quote:
The prediction that it will merge soon. The prediction that when it does the visible heavens will be different, with the added dimension. The natural phenomena of not naturally dying in the new earth. The prediction thet time-space will be demolished as we now understand it. The prediction of easy deep space travel, in new spirit bodies. I could give more, but I'll leave it here.
That's funny, because not so long ago you claimed this idea of yours was bulletproof against science. If you can predict the time these events will happen, your idea would be in danger of being falsified when that time comes.
Actually, it doesn't really matter. All you're doing is making wild (and silly) guesses about what will happen in the future. Go back and read my post explaining what science is. Recall that a scientific model is a. an casual explanation for some observable phenomena and b. an explanation that predicts new phenomena in the process. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must satisfy both critera, or it fails to be science.
If I were to claim there are gremlins from another dimension, and then make a prediction that they will attack New York in the future, do I have a scientific hypothesis? Of course not. The idea of gremlins is not an explanation for any observed phenomena, and the predictions do not follow from such. Likewise, even the most comprehensive explanation of any given phenomena is not scientific if it is not testible in principle. Both factors are needed for a scientific theory, as I hope you can see by now.
quote:
The phenomena of spirits popping up from it, which might have been seen by witnesses.
This is another
important aspect of science that needs to be highlighted, and is an aspect that sets it apart from metaphysics. Any experiment must be repeatable by anyone, regardless of their personal beliefs or other biases. As an example, an observer performing an experiment with an atom smasher will get the exact same results as the next observer. It doesn't matter what beliefs an individual has, because the experiment will yeild the same results. Can you perform an experiment where everyone will see a ghost/spirit? Of course not. Likewise, if a scientific model predicts certain astronomical phenomena on a certain date, anyone with access to the sky will be able to verify it. This is not the case with UFO's are other similar sightings because they are unpredictible.
Certainly, it is easy to demonstrate that many people believe they have seen ghosts. But this is not a new phenomena. People have been seeing ghosts for the past 5000 years, and so this kind of phenomena cannot be claimed as a prediction. This is what is called a post - diction.
quote:
It does the best it can with what it has to work with. But so much of the spiritless speculation, and nonscensical numbers, and mysterious specks, seems less important than a known spirit world that science enjoys ignoring to it's own peril.
You can believe it is less important, but I think something that actually gets results is a much more productive methodology. On the other hand, there is no reason for you to take a branch of science you haven't taken any time to understand (such as cosmology) and call it nonsensical. How do you know a model is nonsensical if you don't even know what the model actually is?
quote:
The big bang at it's so called earliest stage, when it was just a little (metaphysical?) specky.
Perfect example of what I posted above. There is no model that claims the early universe was a speak. What we do have is a prediction of a very successful cosmological model that claims the early universe was very hot and dense. The hot dense universe is not a scientific hypothesis. It is the prediction of a theory. Scientists agree with this prediction (even though it can't be observed) because the model has made several other accurate predictions and is considered a useful working theory.
™ Version 4.2
