bulletproof alternate universe

Jon F pretty much sumed it up. Anyone can come up with an idea that cannot be disproven by science. That's because science is neutral to metaphysics. There are creationists who believe God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the appearance of age, while others believe a magic, demonic entity planted evidence of an old universe to deceive us. As far as science is concerned, those ideas are quite irrelevant. All that science deals with is the observable universe.As such, I don't see how this topic is relevant here. This forum is about cosmology, which is a science. What in the world does the existence of a magic/spiritual/invisble world even remotely have to do with science?

I think I'm forced to agree with Beercules, this seems to have stopped being cosmology.You can take your "evidence" of billions of witnesses to faith and belief and we can discuss what is wrong with coming to a conclusion based on that.

quote:

---

Anyone can come up with an idea that cannot be disproven by science.

---

Glad to hear you can not disprove it! Galeleo talked of things his observations concluded, that were not accepted by 'science' of his day. If I had talked about atoms, which we can't see, to darwin or someone then, they would not have been able to see them, I think. Not seeing someting with the available technology does not mean it is not science.
There is dark matter and stuff thet I think we can't see yet either. Why do some police forces use psyhics to help in some cases, if there is no measureable supernatural? All it means, is that science has severe limits.
How much of quantum theory or cosmology is really not seen? Yet is is discussed as science. Black holes, anti matter, and cosmic background radiation, a lot of that is not something that we can hold in our hands, yet we think it helps us explain things, so it is science.
The USSR did experiments in the supernatural, I believe, as it is said other countries have done. Were they unscientific?
An invisible other universe on it's way to merging with our physical one, and verified by the bible, and many different religions, and millions of unreligious witnesses to haunted houses, healings, etc. should be considered.
Were any traces of the seperation left? Could this explain some things not yet understood? Is there any scientific law or theory it is refuted by?
Now if I said we should go dip in the Ganges river, or even the Jordon, you could say it was religious. After all, this is a 'creation' evolution debate forum, not just an evo one.
But if you say my space time, alternate universe, light speed explaining, well documented idea is religious, I say your faith is also pure religion. God is a scientist. He actually invented the thing!

How fast is that? My thoughts travel as fast as the chemical reactions at my synapses can generate those electrons, and that really isn't all that quick. Do your thoughts have a faster path?

the total lack of understanding would be on your part as much as anyone elses ... andit still doesn't get the light from there to here once time startsmyths are like that. fantasy is like that.science is not like that. reality is not like that.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

But there is objective evidence of their existance. A common urban legend. No police forces regularly use psychics, and on those few occasions where a police force has accepted the "help" proffered by a psychic, that "help" has been useless and often has led in a totally wrong direction. Psychics make claims ... but they're all false. Science has limits ... whether they are severe or not is a matter of opinion. Science restricts itself to phenomena that are measureable and observations/experiments that are repeatable. It restricts itself to naturalistic explanations for phenomena ("methodological naturalism"), but does not claim that naturalistic explanations are all that there are {that would be "philosophical naturalism"). Specifically, science cannot include a hypothetical all-powerful being who can do anything at any time; that assumption destroys the possibility of experiments being reapeatable. Cold fusion? Maybe Fleischmann and Pons were right, but God changed things immediately afterward so it doesn't work anymore. Whether or not such a being exists, such a being is not and can not be a part of science. And there is objective evidence of their existance, and yes, they do help us explain wahat we see. There is objective evidence of their existance. If you want to get picky, absolutely nothing is directly seen ... all that's happening is photons are striking our retinas and nerve impulses go to our brains and we think we see something. An invisible other universe is not mentioned in the Bible, not is there any mention of a merging, and there are many other simpler explanations for the supposed supernatural efects.What evidence, whether it exists or not, woudl prove that your hypothesis is wrong? Until you answer that question you don't have somehitng scientific.

And why don't we debate something a bit simpler than all the esoteric cosmology? It is clear that the math is way to hard for most all of us here so we can leave it alone for now.How about you jump into the dating area if you happen to think the earth is only 6,000 years old. After all if the earth is older then we don't need all this talk of light speed changes and stuff do we?If you can show how it is only 6,000 years old then I'd say you've kinda done the ToE in with one swipe of that sword. It would sure change my mind in a hurry.Care to try? It's not as fancy as all the fancy math involved in quantum mechanics and general relativity. While you may understand all that math, I don't so it would be fun to stick to something we all understand, right? Some parts just involve counting things. I'm sure we can all count, can't we?You could start by adding some comments to Where are the young earthers?Then try your hand at:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth and
Greenland Ice CoresSince you probably think there is lots of good science on dating at the various creationists sites you shouldn't have any trouble finding material to handle the topics in those threads.

quote:

---

After all if the earth is older then we don't need all this talk of light speed changes and stuff do we?

---

Maybe someone thinks it is impossible for the speed to be affected. Maybe someone thinks the billions of light years figure into things, and that the big bang would not allow it?

quote:

---

If you can show how it is only 6,000 years old then I'd say you've kinda done the ToE in with one swipe of that sword. It would sure change my mind in a hurry.

---

That's only one aspect of the invisible universe, what about things we know about that could be a by product of the seperation, or some redshifting or something that could be applied to indicate a soon re merging? What if someone thinks anti matter may yet somehow be related? What if the missing matter some have talked about was not actually matter at all, but could be better explained this way? What if it happens to fit in with someone's time travel theory, or something like the so called 'god particle' they just found?
What if someone has a disproof, but hasn't posted yet?
What if relativity were possibly affected by this, or some law, or phenomena? etc. Maybe it should wait a bit before leaving the cosmos entirely?

quote:

---

But there is objective evidence of their existance.

---

Maybe some objective doubt as to how, and if, and why as well?

quote:

---

No police forces regularly use psychics, and on those few occasions where a police force has accepted the "help" proffered by a psychic, that "help" has been useless and often has led in a totally wrong direction. Psychics make claims ... but they're all false.

---

Woah! All false? Nostradamus, Jeanne Dixon on JFK murder, etc. I couls see you saying 50%, or 30%, or 23% false. But I could dig up many many hundreds easy, if this were not a cosmos thread, to knock that arguement right out from under you.

quote:

---

It restricts itself to naturalistic explanations for phenomena

---

They say love is blind. We can't see that either, but we know it exists, and that it has a demonstrable effect! I can't see electricity, but it's science too. Some things, like god particles, etc, we might see for a millioneth of a second, but don't know much about. If we have no adequate theory, because we rule out all unseen force, some things might not get proper explanations.

quote:

---

And there is objective evidence of their existance, and yes, they do help us explain what we see.

---

Where is the grand wizard judge who decides how much of this stuff we can't see is possibly science? How come he likes universes the size of a pin head, but not entire symbiotic parallel ones?

quote:

---

If you want to get picky, absolutely nothing is directly seen ... all that's happening is photons are striking our retinas and nerve impulses go to our brains and we think we see something.

---

So nothing you think you see is science? How about what we hear, feel, smell?

quote:

---

An invisible other universe is not mentioned in the Bible,

---

Then how come no man has seen Him, and lived? Sonds like when this spirit world appears in the physical, it can have measureable effects. Namely the guy would die. How about the burning bush? What if the star of Bethlehem was actually the throne of the Almighty, fresh outta the other universe, hoovering over the birth of His Son!? Can your physical records explain it? What other things do we think are cosmological that could have an other universe partial or full orgin?

quote:

---

What evidence, whether it exists or not, woudl prove that your hypothesis is wrong?

---

I've noticed a lot of highly trained people post here, who knows they might have an educated doubt!

Tha is all gobbledy gook. You can what if all you want but you're gont to have do do some very hard math to make something that hangs together and explains what is seen.You can carry on with all this stuff if you want. What I'm suggesting is that you have to handle an old earth in your 6,000 year old universe. If you can't then you don't need to both with all this wild eyed speculation.

Show how this is an effect predicted by the invisible universe and exactly how it operates.A lot of "what ifs" scattered into the dark in shotgun format hoping mightily that one might find a target.As noted by NoseyNed -- please go to Age Correlations and an Old Earth -- it shows how the minimum age of the earth is orders of magnetude greater than your belief (567,700 years minimum) based on rock solid evidence.Consider your concept invalidated until you answer that thread on the age of the earth.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

I think that all psychic claims to date are false, but I would not make such a broad claim .. "all false" referred (I thought obviously) to claims about helping the police. If you want to present some evidence for your claim that police use psychics, do so in Psychics helping p;olice?.And, considering the broader sense, you could not dig up one example of psychic claims that is unequivocably demonstrated as psychic power, and you would be hard-pressed to dig up fifty that are not easily explainable by current mainstream science. I bet that, if you do start posting examples in some thread, they will turn out to be severely misrepresented.

arkathonSorry to get a late start in this discussion but in post #1 you make this statement. Care to elaborate what possesed you to come to this conclusion?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

The community of all scientists, through the medium of the scientific press. If you want your ideas accepted as science, work out the math and submit it for publication. Oh, lots of scientists are investigating the possibilites of an infinite number of parallel universes ... they're just not looking at your ludicrous version with time and the speed of light and who-knows-what varying at your whim, with no evidence. Their biggest problem, like yours, is finding evidence of parallel universes. But the speculation and the math are scientific, because they are not trying to deny existing scientific findngs without any evidence and the math is consistent ... we just don't know if the math corresponds to anything real. Nothing we see, or hear or feel or smell, is directly observed. There's always some processing between us and the thing we "observe". Why is your thinking that you see something more direct than our detection of electrons by their effects? Why is your thinking that you see something more direct than our detection of dark matter by its effects? Those are serious questions, and deserve a serious answer. The Bible claims that Moses saw the burning bush and lived.There are many that say that no man as seen Him and died, either ... unless you accept the authority of the Bible.If the Star of Bethlehem was actually the throne of the Almighty then there's no scientific explanation; it's outside the arena of science.You are assuming a lot when you claim that events that are described in the Bible are evidence of your parallel universe. To be scientific, you need to find something that is essentially universally accepted as having occurred, that is well known as to exactly what occurred, and that is not explainable by other simpler hypotheses. I think that there is a lot of value in the Bible, but few if any of the events described therein meet the criteria of scientific evidence.Of course, it's your right to beleive that without claiming that it's scientific. Eta Carinae is by far the most appropriate person to evaluate your calimes, and he's made it clear what he thinks of your ideas. The rest of us aren't as qualified, but we know enough to detect meaningless gibberish when we see it.

quote:

---

How fast is that? My thoughts travel as fast as the chemical reactions at my synapses can generate those electrons, and that really isn't all that quick. Do your thoughts have a faster path?

---

The speed of thought I was talking about is generally thought to mean that as fast as it takes you to think of a place, or person, bingo, there you are! If you were on Jupiter, say, and I was over renaming the constellation of virgo, and I thought of visiting you, there I would be, before I could say to the constellation, 'I dub thee the constellation of st Paul'. So yes, how fast your brain works wouldn't matter much.