Would you say the world at large is a good measure of sanity?
Not necessarily, no.
If you know only 10 people and 9 of them are irrational, then the one rational person doesn't become "irrational" purely because he is outnumbered by the actual irrational.
I smell an argument from popularity.
Was I unclear about the compact spatial nature of quark matter vs atomic matter? Or the comparison of God similarly to the universe?
You were unclear about everything, because you are using words with specific meanings in scientific fields and then used them in totally different ways. To me, it's just another religious nonsensical statement that uses sciency-sounding words to generate "buzz" as if it is to be taken seriously.
Much like Deepak Chopra's constant word salad ramblings while dropping the word "quantum" 25 times per sentence, without actually talking about anything related to quantum physics.
What happens to the earth and life when the heliopause is gone and we are exposed to cosmic particle winds?
It will probably end as we know it. Your point?
It's a direct analogy to the nonsense you were spewing. It's typical teleological nonsense. "ow look at how
perfect the distance from the sun is, look at how
perfect the magnetic field stops the radiation, look at how much
blablabla I can generate!"
The location and state of the earth relates to us in exactly the same way as the location and state of a pond relates to frogs.
The frogs are there because the pond is. Not the other way round. If the pond wasn't there, neither would the frog. The frog adapted to the pond, the pond wasn't put there FOR the frog.
We are here only because the situation on this planet allowed for us to be here. If the earth was closer to the sun, we wouldn't be here. If it was much further to the sun, we wouldn't be here.
To sum up, as unsatisfying as this may sound to many, the answer to the question of "why are things the way they are?" is quite simply "because we are here to talk about them".
It's just how things happened to play out in this small corner of the milky way, which sits in its small corner of the universe. If it had turned out otherwise, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
The scientific evidence based method is in adequate to explore these places. Other methods are required. Here is what the physics department of the university of Oregon has to say
The physics department of any self-respecting university works according to the scientific method. If the scientific method can't reach a satisfying explanation, there is no other method that can do a better job. It's the best that we have.
Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy
Philosophy? Seriously? Philosophy has nothing, nada, zilch to contribute to modern physics. Nothing at all. Philosphy is a bunch of men sitting in a chair and "thinking" about stuff. You don't answer scientific questions about the nature of the universe by "thinking about it".
Philosophy is a worthless subject when talking about the natural sciences.
In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe).
You should read up about what they do in places like the LHC. It's literally designed to recreate the conditions of the early universe. And by early, I do mean the very first moments.
Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds
That is simply false. Scientists might have a preference for simple and elegant explanations, but there is no requirement that they need to be. Often times, they aren't. Take genetics. It would be neat and "simple" if every gene was responsible for a single effect, but it's not. Instead, it's a very complicated spaghetti. Plenty of different things are related to one another.
The same goes for any other field. Sometimes, the simplest and most elegant explanation simply is not the correct one.
plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results
Dude......... if theory A makes testable prediction B, which then is tested and confirmed... how is that NOT empirical???
This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.
No, it's not. It's positing hypothesis that makes testable predictions and then
empirically testing those predictions.