how many more super clusters.  Without specific revelation to update and inform us – we do not know if there are other G-ds or not involved in this universe.   In fact, G-d very specifically tells Moses that only this earth and its heaven is he going to reveal to us by revelation..

When I said it is speculation that G-d created the Universe – I present the idea that that many (especially in the religious community) try the mix terms from ancient scripture revelations with terms in modern science and that without specific and current revelation concerning such things with vastly different meaning of terms – in other words when we draw conclusions outside the construct of revelation it does seem to me to meet the criteria of speculation; regardless of who (among men) are doing it.

 

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

On 6/3/2016 at 2:33 PM, Traveler said:

If Dark Matter and Dark Energy is not enough now we also have Dark Radiation to contend with.  No one has any idea what any of this dark stuff is.  It is just that as we learn more about our universe and what it is doing – our best thinkers try to make some sense of it by inventing new terms to explain 95% of what we think the universe may be made up of. 

 

I realize that many like my beloved wife are quite satisfied with the concept that G-d created the universe - but I would point out that G-d, as the creator of the universe, is not exactly what the scriptures say.  The scriptures say that G-d created the heaven and the earth.  That heaven can be understood to mean the universe is speculation at best.  When scripture was given to mankind there was not much of an understanding of heaven – even in terms of our galaxy.  I am not sure many of my religious friends have much of a concept of the magnitude of our very common Milky Way Galaxy – that is only like 100,000 light years across.   It will be another 45 to 50 thousand years before the more dense parts of our galaxy will be able to realize that we have a modern civilization on our little earth; capable of using light as a communication medium.  Everything we know anything about belongs to the 5% and to be “real” we really do not know much about that 5%.  At least not enough to brag about.

 

Is there a religious meaning that our understanding is being advanced.  Is G-d allowing us to learn new things or is some other entity screwing with our understanding of things – and if there is another entity messing with our minds – why would G-d allow this to happen and not make any effort to correct the false and distracting concepts?  Are we on the threshold of human advancement?  Is knowledge going to change what manner of men we are?

 

BTW – one thing I have not seen addressed = because of what we now know about the expansion of our universe is – how long ago was the Big Bang? – if it was the Big Bang that started everything.  Since the expansion of the universe is accelerating and not decelerating it means the universe is significantly younger than we thought – but this means that many other clocks would require adjustments.  Though it is not near enough to explain a “young earth” as many interpret the scripture.

 

Is this a time of revelation of things that were never known before by man?  Or are our scriptures enough?

 

 

The Traveler

God allows man to come to whatever understanding that we are capably of gleaning from all that we can see, hear, test, etc...
To paraphrase, to man the numbers of the stars and creation are beyond what we can count, but the ends thereof are known to Him.
If something that is important for us in our relationship to god needs fixing God will guide someone to the right path to provide an opportunity for whatever article of knowledge or whatever to be fixed. Otherwise this sort of thing would be something i would tend to categorize under "learning experience"

And i'm sure the devil tries to throw in monkeywrenches wherever he can in our progress. Contention misuse and abuse occur in scientific and academic circles often enough, and outside the misapplication and the elevating various principles or thoughts to almost religious status occurs as well.

[cdowis]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson basically said, "We don't know what Dark Energy is.  In fact the name itself  is meaningless.  We could have called it George, but that doesn't sound very scientific"

Edited June 16, 2016 by cdowis

[Traveler]

More stuff from science (with a little religion) – In general black holes are thought to be part of dark matter.  Keep in mind that black holes are a discovery that has taken place within most of our lifetimes.  The more we are learning about black holes the more we are starting to realize that they are not really holes nor or they black.  We may have to rename them.  As it turns out black holes are emitting a lot of energy.  They are more of a creation engine than they are a hole.  The emissions largely come in two forms although there is a third that also takes place but on the scale that for most black holes is insignificant but on a much larger scale is the power essence of the Big Bang.

Let’s begin with the big two.  The first we have known about for a long time – it is called gravity.  Gravity is a force and when we realize that one of the most important contributions of Einstein is that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin that we call empirical matter.  Gravity is a representation of energy and black holes are an amazing engine that converts matter into energy – and one form of this energy is translated into gravity – but it has recently been discovered that the gravity generated by black holes is not quite like any other gravity.  Let me put it this way.  If gravity is like the waves of an ocean the gravity waves of a black hole are like tsunamis.  Plus black hole gravity waves vary and are quite inconsistent.  Keep in mind that gravity waves alter the very fabric of space; a fabric Einstein called space-time.  Last December scientist detected the variances in space-time (gravity) caused by two colliding black holes over a billion light years away as it passed by earth.

The second force is magnetic.  As it turns out black holes are doing two things with magnetic force.  The first is a very strong magnetic field beyond the event horizon of a black hole.  Despite the force of gravity this magnetic field will align particles with the poles of this magnetic field.  In addition black holes create magnetic waves that extend out into space is a spiral configuration.  We have not figured how this all works yet but we have discovered that galaxies are configured along these spiral magnetic wave networks and is part of the reason that galaxies can only form around a super massive black hole at it center and basically exist in a disk rather than other configurations.

The third emission of black holes are sub atomic particles.  These particles escape a black hole by what is called “tunneling” in quantum mechanics.  This was first discovered with electrons but I will not bore the forum with the details.

It is interesting to me that the Book of Enoch said that matter is recycled in stars so that which has become corrupted is made pure again and that this is a process of things eternal and that all things are eternal.  BTW - a black hole is a star.  Also note that G-d revealed to Joseph Smith that matter is eternal and that creation is the process of bringing order.  Which in essence means that creation – is the exception to the second law of thermal dynamics.  Which I believe (along with many others) is evidence and proof that G-d exists.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Keep in mind that black holes are a discovery that has taken place within most of our lifetimes.

Assuming the "discovery" (as opposed to theory and term) is dated to 1971, and "our" means all the humans on the planet (as opposed to the humans on this forum), and "most" means "over 50%", I'm afraid it has not taken place within most of our lifetimes.  It was actually discovered before most of us were born (based on the median age of humans in the year 2000 being 26.4, putting their birth in 1990).  Sorry, didn't mean to make you feel old.

Very interesting post, though.

[tesuji]

This is a fascinating thing. We don't know what 95% of the universe is, to best of our current understanding.

Am I the only one who wonders if at least part of dark matter is the spirit world? Spirit is matter, but a more refined type that we can't see with our mortal eyes.

It will be fascinating to keep following these topics - dark matter, dark energy, dark radiation - and see how long it takes scientists to get some idea of what is going on. The latest I've seen is they think maybe a lot of the "missing" matter (dark matter) is just bajillions of black holes, but that this would also call into our question about how the universe was made.

Also, of course, we have the new findings of gravity waves. Now is a great time to be a science buff

I also like that all this (should) keep us all humble - a reminder that science, as wonderful and useful as it it, doesn't really have much of a clue about anything. Yet.

Edited June 16, 2016 by tesuji

[zil]

4 minutes ago, tesuji said:

We don't know what 95% of the universe is, to best of our current understanding.

If we know less than 100% of all there is to know about the universe, how can we possibly know what percentage of it we (don't) understand?

5 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Now is a great time to be a science buff

Hmm, that's an odd statement.  Most of the science-y types I know are so not buff.  

[tesuji]

2 hours ago, zil said:

If we know less than 100% of all there is to know about the universe, how can we possibly know what percentage of it we (don't) understand?

Hmm, that's an odd statement.  Most of the science-y types I know are so not buff.  

If you are serious, not joking, maybe someone here will explain about the 95%. I believe it refers to the calculated mass-energy in the universe. Something like that. Most of what apparently makes up that total, we don't have any idea what it is - 95% of it. Normal matter comprises only 5% - what is the rest?

I didn't say "buff science buff."

Edited June 16, 2016 by tesuji

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, zil said:

If we know less than 100% of all there is to know about the universe, how can we possibly know what percentage of it we (don't) understand?

Hmm, that's an odd statement.  Most of the science-y types I know are so not buff.  

Let me help you with your question using the analogy of a spring.  If we apply a force we can compress or stretch a spring.  In physics we call this converting kinetic energy into potential energy.  By measuring the energy inputs and outputs we can determine the efficiency of the spring and how much energy it is absorbing or releasing at any given time.  Thus if we use x amount of force to compress the spring we should get the same x value of energy back when the spring is released; at least we should be able to account for the full value of x energy.

As we observe the universe, in essence, compressing and releasing we can only account for 5% of the energy we observe and measure.  We have not been able to account for where the other 95% of what causes the universe to expand and move about as it does.  That is the simple answer.  As we look at our little solar system we can account for 99.999999% of everything that is going on.  Actually it is even better that that – and this is why we were able to send a probe to Pluto and take pictures.  We also see that the rest of the universe works just like our little solar system but on a much greater scale.  But at the larger scale we can only account for 5% of what is going on. 

Our very average Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across and all that we know will not explain why our galaxy remains intact and does not break up into smaller pieces.  We have been able to determine that a lot goes on in relation to sub atomic particles – this is the basis of quantum mechanics.  But quantum weirdness still leaves a lot unknown.  One of the principles of quantum mechanics is that boson particles all exist at the speed of light.  Photons are sub atomic bosons.  There are two kinds of particles of matter/energy.  Bosons and fermions.

Now some exclusive Traveler theory – Many years ago (before all the dark matter and dark energy discoveries) I theorized that there is a third type of matter/energy particles.  Religiously we perhaps call this 3^rd type of matter, spirit matter but I theorized that this third type of mater is matter that exist beyond the speed of light.  Mathematically this does some very interesting things to space-time.  It will also have a most interesting effect on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.  Even more interesting is, if we assume symmetry – which seems to exist with all other matter and is the basic construct of quantum mechanics then all the universe can be accounted for.  I mentioned this theory before on this forum and drew a great deal of ire that immediately denounced the whole idea of spirit matter being detectable or calculable as contrary to revelation but I am inclined to think those that so criticized are not qualified to draw such conclusions – religiously or scientifically.  Though I have had some traction within the LDS religious community (which seems to be those very familiar with science) – in general I get a much better consideration from the scientific community than from the religious community.

BTW – I do not consider myself buff but I can hold my own cycling in a peloton on flat landscapes even with experts half my age (70)

 

The Traveler

[zil]

  I was mostly teasing.  (Also, previously, it sounded like tesuji was saying we understand 5% of the universe (the whole thing and all that in it is - was how I took this).  It sounds like you are saying we understand 5% of what we know exists (completely different statement).)

But thank you for the explanation.

Based on what Joseph Smith said (or even just the definition of the word "matter"), of course spirit matter would have to be measurable.  Not sure why saying so would upset anyone.  Whether we have the capacity to do so knowingly, with understanding, is a whole 'nother question.

[Blackmarch]

On June 16, 2016 at 8:53 AM, zil said:

Assuming the "discovery" (as opposed to theory and term) is dated to 1971, and "our" means all the humans on the planet (as opposed to the humans on this forum), and "most" means "over 50%", I'm afraid it has not taken place within most of our lifetimes.  It was actually discovered before most of us were born (based on the median age of humans in the year 2000 being 26.4, putting their birth in 1990).  Sorry, didn't mean to make you feel old.

Very interesting post, though.

Strong Visual evidence has only been found in the last decade or two.

To traveler; as far as i know the onLy stuff that escapes or theoretically escapes black hole event horizons is hawking radiation. All the energy we get from black holes is generated by matter falling int it and is shot out before it pases the point of no return.

[cdowis]

On 6/17/2016 at 9:47 AM, Traveler said:

Let me help you with your question using the analogy of a spring.  If we apply a force we can compress or stretch a spring. 

Question, what if we have no information on the composition of the spring?  

"Oh, but we can simply ignore the spring."

The spring itself is a major factor in your analogy, and we have almost zero understanding of its characteristics.  Thus, we understand very little about that compression.  You don't even know whether the spring is compressed or completely extended!   

 How do you know what you don't know?  

It is indeed an excellent analogy, but not in the way you mean it.

Edited June 29, 2016 by cdowis

[Traveler]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 3:11 PM, cdowis said:

Question, what if we have no information on the composition of the spring?  

"Oh, but we can simply ignore the spring."

The spring itself is a major factor in your analogy, and we have almost zero understanding of its characteristics.  Thus, we understand very little about that compression.  You don't even know whether the spring is compressed or completely extended!   

 How do you know what you don't know?  

It is indeed an excellent analogy, but not in the way you mean it.

 

cdowis - I have pondered for some time how to best respond to your post.  It is your last statement "It is indeed an excellent analogy, but not in the way you mean it." 

Here is my statement:

Quote

As we observe the universe, in essence, compressing and releasing we can only account for 5% of the energy we observe and measure.  We have not been able to account for where the other 95% of what causes the universe to expand and move about as it does.  That is the simple answer.  As we look at our little solar system we can account for 99.999999% of everything that is going on.  Actually it is even better that that – and this is why we were able to send a probe to Pluto and take pictures.  We also see that the rest of the universe works just like our little solar system but on a much greater scale.  But at the larger scale we can only account for 5% of what is going on.

We know something of what we do not know because we are observing things we cannot explain and we have put a value on what we know at 5%.  If we were to apply this to taking an exam at school and were only able to answer correctly 5% of the test questions - we do have an idea that we have failed the exam.  The only consolation to those failing the exam is that they are the only ones even willing to take it in the first place.  Others, that are not paying attention have no idea at all and cannot even make accurate accounts concerning the 5% that we can make accounts for.

Sometime ago I suggested that we may be looking at empirical evidence of G-d and how that which is spirit influences our physical universe.  With rare exception my religious friends reject this notion – but not for any logical sense that I find so interesting concerning the vast changes in conception currently taking place concerning our concepts of the universe.  What I find so interesting about all the speculation going on about this 95% that we do not understand – that suggesting this may be proof of G-d is finding more traction among my scientific colleagues that do not believe in G-d than among my religious colleagues that do????

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

On 6/9/2016 at 2:45 PM, Traveler said:

A careful read of the scripture account of creation we learn that G-d created the heaven and the earth.   In the revelation in which G-d told Moses that he created a singular heaven for this earth he also told Moses (Moses 1:37-38) that there are many heavens (plural) and that an earth and its heaven will pass away and another (heaven and earth) shall come.  We also learn that earths and their associated heavens are so many that mankind (at least at the time the revelation was given) cannot number them but that they are numbered to G-d.   At least we know that the ancient numbering system at the time of Moses was incapable of representing the number of earths G-d has created.   Anciently they did not know about large number as we have defined even in just the last 100 years.  Currently is it estimated that the number of atoms in the universe is 4X10((79)) or 4X10((81)).  Though those are very large and unthinkable numbers – even a rather poor software programmer can generate greater numbers on accident with infinite loops.

 

From a scientific perspective our galaxy is capable of meeting the ancient scriptural criteria of un-numbered earths and their associated heavens.  But wait – our galaxy is part of a greater singular structure we have labeled a super cluster and we have given it the name, Lanaikea which can meet the ancient scriptural criteria of un-numbered earths and heavens millions of times over.  And the Lanaikea super cluster is just one of who knows how many more super clusters.  Without specific revelation to update and inform us – we do not know if there are other G-ds or not involved in this universe.   In fact, G-d very specifically tells Moses that only this earth and its heaven is he going to reveal to us by revelation..

 

When I said it is speculation that G-d created the Universe – I present the idea that that many (especially in the religious community) try the mix terms from ancient scripture revelations with terms in modern science and that without specific and current revelation concerning such things with vastly different meaning of terms – in other words when we draw conclusions outside the construct of revelation it does seem to me to meet the criteria of speculation; regardless of who (among men) are doing it.

 

 

The Traveler

The fact that God, in His mortal life, before He became a God, did not create the universe in which He grew up, to me, leads to either one of two possible conclusions; either God did not create all that we now refer to as the universe, or there is more than one universe – the one that we live in now, and the one in which God spent his mortality. As soon as Joseph Smith taught that God was once mortal, in the 1844 King Follett sermon, it became possible to conclude that there is more than one universe. This sermon was preached many decades before scientists first come up with the possibility.

This strikes me as one of what is probably a great many examples of where theological knowledge can be used to inform our theories of physics and astronomy. At present, I can’t think of other examples, but I am quite sure that they are out there. I think it would not be an unreasonable approach to build scientific knowledge by first drawing conclusions about the universe based on what the scriptures and prophets say, and on personal revelation, and then looking for evidence of those conclusions in our microscopes and telescopes. I understand that this was often the approach taken during the dark ages and the middle ages, and the results were not encouraging, but that was a time when the heavens were closed and the quality and quantity of revealed and man-made knowledge were dramatically different from what they are now. I think that scientists, in their search for knowledge, undervalue the knowledge that can be gained from divine sources, and that their search would be hastened if they looked more closely at the Source of all knowledge. It sometimes surprises me that this does not seem to be a common methodology used by the LDS scientists I know as I believe it would be a very fruitful approach.

Edited July 30, 2016 by askandanswer
changed the word group to grew in the first sentence

[askandanswer]

On 6/6/2016 at 4:42 AM, Windseeker said:

I'm pretty sure God creating the universe is not "speculation at best"

 

Worlds without Number

Clearly this, or some other universe, predates the existence of God, because God, as a mortal, needed a universe in which he could grow up and pass through His mortality.

[askandanswer]

On 6/6/2016 at 4:42 AM, Windseeker said:

I'm pretty sure God creating the universe is not "speculation at best"

 

Worlds without Number

 

When considering the idea that God created the universe, I think we sometimes overlook to well known facts. The first is that in talking about the creation, Joseph Smith and others have taught that a more correct translation of the scriptures tells us that the gods undertook the creation – it seems to have been a joint effort, involving many god-like beings, and not just a single Being. The second fact is that what we often refer to, or think of, as a creative process, was more a process of organisation. The gods imposed order on pre-existing material. Perhaps all that was involved in this imposition of order was simply tweaking a few parameters in such a way conditions that were once indisposed towards the creation of life became disposed towards the creation of life. A small intervention at the exact right moment into circumstances that originated elsewhere, or through other means, can bring about dramatically different outcomes than would have been the case if there had been no intervention.

I can envisage how, in some ways, the creation of the universe is analogous to solving a traffic jam. The vehicles in the traffic jam already exist, but they are in a disordered state. By simply changing, or correcting, one or two lines of computer code, you can change the sequence in which the traffic lights flash, thereby imposing order on a pre-existing situation. The sooner and more strictly the drivers in the traffic jam comply with the new directions, the faster order is restored. In much the same order in our own lives can be improved as soon as we start to strictly comply with divinely issued directions.

 

[Traveler]

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 4:19 PM, askandanswer said:

The fact that God, in His mortal life, before He became a God, did not create the universe in which He group up, to me, leads to either one of two possible conclusions; either God did not create all that we now refer to as the universe, or there is more than one universe – the one that we live in now, and the one in which God spent his mortality. As soon as Joseph Smith taught that God was once mortal, in the 1844 King Follett sermon, it became possible to conclude that there is more than one universe. This sermon was preached many decades before scientists first come up with the possibility.

This strikes me as one of what is probably a great many examples of where theological knowledge can be used to inform our theories of physics and astronomy. At present, I can’t think of other examples, but I am quite sure that they are out there. I think it would not be an unreasonable approach to build scientific knowledge by first drawing conclusions about the universe based on what the scriptures and prophets say, and on personal revelation, and then looking for evidence of those conclusions in our microscopes and telescopes. I understand that this was often the approach taken during the dark ages and the middle ages, and the results were not encouraging, but that was a time when the heavens were closed and the quality and quantity of revealed and man-made knowledge were dramatically different from what they are now. I think that scientists, in their search for knowledge, undervalue the knowledge that can be gained from divine sources, and that their search would be hastened if they looked more closely at the Source of all knowledge. It sometimes surprises me that this does not seem to be a common methodology used by the LDS scientists I know as I believe it would be a very fruitful approach.

 

I believe there is a problem with trying to take what we know from empirical evidence concerning the creation of the universe in which we live in and the revelations we are given concerning what is called creation.  It is obvious to me that there is as likely to be errors in the scriptural revelations as there is in scientific observation.  Let’s take the scripture account of days 3 and 4.  Life on a planet is quite unlikely before there is a sun to warm it.  The order of creation for days 3 and 4 as taught in the temple is reversed but we do not have, to my knowledge, a record of this change in thinking – there is no scripture reference.  As an engineer and scientist currently working in the discipline of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence – I think there is too much effort to take bits and pieces what has been discovered through science and try to reconcile an individual’s particular understanding of revelation.

I believe divine revelation through our prophets is uniquely centered on Christ and his mission of salvation to fulfil our current covenant of restoration.  Revelation that advances our technologies and sciences – I do not believe must come first through our prophets.  I believe this thinking is a serious error by some Latter-day saints – especially those that are not disciplined in the sciences.  I believe that scientific questions of our origins beyond G-d’s and in it and things like humanoid pre-Adamites is not part of our revelations concerning salvation but is definitely part of an honest inquire into truth.

 

The Traveler

Edited July 18, 2016 by Traveler

[Blackmarch]

On 7/18/2016 at 11:05 PM, Traveler said:

 

I believe there is a problem with trying to take what we know from empirical evidence concerning the creation of the universe in which we live in and the revelations we are given concerning what is called creation.  It is obvious to me that there is as likely to be errors in the scriptural revelations as there is in scientific observation.  Let’s take the scripture account of days 3 and 4.  Life on a planet is quite unlikely before there is a sun to warm it.  The order of creation for days 3 and 4 as taught in the temple is reversed but we do not have, to my knowledge, a record of this change in thinking – there is no scripture reference.  As an engineer and scientist currently working in the discipline of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence – I think there is too much effort to take bits and pieces what has been discovered through science and try to reconcile an individual’s particular understanding of revelation.

I believe divine revelation through our prophets is uniquely centered on Christ and his mission of salvation to fulfil our current covenant of restoration.  Revelation that advances our technologies and sciences – I do not believe must come first through our prophets.  I believe this thinking is a serious error by some Latter-day saints – especially those that are not disciplined in the sciences.  I believe that scientific questions of our origins beyond G-d’s and in it and things like humanoid pre-Adamites is not part of our revelations concerning salvation but is definitely part of an honest inquire into truth.

 

The Traveler

Theoretically life has an extremely low chance of occuring period... or at least that seems to be the general consensus. while at one point it was thought that a sun was absolutely necessary for all life (at least life as we know it), the discovery of organisms that thrive around deepsea vents both because of the heat and chemical base instead of being sunlight based has shown that having sunlight is not absolutely critical to all life and hence why jupiter's moon europa is of high interest to nasa.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Blackmarch said:

Theoretically life has an extremely low chance of occuring period... or at least that seems to be the general consensus. while at one point it was thought that a sun was absolutely necessary for all life (at least life as we know it), the discovery of organisms that thrive around deepsea vents both because of the heat and chemical base instead of being sunlight based has shown that having sunlight is not absolutely critical to all life and hence why jupiter's moon europa is of high interest to nasa.

 

The second law of thermal dynamics says that the process of change will always occur in the direction of lessor complexity.  There are no exceptions and this is considered a law of science – not a theory.  I would point out that the condition of life is a condition of greater complexity than that of which life is absent.    A sad probability that is left from consideration of all scientific theories for the origins of life.  I would also point out that statistical probabilities – even considering infinite statistical probabilities does not mitigate life as we understand and define as possible as a “random” which would result contrary to decreased complexity.   

In this universe life cannot be random result but must; by the laws of terminal dynamics be caused by something more complex – and until proven otherwise – I hold to that the more complex is an entity of intelligence.  Because intelligence is the byproduct (inevitable or otherwise) of life.

 

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

The second law of thermal dynamics says that the process of change will always occur in the direction of lessor complexity.  There are no exceptions and this is considered a law of science – not a theory.  I would point out that the condition of life is a condition of greater complexity than that of which life is absent.    A sad probability that is left from consideration of all scientific theories for the origins of life.  I would also point out that statistical probabilities – even considering infinite statistical probabilities does not mitigate life as we understand and define as possible as a “random” which would result contrary to decreased complexity.   

In this universe life cannot be random result but must; by the laws of terminal dynamics be caused by something more complex – and until proven otherwise – I hold to that the more complex is an entity of intelligence.  Because intelligence is the byproduct (inevitable or otherwise) of life.

 

The Traveler

sort of. the second law deals with entropy- which is in a set system every interaction and conversion of energy will result in an miniscule amount of energy being in such a state as to render it completely unusable, and that the amount of this unusable stuff will always increase. so while the statement is ultimately true, the system in which we are in is larger than what we can comprehend (supposing it does have a boundary), the remaining energy that does do something can result in any form, so it is possible to for a portion of the system to become more complex for a period than another part through sheer randomness.

And i agree, saying life is random or absolute chance is like having a tornado go through a workshop or garage and leave behind a fully formed and functional clock from the materials therein.

My comment was mostly towards the necessity of having sunlight for life to start.

[Jamie123]

On ‎16‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 6:21 PM, zil said:

If we know less than 100% of all there is to know about the universe, how can we possibly know what percentage of it we (don't) understand?

As I understand it, it's not that we know there is exactly 95% more stuff to discover (and after that nothing else) but that theory requires the existence of another 19 times what we already know about, in order to explain what we do already know about. For example, given its speed of rotation, the centrifugal force* on the stars should be far greater than the collective gravitational force binding them together, and the whole structure ought to fly apart. There therefore must be more mass than can be accounted for by all the objects (stars, nebulae etc.) that we can physically see. Therefore: dark matter.

I have always been very suspicious about extending the inverse-square law of gravity - which we only really know to be valid within our own solar system - across interstellar distances. We cannot very easily observe the gravitational effects of stars upon each other (except of course binary stars, which are physically close together and not separated by many light-years). Perhaps the law of gravity as we know it is a regional approximation which breaks down at galactic and intergalactic scales.

A few years ago we had a visitor giving a talk on general relativity, and I questioned him on just this point. Another physicist in the audience pooh-pooh'd**, me saying that the evidence for general relativity was concrete, including gravitational lensing effects, but that is exactly a case in point: we know that Einstein's theory is correct at the millions-of-miles scale from the lensing effect of the sun on stars observed during a solar eclipse, but those data are only meaningful because you can compare them with the apparent positions of the same stars when the sun is not in front of them. On a cosmic scale we see images of galaxies distorted by the presence of much nearer massive bodies, but we cannot compare them with what those same galaxies would have looked like otherwise.

The existence of dark matter and dark energy are proposed to make the universe conform to what we think we know (just as a flat-earther makes the sun much closer and smaller to make it conform to his assumptions of reality). But until we send probes deep into interstellar space, will we really know?

* If anyone is about to tell me that "centrifugal force doesn't exist", you're only right in an inertial frame of reference. The rotating galaxy is not an inertial frame of reference. And neither was the roundabout in a kiddies' playground that I got thrown off when I was seven.

** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeF1JO7Ki8E

Edited July 26, 2016 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

The second law of thermal dynamics says that the process of change will always occur in the direction of lessor complexity.  There are no exceptions and this is considered a law of science – not a theory.  I would point out that the condition of life is a condition of greater complexity than that of which life is absent.    A sad probability that is left from consideration of all scientific theories for the origins of life.  I would also point out that statistical probabilities – even considering infinite statistical probabilities does not mitigate life as we understand and define as possible as a “random” which would result contrary to decreased complexity.   

In this universe life cannot be random result but must; by the laws of terminal dynamics be caused by something more complex – and until proven otherwise – I hold to that the more complex is an entity of intelligence.  Because intelligence is the byproduct (inevitable or otherwise) of life.

 

The Traveler

What the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually says is that in a closed system, entropy can never decrease. Entropy is not necessarily the same as lack of complexity, but it does coincide with disorder. (Everyone knows this: if you don't tidy up your desk every now and then, it will keep getting more and more disorderly until it reaches a state of "maximum entropy".)

The thing everyone forgets is that this applies to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system: we are slap-bang in the middle of an enormous heat engine. On one side of us we have the sun, which is incredibly hot, and on the other side we have outer space, which is incredibly cold. Energy confined in atoms within the sun (order) is being dispersed into interstellar space (disorder) and it passes through us as it goes. Compared to that massive increase in entropy, what's the piffling decrease associated with the emergence of life?