Questions For Materialists: Part 3

The third in a series of questions. Please try them out with your materialist friends!

Do you think that dark matter is conserved?
Is there always the same amount of dark matter?
Can you accept that there may be a continuous creation of dark energy as the universe expands?

[Danster]

They basically apply the second law of thermodynamics to the universe and therefore they have the ass-umption that everything is winding down and will eventually snuff out. It is not that the second law is incorrect it is just that the universe is NOT a closed system, it is being feed by energy from a higher octave that will always remain undetectable, yet when you see it from this perspective many things begin to make sense.

[cuddywifter]

I never understood materialists, for modern physics tell us that matter isn't made of matter (but of energy), just as energy isn't made of energy nor information made of Information

[lam]

I suspend personal conclusion, for waking reality has me perched on this stage with this ego and many questions. I will attempt to be observant of any answers through the normal channels of synchronicity, serendipity and inspiration. I am grateful and have faith that everything I look at, looks back at me. The universe will let me know when I am ready.

[janellemckinley]

I get such a kick out of Rupert Sheldrake's delivery, British irony refined to its utmost. I wonder if whatsisname is laughing from the other side.

[meneeRubieko]

I don’t know how you did it, but I’m beginning to question my whole worldview because of a couple of your lectures.
Always been fascinated by physics and philosophy and it’s compatible with some of your ways of thinking

[dominic]

VECTOR EQUILIBRIUM, I LOVE YOUR WORK RUPERT TY FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE

[slavapalooza]

According to plasma cosmology dark matter doesn't exist and everything still works just fine

[foxdenham]

QQ: What is the intermittant bird call in the background?
Ps: another great post, thank you.

[theophilus]

Further to my other post: There are still two good questions for a materialist lurking here, though. The first concerns whether conservation laws and their associated symmetries can _ever_ be broken. After all, it could be argued that these are better understood as simple pre-requisites for doing physics rather than absolute necessities. The second is whether the introduction of dark energy is no more than a (more or less) plausible sounding and consistent with the rest of physics, but ultimately quite arbitrary, ad-hoc measure, brought in to allow us to stick to the principles of conservation. It might, after all, be simpler just to say that the accelerated expansion of the universe involves a violation of conservation. That would, of course, place limits on physics, but so what? Nature is under no more obligation to physics than it is to any of our unexamined intuitions.

[NotOrdinaryInGames]

Only space is a place, not a physical thing. It cannot expand nor contract. Redshift has nothing to do with speed, but with age.

[poopypoopy]

Im sure you've thought of this and I was hoping to get a response, but the relations between linguistics and tone with morphic resonance.

[amywas]

POET How goes the world?
PAINTER It wears, sir, as it grows....
POET ....Our poesy is as a gum which oozes
From whence it is nourished.

[CaptainPhilosophical]

Thank you for your time and energy. Do you have any citations for the claims in the beginning. My friends want more than unbacked claims and assertions.

[theophilus]

I am sympathetic towards Rupert Sheldrake’s general stance here, but his response with respect to dark energy fails to recognise enough of what is being proposed. As I understand it (speaking as a philosopher and not a physicist) dark energy acts as as negative rather than positive mass. This has consequences for gravity – mainly that its effect is that of repulsion rather than attraction. (Ordinary mass/energy gives rise to mutual attraction.) There is still, though, conversion of energy, except here it isn’t conversion to kinetic energy. Rather, the gravitational potential energy is converted into further dark energy and thus further repulsion. Conservation laws need not be violated, when negatives are allowed to enter the picture – at least as far as our knowledge goes. Perhaps a physicist out there could correct me if I have any of this wrong. My knowledge is based on doubtless somewhat simplified accounts in what I read.

[NotHumant]

And where energy came from if it cant be created, why could not be done again and why are we so sure?

[AlexisOmnis]

Is dark matter normal matter, held in higher spatial dimensions by E.Ts that can manipulate spatial dimensions?

[oudekraal]

everyone loves to watch dogs chasing their own tails

[karenluz]

What does Mr. Sheldrake think about the impacts of 5G technology in ionosphere, the biosphere, ant the human body?

[ObjectiveMedia]

Consciousness is energy. Electromagnetic energy. Everything everything is electromagnetic energy, from the visible light spectrum to sound waves to our thoughts. The Electromagnetic fields generated by our planet (and possibly the stars and planets around us) are not only the fabric of consciousness itself but the primary driver of the evolution of all life, and are also responsible for phenomena like instinct, cellular intelligence, telepathy etc. Even our emotions generate unique electromagnetic fields (this is what they used to call “aura” before we had the equipment to actually measure it)

[alphaomicron]

Halton Arp showed conclusively that
- the universe is pretty static.
- there is a biological aspect to it, galaxies give birth to quasars that in turn become galaxies themselves
- we don't see as far as we think we do
- red and blue shift are the measure of age and not distance and velocity
i guess he will have to wait another 100 years to be proven correct or finally be acknowledged for his contribution, like Cristian Birkland