A new theory

[walkntune]

I think that these two dimensions are entangled or merged together. I think that happened with the big bang. They say that two membranes collided and bounced off eachother to create the big bang. I say what if they never separated?

 

This is an interesting thought! I have often thought about two energies with opposing nature being created out of the big bang and both changing in and out of form!

As each created on its path one created republicans and the other democrats!

Or the bloods and the crypts!

Seriously I wondered if there were two energy forces at work in nature created from the big bang moving maybe in opposite directions!It would give the effect of two different dimensions happening at the same time!I actually often wondered if like people who were schizophrenic were being pushed from one dimension of energy to another or just getting flashes and seeing things in one dimension that you can't see in the other.How do we know they don't see what they say they do if most people see in just the one dimension they exist in?

I also wondered if we were getting pulled in both directions where one was giving life and the other death! We sense it as a positive and negative and thus create a sense of right and wrong! Just a fun thought!

I am not sure what exactly you mean when you are saying your mind is in a different dimension.I have heard different religions talking of the spirit or soul being separated but I relate that to our physical body and the energy giving us life or consciousness.

Are you maybe talking about your spirit instead of mind?

That would be our true self which is separate from the mind will and emotions.

Some refer to it as inner child or inner self.

 

Also curious as to what you mean by another body?

I was to even assume it was possible I would assume there would be no mass involved and just our conscious energy!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is a science forum, though. If this isn't a scientific theory, why discuss it here?

Maybe he is posting on the speculating side of this forum!

[mooeypoo]

Maybe he is posting on the speculating side of this forum!

Speculations and theories need to be supported by scientific method, though.

[walkntune]

Speculations and theories need to be supported by scientific method, though.

 

I agree but once they are supported by scientific method they would no longer need to be under pseudo science and speculation would they?

[mooeypoo]

When they're supported enough to be full fledged theories (that explain, predicts, etc) then yes, they mature from hypothesis to theory.

 

There's a bit more to go on that level, though. Speculation that the pink unicorn drinks vodka isn't scientific because it has aboslutely no hold in reality; it's unfalsifiable and untestable. A scientific speculation needs to have some bearing in reality - which means it needs to be supported by some sort of initial scientific logic.

[JillSwift]

Not that I'm taking anyone's side, but if that's the case, why even have a forum? How do you discuss scientific theories? I thought those were pretty much as factual as information gets. How do you argue against what has been proven to be as true as gravity?

With evidence.

 

Nothing is set in stone, any bit of evidence may change any given theory.

 

I think that Homer-16 was trying to say that he meant it as an idea, and not something that is able to stand up to the scientific method relative to the stuff that is published in all those journals that make my head hurt.

Well, not that there are sides to take here, but: Posting any idea on a science forum rather suggests a willingness for it to be scrutinized by users of the method, que no?

[HOMER-16]

I had said this was a theory because it cannot yet be tested. We don't have the tools. Also I use theory because it is theoretical, it might be true, it might not.

 

This is mainly speculation and I was mainly thinking, 'you know, with things like AP and remote viewing as well as countless ghost and demon stories (some happened to my friend) what could possibly make them possible.

 

I thought they could not exist in this plane as they violate too many laws of physics. So that's when I thought, 'what if there is another plane overlaying this one?'

 

And for me that sold it. Since it was another plane of existance, it could have nothing to do with our laws of physics. Yet because the 'beings' on this plane could sometimes manipulate this one they had to be interconneted. That's when I remembered super string theory, where they think the big bang was started by two colliding planes.

 

And I think there is enough proof to take these things seriously. look at the 'sleeping' prophet, what many psychics claim to be ale to do, and countless encounters with ET.

 

Unfortunately, I don't things like planes of existanc can be tested with our scientific theory. Only, I guess logic. But that's of right now. Who knows, something might come up.

 

And I can't quite shake the feeling we're only a few steps away.

[insane_alien]

homer, in science theories are the most tested ideas we've had. they are only theories BECAUSE they have passed test after test after test.

 

hypothesis are the level below. they have only underwent preliminary testing and have not been fully explored in a variety of situations but have still passed some baseline of test.

 

Speculations are below that, they are logically consistent with current observations but have had no testing performed on them.

 

then there's junk. this stuff is wrong. and it can originate from any of the three levels if they fail a single test or it can be generated spontaneously an example of a theory that has turned junk, the theory of newtonian mechanics. sure, its a good approximation below 0.1c but it's still wrong.

 

hypotheses and speculation regularly fall into the junk pile without that many people ever hearing of them.

 

and if we classify you're idea it would fall under spontaneous junk.

 

there's no evidence for, quite a bit of evidence against and you rely on gross misinterpretations of things to support it. it doesn't even get to speculation stages before it fails.

[walkntune]

Unfortunately, I don't things like planes of existanc can be tested with our scientific theory. Only, I guess logic.. Who knows, something might come up.

 

And I can't quite shake the feeling we're only a few steps away.

 

You seem to have an intuitive mind and you come across as sensing some of the creative force behind conscious energy!

 

They are correct in saying the ideas do not fit in any scientific method!

 

But that's of right now

 

This is very interesting point!

We are at a point in time when a 5 year old child can carry more logical information in a little piece of plastic in a back pocket than the most scientific mind ever can hold!

 

The scientific mind left only to logic will fall far behind as we project forwards!

The truth is conscious energy will find away!

The introverted ones with the intuitive minds and imagination will be the ones to step forwards!(The meek will inherit the earth!)

 

The answer lies in this equation E=MC2

 

To the scientific method this is an equation that works in physics!

To an intuitive person this can be the reason for existence!

[HOMER-16]

What I had meant by that quote was really, we can't use tests based on other planes of ex. because they have no connection what so ever with this one. Physics would have no say in them.

 

Insane, I would have to agree with that assesment. Because we have no proof of AP, RM, ghosts, etc, this would have to go into the junk pile. So... again... I rest my case. (So I guess it was a misuse of terms )

[Mr Skeptic]

I never claimed this to be a scientific theory. Just a theory. I'll add more tomorrow...

 

What other type of theory is it? It certainly isn't a mathematical or logical theorem, as those would have to be completely proved right off the start. So what kind of theory could it be?

[HOMER-16]

Theory as in the common use of the term.

 

An idea that may or may not be correct.

 

Once it is proven correct, then it becomes a fact.

 

In science, when proven and supported by data, then it becomes a scienific theory.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why do we always end up arguing about what "theory" means instead of actually discussing the idea?

[insane_alien]

because people always want to mix the definitions so it seems more important than it really is.

[Phi for All]

Because science requires clarity in the use of terms, especially when the terms are non-mathematical. And in this particular instance, it's because so many want to jump over the details with no rigor. Calling a speculation a "theory" puts them almost on a par with "fact" in some people's minds.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's just that this obsession with terminology often seems to distract us from the actual idea being presented. We could all just say "Well, it's a hypothesis more than a theory" and get on with it, but we decide to obsess over it instead.

[insane_alien]

well, all the claims have been thouroughly debunked and nothing new was being offered so there isn't much to go on other than the OP insisting its a theory.

[Phi for All]

It's just that this obsession with terminology often seems to distract us from the actual idea being presented. We could all just say "Well, it's a hypothesis more than a theory" and get on with it, but we decide to obsess over it instead.

If this were a site dedicated to grammar and someone kept calling nouns verbs, would you just let it go and get on with the discussion? If we were into boats and someone kept referring to what motor boats do as "sailing", would you not correct them each time so they could get the boating education they need?

 

We've discussed this at great lengths. Keeping silent when someone is wrong lends tacit support to the error and misinforms those who read afterward.

[HOMER-16]

But this is Pseudoscience and Speculations. Nothing is set in stone or supported here.

 

Btw, I never called this fact. To me, everything is 50:50.

[insane_alien]

actually, pseudoscience and speculations has even more rigorous rules than the rest of the forum seeing as it so easily attracts loonies. just because its in P&S doesn't mean you can just drop every standard science sets.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well do you intend to speculate or spout pseudoscience?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[john5746]

To me, everything is 50:50.

 

No, I think you mean to say that everything that you are completely ignorant about is 50:50.

[Phi for All]

But this is Pseudoscience and Speculations. Nothing is set in stone or supported here.

Nothing in science is ever set in stone, not even real theories. That's the beauty of it; if some evidence comes along to disprove what's come before, the theory has to change. If it was set in stone, no one would bother looking for new evidence.

 

As far as support goes, every idea needs to start with a speculation and move through the rigorous scientific methodology in order to make a prediction that can be tested. If you can't take your idea through the steps, there is something that makes it supernatural, or outside of what is accepted and observable, makes it unsupported. If that's the case, you have to find a way to make it measurable by science or just accept that it will never be scientifically meaningful.

[HOMER-16]

actually, pseudoscience and speculations has even more rigorous rules than the rest of the forum seeing as it so easily attracts loonies. just because its in P&S doesn't mean you can just drop every standard science sets.

 

I know you can't drop everything. But we're in an area where there is little evidence or testing.

 

Well do you intend to speculate or spout pseudoscience?

 

I truely rather speculate. I should be trying to say, if this is true, could this be the reason or could this be true.

 

No, I think you mean to say that everything that you are completely ignorant about is 50:50.

 

Do you truley have to go into insults? What I meant by that was that everything, everything is half and half. A yes or no answer. Whether this is correct or not. Yes or no. 50:50. Does this work. Yes or no.

 

The reason I came to this conclusion was that, if somehow you were to look at all alternate universes. Infinite # of universes btw. If you were to look and see if some event or concept with only two possibilities. For this example, is my monitor on or off. You would see that there are infinite with the monitor on, and infinite with the monitor off. infinity:infinity-50:50. Btw, this model only applies to those alternate universes which the monitor can only be on or off. Not some stage inbetween that we cannot understand due to different physics.

[insane_alien]

I know you can't drop everything. But we're in an area where there is little evidence or testing.

 

thats exactly what you are asking us to do though

 

I truely rather speculate. I should be trying to say, if this is true, could this be the reason or could this be true.

 

but you're not speculating. and your proposing we remove all the rules behind speculation too.

 

Do you truley have to go into insults?

 

it wasn't an insult. read it again and don't assume the word ignorant automatically makes a sentence a personal insult.

 

What I meant by that was that everything, everything is half and half. A yes or no answer. Whether this is correct or not. Yes or no. 50:50. Does this work. Yes or no.

 

you have completely misunderstood 50:50. 50:50 means there is an equal probability of one thing happening over the other. a yes or no question could have a yes:no probability of 100:1 or 25:32.

 

The reason I came to this conclusion was that, if somehow you were to look at all alternate universes. Infinite # of universes btw.

 

misapplication of universe. there can only be one universe by definition. also, evidence?

 

If you were to look and see if some event or concept with only two possibilities. For this example, is my monitor on or off. You would see that there are infinite with the monitor on, and infinite with the monitor off. infinity:infinity-50:50. Btw, this model only applies to those alternate universes which the monitor can only be on or off. Not some stage inbetween that we cannot understand due to different physics.

 

this doesn't make sense on several levels, you are reffering to one specific monitor(the one in this universe) yet you put the others into the probability and then mess it up.

 

infinity:infinity is not 50:50

[Mr Skeptic]

What I meant by that was that everything, everything is half and half. A yes or no answer. Whether this is correct or not. Yes or no. 50:50. Does this work. Yes or no.

 

No.

 

What is the probability of a six sided dice landing on a 1? Hint: it's not 50:50