Neutrons escaping to a parallel world?
-
-
we should start putting together a "Fringe" division... just to be ready..
Leonardo Paneque
-
How so? In science, if the current explanation is wrong, adjustments are made to try and correct it. In theology, if something is wrong, it magically isn't because some guy thousands of years ago/a book/some old guy with a title/etc said so. Parallel universes have not been proved to exist or not exist, so they are still a possibility, even if they sound crazy.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
it's no different than theology
Usually science formulates a theory and then there's a lot of energy spent trying to prove/disprove such theory. The fact that a theory is formulated does not necessarily mean it's the truth.
I agree. However, using other universes to explain that which we cannot comprehend seems like a cop-out. By that definition, so is religion. People are just waiting on the proof of their faith, which in theory they won't see until after they die and thus cannot be proven to those on the other side of the (living) universe.
-
It oscillates between being there and not being there. At least the scientists aren't claiming "Goddidit!"
-
How so? In science, if the current explanation is wrong, adjustments are made to try and correct it. In theology, if something is wrong, it magically isn't because some guy thousands of years ago/a book/some old guy with a title/etc said so. Parallel universes have not been proved to exist or not exist, so they are still a possibility, even if they sound crazy.
lewax00 wrote:
Parallel universes have not been proved to exist or not exist, so they are still a possibility, even if they sound crazy.
Every religious person who believes in a higher being falls under this category, whether they like to believe so or not. The only difference between science and religion in this regard is that we take it as "fact" what the wise men say because they are "learned", whereas we take it as bullshit what the religious say because they are "ignorant". Science is ever changing, I agree. Unfortunately, religion is about the end game and that cannot be proven, IMHO, when it is infinitely far away. Religion will always be more about the why, whereas science is more about the how. I do not see them as opposites.
-
PhysOrg:
the loss rate of very slow free neutrons appeared to depend on the direction and strength of the magnetic field applied. This anomaly could not be explained by known physics. Berezhiani believes it could be interpreted in the light of a hypothetical parallel world consisting of mirror particles.
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html[^] <Neo>Whoa...</Neo>
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Ah now I understand how some people I know can slip in and out of stupid so effortlessly.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
lewax00 wrote:
Parallel universes have not been proved to exist or not exist, so they are still a possibility, even if they sound crazy.
Every religious person who believes in a higher being falls under this category, whether they like to believe so or not. The only difference between science and religion in this regard is that we take it as "fact" what the wise men say because they are "learned", whereas we take it as bullshit what the religious say because they are "ignorant". Science is ever changing, I agree. Unfortunately, religion is about the end game and that cannot be proven, IMHO, when it is infinitely far away. Religion will always be more about the why, whereas science is more about the how. I do not see them as opposites.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The only difference between science and religion in this regard is that we take it as "fact" what the wise men say because they are "learned", whereas we take it as bullsh*t what the religious say because they are "ignorant".
No, we take it as fact when they prove they are correct. Religion has no proof (hence the need for "faith"). Also, no one is taking neutrons escaping onto parallel universes as fact yet. Right in the introduction it says "hypothesis". That means it is an idea that has yet to be proven or disproven.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Religion will always be more about the why, whereas science is more about the how. I do not see them as opposites.
Unfortunately, not every one sees it that way. For example, people who refuse to believe the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of evidence presented, because their religion doesn't agree. And it will always be the weirdos who stand out and give the rest of a bad name (in anything, religion or otherwise).
-
Ah now I understand how some people I know can slip in and out of stupid so effortlessly.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The only difference between science and religion in this regard is that we take it as "fact" what the wise men say because they are "learned", whereas we take it as bullsh*t what the religious say because they are "ignorant".
No, we take it as fact when they prove they are correct. Religion has no proof (hence the need for "faith"). Also, no one is taking neutrons escaping onto parallel universes as fact yet. Right in the introduction it says "hypothesis". That means it is an idea that has yet to be proven or disproven.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Religion will always be more about the why, whereas science is more about the how. I do not see them as opposites.
Unfortunately, not every one sees it that way. For example, people who refuse to believe the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of evidence presented, because their religion doesn't agree. And it will always be the weirdos who stand out and give the rest of a bad name (in anything, religion or otherwise).
lewax00 wrote:
Also, no one is taking neutrons escaping onto parallel universes as fact yet. Right in the introduction it says "hypothesis". That means it is an idea that has yet to be proven or disproven.
I stand corrected. However, I anxiously wait for the proof of the parallel universe so that I may communicate with my other self.
lewax00 wrote:
Unfortunately, not every one sees it that way. For example, people who refuse to believe the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of evidence presented, because their religion doesn't agree. And it will always be the weirdos who stand out and give the rest of a bad name (in anything, religion or otherwise).
I agree. However, in their defense, the age of the earth continues to change by a few billion years each time. I think astr[physics/onomy] should set up a disclaimer saying everything is subject to change at any time.
-
Mike Hankey wrote:
slip in and out of stupid
You talking about the ex again Mike? :-O
It was broke, so I fixed it.
Been watching a lot of Perry Mason lately and am learning not to say anything that would incriminate myself therefore I can say "maybe"!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
lewax00 wrote:
Also, no one is taking neutrons escaping onto parallel universes as fact yet. Right in the introduction it says "hypothesis". That means it is an idea that has yet to be proven or disproven.
I stand corrected. However, I anxiously wait for the proof of the parallel universe so that I may communicate with my other self.
lewax00 wrote:
Unfortunately, not every one sees it that way. For example, people who refuse to believe the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of evidence presented, because their religion doesn't agree. And it will always be the weirdos who stand out and give the rest of a bad name (in anything, religion or otherwise).
I agree. However, in their defense, the age of the earth continues to change by a few billion years each time. I think astr[physics/onomy] should set up a disclaimer saying everything is subject to change at any time.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
However, in their defense, the age of the earth continues to change by a few billion years each time.
Not recently. No adjustments out of the millions have been made in the estimate (this word is important) of the Earth's in the past 50 years at least. A few million is nothing when you're looking on the scale of billions (would you complain of a change of 1 or 2 on an estimate in the thousands? I doubt it.). And the adjustments are made because new information is discovered and incorporated into the estimation methods. Leaving the estimate the same when new information comes along would be pretty stupid honestly.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I think astr[physics/onomy] should set up a disclaimer saying everything is subject to change at any time.
I guess they just make the assumption the disclaimer isn't necessary, science is the pursuit of truth (not the facts generated by the pursuit!), and as such adjustments are made as new pieces of the truth are found. If I told you I had a pet that was grey, and you guessed it was a mouse, but then I told you it had a trunk, would you continue to think it's a mouse, or would you guess it was something different, like an elephant? You don't hold on to information you know is wrong. That's just common sense.
-
I agree. However, using other universes to explain that which we cannot comprehend seems like a cop-out. By that definition, so is religion. People are just waiting on the proof of their faith, which in theory they won't see until after they die and thus cannot be proven to those on the other side of the (living) universe.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
However, in their defense, the age of the earth continues to change by a few billion years each time.
Not recently. No adjustments out of the millions have been made in the estimate (this word is important) of the Earth's in the past 50 years at least. A few million is nothing when you're looking on the scale of billions (would you complain of a change of 1 or 2 on an estimate in the thousands? I doubt it.). And the adjustments are made because new information is discovered and incorporated into the estimation methods. Leaving the estimate the same when new information comes along would be pretty stupid honestly.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I think astr[physics/onomy] should set up a disclaimer saying everything is subject to change at any time.
I guess they just make the assumption the disclaimer isn't necessary, science is the pursuit of truth (not the facts generated by the pursuit!), and as such adjustments are made as new pieces of the truth are found. If I told you I had a pet that was grey, and you guessed it was a mouse, but then I told you it had a trunk, would you continue to think it's a mouse, or would you guess it was something different, like an elephant? You don't hold on to information you know is wrong. That's just common sense.
But facts and facts on the ground are not the same. Religion doesn't change because there has no been disproof of a supreme being. Most religious people I know are happy to accept that science explains how things work, but not the why. Again, I do not accept either as absolutes and can accept both without conflict.
-
lewax00 wrote:
Parallel universes have not been proved to exist or not exist, so they are still a possibility, even if they sound crazy.
Every religious person who believes in a higher being falls under this category, whether they like to believe so or not. The only difference between science and religion in this regard is that we take it as "fact" what the wise men say because they are "learned", whereas we take it as bullshit what the religious say because they are "ignorant". Science is ever changing, I agree. Unfortunately, religion is about the end game and that cannot be proven, IMHO, when it is infinitely far away. Religion will always be more about the why, whereas science is more about the how. I do not see them as opposites.
There are a couple of possibilities: 1: The religious person perceives evidence of god - evidence that you do not perceive, thereby exposing a deficiency on your part. 2: The religious person perceives evidence which doesn't exist, thereby exposing a deficiency on his/her part. In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional. I don't fault you for responding to the evidence that brings you to atheism but you aren't capable of knowing what others are experiencing and what evidence they have available to them. Your arrogant declarations about science vs. religion are hot air.
-
There are a couple of possibilities: 1: The religious person perceives evidence of god - evidence that you do not perceive, thereby exposing a deficiency on your part. 2: The religious person perceives evidence which doesn't exist, thereby exposing a deficiency on his/her part. In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional. I don't fault you for responding to the evidence that brings you to atheism but you aren't capable of knowing what others are experiencing and what evidence they have available to them. Your arrogant declarations about science vs. religion are hot air.
-
-
:doh:
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
:thumbsup: I have done that myself before, usually when tired/distracted/etc.
Bill Gates is a very rich man today... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions. Dave Barry Read more at [BrainyQuote](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics topic_technology.html#yAfSEbrfumitrteO.99)[^]
-
PhysOrg:
the loss rate of very slow free neutrons appeared to depend on the direction and strength of the magnetic field applied. This anomaly could not be explained by known physics. Berezhiani believes it could be interpreted in the light of a hypothetical parallel world consisting of mirror particles.
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html[^] <Neo>Whoa...</Neo>
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
