Hitting the Books: Gravity's mystery may prove our multiverse exists | Engadget
Welcome to Hitting the Books.
www.engadget.com
incredibly interesting stuff, thanks for sharing
That makes 2 of us budI love science news
"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.
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.
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...
Considering you yourself started out as from virtually nothing and grew into a whole human being, it is not inconceivable."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.
"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.
I hear your point but i started for a sperm cell and an egg. and nuclear fission is the splitting of atoms not nothingted 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
At this point "science" is just another religion.
I hear your point but i started for a sperm cell and an egg. and nuclear fission is the splitting of atoms not nothing
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
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).
God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability - Apologetics Press
PROBABILITY AND SCIENCE A typical misconception about science is that it can tell us what will definitely happen now or in the future given enough time, or what would certainly have happened in the past, given enough time. The truth is, science is limited in that it does not grant absolute...apologeticspress.org
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.
5 Famous Scientists Dismissed as Morons in Their Time
There have been brilliant rebels who put their own world-changing ideas on the line, only to end up like Doc Brown in his alternate timeline: humiliated, ridiculed, ignored and/or straight driven to insanity.www.cracked.com
So now, how would the multiverse differ from extra dimensions?
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.
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.
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 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.