"Fascinating."
Posted on 12/18/2010 4:14:00 PM PST by LibWhacker
>>Don’t worry Free, your probably good looking to lots of female freepers also..smile, your on candid camera...<<
Lordy!! ;)
>>I find it strange that someone can believe in infinite universes but not heaven.<<
There is nothing in the OP that suggests the latter.
One only has to look at the Democrat party to know there is an alternate Universe!
The big bang idea was never based on anything more than a misinterpretation of cosmic redshift. Halton Arp destroyed that and intelligent people are starting to reject it.
Like the theory of evolution, the big bang idea is a bunch of bullshit which is mainly being defended by academic dead wood. The idea of multiple universes is mainly motivated by a clear understanding of the laws of probability and what the odds are against evolution and evoloserism in the one universe we actually have in real life.
Maybe that's because using observational evidence isn't "delving more and more into the mystical."
And that's just on FR.
Ping
I’ve watched for years and years as these folks come up with one theory to explain the failures of another theory. I watched these folks pass theory as fact when pushing another theory. I watched the same folks keep trying to push a universe with boundaries, multiple universes, other dimensions, etc...., and of course discuss it as though it is fact - AND get funded for it handsomely - while real scientists doing actual experiments “in situ” get the crumbs. (Most of the funding is from government - just another form of welfare and dependency that undermines those doing real work.) And these same real scientists don’t get defensive when in many cases - they too are still stuck with theories in some cases.
In my opinion, these “theoretical” folks who can’t get past theory but talk like they have are simply insecure people.
I for one have no insecurities over the possibility that our universe IS the only one and has literally no beginning, end or border. I am not surprised when a new telescope shows more stars behind known stars - nor will I be surprised when the generation telescope shows more behind those ad nauseum - n++;
Down to earth people like real scientists are very secure in their being.
=8-)
Imagine a 2-D universe. It's a sheet of paper. It's infinitely large. Cartoon characters can crawl on that sheet; but they don't know the meaning of "up" or "down." That's your Flatland.
Now imagine that there is a stack of such sheets. Sometimes they hang one over the other, sometimes they "bump" into each other. (They are all parallel to each other.)
Can you explain "what is between them" sheets, using only the terminology of Flatlanders? You and me would say "air" or whatever else represents the 3rd dimension. But those poor Flatlanders have no such concept.
If we bump the whole model up a notch, the 4th dimension can be visualized as a gradual change of things that may already exist in our 3-D world. For example, what will happen when a 4-D sphere crosses through our 3-D plane of existence? First, there is nothing. Then a tiny sphere appears from nowhere. Then it grows. Then it shrinks, down to a tiny point, and then vanishes. What we see are 3-D sections of a larger, 4-D object.
So if there are multiple Universes that are separated by one or more other dimensions then when those Universes intersect they become visible to each other - just like when two paper sheets cross, the drawings on them (points, actually) become visible to both sets of Flatlanders. Also a Flatlander then can cross from his plane of existence onto the other one because the fact that the surface is sharply bent in 3rd dimension is lost on him.
Good point.
"Fascinating."
Only if there’s a pro/coni-verse
Johnny Quest!! The best animated “kid” show ever.
You are right unless we define 'universe' as everything that is. Then what we have until now thought of as the universe is just a sub-component of the actual universe and it needs a different name.
Of course the more the definition of 'universe' is stretched the less it means. If we add 'everything that was' and 'everything that will be' to 'everything that is' to the definition of 'universe' it becomes less and less quantifiable. Add 'everything that never was and never will be' (why not? isn't the universe 'everything?') and 'universe' becomes something that is impossible to ever measure, mentally picture or understand.
I simultaneously love and hate these mental conundrums. ;^)
Infinite universes and many other modern theories are so out of the understanding of man and so beyond the realm of human understanding, that it is as good as mystical.
The scientists can’t understand it, or explain it. The state of the “cosmic egg” pre big bang is not within the realm of human understanding. Nor is where it came from. Nor is the concept of infinite universes beyond our cosmic egg/ big bang universe (which was supposed to contain everything), nor is a cat that is both dead AND alive but not until you observe it (quantum theory), nor is the timeless ingularity of a black hole, or the other dimensions it may lead to. All these take the scientists into realms they cannot understand, observe, or see beyond. In that sense, the limits of science mesh quite well with the mysticism of religion.
You don’t think it’s as mystical as God? What is God, except the infinite, that which preceded everything, he is indeterminate and mysterious, he is beyond time and space, all knowing, all powerful.
How are the modern mysteries of science any different than the spiritualist’s yearning for God?
What did they expect a picket fence at the edge of the universe.
POP!
You realize of course the scientists have not observed any other universes, and certainly not infinite universes? Almost by definition, they cannot see anything beyond this universe.
What they have done is, using Earth bound observations, decided there are a few areas of the sky in which they see variations in the cosmic background radiation.
Now, a non-religious person might say that’s interesting, maybe our ability to detect the radiation is inaccurate, etc.
But the “religious mystical scientist” makes a splash by theorizing that we are observing the “bruising” of our universe from 4 of the “infinite universes” which they theorize exist and actually “bump into” our universe.
I hope you don’t think this is anything other than an enormous and unknowable, unprovable leap of faith by the scientists? Because they sure as hell did not observe any of the things they are theorizing based on scant data.
I’m not commenting as a religious, or as a scientist, and neither are they.
“If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.”
Have to love this quote. Now I’d like to hear how they can ever “turn out to be correct” within the realm of human knowledge? It is absolutely impossible to verify the existence of these other universes.
My all-time favorite episode of Johnny Quest. That energy monster scared the beejezus out of me when I was a kid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.