However, it also in no way invalidates God. In fact, on further reflection, it only tends to strengthen my faith in Him, as the grandeur of His magnificence becomes all the clearer as we approach Him in the mathematical limit.
All I know is I like girls with bubbly personalities.
Some days, I think our universe is just a big bubble floating up from the backside of a five year old boy’s swimming suit in the swimming pool.
Reminds me of the old joke about ‘get your own dirt’. The ‘vacuum’ has time and space, so where/when came the time and space?
These statements show that the article is not science:
“The vacuum simmered with energy”
There is nothing in a perfect vacuum. So there can not be any energy in a perfect vacuum.
If the idiot means a partial vacuum, then he is not talking about the beginning of the universe.
“each of these bubbles was a universe”
This is not science. It’s science fiction.
“is working to bring the multiverse hypothesis firmly into the realm of testable science”
Sorry, idiot, it is not testable. There is no transfer of information from the universe to a point outside it,
(because there is no point outside the universe.)
The part about simulating the universe and creating a simulation program to test the hypothesis of a multiverse doesn’t deserve an answer.
There are several serious fundamental flaws fully acknowledged by everyone in the field with even the basic Big Bang theory. It’s why inflation theory was invented —to explain away the flaws. However, inflation theory is even more controversial. Many prominent people in the field of cosmology don’t like the theory. They say it’s too contrived and easy to manipulate the numbers.
Like space aliens: finding them would be proof of something, but not finding them doesn’t make the physicists disbelieve.
Cosmology heads-up! And the linked-to page has links to all sorts of interesting, but related, stuff...
Thank you for posting this thread.
It is a welcome relief from all the politics.
Bingo!
We have a winner!
We cannot blame people for becoming confused about differences between scientific "fact" versus "law" versus "theory" versus "hypothesis" versus "S.W.A.G."*, when those are not clearly pointed out by most popular science reporters.
But ALL this multiverse-inflation bed-time story is at best SWAG, hoping desperately to become a respected, testable hypothesis.
Of course, there's no problem with that -- everyone loves a good bed-time story, but let us not confuse ourselves into thinking there's something more to it.
There's not. Yet.
*SWAG = scientific wild *ssed guess
thanks