bulletproof alternate universe

Yes, it is bulletproof. That's because it's not science. It's an ad-hoc religious rationalization.The thesis you have chosen is a variation of "Omphalos". As it says at Omphalos hypothesis:

quote:

---

The Omphalos hypothesis contains a powerful philosophic problem, one that troubles even those who have applied it in recent times. Since the hypothesis is based on the idea that apparent age is an illusion, it is perfectly resonable to suggest that world was created ten minutes ago. Any memories you have of times before this were created in-situ, in exactly the same fashion that the fossils were. This idea is sometimes called "Last-tuesdayism" by its opponents, as in "the world might as well have been created last tuesday."

---

Since you have no evidence for your hypothesis, and there is no conceivable evidence that could falsify it, it's not science. You are, of course, free to believe it ... but it's not science, and it'll never be taught in U.S. public schools as such.

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.

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.

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.

Telling ... "postulate" instead of some other word.The speculations of Humphreys and Setterfield are not scientific; they are ad-hoc and without evidence.

So do it. You are seriously misrepresenting what I said. The math may or may not correspond to something real; the jury is still out.Of course, pure mathematicians do stuff that does not correspond to anything real, or at least they hope it doesn't, but pure math isn't really a science. "Dark matter" is just a label, so the "dark side" jibe is inappropriate. We're still working on exactly what it is. Yes, the Big Bang is essentially universally accepted among scientists, except for a few psuedoscientific cranks. That's a serious misrepresentation of the theory of evolution but, yes, the Theory of Evolution is essentially universally accepted among scientists, except for a few psuedoscientific cranks. I can't tell which of Hawkings many mind-binding plunges you are referring to; some of them are scientific because they are essentially universally accepted among scientists, except for a few psuedoscientific cranks, and some of them may or may not be scientific ... the jury is still out. Yuppers. The existence of such a phenomenon goes against everything we know of physical law, it is recorded in only one place from second, third, or fourth hand information by a party with an obvious axe to grind, and it was not noted by any of the several civilizations at the time that were paying great attention to the sky. The scientific conclusion is that it's a nice fairy tale. That does not necesasrily mean it's not true, just that the scientific conclusion is that it didn't happen .. if it did happen, it was a miracle and can't be addressed by science. Only because you know esentially nothing of the evidence, and you are ignoring the evidence and the details.

Ain't gonna happen. You're a loon posting nonsensical gibberish. People may get tired of replying to your pointless posts, but nobody's going to agree with you or accede to your claims. Thhere's a story about Wolfgang Pauli:

quote:

---

Physicist X remarked: "But, surely, Pauli, you don't think what I've said is completely wrong?" to which Pauli replied, "No, I think what you said is not even wrong."

---

What you write is so incredibly fallacious, it's got a long way to go before it gets to be just wrong.

Far more hits than misses. If you want any one to take your hallucinations seriously, you are going to have to do some applied math, such as calculating what percentage of the Universe should be hydrogen. You apparently don't understand the distinction between pure and applied math, and the distinction between pure math and science. I am not surprised. Off topic, and that's what FAQs are for. Study Introduction to Evolutionary Biology"... witnessed event, 6 ways from sunday ..."???? ROTFLMAO! You snipped a much more accurate descritption: "it is recorded in only one place from second, third, or fourth hand information by a party with an obvious axe to grind, and it was not noted by any of the several civilizations at the time that were paying great attention to the sky." We haven't heard from any witnesses, and we don't see rcords that we shoould see if it happened. You're the one that's boxed in ... I've stated explicitly, several times, that I accept the possiblity of things existing that science can't address. You haven't even atempted to answer a key question I posed several messages back: what evidence, whether it exists or not, would convince you that your ideas are wrong? If you can't come up with an answer to that question, you're just blowing smoke. No, it is not true. You don't know enough about the BB to ask a coherent question. Many scientists beleive in God. Science does not require abandoni.ng that belief. Nobody here is denying the obvious but you.Science is useful; it works. If it came out of its box in the way you propose, then it would not work any more and it would not be useful. "God did it" has no explanatory power and is the end of investigation.

That's a question for you to answer. The amount that we observe. The BB model correctly predicts that; if your model can't, your model isn't as good as the BB model. Oh, I understand it quite well. I was the first one to point out, back on the first page of this thread, that your spirit world idea isn't science. You just confirmed it yet again. Nope. As I said, you don't know enough about the BB to ask a coherent question. 400-ish posts on the topic and you are still pig-ignorant. OK, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that we accept your idea about the "spirit universe". Where does cosmology go from there when "God did it" is the answer to every question?

So your "model" is useless. All it says is "what is, is". Exceptionally sterile. The BB model makes useful predictions. Yup, agreed. Your spirit world may be all those things (although you have offered no reason to bleieve that it actually is any of those things) ... but it's not science. Science already includes the supernatural as best it can. Science has never done that. Some people have ... talk to them. Science already does that, far more than you do ... you are trying to stop science from concentrating on what we do and will see, and look only at your peculiar interpretation of your holy book.I note that you have no answer for my question, just vague and inaccurate generalities. I also notice that you agree that your "model" cannot predict anything, offers no insight, and has no application. IOW, just as I said back on page 1, not science ... and not even intesting metaphysics.

Loonier and loonier ...There's a much simpler and far more likely explanation.

You really don't have to come up with all these new ways of convincing us that your ideas are imbecilic, useless, and totally unrelated to reality ... we know already.

You can't prove that.An omnipotent being could create the entire universe yesterday, including you and everything, including your false memories of being here two days ago, and with appropriate false memories in everybody, and with appropriate false indications of age in the Earth and the entier universe.Only if we assume that either there is no such being or that being does not interfere with the universe at a whim can we make any claims about what exists, does not exist, has ever existed, or will ever exist.Arkathon's ideas are an omnipotent being (or equivalent) interering with the universe at a whim, in a totally un-detectable way. They are outside of the realm of science because he has crafted them so we can never tell whether they are true or not by examining evidence. His ideas may be true (although I doubt that), but they'll never be part of science unless and until they are testable.Most Christians, including most creationists, reject ideas such as Arkathon's because they require painting God as deliberately deceiving us about the age of the Universe, and because they are obviously unscientific and will never be taught in reputable schools as science.Science isn't everything. I often wonder if people like Arkathon are looking for the imprimature of science because their faith is so weak that they need outside validation.

As has been pointed out many times, "speck" is incorrect. But it is detectable by its effects. (Don't go down the "direct observation only" road, you won't like the results). How do you know? Do you tell God what He does and does not do? Do you think that God is not powerful enough to interfere in a way you wouldn't detect?Answer: you assume he has not interfered. Your terminology reveals that you don't know enough about the BB to criticise. Are you Arkathon under another name?But the answer to your question is that Arkathon's "splitting proposal", as he has said many times, has no measurable effect on our universe that differs from any other proposals, and he has denied attempts by others to propose a measurable difference it might make. Wherereas the BB theory makes many predictions about measurable effects, which are different from the predictions made by other theories, and none of which are falsified and many of which are measured to be true. Sylas hit the high points of these predictions in message 108 (there are others).If you wish us to evaluate Arkathon's ideas as science, please supply a list of predictions about things we can measure today that will give one result if Arkathon's ideas are true and will give another result if Arkathon's ideas are false. He's refused to give even one item, and I think that his ideas are formulated so nobody can come up with such an item. Prove me wrong?

By responding to questions with irrelevant smart-aleck remarks rather than discussion or specification. See, for example, my attempts to get him to specify the amount of hydrogen that his "model" predicts should be in the universe (or at least get him to realize that not being able to predict the amount of hydrogen is a serious failing of his model) in messages 61, 63, 65, and 67, culminating in:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's a question for you to answer.

---

Well, why would the spiritual universe have physical gas? Would the angels toot?

quote:

---

quote:

---

How much is it you think we need?

---

"The amount that we observe. "

---

Well with the bulletproof model, you got it! Everything in the physical universe still exists, as is, for now!

---

IMHO it's pretty obvious that he's not discussing or actually thinking about the points, he's just making childish jokes. I have something against your mis-statement of Sylas's posts. Try re-reading them. Exactly the opposite. Please try reading for comprehension. It is "bad" from a scientific viewpoint because it is unsound from a scientific viewpoint. Anything that science can study has a measurable effect on our universe.Repeating the part that you snipped and did not respond to:If you wish us to evaluate Arkathon's ideas as science, please supply a list of predictions about things we can measure today that will give one result if Arkathon's ideas are true and will give another result if Arkathon's ideas are false. He's refused to give even one item, and I think that his ideas are formulated so nobody can come up with such an item. Prove me wrong?