What's new
Carbonite

Welcome to Carbonite! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gravity's mystery may prove our multiverse exists

Eternity Nova

Well-Known Member
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
293
Reaction score
97
Points
1,245
Age
26
Location
HArtbeespoort
"Panek examines the first few microseconds of our universe's existence after the Big Bang -- an infinitesimally short amount of time that nevertheless may have spawned as many as one hundred cenquinsexagintillion sister universes right alongside our own "

what a bunch of bullshit. Did everything come from nothing? Did Time and all matter come from nothing spinning really fast? If that's so shouldn't I live in constant fear the a second big bang happens in my backyard and destroy the whole earth? Seriously this isn't science it's borderline fiction.
 
Last edited:

iamgigglz

Has a Legendary Member
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
218   0   0
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
5,157
Reaction score
941
Points
3,565
Location
Parkhurst
"Panek examines the first few microseconds of our universe's existence after the Big Bang -- an infinitesimally short amount of time that nevertheless may have spawned as many as one hundred cenquinsexagintillion sister universes right alongside our own "

what a bunch of bullshit. Did everything come from nothing? Did Time and all matter come from nothing spinning really fast? If that's so shouldn't I live in constant fear the a second big bang happens in my backyard and destroy the whole earth? Seriously this isn't science it's borderline fiction.
Depends on your definition of "nothing".
Most science was borderline fiction at some point.

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.
What you need to understand is people like Richard Panek, Hendrik Casimir and Albert Einstein take known facts about our universe and extrapolate them to try and explain the unexplained. The only way to do this is to formulate a theory and then try and prove it. Most theories seem crazy, most are disproved, but occasionally we manage to prove one correct or close enough to correct. This then gets added to our model and allows us to come up with more theories.

For more than a thousand years we accepted that the earth was the centre of the universe. After a decade of work and after sitting on it for 30 years out of fear, Copernicus published his (mostly) correct heliocentric theory in 1543. 70 years later people were still being burned at the stake for agreeing with him.

By all means, question everything, but by simply dismissing a theory as "a bunch of bullshit" on face value is shortsighted.
 

Wiℤard

𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔄𝔫𝔠𝔦𝔢𝔫𝔱 𝔒𝔫𝔢
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
219   0   1
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
5,005
Reaction score
938
Points
4,215
Location
Pretoria East
What you need to understand is people like Richard Panek, Hendrik Casimir and Albert Einstein take known facts about our universe and extrapolate them to try and explain the unexplained. The only way to do this is to formulate a theory and then try and prove it. Most theories seem crazy, most are disproved, but occasionally we manage to prove one correct or close enough to correct. This then gets added to our model and allows us to come up with more theories.

For more than a thousand years we accepted that the earth was the centre of the universe. After a decade of work and after sitting on it for 30 years out of fear, Copernicus published his (mostly) correct heliocentric theory in 1543. 70 years later people were still being burned at the stake for agreeing with him.

By all means, question everything, but by simply dismissing a theory as "a bunch of bullshit" on face value is shortsighted.
Please get your scientific terms correct: An idea is called a Hypothesis - It becomes a theory once proven, until then an idea is called a Hypothesis...
 

iamgigglz

Has a Legendary Member
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
218   0   0
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
5,157
Reaction score
941
Points
3,565
Location
Parkhurst
Please get your scientific terms correct: An idea is called a Hypothesis - It becomes a theory once proven, until then an idea is called a Hypothesis...
Hah - TIL. Thanks.
 

AntonG

Zero Gravitas
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
160
Reaction score
83
Points
1,105
Age
44
Location
Cape Town
"Panek examines the first few microseconds of our universe's existence after the Big Bang -- an infinitesimally short amount of time that nevertheless may have spawned as many as one hundred cenquinsexagintillion sister universes right alongside our own "

what a bunch of bullshit. Did everything come from nothing? Did Time and all matter come from nothing spinning really fast? If that's so shouldn't I live in constant fear the a second big bang happens in my backyard and destroy the whole earth? Seriously this isn't science it's borderline fiction.
Considering you yourself started out as from virtually nothing and grew into a whole human being, it is not inconceivable.
Think of the power of a nuclear fission - something so small and seemingly insignificant can have a huge effect.
 

virus786

Fresh Spawn
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
342
Reaction score
254
Points
1,765
Location
/\/¯¯¯¯¯\/\
"Panek examines the first few microseconds of our universe's existence after the Big Bang -- an infinitesimally short amount of time that nevertheless may have spawned as many as one hundred cenquinsexagintillion sister universes right alongside our own "

what a bunch of bullshit. Did everything come from nothing? Did Time and all matter come from nothing spinning really fast? If that's so shouldn't I live in constant fear the a second big bang happens in my backyard and destroy the whole earth? Seriously this isn't science it's borderline fiction.
Shhh, we do not need logic in this thread.

We must believe, have blind faith in science!
 

Eternity Nova

Well-Known Member
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
293
Reaction score
97
Points
1,245
Age
26
Location
HArtbeespoort
ted out as from virtually nothing and grew into a whole human being, it is not inconceivable.
Think of the power of a nuclear fission - something so small and seemingly insignifi
I hear your point but i started for a sperm cell and an egg. and nuclear fission is the splitting of atoms not nothing
 

rinners

runs at stock
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
317   0   0
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
3,652
Reaction score
854
Points
2,765
What are the odds of enough of the correct elements happening to come together to form the first living cell organism.... it's astronomically low
 

AntonG

Zero Gravitas
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
160
Reaction score
83
Points
1,105
Age
44
Location
Cape Town
I hear your point but i started for a sperm cell and an egg. and nuclear fission is the splitting of atoms not nothing
We don't know if there was nothing - taking into account what we know of physics there seems to be a balance of sorts (eg. every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction) it is most likely there was "matter" before the big bang.
 

AntonG

Zero Gravitas
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
160
Reaction score
83
Points
1,105
Age
44
Location
Cape Town
What are the odds of enough of the correct elements happening to come together to form the first living cell organism.... it's astronomically low
The odds of life are low yet earth is teeming with life in every nook and cranny.
And that is just carbon based life as we know it - considering the size of the observable universe and the amount of matter therein, the chance of life (not necessarily intelligent) is not that remote.
 

rinners

runs at stock
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
317   0   0
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
3,652
Reaction score
854
Points
2,765
Several years ago, evolutionist Harold Morowitz of Yale, and currently professor of biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University, estimated the probability of the formation of the smallest and simplest living organism to be one in 10^340,000,000 (1970, p. 99). A few years following Morowitz’s calculations, the late, renowned evolutionist Carl Sagan made his own estimation of the chance that life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 10^2,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010).
 

AntonG

Zero Gravitas
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
160
Reaction score
83
Points
1,105
Age
44
Location
Cape Town

SCHUMI4EVER

Peripheral Phanatic
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,907
Points
2,765
Location
Durban, KZN
Finding the source of gravity? Gravity is just inertia acting upon other objects. I don't see how that has anything to do with a multi-verse. So their reasoning now is if we see it's effects but can't fully explain it it must be leaking in from another universe? Lol. That sounds decidedly unscientific.
 

rinners

runs at stock
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
317   0   0
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
3,652
Reaction score
854
Points
2,765
At first I thought the same, anyone can write a book with a buy bait title and make a bit of money, it's much easier these days than it used to be. But then I thought that it's even easier to not read what he wrote and post a sceptical comment.

Just think about all the great minds that were laughed at in their time.



So now, how would the multiverse differ from extra dimensions?
 

ian_stagib

Teh CUD Enforcer
Staff member
Site Owner / Overlord
Rating - 100%
164   0   0
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
5,014
Reaction score
1,720
Points
4,365
Location
Pretoria
At first I thought the same, anyone can write a book with a buy bait title and make a bit of money, it's much easier these days than it used to be. But then I thought that it's even easier to not read what he wrote and post a sceptical comment.

Just think about all the great minds that were laughed at in their time.



So now, how would the multiverse differ from extra dimensions?
Watch the below video to get a nice simple explanation of what the 10 possible dimensions are. The multiverse is a part of it.

 

ian_stagib

Teh CUD Enforcer
Staff member
Site Owner / Overlord
Rating - 100%
164   0   0
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
5,014
Reaction score
1,720
Points
4,365
Location
Pretoria
Science is not a religion, science is based on observation and the continual testing of hypothesis. Religion is so far removed from that concept it might as well be in another universe. The forefront of science is a highly fluctuating landscape, cause the guys are still guessing. They're trying to come up with pieces to the puzzle that fit the observations. That's not easy, and it's even harder to test the hypothesis. As time goes on we develop tech further and then they get to test these things better. At least with science, the facts they provide come from a long line of little steps that are solid.
 

AntonG

Zero Gravitas
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
160
Reaction score
83
Points
1,105
Age
44
Location
Cape Town
Science is not a religion, science is based on observation and the continual testing of hypothesis. Religion is so far removed from that concept it might as well be in another universe. The forefront of science is a highly fluctuating landscape, cause the guys are still guessing. They're trying to come up with pieces to the puzzle that fit the observations. That's not easy, and it's even harder to test the hypothesis. As time goes on we develop tech further and then they get to test these things better. At least with science, the facts they provide come from a long line of little steps that are solid.
If we were to destroy all the science books and eliminate everyone with any scientific knowledge; in a few 100 years the re-discovered science would be exactly the same = science.

How many religions are there and how many can agree on the same things? ;-)
(nb. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world: List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia)
 

Cookie

Yeah baby, yeah!
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
148   0   0
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
2,552
Points
2,615
Location
Cape Town
I like to think that we are just an experiment. The same as a mouse in a lab. One species is trying to create the "perfect" species so they plopped some DNA/Matter on this planet that was coincidentally Just the right distance away form the closest source of life (the sun) and they will come back in 50,000 years, (Our years, could be seconds for them), and see how we have evolved. Right now our technology and mindset is still pretty primitive so they wont be checking back any time soon.

Maybe we are 1 of 10,000 experiments of species creation

Maybe our universe is in a box/lab, or they have sent us to a different universe, yes they can travel through universes because they are that advanced. Its possible they plopped us in a universe that they knew was empty or they plopped 100 different species in our universe at the same time and its a race to see who discovers who first. Its a race for knowledge.

I like my theory and no I don't wear a pointy tinfoil hat. I prefer melting tinfoil and adding it to my shampoo/toothpaste

P.S Im pretty pissed off they just left us here with not even one clue on what the F this is all actually about.

Im going to write a book.
- Are we the experiment.
- Where did come from? Where did they go? Where did they come from Cotton eye Joe
- The race to knowledge
 

SCHUMI4EVER

Peripheral Phanatic
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,907
Points
2,765
Location
Durban, KZN
Science is not a religion, science is based on observation and the continual testing of hypothesis. Religion is so far removed from that concept it might as well be in another universe. The forefront of science is a highly fluctuating landscape, cause the guys are still guessing. They're trying to come up with pieces to the puzzle that fit the observations. That's not easy, and it's even harder to test the hypothesis. As time goes on we develop tech further and then they get to test these things better. At least with science, the facts they provide come from a long line of little steps that are solid.
When science is compared to religion they don't mean the whole 9 yards. They just mean exactly those super advanced hypotheses that have been proposed but not proven yet. Basically anything you have to preface with 'theoretical'.


Because they
A) Sound so far out there to the common bloke on the street.
B) Factions from either party can very easily get into arguments that rival religious ones, just with less suicide bombings and Spanish inquisitions.
C) Because some of these hypotheses are seemingly crafted purely to disprove religion whilst sounding equally flying spaghetti monstery. For instance because a force has to have a source that is not the intervention of a divine being it is (probably/possibly) simply energy leakage from a parallel universe.



At the end of the day you accept something someone else says as truth that sounds crazy and you have not checked their maths. That's kinda similar.
 

ian_stagib

Teh CUD Enforcer
Staff member
Site Owner / Overlord
Rating - 100%
164   0   0
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
5,014
Reaction score
1,720
Points
4,365
Location
Pretoria
When science is compared to religion they don't mean the whole 9 yards. They just mean exactly those super advanced hypotheses that have been proposed but not proven yet.

Because they
A) Sound so far out there to the common bloke on the street.
B) Factions from either party can very easily get into arguments that rival religious ones, just with less suicide bombings and Spanish inquisitions.
C) Because some of these hypotheses are seemingly crafted purely to disprove religion whilst sounding equally flying spaghetti monstery. For instance because a force has to have a source that is not the intervention of a divine being it is (probably) simply energy leakage from a parallel universe.



At the end of the day you accept something someone else says as truth that sounds crazy and you have not checked their maths. That's kinda similar.
A) The common bloke is an idiot and doesn't care to have an interest in science, therefore not hard to sound far out there to them.
B) The arguments are good, they strengthen the hypothesis and are still based on observations.
C) Scientists don't care as much about disproving religion as religious people like to think. Facts don't require religious people to believe in them in order for them to exist. They just don't go the lazy route and think it has to be a higher power that's the cause, because then that would be impossible to prove.

It is not required to believe in things that have not been seen, but once things have been seen then one must believe.
 

SCHUMI4EVER

Peripheral Phanatic
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,907
Points
2,765
Location
Durban, KZN
A) The common bloke is limited by their knowledge level. I can have all the interest I want I will never grasp high (university level and beyond) maths. It's just beyond me sadly.

B)I'm not talking about constructive debates. I'm talking proponents of opposing theories belittling each other as incorrect and small-minded because we are human and that's what we do.

C)Clearly they do:
You need a source for a force you can observe but not explain the origin of. But you can't leave it an open question for too long because just now those crazy religious fanatics will say that's it's God's doing. Think damnit, think! Oh right. Multiple universes. That's it. It's just energy leakage from another universe that the Big Bang also happened to create. Day saved - FOR SCIENCE!



I can see the effects of gravity just the same as any scientist. However until they start booking inter-universe tours for $12.99 I can't see any parallel universes. So I'm free to believe it's God simply giving the pendulum a little shove every once in a while. And I'm not disbelieving science in the slightest doing so because both beliefs are equally unproven.



Look I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate which I'm dangerously close to now. But I have an eternal need to show people the other side of the coin.
 

ian_stagib

Teh CUD Enforcer
Staff member
Site Owner / Overlord
Rating - 100%
164   0   0
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
5,014
Reaction score
1,720
Points
4,365
Location
Pretoria
A) The common bloke is limited by their knowledge level. I can have all the interest I want I will never grasp high (university level and beyond) maths. It's just beyond me sadly.

B)I'm not talking about constructive debates. I'm talking proponents of opposing theories belittling each other as incorrect and small-minded because we are human and that's what we do.

C)Clearly they do:
You need a source for a force you can observe but not explain the origin of. But you can't leave it an open question for too long because just now those crazy religious fanatics will say that's it's God's doing. Think damnit, think! Oh right. Multiple universes. That's it. It's just energy leakage from another universe that the Big Bang also happened to create. Day saved - FOR SCIENCE!



I can see the effects of gravity just the same as any scientist. However until they start booking inter-universe tours for $12.99 I can't see any parallel universes. So I'm free to believe it's God simply giving the pendulum a little shove every once in a while. And I'm not disbelieving science in the slightest doing so because both beliefs are equally unproven.



Look I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate which I'm dangerously close to now. But I have an eternal need to show people the other side of the coin.
I'm also the type to ply devil's advocate, I just do it better than you.

The common bloke is not just limited by a lack of knowledge. If that was the only restriction then clever people wouldn't be very special.

And by your own admission in A of your ability to understand things, I'm not going to try convince you against the flaws in your logic. Enjoy thinking whatever you want.
 

SCHUMI4EVER

Peripheral Phanatic
VIP Supporter
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,907
Points
2,765
Location
Durban, KZN
I'm also the type to ply devil's advocate, I just do it better than you.

The common bloke is not just limited by a lack of knowledge. If that was the only restriction then clever people wouldn't be very special.

And by your own admission in A of your ability to understand things, I'm not going to try convince you against the flaws in your logic. Enjoy thinking whatever you want.
I just don't understand how you can accept one as science and the other mindless nonsense because if I try to turn my religious side off and view it from an atheistic perspective both versions could be ripped directly from the pages of a comic book.

I mean you don't find the coincidence of Spiderman - Far from Home proposing a Multiverse (in the MCU) and this book being published a short bit after the least bit suspicious?

Also did you check the amazon reviews?

To me this all just seems like cashing in on a fantastical idea that is in vogue at the moment and can't yet be disproved.

Why is it that to you a religious person who disagrees with Darwin is automatically considered to be wrong on all further scientific views they may have? As I said scientists themselves still have differing theoretical beliefs.
 

Top Donors

$260.00
$225.00
$210.00
$113.00
Top