Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism) is the inconsistent and unfair following the principle: laws of energy-momentum conservation (as well as all other conservations) are always valid.
Nah - evolution can be true AND energy conservation could be false. Evolution doesn't rely on the principle of energy conservation to work. In fact, that it can work under the constraint of energy conservation is a bonus. Though I must congratulate you - it's refreshing to hear 'Evolution operates within the laws of thermodynamics' rather than 'Evolution requires breaking the laws of thermodynamics to work'.
Creation Science (or simply Creationism) is the freedom from unfair and blind demand to follow the conservation laws in physics.
Thaumaturgy is like that. It can be invoked to explain anything and as such, explains nothing.
Spirituality, and divinity – is what can not be measured by Standard Instruments. For example: your love to mom has no physical temperature, has no physical pressure
I see no reason it cannot be measured in principle. Hormone levels, neuronal excitement levels etc.
Actions of spiritual beings always violate the conservation laws of Nature. PROOF: spiritual being is not part of Nature.
I don't see why, just because something is not part of nature, it must ALWAYS violate the conservation laws of nature. It could be possible that there any conservation laws that actually apply to both domains.
However, the behaviour of Nature under the influence of spiritual beings is describable by addition several terms (functions and fields) into the equations of Nature. For example, the Newton Second Law a m = F (the m is mass of body, the a is acceleration of body, F is physical force acting on body) can fully describe the levitation and telekinesis by addition of the force-field K (with no natural source). So, a m = F + K.
F = ma is only true if you are using SI units, or performing appropriate conversions. Otherwise it's just F ∝ ma. Your K is not SI, indeed it represents a number that "can not be measured by Standard Instruments.", so you can just assert you can bungle it in the equation. But you are using it as if has the units of kg m/s2 - so all you need to do is measure, using standard instruments how much acceleration it provides a mass.
Add to this problem, the slight issue that all measurements we have ever derived for K make K=0, and you may as well just leave it out of the equation.
The proof, that without the spiritual terms (like K) the mathematics of Academic Science is not self-consistent:
Should be justified within this thread. A poorly written paper on researchgate is not going to fly here. I mean seriously, what kind of proof includes this:
quote:A. The war with rude opponents, or Love your enemy, says Jesus Opponent on scientiﬁc forum: - Thank you for your research, I laughed at this. Me: - Why to laugh? Are we in circus?! No. Thus, I ask for huge amount of respect. Moreover: you are human, I am human. Why am I defected human, but you are not?!
Anyway - you have not presented a compelling argument here. Would you like to try a second time?
The Heaven (and Spiritual Realm) with natural laws is called Nature, not Heaven.
OK, but how do you know there aren't conservation laws in Heaven? Not 'natural laws' but 'spiritual laws'....laws that are either shared with nature or laws that give rise to the natural laws or laws that are similar to, but different than natural laws or any other possibilities....
There are detectors of Dark Matter deep down the surface of Earth. What they have detected? Nothing.
This is not evidence that Dark Matter has no natural source. It's evidence that Dark Matter is difficult to detect.
in Spiritual Realm is only one Law - Sovereign Will of God.
How do you know this? How do you know that it is not the Sovereign Will of God that there be conservation in heaven?
If the standard, academic, totally accepted mathematics in my researchgate paper can prove anything a man would like (by twisting formulares and words), then please disprove me using math.
It'd probably be best if you submitted it for peer review to a journal on the Master Journal List so someone who gets paid to wade through that can take the time to do it. If you can't bring your argument here, I'm not going to address it.
Creation Science Magic however, can be invoked to explain anything a man would like. I've seen it done, it's quite trivial.
If the laws of Heaven are different from laws in Nature
A speculative condition which we cannot resolve.
I does not matter, I am talking, that Laws of Nature are violated without Heaven.
If you are saying that your theorem
quote:Actions of spiritual beings always violate the conservation laws of Nature.
doesn't matter - then I agree.
But you haven't advanced the argument that laws of nature are violated.
If the laws in two places (Heaven and Nature) are different, then the laws are violated.
Erm, no. They are only violated if something happens in one domain that is against the rules that dominate that domain. If someone does something in Heaven that would be a violation of natural laws - no violation has taken place since Heaven is not the natural world.
In analogy - I could be breaking (and almost certainly am) the law in Saudi Arabia - but no violation has really occurred because I'm not in Saudi Arabia.
That said, if you really want to call some event in Heaven a violation of natural laws - then that's fine I can work with that. We just need to understand how you know that the event happened. But if you want to say all events always break a specific law - then you have a lot more work to do to demonstrate that universal statement.
Thus, having two different laws in two different places means the violation of the law am=F by spiritual force K.
Well I'd argue in that situation that we're simply mistaken about the law, not that a law of nature was violated. For instance, Relativity already shows us Newtonian laws are only an approximation - thus fast moving objects 'violate' Newtonian laws - but that's because Newtonian laws are just human approximations of actual natural law. If am=F + K is accurate then that's the natural law.
But more to the point - how does this advance your argument? We haven't ascertained that K, should it exist, is spiritual - nor have we verified that K is not zero.
Well, to talk about spiritual K I need to prove God. Correct? If the Omniscient Being exists, He knows about own existence. But because He is Omniscient, in Omnisciency exists knowledge of His existence.
Well proving God would be a start, yes. Because if the Omniscient Being does not exist, there is nothing that knows of its existence.
The Law am=F holds for situations of low velocity in 2018, if in such and similar situations in 2019 would start to hold am=F+0.001 instead, then the law is definitely changed.
Do you have any evidence that Dark Matter even exists?
1) The rotation of stars in galaxies. Based purely on the amount of luminous matter - they should be rotating slower on the edges than in the middle if our understanding of orbital physics is accurate. We're pretty confident in that understanding. They aren't rotating this way and this is best explained by something exerting a gravitational influence that does not give off light.
2) Galaxy clusters. We can observe the relative motion of galaxies that exist in clusters and this too suggests there is more mass present than can be accounted for by the amount of light being given off.
3) Gravitational lensing. The degree of gravitational lensing from galaxies and galaxy clusters suggests there is more mass present than can be accounted for by the amount of light being given off.
4) Variations in Cosmic Background Radiation. These variations are caused by gravitational influence and we can see variations that cannot be explained by baryonic matter (ie., not Dark Matter).
These four (and there are more) observations can all be explained by the existence of Dark Matter. Adding a solution to one of them that uses Dark Matter also basically solves the others. That is - the amount of Dark Matter required to solve all of these problems is the same. Parsimony tells us this is likely due to the fact that Dark Matter is a real phenomenon. Since evidence is that which increases the likelihood of a thing being true, this constitutes evidence that Dark Matter exists.
Nice work and sounds good. Only one problem you did not present any evidence Dark Matter exist.
Just because you need Dark Matter does make it exist.
The fact that including it in the equations balances them out, even though the equations are all different is compelling evidence, however.
With all the billions of dollars spent no one has found a particle that produce what is needed. Not one particle of the 80% has been found. Since it makes up 80% it should be easy to find.
Dark Matter is about 27%. Let me know how one would go about finding something that is invisible.
In other words that is your Dark matter, which holds everything together.
Can you plug it into the equations and produce answers that correspond to observations? No? It appears you are using the methodology humans have employed for thousands of years despite the fact that it continues to fail. God did it has been proposed for all manner of phenomena and we continuously find out it was something other than a deity doing it. Methods this flawed are useless.
If you want to say that God is a weakly interacting material whose only influence on the universe is the extremely weak force of gravity - you can do. I'd have thought the Strong Nuclear Force was a better candidate for God holding everything together than gravity via Dark Matter. Of course, battle of the bible bits is what you think is needed here let me remind you that 'my God will enlighten my darkness.', "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.".
Normal matter =4.9% of the critical density in the universe. Leaving 95.1% of the universe of an unknown, quantity that is invisible, does not absorb light nor emit light and can not be observed.
I know that is probably too simple to satisfy you.
Well yeah - it doesn't include God. You have to plug God into the equation and explain the structure of the universe, the rotation of galaxies, the CMBR perturbations, gravitational lenses etc etc. Otherwise you aren't saying anything useful - you are just replacing the phrase 'Dark Matter' with 'God'. Which is a great way to obtain equivocation, but not clarity.
Glory Hallelujah you have finally said something I can agree with 100%. I just hope you really believe what you said.
Well I believe the Bible says it, but I don't believe what the Bible says. However, it does highlight a theological issue with calling 'Dark Matter' God since Dark Matter's defining property is not giving off light and giving off light is one of God's defining properties.