Parallel universes are real, claim scientists

[Frank Merton]

6 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

You make an interesting point. If the universe was created from a singularity, why is the universe finite, in terms of size and mass? Why does it have the size and mass it has, and not twice, or half, of a trillion, trillion, trillion ... times more? Perhaps the finite size of the universe was determined by the singularity not actually being a singularity, but having a very small, but finite size. Or, it could have been an actual singularity, and whilst any given universe if finite, there are an infinite number of them.

The singularity is infinite in density but not necessarily in volume

[badeskov]

47 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Science has proven Itself wrong countless times In the past and will continue to do so Into the future. 

Salutations,

Hank

Yes, science has proven itself wrong numerous times. That is the basis of science. If you knew of science, you would also have known that that is one of the basic principles of science. 

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited January 4, 2017 by Kismit
Little*snip to reduce friction.

[The Butler]

25 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Science has proven Itself wrong countless times In the past and will continue to do so Into the future. 

That is by design.  Why is this a problem to you? Would you prefer that science didn't correct misunderstandings? Can you not accept that our collective knowledge and technology development make scientific testing a constantly evolving process?  

It would be a much smoother process if the creator would just tell us the theory of everything, but alas, he apparently wants us to work it out for ourselves.  

Or he simply doesn't like science,  with all its proofs and evidences and not recognising his existence and mighty influences ....... arrogant b******, that science.

[Kismit]

Re-opened.

Keep it clean and keep the insulting banter off the boards. 

No one wants to permanently close the interesting threads.

[Frank Merton]

It seems to me that there is an effort being made to justify attacking the well-established ideas of science (such as evolution, global warming, the absence of psychic stuff, the failure to find Sasquatch) on the sole and flimsy pretense that science sometimes changes its mind.  As has been noted a few times, this sort of stuff comes mainly from people who plainly know very little real science.

That made me wonder just how often science does change its mind about something important -- not what is reported in the popular press but in reality.  The only one I can think of happened early in my academic life -- the adoption of continental drift, and that idea had been supported by paleontologists for a couple decades before the evidence of shifting magnetic orientation in sea-floor deposits made the conclusion inescapable, even to the geologists.

It seems to me science as we have it is well grounded and not subject to much beyond some adjustment here and there.  It is for sure that there are extremely important unanswered questions, such as the nature of sentience, the nature of dark matter and energy, and huge issues like this, but it is unlikely the answers will involve changes in existing science.  When the answers are found, they will be pretty much new structures -- not discoveries that science is wrong somewhere but just expansions of existing knowledge.

[DingoLingo]

On 21/12/2016 at 5:45 PM, Avinash Suresh said:

But you 'THINK' that you know. If you have meditated, yes I do it often. helps me think

tried making a psi ball, sorry I really have to chuckle at this..

tried studying the aura, and this

tried developing your abilities,  hmm.. abilities.. oh I get it you mean 'psychic abilities' bunk.              

have at least a rough idea about Kirilian research, or the NEW system   there is point in discussing further. There is absolutely no point in arguing without knowledge. so what your saying unless we believe or have read this bunk there is no point arguing. ok fair enough.

If you have tried any of these, you will know.  yes i do know.. its pure bunk what your trying to say .

But you don't want to CONSIDER the possibility. Oh I would consider it if it was true.

You think that Science is superior yes Science is superior.

and that Science can never be wrong. and no Science can be wrong.. happens all the time..

You will say that these things are IMAGINATIONS of some fools, yes it is 

but will never admit that you don't know about it.  funny enough you will find a number of us skeptics were true believers at one time. then we started to question..

If you say that these things are imaginary, prove it!  actually it is up to you to prove it, not up to us to disprove it, when you make the claims, you need to back it up.

You can't prove it because you are STUCK with the physical world, because we live in the physical world.. not in the realm of imagination.

yet all these things concern the MIND. Have you studied the MIND(not brain)? somehow I dont think you have either.

" If you INSIST that only crawling is possible, you will never learn to fly..." - The secret to flying - "throw yourself at the ground and miss"

 

 

[Derek Willis]

4 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

The singularity is infinite in density but not necessarily in volume

Yes, that was my point. Leaving aside rotating systems, under classical GR the volume would be zero because the geodesics are infinitely curved (i.e. there is no concept of volume), but now physicists suggest there is a limiting factor which prevents infinite curvature, and hence a singularity will have volume. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Derek Willis

[Frank Merton]

I had heard this.  It creates the possibility that the universe is infinite and was infinite from the very beginning.  What is expanding is space, not the universe, and space's expansion is just a matter of decreasing the density of stuff caught up in space.

[DingoLingo]

On 30/12/2016 at 10:16 PM, Avinash Suresh said:

 

There are many people who have astral projected and put their accounts in book for people to read. Search for Astral projection by Robert Monroe, Robert Peterson(just like me: skeptic to believer), Robert Bruce. And there are many others as well.

If you want scientific proof of auras existing, here's it:http://www.thiaoouba.com/seeau.htm

It has been written by a scientist. Auras can also be measured and help predict health of person.

I had given many links, but you chose to ignore...

Oh astral projection.. there is a bit of a experiment I am running on the psychic abilities section.. take a look

Now aura's.. I really do find this amusing..

I have been told by a lot of people who *cough* see aura's that I have a good one, I am kind, I am giving. and you would probably say the same

actually I'm not. I am a functioning sociopath.. I am not a nice person I can fake being nice really well.. my missus get suprised often when I do not react the way someone who understands empathy etc that she remembers that I do not feel it. She knows when she is upset I really do not feel any response to it but have learned what she needs to be comforted.. I am learning how to act.. normal I suppose.. I can do the whole shocked look or repulsed.. when someone says something that would be upsetting to most people.. Unless the person is part of my family or someone I have formed a kind of connection to I really would not care if they were hit by a bus.. 

 

[StarMountainKid]

7 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I had heard this.  It creates the possibility that the universe is infinite and was infinite from the very beginning.  What is expanding is space, not the universe, and space's expansion is just a matter of decreasing the density of stuff caught up in space.

What is the difference between the universe and space? Space is expanding (finite) but the universe is infinite? isn't space the universe? Is the universe an empty infinity in which space is expanding into?

The ratio of the critical density of the universe to the actual density of the universe determines its shape. If this ratio is  1:1 then the universe is flat and infinite, like an infinite piece of paper, which it seems to be. However, is this a mathematical infinity or an actual infinity?

 

[Calibeliever]

10 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

It seems to me that there is an effort being made to justify attacking the well-established ideas of science (such as evolution, global warming, the absence of psychic stuff, the failure to find Sasquatch) on the sole and flimsy pretense that science sometimes changes its mind.  As has been noted a few times, this sort of stuff comes mainly from people who plainly know very little real science.

That made me wonder just how often science does change its mind about something important -- not what is reported in the popular press but in reality.  The only one I can think of happened early in my academic life -- the adoption of continental drift, and that idea had been supported by paleontologists for a couple decades before the evidence of shifting magnetic orientation in sea-floor deposits made the conclusion inescapable, even to the geologists.

It seems to me science as we have it is well grounded and not subject to much beyond some adjustment here and there.  It is for sure that there are extremely important unanswered questions, such as the nature of sentience, the nature of dark matter and energy, and huge issues like this, but it is unlikely the answers will involve changes in existing science.  When the answers are found, they will be pretty much new structures -- not discoveries that science is wrong somewhere but just expansions of existing knowledge.

And the effort isn't just here, it is gaining ground in society today. It's almost feels like there's a deliberate war on literacy lately.

I can remember when many believed life couldn't exist without water, or at the depths of the oceans because of the pressure. When I was a kid many scientists seriously doubted that black holes or planets around other stars really existed (they had to admit the possibility of course but doubted they would be found). 

[AI Construct]

Sounds far fetched to me and highly improbable, especially if we are living in a simulation, as it would take absolutely immense processing power to create every conceivable possibility, especially when you consider there are 7 billion human beings on Earth and the number is growing every year, and then there's billions of other lifeforms, and that's just one planet. The computational power required to create every conceivable outcome in all of these universes ( simulations) must be mind boggling. If there really exists a potentially infinite number of parallel universes in which every possible permutation of history is played out, I assume this must also apply to other lifeforms? So in one of these other parallel universes, highly evolved Chimps must be the dominant species on Earth, who take stupid humans to tea parties and dress them up in silly clothes? :) Just one possible bizarre universe out of infinite possibilities, but what's the purpose of it all?

[StarMountainKid]

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is one interpretation, there are others interpretations. I don't think we have enough information to choose one over the other at the present time.

[Frank Merton]

8 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

What is the difference between the universe and space? Space is expanding (finite) but the universe is infinite? isn't space the universe? Is the universe an empty infinity in which space is expanding into?

The ratio of the critical density of the universe to the actual density of the universe determines its shape. If this ratio is  1:1 then the universe is flat and infinite, like an infinite piece of paper, which it seems to be. However, is this a mathematical infinity or an actual infinity?

 

Space-time is the universe we live in and has, we have found, certain properties -- such as the fact that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (which makes what we call causation seem real).  It is also subject, depending on acceleration, to the phenomena called Lorenz Transformations, which we perceive as objects getting shorter and time slowing as we accelerate (when seen from a different reference frame -- actually these are all the consequence of each other).  

This is different from what is often just called "space"(rather imprecisely -- without space or time you really have nothing -- real nothing -- and hence stuff is not subject to the rules of space/time since there is no stuff.

[Frank Merton]

4 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is one interpretation, there are others interpretations. I don't think we have enough information to choose one over the other at the present time.

The problem is there is, to my knowledge, only one other interpretation taken at all seriously, and it is too spooky for my taste.  (It involves the observer having influence over the event -- that by itself might be conceivable -- but even when the "observer" is not a conscious being.

[Frank Merton]

5 hours ago, AI Construct said:

Sounds far fetched to me and highly improbable, especially if we are living in a simulation, as it would take absolutely immense processing power to create every conceivable possibility, especially when you consider there are 7 billion human beings on Earth and the number is growing every year, and then there's billions of other lifeforms, and that's just one planet. The computational power required to create every conceivable outcome in all of these universes ( simulations) must be mind boggling. If there really exists a potentially infinite number of parallel universes in which every possible permutation of history is played out, I assume this must also apply to other lifeforms? So in one of these other parallel universes, highly evolved Chimps must be the dominant species on Earth, who take stupid humans to tea parties and dress them up in silly clothes? Just one possible bizarre universe out of infinite possibilities, but what's the purpose of it all?



 

The universe is -- asking what it's purpose might be is pointless.

The massive (massive!!!) rate at which near-identical universes are being created, according to this view, where each universe in its entirety differs from its "neighbor" by no more than one atom, implies gazillions upon gazillions of universes separating us from anything we might conceivably recognize as even slightly different.

[StarMountainKid]

19 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

The problem is there is, to my knowledge, only one other interpretation taken at all seriously, and it is too spooky for my taste.  (It involves the observer having influence over the event -- that by itself might be conceivable -- but even when the "observer" is not a conscious being.

Well, string theory is another interpretation of QM as is the Copenhagen interpretation and lots more interpretations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

[StarMountainKid]

35 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

Space-time is the universe we live in and has, we have found, certain properties -- such as the fact that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (which makes what we call causation seem real).  It is also subject, depending on acceleration, to the phenomena called Lorenz Transformations, which we perceive as objects getting shorter and time slowing as we accelerate (when seen from a different reference frame -- actually these are all the consequence of each other).  

This is different from what is often just called "space"(rather imprecisely -- without space or time you really have nothing -- real nothing -- and hence stuff is not subject to the rules of space/time since there is no stuff.

 

17 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I had heard this.  It creates the possibility that the universe is infinite and was infinite from the very beginning.  What is expanding is space, not the universe, and space's expansion is just a matter of decreasing the density of stuff caught up in space.

Do your two comments quoted agree with each other?

[Frank Merton]

1 hour ago, StarMountainKid said:

 

Do your two comments quoted agree with each other?

Yes they agree with each other, but no doubt you are out of your depth and should get into something else.

[Habitat]

30 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

Yes they agree with each other, but no doubt you are out of your depth and should get into something else.

Which charm school did you flunk, Frank ? 

[Frank Merton]

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

Which charm school did you flunk, Frank ? 

The two of you are in the same boat; if you want to learn science go to school; don't waste my time.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Frank Merton said:

The two of you are in the same boat; if you want to learn science go to school; don't waste my time.

I am more than happy to share a boat with SMK, he's got rather more class than you'll ever have.

[Frank Merton]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I am more than happy to share a boat with SMK, he's got rather more class than you'll ever have.

That's hard to say.  I don't tolerate ignorant questions well, and I have no intention of getting into a debate with an anti-scientist who knows almost nothing.  I think it might be possible to say that what you just posted lacked class, just maybe if you look at it the right way.

[Frank Merton]

4 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

 

Do your two comments quoted agree with each other?

One effort only: without space-time you have nothing -- truly nothing -- not eons of nothing but just nothing.  To us such a state seems inconceivable -- especially that there might be a beginning of time, but the universe is under no obligation to be understandable to us -- our perceptions are based on what we learned as children in a certain environment, one which is, shall we say, localized to the surface of a small planet.

The idea that the "singularity" (or whatever might have been the beginning of time -- if time had a beginning (infinite inflation is still in the running) would have been infinite has recently been proposed as it appears from the mathematics that there is a minimum to the bending of space-time, which in the end implies an infinitely large singularity (still a singularity, mind you, but a rather mind-bending one).  Then comes inflation and then us.  It would all be the unfolding of a mathematically inevitable sequence of events, once started.

I doubt you have understood a word I've said -- no insult, mind you -- it took me a few hours, and is all speculation anyway.  The end result is the universe starts out infinite, and is still infinite, although less dense.

The scenario that the universe is finite is not more intuitively nice either.  It means at some threshold, obviously far beyond our present accuracy of measurement, the universe shows curvature -- let us assume positive curvature -- so that it closes in on itself.  That does not create an inside and an outside -- there is no such thing -- there is nothing outside and you cannot be inside of nothing.  This is a different view, and what touched my ire was the implication I was contradicting myself by a person who obviously did not understand but still had the gall to leave the implication.

[CrimsonKing]

6 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

The universe is -- asking what it's purpose might be is pointless.

The massive (massive!!!) rate at which near-identical universes are being created, according to this view, where each universe in its entirety differs from its "neighbor" by no more than one atom, implies gazillions upon gazillions of universes separating us from anything we might conceivably recognize as even slightly different.

I don't know which is the creepier thought Frank your post #140 or this one right here...

If there are gazillions of universes barely separateable by no more than an atom and if the hologram idea were true could that possibly explain the "i've been here before" deja vu feeling we get sometimes you think?Maybe universes overlapping momentarily in a holographic state...

I've been one or two places in my life and knew where things were that i should absolutely had no idea about,i know i'm far from the only one who has experienced that...

I'm not making up theories and admit trying to realistically think things like this through sometimes even my own ideas start going over my head lol.Also i need sleep so this may just come off as jiberish...