The Multiverse????

[Coyote]

Political Chic, when the foundation is faulty? The builders work will be faulty. And nothing shall stand. That is what you are seeing.

These Scientists are godless men albeit some will promote a false religion out of their hatred of God. They are building their work on sinking sand - not on the Rock - the ONLY Rock - Jesus Christ which is the true foundation. All else is sinking sand. ALL else is sinking sand.

And!

I don't want us to forget the motivation for so many of these godless atheist scientists....


" The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes..." Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...wherein each has physical laws which contradict those of other universes....

Absurd, unprovable, untestable....clearly without a foundation....but not without an agenda.




5. One can see several reasons why atheists would embrace a theory such as 'the multiverse,' after all....if there were an infinite number of universes, well, ours is hardly a big deal....and there is less a necessity to bend one's knee to a Creator.

a. And, there is this....the real dunces don't understand that there is no science behind the theory, and believe that they have some sort of 'I know something you don't know' leg up on the theological folks.



6. When one looks as the conglomeration of scientific atheists, for whom antipathy for religion is their sine qua non, there are two characteristics that seem to appear with metronomic regularity:

a. They tend to be Marxist, whose love affair with materialism makes them automatic enemies of any spiritual view.

b. They offer and champion truly crackpot ideas.





7. Marxism cannot co-exist with belief in God.
Take as an example of Marxism in science, the most famous neo-Darwinist, and popularizer of evolution, Stephen Jay Gould:

"He was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement, in the work of Science for the People, and of the New York Marxist School.
He identified himself as a Marxist but, like Darwinism, it is never quite certain what that identification implies. Despite our close comradeship in many things over many years, we never had a discussion of Marx’s theory of history or of political economy. More to the point, however, by insisting on his adherence to a Marxist viewpoint, he took the opportunity offered to him by his immense fame and legitimacy as a public intellectual to make a broad public think again about the validity of a Marxist analysis."
Stephen Jay Gould What Does it Mean to Be a Radical

So prove it doesn't work. The rest of this is irrelevent.

 

[Freewill]

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

Without a google search, can you first admit to accepting the theory as possible and what evidence for a parallel universe do you feel is the most convincing?

 

[Freewill]

Pc talking about science is like mike huckabee talking about growing up a black inner city atheist in america

Or Obama.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

Without a google search, can you first admit to accepting the theory as possible and what evidence for a parallel universe do you feel is the most convincing?

Most convincing evidence for multiverse theory (I know about) is how galaxies and other structures are all drifting towards a point they shouldn't be as if being attracted by a stronger gravitational influence.

Though this may turn out to be the case, my complaint about the theory is it doesn't answer my big question of why's the universe here in the first place? Seems to just multiply the problem without actually attempting to answer anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's scientific.

Sometimes bullshit is simply bullshit.

And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc - these days works. I depend on others for expertise in that area. However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

Without a google search, can you first admit to accepting the theory as possible and what evidence for a parallel universe do you feel is the most convincing?

Most convincing evidence for multiverse theory (I know about) is how galaxies and other structures are all drifting towards a point they shouldn't be as if being attracted by a stronger gravitational influence.

Though this may turn out to be the case, my complaint about the theory is it doesn't answer my big question of why's the universe here in the first place? Seems to just multiply the problem without actually attempting to answer anything.

" (I know about)"


Case closed.

 

[Coyote]

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's scientific.

Sometimes bullshit is simply bullshit.

And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc - these days works. I depend on others for expertise in that area. However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

I await your proof with a cup of coffee

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1. What the heck has happened to science??

I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?


Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Whatever comes out of the mouths.....computers.....of scientists is given the same acceptance as was once attributed to the utterances of priests.


You know, there are more working 'scientists' today than the total of all of 'em in earlier times....so, perhaps the glut, the overabundance, has done to intelligent exploration just as the government's working the monetary printing presses overtime has done to the value of money.

Science today suffers from inflation.


How else to explain the nonsense that passes for science today?





2. Case in point: at one time, science endeavored to discover the laws that explain our world, our universe, and how it came into existence. Science, today, seems content to accept every crackpot view with a thoughtful look and sincere stroking of one's chin, as though it actually made sense.



a. "The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



3. Brian Greene, "an American theoretical physicist and string theorist. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008. (Brian Greene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

"The Hidden Reality is a book by Brian Greene published in 2011 which explores the concept of the multiverse and the possibility of parallel universes. It has been nominated for the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books for 2012.
(The Hidden Reality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

a. From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theory after 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method, although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos




4. Science today.
Well, OK....'scientists' have to make a living, too. But there are dunces who not only accept this nonsense, but they try to use this kind of ordure as an attack on religion. You can see an interview with Greene about this book, here: Book Discussion Hidden Reality Video C-SPAN.org

Asked to elaborate about the multiverse theory, or about any experimental proof, the professor would say "the math tells us so, and I believe the math." Faith in a new religion.


a. Dr. Berlinski points out the absurdity of using the new religion of 'science' in hypothetical mathematics, and using it to attack religion:

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five.




So.....how many scientists can dance on the head of a pin??

The problem is not 'the math', it is the postulation of what the math means...

String theory originated from the failure of 'the math', as science got closer to the singularity. Meaning that Math as it defines our world does not remain accurate in the quantum world and this has to do with the limited three dimensional aspect of our world. String recognizes more dimensions... and when they applied the defining abstracts of String, they were able to run equations back to the moment of creation, and the math worked.

I think what you're saying is valid, to the extent that what Quantum Science is considering is beyond human relevance.

However, with that said, as far as I can tell, what Quantum Science is doing is PROVING GOD.

And what you're seeing in the postulation which claims the universe is a constant without beginning or end, is the hysterical reaction by the anti-theists; with Neil deGrasse Tyson being chief among them... in hopes of turning the discussion from Quantum Science proving God.

Multiple dimensions, wherein every possible scenario is played out simultaneously, explains in fairly simple terms how a being, who is capable of moving within such 'verses', could be everywhere, with everyone, all the time.

And for those who believe that it's their job to replace God, by knowing 'how' everything works, it is imperative that they get others to believe that same thing. The problem that they have is that they have no idea how it works, but even if they did, knowing HOW something works and WORKING IT... are two entirely different things.

The deceit that they're playing is they need you to believe that the two are synonymous, as such leads you to the erroneous, but heartfelt belief, that THEY are God. Which of course is a HUGE MISTAKE.

They simply speak Math... and my guess is that in a world which is nearly entirely populated by people who do NOT speak math, its pretty easy to fool people into believing ya do. And at some point, the fakes become such that there's no way to tell a fake from the genuine article, because the fakes become the majority and the legitimate Math speakers, become the freaks.

Now... who would like to tell the class what THAT represents?

GIVE ME AN E
GIVE ME AN V
GIVE ME AN I
GIVE ME AN L

Whatta ya GOT? E V I L !

Which is the same crapola that is infecting every other facet of human existence.


Now is that crazy ironic, or WHAT?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's scientific.

Sometimes bullshit is simply bullshit.

And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc - these days works. I depend on others for expertise in that area. However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

I understand that such is within the realm of possibility, but that's only because we lack the means to prove otherwise. I don't actually think that the multiverse requires that such would be the case... but as I said earlier, much, if not most of such is well beyond the scope of human relevance, in that; as you noted, there is no way to test for such and there is no means for humanity to ever 'BE' anywhere but present. So, not sure how that effects us, and even if we were sure, we couldn't do a dam' thing about it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's scientific.

Sometimes bullshit is simply bullshit.

And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc - these days works. I depend on others for expertise in that area. However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

I await your proof with a cup of coffee

Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.

Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What the heck has happened to science??

I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?


Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Whatever comes out of the mouths.....computers.....of scientists is given the same acceptance as was once attributed to the utterances of priests.


You know, there are more working 'scientists' today than the total of all of 'em in earlier times....so, perhaps the glut, the overabundance, has done to intelligent exploration just as the government's working the monetary printing presses overtime has done to the value of money.

Science today suffers from inflation.


How else to explain the nonsense that passes for science today?





2. Case in point: at one time, science endeavored to discover the laws that explain our world, our universe, and how it came into existence. Science, today, seems content to accept every crackpot view with a thoughtful look and sincere stroking of one's chin, as though it actually made sense.



a. "The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



3. Brian Greene, "an American theoretical physicist and string theorist. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008. (Brian Greene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

"The Hidden Reality is a book by Brian Greene published in 2011 which explores the concept of the multiverse and the possibility of parallel universes. It has been nominated for the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books for 2012.
(The Hidden Reality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

a. From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theory after 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method, although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos




4. Science today.
Well, OK....'scientists' have to make a living, too. But there are dunces who not only accept this nonsense, but they try to use this kind of ordure as an attack on religion. You can see an interview with Greene about this book, here: Book Discussion Hidden Reality Video C-SPAN.org

Asked to elaborate about the multiverse theory, or about any experimental proof, the professor would say "the math tells us so, and I believe the math." Faith in a new religion.


a. Dr. Berlinski points out the absurdity of using the new religion of 'science' in hypothetical mathematics, and using it to attack religion:

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five.




So.....how many scientists can dance on the head of a pin??

The problem is not 'the math', it is the postulation of what the math means...

String theory originated from the failure of 'the math', as science got closer to the singularity. Meaning that Math as it defines our world does not remain accurate in the quantum world and this has to do with the limited three dimensional aspect of our world. String recognizes more dimensions... and when they applied the defining abstracts of String, they were able to run equations back to the moment of creation, and the math worked.

I think what you're saying is valid, to the extent that what Quantum Science is considering is beyond human relevance.

However, with that said, as far as I can tell, what Quantum Science is doing is PROVING GOD.

And what you're seeing in the postulation which claims the universe is a constant without beginning or end, is the hysterical reaction by the anti-theists; with Neil deGrasse Tyson being chief among them... in hopes of turning the discussion from Quantum Science proving God.

Multiple dimensions, wherein every possible scenario is played out simultaneously, explains in fairly simple terms how a being, who is capable of moving within such 'verses', could be everywhere, with everyone, all the time.

And for those who believe that it's their job to replace God, by knowing 'how' everything works, it is imperative that they get others to believe that same thing. The problem that they have is that they have no idea how it works, but even if they did, knowing HOW something works and WORKING IT... are two entirely different things.

The deceit that they're playing is they need you to believe that the two are synonymous, as such leads you to the erroneous, but heartfelt belief, that THEY are God. Which of course is a HUGE MISTAKE.

They simply speak Math... and my guess is that in a world which is nearly entirely populated by people who do NOT speak math, its pretty easy to fool people into believing ya do. And at some point, the fakes become such that there's no way to tell a fake from the genuine article, because the fakes become the majority and the legitimate Math speakers, become the freaks.

Now... who would like to tell the class what THAT represents?

GIVE ME AN E
GIVE ME AN V
GIVE ME AN I
GIVE ME AN L

Whatta ya GOT? E V I L !

Which is the same crapola that infecting every other facet of human existence.


Now is that crazy ironic, or WHAT?

I wish I could give this one a check and a smiley face!
Fine work!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP began with the query "What the heck has happened to science??

I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?"

The suggestion is that there are are so very many working under the appellation of 'scientist,' all having to put food on their tables, that any ol' conjecture is accepted as science.


8. An example of famous and respected scientists advancing nutty ideas is the following:

Well, Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains: Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.,
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 141



How about like Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist,and Chandra Wickramasinghe, atheist, mathematician, astronomer and astrobiologists. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.

At select moments in history, and perhaps in the future, these genes, acting like highly sophisticated and autonomous computer programs, "rain gently from space into the environment, each fragment being a small program in itself."

Those that survive entry into the atmosphere waft across the planet, eventually coming into contact with one or more pre-established organisms. Upon contact, the new gene reprograms the old organism such that, when the organism reproduces, the organism's offspring will exhibit improvements proportionate to the degree of the genetic upgrade installed by the incoming gene.
Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109


Yet there are dolts.....several in this thread....who will bow to the brilliance of such nonsense.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keep in mind, that for all intents and purposes, the people to whom you're referring, are the same people who would look you right in the eye and tell you that those people who's reasoning compels them to pursue sexual gratification from people of their same gender; reasoning which represents a 180 degree deviation from the human physiological norm... IS PERFECTLY NORMAL!

Now, be honest, if they are insufficient to come to understand something so present and utterly verifiable... how can one reasonably trust their postulations on those things which can NEVER BE VERIFIED? Which means that if what they say on one thing is demonstrably false, and what they claim on the other thing can neither be proven to be true or false, they simply cannot be trusted.

Which leads us to where?

The same place everything else in this crippled reality leads us:

Let's review:

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.


And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The OP began with the query "What the heck has happened to science??

I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?"

The suggestion is that there are are so very many working under the appellation of 'scientist,' all having to put food on their tables, that any ol' conjecture is accepted as science.


8. An example of famous and respected scientists advancing nutty ideas is the following:

Well, Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains: Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.,
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 141



How about like Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist,and Chandra Wickramasinghe, atheist, mathematician, astronomer and astrobiologists. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.

At select moments in history, and perhaps in the future, these genes, acting like highly sophisticated and autonomous computer programs, "rain gently from space into the environment, each fragment being a small program in itself."

Those that survive entry into the atmosphere waft across the planet, eventually coming into contact with one or more pre-established organisms. Upon contact, the new gene reprograms the old organism such that, when the organism reproduces, the organism's offspring will exhibit improvements proportionate to the degree of the genetic upgrade installed by the incoming gene.
Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109


Yet there are dolts.....several in this thread....who will bow to the brilliance of such nonsense.

Well, I have some bad news for these would-be 'fellows'. They're defining God. But they desire to do so in such a way which dismisses what they're claiming from the ever-over-hyped notion of the Super Natural.

In truth, God is nature... thus God sets the standard for nature. Therefore what is natural is defined by what is God. Now... sadly for us, that doesn't make God SUPER-NATURAL. It makes us, SUB-Natural, or subnature.

They are doing precisely the same thing that every other originator of every other religion has done. They're trying to explain the origin of human life, which operates as nothing more than a backdoor program plotting to determine where we are going, from where we have been.

But they need to breech the kinship of humanity from the God of old... and place it with the God of new, which predictably, as the subjectivism of Relativism requires, is THEM!

That "Some Other Race" or "some other life form seeded the universe with life", is a given. In Judea / Christianity we refer to that other form of life as God. OKA: The Supreme Being.

I think that its a fair bet that SPACE/TIME is eternal... and I think that its just as fair a bet that what is present in any given aspect of such, be it in our 'present' or not, is optional. With the purveyor of that option being God.

How that changes ANYTHING in our present, is unknown to us and likely will always be unknown to us. Thus the exercise is pointless.

Yet it is almost impossible to NOT CONSIDER IT. Crazy, huh...?

 

[Coyote]

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's scientific.

Sometimes bullshit is simply bullshit.

And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc - these days works. I depend on others for expertise in that area. However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

I await your proof with a cup of coffee

Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.


Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.

Very amusing, but I'm still waiting on you to prove it wrong. Coffee is gone, but I've got the popcorn popping

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's scientific.

Sometimes bullshit is simply bullshit.

And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc - these days works. I depend on others for expertise in that area. However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

I await your proof with a cup of coffee

Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.

Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.

Oh! Now that's good stuff right there... .

​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's scientific.

Sometimes bullshit is simply bullshit.

And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc - these days works. I depend on others for expertise in that area. However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

I await your proof with a cup of coffee

Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.


Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.

Very amusing, but I'm still waiting on you to prove it wrong. Coffee is gone, but I've got the popcorn popping

I was wrong?

It seems it is not just your honesty that is in short supply.
It is your intellect as well.


Take a seat with the other moron, GT.

 

[Mad Scientist]

PC, you don't think there could be dimensions and entities outside the visible light spectrum?

I don't know what, but there has to be.

 

[Coyote]

And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc - these days works. I depend on others for expertise in that area. However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

I await your proof with a cup of coffee

Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.


Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.

Very amusing, but I'm still waiting on you to prove it wrong. Coffee is gone, but I've got the popcorn popping

I was wrong?

It seems it is not just your honesty that is in short supply.
It is your intellect as well.


Take a seat with the other moron, GT.

Hmmm...still no proof.

But what a talented dancer you are!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If anyone would like to see a classic example of the effect of the non-math-speakers, trying to pretend to be math-speakers, take a moment to examine this page. The content is irrelevant, but look at the nature of the contest... and see if you can identify the two elements:

#1231 - 1237 or so...

It's a micro-example of the OPs point.