Alternate Universes

Science is truth. It is the seeking of knowledge; literally from the Latin root word scientia, which means "knowledge".

 

I'm not trashing you and I never meant for you to feel that way... I'm free, but I don't dance and I can be here.

 

Oh, is that so?



Would you mind taking the cameras out of my house now and giving me my privacy!?.....lol

 

"Would you mind taking the cameras out of my house now and giving me my privacy!?"

Now that is a totally different thing. I doubt I can abide by your asking... I think just a few more days I can remove them and I'll be satisfied with what I need to know :sunny:

 

I think there's a very good chance that there are parallel universes and an even better chance there are infinite serial universes. Unfortunately they are also most likely all separated by hundreds of billions or trillions of untraversable light years. The fact that we are not already living in, or in contact with an advanced type 2 civilization is not a good sign. With an infinite number of serial universes behind us, if it was ever possible for an advanced civilization to master space-time-energy then it likely would have been done already. Sadly there is simply no real evidence of this so far.

 

No, there is no real evidence so far, but I think it would be arrogant to think that our universe is the only one......too.

 

Arrogant, really?

A quick search of the scope of the observable universe suggests it is 96 Billion Light Years!!

That is an unfathomably large distance, I'm pretty much parroting some scientists I've read in regards to this stuff but humans did not evolve to deal with such mind-boggling distances and scales that the cosmos displays, these types of figures really only have come about within the past century or two with technological advances and since we're all not dealing with the technology, I can understand how some of this stuff may be difficult to wrap one's head around, even with an open mind.

 

And this observable part may be just a very small part of something far bigger. After the particle horizon, no light from out there will ever reach us, or light from us reach there because space is expanding at such a rate that no light would ever have time to reach us.

 

Plus we're not even accounting for all the dark matter/energy within the 'space' of our universe that supposedly makes up the vast majority of the universe. It's really quite mind boggling and fascinating stuff and I understand some of the skepticism in regards to a lot of the unknowns in science and physics that have at present formulated tentative theories, but I think it's good to get people to reason out why they are skeptical and why they may view some of the stuff as bogus, I think it helps (or at least has the potential to) everyone discussing the topics understand some of the available information and the supporting evidence for it.

 

Hmmm... I suppose I can understand where you're coming from but I think the justifications made for a heliocentric universe as opposed to modern skepticism in regards to the multiverse are quite different.

Certainly an assertion like "scientists are full of shit" with no justification for it, may be exhibiting a bit of that arrogance.

 

Multi universes could be right next to us, as well....but in other dimensions....or in ways where we cannot see them......Maybe our universe is in a vortex that prevents us from seeing any others....maybe a lot of things.....
I do not say scientists are full of shit.....I think they are looking for whatever truths there are and trying to unlock as many mysteries as they can......
How many ghost stories are in the world....? Many? Is this a multi dimensional experience....?
I am not going to say there are not any others until all of the facts are in.......and if they never come in....the possibility is still open.......

I will try to simplify what i mean by arrogance......There was an article in one of today's papers....about the loss of Glen frey......and though there was no disrespect to him, writer of article said..."It was one of the worst bands ever of the era...."
i was expecting to see in my opinion...or I think...or something like that, but there was nothing like that...he wrote it as if it were fact.......and to me, that is dangerous, as i find not everyone can think for themselves in this world and to say things like that make others think....""well, that must be true...."...not to mention the arrogance of slamming his band on the day he died almost....really?
This is a simple example of what I mean......but it seems to me....many people in today's world talk like they are know it alls......and it is an attempt at mind control...imo.........Some say the Mona Lisa is the best painting ever....I don't think so.....and who are they to say...., anyway? Everyone has an opinion and a theory......and as my mom used to say...."Just the facts, ma'am.....just the facts...."

 

There is a lot of speculation in those statements you are making though, I think if/when science adopts the viewpoint of "maybe a lot of things" without any verifiable supporting evidence that is when we are in trouble and science perhaps becomes increasingly more like a type of faith, rather than the paradigm which has made science so incredibly unique, efficient and accurate over the past few Centuries in helping understand reality.

In his book titled Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed The Search for Scientific Truth, Jim Baggot makes a compelling case that some of the modern Theoretical Physics, multiverse theories included IIRC, should not even be considered "science" at this point. The crux of his argument is that there are certain aspects of the scientific method, I believe in this case testable evidence, which are substantially lacking from such theories and therefore do not meet the rigourous requirements of practicing science. Baggot's case seems to hinge on accepting certain definitions of science, which may make it more philosophical in a sense, but it makes me really reconsider some of the popularized notions of science like "hard" science vs "soft" science and the prestige, or lack thereof associated with that and what the assertions of some of the Modern Physics he discusses really rely on.


In regards to your second paragraph, you are discussing art, which is entirely subjective in regards to if it is appreciated or not, we're talking Apples and Oranges here. The only comparison between the two that I can draw is the journalistic license that is taken during stories, which actually is also touched upon in the aforementioned book regarding the 'spin' media sources take on unconfirmed scientific findings. That story coming on the heels of Glenn Frey's death seems pretty callous though.

 

This thread started with the article that there may be multi universes.
Now, scientists will absolutely prove it or not.
The theory is not in the realm of some far fetched off the wall theory anymore.
I do not see how science is being compromised here.
And you asked me about the word arrogance. I said I was giving very simplified responses.
My response was not about art but example to make my point.
You don't have to beat me up over this thread.
Move it to weird and bizarre then if that makes you feel better.

 

I'm not "beating you up", we're having discussion, don't take things so personally.

 

I cannot help the way I feel.
Now, that is soft science and psychology.

 

Or maybe a lack of neurotransmitters JK

 

You could be correct. I don't deny it.....

Well, now that we have identified the problem..........what is the next course of action?.......lol

 

Make sure to get good Sleep
Promote Multiverse Theories
Listen to Good Music

 

That has not worked.....

May be a ninth planet beyond Neptune to be proven or not now in the paper I just read for today....and again, i go further.....but maybe there is one after that and so on....and we cannot see them yet, as our telescopes will never be strong enough.....