>>27Aren't you pessimistic? Besides, by your definition, the empty model is the best model; it predicts nothing, so it can't be wrong!
>>28Don't be so sure about that...
>>30Experimentation is no less important now, than it was 100 years ago. Math games can give us results, but not the same results that experiments give us. If a math game gives us a strange or unexpected result, then we do an experiment to confirm or disprove it. If the experiment results in a positive (evidence found), then we have confirmation of the underlying theory, and we may get even new gadgets to boot. If the experiment results in a negative (no evidence), then we need to overthrow the theory.
Very little is known about time travel. In certain circumstances, GR can permit time travel, but these circumstances are impossible, so serious scientists ignore time travel. No admission is required; it's
obvious that there is no evidence for this crap.
Suppose that theory A predicts everything we can possibly want to know about our universe to arbitrary precision, but also predicts 3 parallel universes. Do we toss the theory because there are 3 unprovable universes? The theory tells us all we want to know about our world, so I say we keep the theory and ignore the extra universes (any attempt to claim that there are sentient beings in these universes or the like would be baseless speculation, and nothing more). If theory B does the same thing without the parallel universes, then we toss A. Until B comes along, A is the best theory available.
If parallel universes are unprovable, then we don't care about them.
I think it's a good idea to want to rerun certain experiments in space, or on mars. The former has already been attempted in the ISS, and a few other satellites. Unfortunately, conducting more such experiments is costly (if you can donate millions, that'd be nice). Granted, the LHC is even more costly, but it can tell us a lot more about the world at its smallest scales (where we know our theories are breaking down). Doing experiments outside earth would corroborate the assumed uniformity of physical laws, and won't tell us anything if the assumption holds. If the assumption falls apart, then a major revolution is about to hit physics.
>>32That is total phail, religifag. Science does not require religion, and religion does not require science. Science does not care about God, belief, or faith.
"faith and belief need to remain ... so that it can not be destroyed by the hand of man without sacrificing the entire human race" If "faith and belief" don't have those qualities, then it can "be destroyed by the hand of man without sacrificing the entire human race"? Isn't that a good thing, that we can lose something without endangering all humanity?
>>33I believe we have stopped talking about time travel for quite some time now. So it was a typo after all. Your reasoning, aims, and means are very bizarre.