Stargazer

The Kuiper Belt is a belt of cometary objects of various sizes, from small comets to Pluto or larger. As far as I can understand, the Kuiper Belt extends out to the Oort Cloud, which probably is spherical, unlike the Kuiper Belt which is mostly concentrated around the ecliptic plane.

I would label myself as a socialliberal.

Exactly, it's because of misunderstanding the theory. The theory itself, of course, does not say anything about how we should treat each other. Also, the validity of a theory has nothing to do with whether we personally like it or not. Only creationists would say such things.

Ok, then tell me why faith and religion would be respected the same way a scientific theory would? Where are the similarities? Also, why is it that people can never give a single reason why their particular faith or religion should be protected from other questioning it? What is so special about it, what makes them true, what is it that makes them possible to believe in? Surely it wouldn't all be baseless, would it? I will never regard religion and science at the same level and never will I consider them to be of equal value.

At many places. It seems to be wrong, though, and the universe is apparently flat as pointed out by others, and I've checked the WMAP homepage among others. It seems I haven't followed this very well lately.

Oh sure it was creation. After all, it's not a violation of Ockham's razor, and it's a product, obviously, of skepticism and reason, and well-supported by observational evidence. Therefor, I now declare that the universe was created by Professor Frink (who can now be seen in "Simpsons"). You can't disprove it! Also, to anyone who wishes to point out how ridiculous that is: you lack empathy! So there.

Exactly, that's my point, it wasn't science to begin with. It was baseless speculations and fantasies. (Funny, btw, how I'm not offending anyone by pointing this out, but when I point out other kinds of fantasies in another thread, I'm being told I lack empathy - whatever questioning has to do with that.) I do agree with you that some people simply do not listen. This goes for all pseudoscience and religion and other such things - I think it has to do with prestige, or to preserve their precious worldimage no matter how flawed.

Ok, you have plans to build an aeroplane with the goal to break the sound barrier. What problems do you predict? Perhaps how the structure of the aeroplane will be affected, perhaps if the pilot will lose control, etc. These are consequences that are not longshots at all. However, to introduce pararell dimensions into the mix makes no sense, simply because it doesn't follow. It would be like saying it is dangerous to go land on the moon because then you will become invisible. That doesn't follow at all. What reasonable fears might one have regarding being the first to land on the moon? Perhaps that one would sink, or that radiation levels will be much higher, or something.

What was their scientific reasoning to start with such fantasies? I suppose they had no basis for it at all. To build aeroplanes has to do with science, not what might happen in a badly written Star Trek episode. My point is that such speculations doesn't matter much since there is nothing that would justify them.

Who thought that travelling at certain speeds would cause them to enter other dimensions? And how many listened to such speculations?

I don't understand why the idea of travelling in Mach 1 has anything to do with supernaturalistic phenomena.

Well surely noone believed that cell phones would work through magic, or divine intervention? It's science. Technologically, it wasn't possible to build such phones, but the basic science was certainly there. It has nothing to do with mythologies, or fairytales or supernaturalism.

I'm surprised that so many can still believe in supernatural things or old myths.

Seriously though, isn't space thought to be infinite and closed around itself?