Posted on 04/06/2010 1:03:26 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
This babble has no relationship to science.
This is the fanciful musings of a “science groupie.” - This may be, or that may be, and on and on as he swoons from the sheer fantasy of it all.
.
I’ve ‘heard of’ the Loch Ness monster, but I’ve never seen it, have you?
.
How was that?
.
.
OK, here goes...
.
The Bible talks about the creation of this universe. It does not say there are no others.
The bible doesn't say there aren't Leprechauns, either, but I don't believe they exist and, as we all know, 'you can't prove a negative'.
Seriously, these 'scientific' theories are always based on the premise that there is no Creator and that everything that exists - on earth and in the heavens - happened spontaneously without any creation/creator - involved.
Frankly, although I'm not a scientist, I think the basis for this latest theory (parallel universes) is pretty thin and will be proven false by other scientists. However, I regret that science and the bible are usually seen as intractable enemies when, in fact, scientific discoveries often validate biblical accounts. However, those who wish to believe this latest theory will do so, I'm sure, but unless proven by the scientific method (repeatable) I remain highly skeptical of the theory's veracity.
The theory of flight (aerodynamics) does not require that there is a Creator yet I am sure that you trust them when you fly.
The bible doesn't say there are other planets, either, but I am sure you believe that Mars exists.
“Did it actually do that, or did it just look that way because of the 120 hertz strobing effect from the lights?”
.
See, fluorescent lights can activate parallel universes!
(Tesla is flicking fleas off the back of his ear at this moment)
bflr
The series "Fringe" is addressing this very topic........and if the series is true then you are wrong........LOL!
“The bible doesn’t say there are other planets, either, but I am sure you believe that Mars exists.”
Actually, the epistle of Enoch does mention other bodies. so do some of the minor prophets.
I love it..........a couple of episodes, ahhh, but overall, its a great series.
There are many answers to this question. For example:
To illustrate the #3 above: let's assume that someone from the future did something to defeat Obama, and McCain became the president. However at some point later President McCain gets really angry at something and starts World War III. Everyone dies. The alternative (Obama) is less drastic.
There is another consideration. Manipulators from the future know exactly what happened in our future, whereas we don't (yet.) For example, Obamacare may be defunded or thrown out as unconstitutional, and no action is needed on their part.
And yet another thought. Obamacare, as well as TARP, is one of those events that wake people up. Until these years most US voters were living like in a dream - everything was just fine, no need to worry. Now not everything is fine, there is plenty to worry about - and that resulted in people awakening from slumber, getting politically active and demanding that Congress actually listens to them. Perhaps this is something the society needs, even if it has costs?
If you take this last point to the extreme, future people can fix all the problems in the past - to the extent that people (in real time) lose all their survival abilities, devolve into not even cattle - into plants, mentally at least. Humans need challenges.
“Complete humbug in science reporting.”
There are many examples of science reporting that far, far worse than this. But, you’re absolutely correct: it is entirely unclear from the article why this experiment demonstrates a multiverse. In fact, I don’t think it explains the experiment itself and its observed phenomenon very well.
Journalists typically are not very scientifically or mathematically adept. Even their reporting on topics that require an understanding at a high-school level of physics and chemistry is often incompetent. (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm has many, many entertaining examples.) Nature at the quantum level is so unlike our ordinary perception of nature, it is really only understood with mathematics. And, if stuff like vector calculus, Eigen vectors, Hessian matrices, Hamiltonians, and Hilbert spaces aren’t their thing, well, their understanding is superficial. But, speculation about a multiverse sounds esoteric all by itself, and it doesn’t require any math to comtemplate.
I’ve seen some purported photos. No photos yet of the multiverse or megaverse.
But why is a new universe created when someone dies in that theory? It doesn’t make much sense to me other than to make one feel good about dying (or should I say not dying).
Now we know why no one at Columbia ever saw 0bama. 0 was at a parallel university.
Seems to me the “universe” is just a word which is meant to describe everything. If we discover other times, “alternate” time lines, “additional” universes, they can all be considered part of “the universe”. Same with other dimensions.
We might as well say we discovered other universes when we first saw beyond the solar system, the galaxy, etc.
We just didn’t know about it before.
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.