NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
The consensus right now is that dark matter consists of a new type of particle, one that interacts very weakly at best with all the known forces of the universe except gravity. As such, dark matter is invisible and mostly intangible, with its presence only detectable via the gravitational pull it exerts
One thing would be him claiming a lack of proof for dark matetr. Its existence or indicated existence through experiments as is understood in Physics today is not in question, he loses points there as well.
There is not a single experiment in the Physics realm that has proven the existence of anything. No scientific theory can ever be proven, only disproven.There is not a single experiment in the Physics realm that has proven the existence of dark matter. Moreover, accepting results as implying its existence would seem to fit hand in glove with Physicists validating certain types of paranormal manifestations straightaway. That is not going to happen in the Physics community yet, from "spooky action at a distance" to dark matter/energy we have Physicists accepting certain notions on faith.
One thing would be him claiming a lack of proof for dark matetr. Its existence or indicated existence through experiments as is understood in Physics today is not in question, he loses points there as well.
What you stated above doesn't contradict what Fusco actually said. There is no definitive proof that it exists. The experimentation I've heard about tells us two things.
1. There is an unknown energy causing the universe to expand.
2. There is unknown mass populating the universe.
That is not evidence of anything other than what we see happening is unknown because we can't see what's happening.
When Mr. Fusco was asked the question I posed, 'Christianity provides the guiding light to the way he sees how the universe operates. What about other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam etc', he made light of other religions. He said something to the effect that other religions had numerous gods that ended up mating with one another. In effect, making light of other religions stories. I wanted to hear Mr. Fusco address the virgin birth of Jesus. Didn't he find this story as preposterous as these other religions stories?
Sorry Goggs, I think you were reading something into what Fusco said. Yes, his outlook is quite pro-christianity. I felt he was trying to make light of other religions to boost his own. I am not trying to stick up for any religion either. The bottom line for me is...I just thought he was a rather lame guest, all in all.Dont misunderstand me here, I totally am not in any way religious and would not stick up for any religion over another but the way I heard Thomas was that he was saying the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all referred to an actual creation moment, before which there was nothing, and after which there was everything. I believe he was contrasting this with other religions that do not have such a creation myth anywhere near as clear cut and black and white. It is my understanding that was the only point he was making in answer to your question, despite me also thinking he was very pro-christianity.