Meatball
0
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,894
- Points
- 0
Everything currently accepted as fact in our reality is based upon our ability to interact with our environment electromagnetically. This includes our science, and the extremely limited instrumentation at our disposal. But just because something is not able to be seen or detected with all of our current instrumentation, does not mean that it does not exist at some other level. We exist in a vast "multiverse", with realities far beyond our meager ability to measure and detect that which we deem to exist. Well beyond mankinds ability to even grasp the complete concept. And no, I'm not talking about religion or belief, but the limitations that preclude us from seeing much beyond our simple electromagnetic existence.
The religion/belief still applies though. Its a horribly arrogant position to take, that "all we can measure is all there is", i.e. materialism, naturalism, positivism.
As far as the multi-verse, doesn't that step outside the bounds of actual science, and begin to sink into the deep pit of the untested/un-testable religions of Michio Kaku? Carl Sagan would be disappointed.
Scientists only like the idea because
"It helps explain some of the strange coincidences about our own universe"
Hmm. Sound familiar? Strange coincidences? That sounds just like someone else going for the "fine tuning" argument used by Christians. IE the Goldilocks Enigma. But of course, they are the ones that get flack for "jumping to conclusions" of this type. The scientists that are buying this multi-verse BS are running with it only because they like it personally. This is obvious since they haven't been even found a shred of evidence to support the theory as it stands.
As for the Christians, perhaps they too are only picking the answer that they like best to hear. But in this situation, is there honestly no application of Occam's Razor?
So there is tons of evidence for the big bang. Great. So why is life even remotely possible in the universe?
Choice 1: sensationalized, un-testable "science"
Choice 2: some simpler idea via application of Occam's Razor.
Perhaps they are even in my mind. I just cannot instantly latch onto what bad journalism has been implying to be valid science, while at the same time numerous simpler theories for "why" have not been ruled out.
But I can share this much, since it's already being used in the public sector in a limited capacity. Google "laser grid" as it pertains to "ghost hunting". Some wavelengths of coherent light have the ability to slightly interact with energy and/or matter that is beyond our normal electromagnetic perception. This can manifest as shadows and/or distortions in the coherent light passing through a space, such as a room. These shadows or distortions will be visible in the emissions falling upon something, like a wall, that is beyond the point of interference. There have been many videos made of these events, and it may just be the beginning of the public starting to become aware that there is more to our existence than that which is commonly known and accepted by science as known by the masses. Eyes and minds are beginning to open to technologies that have been withheld from the public sector for far too long.
Bob
I'm actually not a big believer in videos, for reasons I hope you could understand. How about papers? Reports from a Journal with some class? No "studies" or "surveys" please.