Multiverse?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What are the Vedas?

Veda means knowledge and the Vedas have been with mankind for eternity coming to mankind at every new cosmic manifestation by the will of the Lord.

The Vedas contain all knowledge of the spiritual and the material.

The game chess that you are playing right now has come from the Vedas and without the Vedas chess would not exist.

Originally posted by Dasa
Veda means knowledge and the Vedas have been with mankind for eternity coming to mankind at every new cosmic manifestation by the will of the Lord.

The Vedas contain all knowledge of the spiritual and the material.

The game chess that you are playing right now has come from the Vedas and without the Vedas chess would not exist.

Chess is said to have originated from India. Are the Vedas from India?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Chess is said to have originated from India. Are the Vedas from India?

Yes

When I say the Vedas are from India I must qualify that information.

Actually the Vedas are eternal and when they first were given to mankind a long time ago there was not the India we know today but the continents were joined and we had something of a one earth model which means the Vedas belong to the whole world not only India.

Over time the continents drifted apart and now have the India of today.

If you went back in time and ask the question do the Vedas come from India you would get different answer.

The answer that the Vedas come from India is an answer given in a contextual field of current times.

Originally posted by Dasa
When I say the Vedas are from India I must qualify that information.

Too late. The damage is done.

Originally posted by Dasa
When I say the Vedas are from India I must qualify that information.

Actually the Vedas are eternal and when they first were given to mankind a long time ago there was not the India we know today but the continents were joined and we had something of a one earth model which means the Vedas belong to the whole world not only India.

Over time the continents ...[text shortened]... answer that the Vedas come from India is an answer given in a contextual field of current times.

Why are there no fossils of humans before about 100,000 years ago and even our ancestors no more than a few million years ago? If we were around when Pangea was together there should be fossil evidence. There is no such thing. Why would Vedas say that then?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why are there no fossils of humans before about 100,000 years ago and even our ancestors no more than a few million years ago? If we were around when Pangea was together there should be fossil evidence. There is no such thing. Why would Vedas say that then?

There are fossils from humans going way back.

It is all in the book Forbidden Archaeology.

Its called forbidden because it has evidence that has been kept from public view.

I have said before that they have not dug everywhere and not very deep either.

They have only dug 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the earth so what do you expect if there is so much more to dig.

Originally posted by Dasa
There are fossils from humans going way back.

It is all in the book Forbidden Archaeology.

Its called forbidden because it has evidence that has been kept from public view.

I have said before that they have not dug everywhere and not very deep either.

They have only dug 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the earth so what do you expect if there is so much more to dig.

wow that's a really tiny percentage...
but % of what....
surely your not including the vast volume of the earth made of molten rock
and metal that make up the core and mantle.

And surely your not counting the vast amount of the crust that couldn't contain
fossils due to being too deep or igneous....

So you must be talking about the thin layer of land on the surface of the earth
that could contain fossils.

so...

Rounding up to a diameter of 6400km and generously assuming fossils can be
found in the top 2km of the earth's surface, and factoring in % land area
(humans are land animals after all) your claim of having only dug

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

of the earth's surface would mean the total amount of crust explored so far would
be about 2.68 E-35 cubic kilometres.

now its hard to visualise cubic Km so lets see what that is in lets say cubic nano
meters...

And we get 26.8 cubic nano meters....



I call bunkum....

Try again.

EDIT:
(btw it works out at 1.1 E-31 cubic km even if you take the entire volume of the earth so either way we are pulling numbers out of thin air here.)

Originally posted by Palynka
But that seems weird to me. What do people mean by universe and multiverse?

Isn't the universe what contains everything that exists...by definition? If other things exists, why are they in other universes and not part of a universe that is a bit different than what we thought (say, higher dimensional)? Maybe this is just semantics, but it all boils down t ...[text shortened]... rst question above.

Better yet, how do physicists define the universe and multiverse?

Me too. I suggested that “manifold universes” made more sense as a term. If there is no relationship between multiple universes (i.e., there is no information exchanged?), then the hypothesis is simply not falsifiable. The notion of manifold universes certainly requires one to address the question of how one then defines the Whole (the all-of-all-of-all-of-it). I am not wedded to terminology, and, like you, would like to know how the cosmologists are handling such terms.

Originally posted by Dasa
There are fossils from humans going way back.

It is all in the book Forbidden Archaeology.

Its called forbidden because it has evidence that has been kept from public view.

I have said before that they have not dug everywhere and not very deep either.

They have only dug 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the earth so what do you expect if there is so much more to dig.

There have been fossils dug up that go back nearly 1 billion years but nothing more complex than bacterial mats. There are fossil records of a large number of species that evolved over the years, for instance, dinosaurs are now chickens. But your book forbidden archaeology is riddled with errors and you just use it because it agrees with your outlook, just like christians write books by people they want to convince are scinetists who tout creationism and 'prove' to refute evolution.

If there were human remains past 100,000 years ago, they would have been found. If there were humans a million years ago, they would have been found. There is no way the world around us has evolved and we stayed the same. That is ridiculous on the face of it, the entire planet worth of life forms changing beyond recognition into new species over geologic times and we are supposed to be the only one to have remained the same? About as likely as all the molecules in your bedroom deciding to collapse in the far corner on the other side of your bed, all going to one place. That's about the likely hood of humans having been on the planet, genetically immortal. You tell stupid tales like that, you are going to get a reception just as crazy as the most rabid creationist thinking the Earth is 9,000 year old or thereabouts. Just because something is written in some ancient text of so-called wisdom doesn't make it true. You are just as dogmatic as RJHinds.

Take a look at one critique of Forbidden archaeology by one author, Wade Tarzoa Phd:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html

Please read all of it before you condemn the critique which I already know will be the outcome, if indeed you read it at all.

I get the feeling you and the vedic world latched on to this book as soon as it came out or specifically sponsored it. What did you do for your 'proof' of 'dishonest science' before 1994 when Forbidden was written?

Also BTW, wouldn't it be a bit more believable if the authors were actually archaeologists instead of just reporters building a case that oops, just HAPPENS to support the backers of the book?

For clarity, lets state that this is broadly the current scientific consensus on the
timeline of human development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

This has anatomically modern humans first appearing 200ka ago.

Obviously you can't put an exact date on these things, and its always possible
that a new fossil find might adjust it if we did.

However for this arguments sake it is possible to say with certainty that science doesn't
support modern humans existing more than 500ka years ago.


It is almost always possible to quibble about exactly where the line is (for any given line)
but in this case arguing humans existed in the order of multiple millions of years ago
verses arguing humans existed in the order of hundreds of thousands of years ago
means both sides are clearly well on opposite sides of the line... wherever you want to
draw it.

(ka = kilo annum's
Ma = Mega annum's)


As for the evidence for this...

Apart from anything else we have enormous amounts of evidence that humans descended from
Apes, this can be worked out via genetics, as well as fossil record.
For your hypothesis to be correct you need Apes to appear earlier than they did, then you need
what they evolved from to have appeared earlier... and so on and so fourth.

It's not just human fossils that would have to be hidden, which makes your conspiracy theory
bigger and less plausible.

Also there is a scientific principle that says we shouldn't start with the assumption that we occupy
a special place in space or time.

Now if humans have existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years,

or more if you're quoting forbidden archaeology.

Then why did they go from having a population so small it left no trace in the fossil record for
hundreds of millions of years (baring in mind humans do stuff like make tools which can also be
found, and are much more durable and numerous than the people that make them) to suddenly
booming into a population of millions and then billions in the last 10ka ?

Now if humans only appeared as a species 200ka ago then its not surprising we have only just had
our huge boom in population and technology (the two are linked) as it takes time to build up exteligence.

but if you have humans appearing tens to thousands of Ma ago then you suddenly have to explain
millions of years of humans sitting on their proverbial's for millions of years barely even bothering to
reproduce before suddenly getting much randier and hugely inventive a few tens of thousands of years
ago.

This requires some explanation... and evidence to back the explanation up.

Originally posted by vistesd
Me too. I suggested that “manifold universes” made more sense as a term. If there is no relationship between multiple universes (i.e., there is no information exchanged?), then the hypothesis is simply not falsifiable. The notion of manifold universes certainly requires one to address the question of how one then defines the Whole (the all-of-all-of-all-o ...[text shortened]... to terminology, and, like you, would like to know how the cosmologists are handling such terms.

its mostly like the use of the term atom...
which means indivisible, and was supposed to be the smallest and 'indivisible'
building block of matter...
till we found smaller stuff that atoms were made of...

but they are still called atoms.

Now while Universe does mean 'everything', and thus you would think would be
'everything' it's general use tends to be the particular set of dimensions we happen
to live in, sometimes just the visible part of those dimensions.

as a word then multiverse does make complete sense.

Basically as long as you make it contextually clear what it is your talking about you
are fine.

Perhaps if the existence of other 'universes' is proved, then people will want to get
clearer and more definitive in the language used to scribe them.
For example if M theory is correct then we might refer to 'Branes' instead of universes
and call the whole thing the universe.

In the mean time I would go with whatever makes you happy, as long as you make it
contextually clear what you are talking about.

(also consider the word cosmos for use, its a good one)

oh sorry one more point, if we are going to be correct about this...

Sonhouse quote "There are fossil records of a large number of species that evolved over the years, for instance, dinosaurs are now chickens. "

dinosaurs did not become chickens.

dinosaurs became extinct.

however the evolutionary forerunner for dinosaurs and birds (chickens) turned into
both dinosaurs and chickens.

I know you were being simplistic but that was an oversimplification too far (for me ;-) )

Originally posted by sonhouse
There have been fossils dug up that go back nearly 1 billion years but nothing more complex than bacterial mats. There are fossil records of a large number of species that evolved over the years, for instance, dinosaurs are now chickens. But your book forbidden archaeology is riddled with errors and you just use it because it agrees with your outlook, just ...[text shortened]... t reporters building a case that oops, just HAPPENS to support the backers of the book?

Checking out one of the authors, Cremo, his only scientific education was 2 years at George Washington University, 1966-68. What gives him any scientific credence I ask? Because you grant him credence?

Why didn't the two authors write papers about some of the work sited in the book and publish in peer reviewed scientific journals? Why did they just come out with the book with no previously published work?

Why, I can answer that: Because they don't have scientific credence, they just wrote up a bunch of very old records during the days when archaeology was dominated by a bunch of amateurs and outright hoaxters, for instance 'Piltdown man' was in the timeframe of the authors use of references, a clear hoax, one of many, a good portion of which is sited in the book as totally real.

In short, pseudo science that would be rejected by any peer reviewed journal because they are not peers but authors with a giant ax to grind, that is, Vedic Creationism.