More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, March 26, 2016, 12:34 (3164 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You cannot avoid the fact they only use the word 'energy'.
dhw: Are you telling us that whenever people use the word ‘energy' on its own they actually mean “pure” energy, though its very existence is controversial? Matt Strassler does talk of “pure” energy: he tells us that “the term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.” -DAVID: Matt Strassler was discussing the energy/matter we know. He is right It is hard to spot the exact point where pure energy becomes the beginnings of matter. BUT, we are discussing dark energy, a force field of energy that drives the expansion of the universe. Matter is not involved in the theoretical proposal, only energy.-Dark energy is indeed a theory, and since nobody has a clue what it is, how do you know the theoretical dark energy is not interdependent with the theoretical dark matter that it theoretically drives? Why not just stick to the fact that pure energy - like multiverses, 11 dimensions, invisible orbiting teapots, the chance origin of life, a 3.8 billion-year programme for all evolutionary innovations, an autonomous cellular intelligence, and God himself - is theoretically possible? -DAVID: Life did spark. No good theory as yet. General relativity and quantum mechanics won't join. But thinking human keep trying with open minds. That is all I am doing. But I like reaching concrete landing spots, and will change if the evidence changes. Where are your intellectual feet?
dhw: No good theory yet: agreed. Keep trying with open minds: agreed. Concrete landing spots: a bit of a problem. If there is no good theory yet, how do you justify a concrete landing spot? My intellectual feet are dangling down, one on each side of the intellectual fence. I will reach a concrete landing spot if and when the evidence provides a good theory.-DAVID: Which may be never!-Yes indeed.