Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

The universe is expanding at an increasing rate. The evidence for that is based on observation. Dark energy is a name given to whatever is causing such a thing. Accordingly, the two ideas are intimately related.You on the other hand want to say that a super natural power is holding the universe together. Without making any effort to dispute your claim, we can say that dark energy is not the name scientists give to what is holding the universe together because dark energy does not do any such thing and is not claimed (by anyone I know except you) to do so. No there does not have to be any such thing.I am not capable of explaining dark matter and dark energy to you. Feel free to say anything about them that you like. I won't interfere.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

responded to wrong personEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

To whom did you pose your question? The question does have an answer.

I did not take the time, because it seems based on very recent experience that explaining cosmological concepts to you is very difficult for me. The answer to what is gravity is available. It is pointless to ask quacks. If you searched on the internet, did you understand what you read?Below are some links I found in a brief (less than two minutes) search which describe what gravity is and do not simply describe gravity by its effects. The point is that your method of ascertaining that there is no answer is faulty, and your conclusions which follow from having found no answer you might recognize or understand are possibly wrong. Answers are available.Einstein's theory of general relativity | Space
Instant Expert: General relativity | Manual Landing Pages |
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/...lativity_general.html (See the third page of a rather long explanation.
Einstein's General Relativity Theory: Gravity as Geometry - dummiesEdited by NoNukes, : small grammar corrections

Let's consider your response, ICANT. I provide you three links with answers to the question what is gravity. You then provide a link in which one person says that there is no answer.At best you've demonstrated that one source does not know the answer. You have not dealt with sites giving answers to your question. This follows up yet another post in which you cited a website with completely bogus information about dark matter.I'm out.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It does not matter whether I like it or not. Your claim was that you could not find an answer to 'what is gravity' and not that you could find claims that we don't know what gravity is. Accordingly, your post does not back up your claim.The theory of general relativity completely describes what gravity is. On each of the links you can find an answer to the effect that gravity is a curvature of space time created by mass. In addition, at least one poster other than myself has already provided a similar answer in response to your posts. I'm sorry that you don't like that answer. But it is an appropriate response to your question.General relativity explains why such curvature results in the effects associated with gravity such as the apparent force between two masses. Thus those answers are an indication of what gravity is that is not based on simply describing the effects of gravity. What I intended to show was that you could not find the answer even if it were placed in front of you. I think you've just admitted exactly that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Actually, what I said was that both a description of what gravity is, and a discussion of the effects of gravity were presented at each of the links I provided. Therefore reading them should allow you to distinguish one from the other. There is nothing confusing or contradictory about both types of statements being present in an article. Your claim was that in every search you had conducted, only the effects were given.I have no idea why people who don't understand physics think it is of any importance that they cannot find the answers located under their own noses. Why doesn't that lack of ability simply reflect on the searcher? IMHO, such arguments are extremely unpersuasive. Imagine if I told you that I could not find the Gospel according to Matthew in the Bible? The effects do not tell you what gravity is. But the statements about what gravity is, easly found in the links I provided, and the statement I gave you in my last post, and the one that Cat Sci gave you in his post do in fact answer the question of what gravity is.Gravity is the curvature of space time created by mass (and energy). Period. The effects or gravity include an apparent (but fictitious) force exerted by one body on another that is not due to either the electroweak force or the strong force. Here you have both a statement of what gravity is, and a statement of what the effects of gravity are. So now, not only have you been given links to an answer, I've explicitly given you an answer.If you don't find the distinction between substance and effects clear, then feel free to ask me yet again, what is gravity. But please, stop pretending that no answer has been given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Is that the complete text of the article?ICANT, you are either incapable of reading the articles or you are being completely dishonest. Each of the articles that I provided links to, in addition to describing the force of action, also indicates that gravity is a curvature of space time. I checked the articles before posting the links.Example:

quote:

---

Einstein realized that massive objects caused a distortion in space-time. Imagine setting a large body in the center of a trampoline. The body would press down into the fabric, causing it to dimple. A marble rolled around the edge would spiral inward toward the body, pulled in much the same way that the gravity of a planet pulls at rocks in space.

---

That's right, the curvature of space time produces the effect we associate with gravity.All you are doing now is cherry picking the descriptions from the articles and avoiding the answer to the question. You may have the last word on this matter.ABE:Below is a quote from a free textbook on the subject of general relativity. The textbook may be a little math heavy for the casual reader.From page 149 of General Relativity, An Introduction for Physicists by Hobson, Efstathiou, and Lasenby:

quote:

---

These observations led Einstein to make a profound proposal that simultaneously provides for a relativistic description of gravity and incorporates in a natural way the equivalence principle (and consequently the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass). Einstein’s proposal was that gravity should no longer be regarded as a force in the conventional sense but rather as a manifestation of the curvature of the spacetime, this curvature being induced by the presence of matter. This is the central idea underpinning the theory of general relativity

---

http://202.38.64.11/...6)(ISBN%200521829518).pdfA second, excellent reference comes from Leonard Susskinds free lecture video series on general relativity. Both his 2008 and 2012, video series are available for free on Youtube and on iTunes.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Add some info for whoever is interested.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Right. Does this analogy aid you in your understanding of gravity? If so, then you are welcome to it. On the other hand, the analogy of the sheet allows you to picture a two dimension illustration since viewing curvature of space and time is utterly impossible. Nobody is saying space is a sheet of fabric.

Let me reconstruct your argument. You said that God was the dark energy and dark matter that scientists claimed held the universe together. You also claimed that dark matter was non existent because it was not observed. It was then pointed out that:1. Dark energy does not hold the universe together. Dark energy provides an expansion effect and not a holding together effect.
2. Dark matter (which is not the same thing as dark energy) is detectable by the gravity it produces via gravitational effects which are visible.You responded to the first point with some confused and incorrect statements that you found on the internet. I gave up on correcting you on that point. You responded to the second by claiming that you had never found anyone who could tell you what gravity is. I'm not sure why your claim, even it it was correct, means that we cannot detect dark matter by the gravity it produces;i t is perfectly fine to identify gravity by its effects.I thought you might be interested in what science says about gravity, dark matter and dark energy and that informing you might lead to you using a different line of argument, or at least of being a bit better at talking about what you feel are the mistakes of scientists. Edited by Admin, : The first "dark energy" => "dark matter" in point 2.

I accept your statement of belief as offered. My problem is with the entire thrust of such statements an argument. To wit: you express complete and utter ignorance and lack of understanding of what science even says, and then tell me that it is easier for you to believe something else.Your argument is simply a self-description of your own ignorance. Such an argument is not a successful way of demonstrating that your beliefs make sense, let alone demonstrating that your beliefs are correct. In fact your argument belittles you.Edited by NoNukes, : Add a negation word that was left out.

Your argument does not tell us how energy could ever be lost regardless of how long the universe existed. If energy cannot be destroyed, it cannot be used up simply by the passage of time. So you need to make an argument based on the second law of thermodynamics rather than on the first law. I see a half-baked attempt to do exactly that, but the problem with such an argument is that nobody knows whether or not such an argument is correct. Sure, now what is the total amount of energy in the universe including all of the mass, kinetic and gravitational potential energy? What if I told you that the total amount of energy is something close to zero?There are two number 4 answers, but the second number is moot in view of the answer above. Why don't you prove that statement to be true? Perhaps it is not. I don't believe the universe existed eternally in the past, but you have not managed to show any such thing.In my opinion, it is impossible to demonstrate scientifically the existence or non-existence of God. The existence of God is simply outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Accordingly, any attempts to use scientific reasoning to demonstrate God or the supernatural must fail. Now, while the above is simply my own understanding, it is the case that your argument is full of holes and seems to confirm my understanding.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

[ NoNukes correction about entropy wasn't clear to me, and it may not be clear to others, so what he meant to say is that for closed systems entropy can only remain constant or increase. There's some fuzziness about entropy at the quantum level. --Admin] Simply changing form does not require that energy become unavailable. Yes it is true that some processes do have that result, and it is believed that for all known process, total entropy must remain constant.[1] The problem is that a perfectly acceptable mode of operation is for the amount of usable energy in the universe to remain constant over any given period of time. For example, the energy locked up in matter might well be eternal until it is unlocked in a nuclear process. There is a huge thread on this subject in the archives including calculations based on observation that indicate that the total energy in the universe is zero.Added by Edit.As was pointed out, I should have written remain constant or increase.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Admin comment.

That's not what I meant. If that appears to be the meaning of something I wrote, then I expressed myself poorly.ABE:Looking back I see my error. I meant to say remain constant or increase. I won't change the post now that you've commented on it, but I will add a note about the error.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Really?Let me pose a question. How was the old steady state (pre Big Bang) model supposed to have worked? Under that model, the universe was supposed to have been without any beginning and to possibly be infinitely old. Why was that model supported by people like Einstein only to be dropped based on evidence such as the cosmic background radiation remnant from the big bang.I think the infinite time equals no usable energy logic ignores some scientific possibilities including the idea that some infinities are actually larger than others. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.