Does reality comprise only 5% of the Universe?

[sjastro]

This is for you @AV1611VET , since you want to bring religion into the thread, science has shown demons cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Divide]

Yup.

And that, in itself, speaks of a fourth dimension of space; as you can't roll a three-dimensional object up without a fourth dimension.

Yeah and the thing that I don't get is how could it not be spiritual? It has to be. We don't see it, we can't roll it up (lol) so it's etheryl, spiritual.

 

[Divide]

This is not a science fiction forum.

Clearly dark matter is not the fabric of space-time because like ordinary matter it clumps in regions of high gravity such as around galaxies which affects their rotation curves or in galaxy clusters which makes it harder for individual galaxies to breakaway which ordinary matter cannot account for.

The universe is an isolated thermodynamic system and according to the second law of thermodynamics its entropy or disorder increases with time.
The greater the entropy the less energy is leftover to do useful work and when the system reaches equilibrium or in other words maximum entropy there is no energy to perform useful work.
Dark energy is believed to be an intrinsic property of space-time in the form of vacuum energy.
Since dark energy is the same everywhere it is in a state of equilibrium and therefore mankind living inside this fabric of space-time cannot extract energy from space-time itself.

Oh man, that was off the cuff in jest cuz they said someone is confused that this is spiritual issue and that's clearly me.

Those scientists know now that there are are at least 11 other dimensions and that, perhaps, the number is limitless dimensions parralel with our dimension. And our knowable reality that we can see and touch has to work with the spiritual reality on some level because it is the parent dimension so to speak.

 

[Divide]

Good question. We can touch, smell, see, experience and do stuff with the reality we live in. Not so much with Dark Energy.

So? That doesn't make it any less than a real reality. If you start trying to set limits at if we can see it or not then that let's out gravity and wind. The unseen is real. The visible is made out of the invisible.

June 2205 Scientific American magazine said that our dimension is only a shadow of the larger reality of all these other dimensions.

And that's what the bible has been saying all along.

 

[Divide]

This is for you @AV1611VET , since you want to bring religion into the thread, science has shown demons cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Is that what you got out of that video?

You should watch x files more, lol.

 

[Divide]

Yup.

And that, in itself, speaks of a fourth dimension of space; as you can't roll a three-dimensional object up without a fourth dimension.

And Mr. & Mrs. Flat are attending the thread!

 

[sjastro]

Oh man, that was off the cuff in jest cuz they said someone is confused that this is spiritual issue and that's clearly me.

Those scientists know now that there are are at least 11 other dimensions and that, perhaps, the number is limitless dimensions parralel with our dimension. And our knowable reality that we can see and touch has to work with the spiritual reality on some level because it is the parent dimension so to speak.

Sorry to rain on your parade but scientists do not know there are at least 11 other dimensions.
The idea of 11 dimensions (or 26 depending on who believe) comes from String Theory which is unfalsifiable and considered by many scientists to be in the realm of pseudoscience.
There is no evidence of multi-dimensions as postulated by String Theory.
At best String Theory is a mathematical theory not a physical theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry to rain on your parade but scientists do not know there are at least 11 other dimensions.
The idea of 11 dimensions (or 26 depending on who believe) comes from String Theory which is unfalsifiable and considered by many scientists to be in the realm of pseudoscience.
There is no evidence of multi-dimensions as postulated by String Theory.
At best String Theory is a mathematical theory not a physical theory.

There is much much more to this universe than meets the eye.

And I'd say 95% is a pretty good figure.

 

[sjastro]

Is that what you got out of that video?

You should watch x files more, lol.

The point of the video is scientists use thought experiments where an outlandish degree of imagination can be used on the proviso the laws of physics are not broken.
Einstein was famous for his thought experiments, his special theory of relativity was based on imagining what he would see if he was on a light wave travelling at the speed of light.

Maxwell's thought experiment using a demon was ultimately shown to be wrong as it did violate the laws of physics in this case the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a post I made some time ago:

Actually the Bible's view of reality is much wider than scientists'.

Scientists ignore and/or deny 99.999...% of reality because science is myopic, and they won't believe until they can taste, see, feel, hear, or smell it.

When you consider how small the earth is compared to the universe, hopefully you get the picture of what I'm saying.

Factoring God, angels, and miracles out of their equations guarantees their version of reality will be smaller than a quark in the ocean.

 

[sjastro]

Here's a post I made some time ago:

Actually the Bible's view of reality is much wider than scientists'.

Scientists ignore and/or deny 99.999...% of reality because science is myopic, and they won't believe until they can taste, see, feel, hear, or smell it.

When you consider how small the earth is compared to the universe, hopefully you get the picture of what I'm saying.

Factoring God, angels, and miracles out of their equations guarantees their version of reality will be smaller than a quark in the ocean.

If we accept the Bible as an incorruptible source for science than why are we not taught the Sun orbits the Earth.
We have had this discussion before as Luther used the Bible to refute the claim made by Copernicus the Earth orbits the Sun.

“There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth".​

 

[AV1611VET]

If we accept the Bible as an incorruptible source for science than why are we not taught the Sun orbits the Earth.

Because accepting the Bible as "an incorruptible source for science" is like accepting Bill Gate's diary as "an incorruptible source for computer manuals."

Here are the standards I employ:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

In your example, you think the Bible says the sun orbits the earth, when, in reality, It says no such thing.

Thus rule #4 should be implemented, and the earth orbits the sun.

 

[sjastro]

Because accepting the Bible as "an incorruptible source for science" is like accepting Bill Gate's diary as "an incorruptible source for computer manuals."

Here are the standards I employ:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

In your example, you think the Bible says the sun orbits the earth, when, in reality, It says no such thing.

Thus rule #4 should be implemented, and the earth orbits the sun.

You don't seem to understand your own rules.
You have given an example of rule #1 not #4.
Rule #4 in fact contradicts your "Prime Directive".

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't seem to understand your own rules.
You have given an example of rule #1 not #4.
Rule #4 in fact contradicts your "Prime Directive".

Read the second to the last line of my post please.

It says:

In your example, you think the Bible says the sun orbits the earth, when, in reality, It says no such thing.

 

[sjastro]

Read the second to the last line of my post please.

It says:

In your example, you think the Bible says the sun orbits the earth, when, in reality, It says no such thing.

This is wrong on two counts.
Firstly Luther and modern day geocentricism use the Joshua verse as proof the Sun orbits the Earth.

Secondly rule #4 clearly contradicts your Prime Directive.
It states if ø is an unknown factor in the Bible but known to science then you accept the science.

 

[dlamberth]

So? That doesn't make it any less than a real reality. If you start trying to set limits at if we can see it or not then that let's out gravity and wind. The unseen is real. The visible is made out of the invisible.

June 2205 Scientific American magazine said that our dimension is only a shadow of the larger reality of all these other dimensions.

And that's what the bible has been saying all along.

If you can figure out out dark energy and what you can do with it in your daily life, go for it.

Edited to add: In the spiritual world I live in, God is not invisible. He is everywhere on looks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is wrong on two counts.
Firstly Luther and modern day geocentricism use the Joshua verse as proof the Sun orbits the Earth.

Or at least "moves through the sky" as "orbit" might confuse modern readers to view it in a Newtonian fashion. It would be more than 2000 year after "Joshua" was written to discover the actual motion of the planets.

Secondly rule #4 clearly contradicts your Prime Directive.
It states if ø is an unknown factor in the Bible but known to science then you accept the science.

Agreed.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is wrong on two counts.
Firstly Luther and modern day geocentricism use the Joshua verse as proof the Sun orbits the Earth.

And you believe them?

I say they're wrong.

QV please:

Sunrise (or sunup) is the moment when the upper rim of the Sun appears on the horizon in the morning. The term can also refer to the entire process of the solar disk crossing the horizon and its accompanying atmospheric effects.

SOURCE

Secondly rule #4 clearly contradicts your Prime Directive.

No, it doesn't.

It states if ø is an unknown factor in the Bible but known to science then you accept the science.

It states:

4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x

 

[AV1611VET]

Or at least "moves through the sky" as "orbit" might confuse modern readers to view it in a Newtonian fashion. It would be more than 2000 year after "Joshua" was written to discover the actual motion of the planets.

If the earth stops rotating, will the sun and moon figuratively stand still?

 

[Hans Blaster]

If the earth stops rotating, will the sun and moon figuratively stand still?

Sure, but it's the equivalent of suddenly stopping your 707 in flight.