Scientists think they found proof of parallel universe

[mikekle]

I’ve had to say this on several threads recently.
The difference between science and science fiction is, well… fiction!

At one time computers with the abilities they have today were in the realm of science fiction, CERN being able to sent protons at the speed of light and smash them together would have been science fiction, etc etc.

Im sure in 100 , 500…1000yrs and beyond, there will be many common things/beliefs that were once viewed as only possible in science fiction but will become fully realized, furthermore what do you think DARPA and all these other super secret SAPs are working on, its stuff most of us would probably say is impossible or science fiction right now.

The same is true for our understanding of ‘the universe’(whatever that may be), every generation thinks they have it all figured out and are correct, but history proves them wrong time and again, we are no exception today, Im sure there will be plenty of things our experts are wrong about today, but will not realize that for many many decades or even centuries.The real truth could be something totally bizarre and unbelievable, nothing anyone has even theorized yet.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

At one time computers with the abilities they have today were in the realm of science fiction, CERN being able to sent protons at the speed of light and smash them together would have been science fiction, etc etc.

Im sure in 100 , 500…1000yrs and beyond, there will be many common things/beliefs that were once viewed as only possible in science fiction but will become fully realized, furthermore what do you think DARPA and all these other super secret SAPs are working on, its stuff most of us would probably say is impossible or science fiction right now.

The same is true for our understanding of ‘the universe’(whatever that may be), every generation thinks they have it all figured out and are correct, but history proves them wrong time and again, we are no exception today, Im sure there will be plenty of things our experts are wrong about today, but will not realize that for many many decades or even centuries.The real truth could be something totally bizarre and unbelievable, nothing anyone has even theorized yet.

Engaging in future what ifs is not science. It’s fiction…
Aliens might invade tomorrow by your logic.
There is science, and there is fiction. The two have never met and never will.

 

[GEddie]

To sum it all up, the multi-verse is bunk.

Maybe so, maybe not. It’s six of one and half dozen of the other.

Multiverses and alien-life are two areas that are not worth the energy and hopes directed to them IMINWHO. We as human beings have nothing to gain from either one.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Borealis]

Your poor old blue crabs better learn to adapt.

Funnily enough we are heading into another Ice Age.

If some had their way, all Scientists would be burned at the stake…

Wait, I’m confused. I thought we were making the planet warmer (because the sun apparently isn’t capable of doing it), so how can we be entering an ice age?

We do need more scientists; what we don’t need is Science-Priests who treat science as a religion, ignoring all evidence that doesn’t support their theories.

 

[Borealis]

Engaging in future what ifs is not science. It’s fiction…
Aliens might invade tomorrow by your logic.
There is science, and there is fiction. The two have never met and never will.

On the contrary, science fiction has been one of the great predictors of technological advancement. I could point to a whole pile of examples, but I’ll stick with one: Star Trek. Cell phones, iPads, 3D printers, touch-screen computers, universal translator (Voice Translator app), tricorders, virtual reality, and others were all predicted through that show.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

On the contrary, science fiction has been one of the great predictors of technological advancement. I could point to a whole pile of examples, but I’ll stick with one: Star Trek. Cell phones, iPads, 3D printers, touch-screen computers, universal translator (Voice Translator app), tricorders, virtual reality, and others were all predicted through that show.

We’ve gone beyond the rational.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Scientists used to say that they could tell if someone was a Criminal by the shape of their skull. I’m always wary when I read stuff like this because it seems to me scientists believe less and less and science

 

[abucs]

To my mind the theory of multiverse and the theory of parallel universes are two separate theories although after a quick search I read that some definitions do not agree.

I would have thought just gong by the name itself that a parallel universe cannot interact with our universe because then it wouldn’t be parallel.

Two parallel objects, by definition, cannot meet.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Wait, I’m confused. I thought we were making the planet warmer (because the sun apparently isn’t capable of doing it), so how can we be entering an ice age?

We do need more scientists; what we don’t need is Science-Priests who treat science as a religion, ignoring all evidence that doesn’t support their theories.

Science- Priests? There are Priests who are also Scientists. But That’s not what you mean?

Are you saying Scientists treat science as religion.

Yes, entering the debate about global warming

The term itself ’ global warming’ is deceptive. The correct term is ‘climate change’

Climate change encompasses many concepts and theories ignored by the warmist debaters. On another thread, someone started citing the Pole Ocillatiins in his argument. But unfortunately nately, that was grossly misleading and little understood.

So some things about ‘climate change’

It includes breakdown of trade winds and resulting effects on climate
It includes anthropogenic effects - ie global dimming
It includes Geologic - both palaeo and modern, issues. A bit like snowballing your dominos.

So we emerged from the last Ice Age And became modern , grew crops, settled, etc, 10,000ya.

But the Earth likes to be cyclic, and we are being pushed through a mini hothouse, into a new Ice Age.

When I have some time I will explain this a bit more or find some valid links. If you go looking, I am not talking of a mini Ice Age, it the push to a real Ice Age. They are different.
.

It will get toasty warm in the process, for the most though.

 

[Lion_IRC]

“Scientists think they found proof of parallel universe”

…in other news, scientists scoff at the biblical idea that there is an afterlife.

 

[chloride]

Yet you use your computer? How can you be certain that the scientific principles that allow it to run are what scientists and engineers claim them to be? You obviously trust science to a certain degree. Science is a process.
It is not right for a Catholic to promote anti-intellectualism / anti-science. As Pope St. John Paul II powerfully taught, ours is a faith of fide ET ratio.
Do you know that the Big Bang model of the expanding universe as first developed by a Catholic priest who was also an astronomer - Monsignor Lemaitre? His radical theory, which was contrary to the secular concepts of an eternal universe (no beginning thus no need for God) was dismissed as well…until the evidence kept piling up. Its a process…for every new mystery of the universe we uncover, there will be a thousand incorrect hypotheses behind it.

If you go back in history, priests, monks, and God-fearing men in general have been behind many great scientific breakthroughs. Gregor Mendel, Nicolaus Copernicus, Roger Bacon and Rene Descartes are some that come to mind off the top of my head. Even Darwin was somewhat inspired by an academic upbringing in natural theology which can trace some roots back to the first Christians.

It should not be suggested that science and religion are incompatible, be it in current times or in the past. Science was known as the handmaid of the church for a long time, for good reason.

Perhaps one of my favorite facts about history is that much of the early astronomical work that was done in Europe was to calculate the date of Easter, as the Julian calendar was slowly drifting further away from the original date.

 

[Wesrock]

An interesting hypothesis for the data that needs verification.

The idea that there’s a parallel universe for every probably variation just seems silly, though. One in which I exis exactly as I am now except I chose not to respond to this topic?

 

[Borealis]

Science- Priests? There are Priests who are also Scientists. But That’s not what you mean?

Are you saying Scientists treat science as religion.

No, a specific sub-set of ‘scientists’ treat it as a religion. AGW is a cult in every sense of the word.

Yes, entering the debate about global warming

The term itself ’ global warming’ is deceptive. The correct term is ‘climate change’

Climate change encompasses many concepts and theories ignored by the warmist debaters. On another thread, someone started citing the Pole Ocillatiins in his argument. But unfortunately nately, that was grossly misleading and little understood.

So some things about ‘climate change’

It includes breakdown of trade winds and resulting effects on climate
It includes anthropogenic effects - ie global dimming
It includes Geologic - both palaeo and modern, issues. A bit like snowballing your dominos.

So we emerged from the last Ice Age And became modern , grew crops, settled, etc, 10,000ya.

But the Earth likes to be cyclic, and we are being pushed through a mini hothouse, into a new Ice Age.

When I have some time I will explain this a bit more or find some valid links. If you go looking, I am not talking of a mini Ice Age, it the push to a real Ice Age. They are different.
.

It will get toasty warm in the process, for the most though.

Here’s the thing: I’m not disputing any of that. What I dispute is the claim that it’s our fault that the earth is warming or cooling. We’re not that powerful. I know some people like to pretend we are, but it’s just not true. If it were, then Mars wouldn’t be warming up, and I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs weren’t burning millions of tons of fossil fuels a year.

The earth is so much greater than we are; we are specks, infinitesimal beings in the sea that is the universe. We don’t even rank with plankton on that scale, yet we have achieved great things because of who our creator is. But to claim that we can pollute and destroy the earth to the point of no turning back? There is more greenhouse gas emitted in a ten-minute span during a volcanic eruption than there is in a year of driving cars in all of North America. Somehow, the earth survives despite all the volcanoes; why anyone would actually believe that we’re the problem is beyond rational.

 

[GEddie]

“Scientists think they found proof of parallel universe”

…in other news, scientists scoff at the biblical idea that there is an afterlife.

A true scientist would not do that, as they would understand the limitations of their method.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Wait, I’m confused. I thought we were making the planet warmer (because the sun apparently isn’t capable of doing it), so how can we be entering an ice age?

We do need more scientists; what we don’t need is Science-Priests who treat science as a religion, ignoring all evidence that doesn’t support their theories.

Actually, priests fluent in science would be a very good thing IMINWHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Roseeurekacross]

No, a specific sub-set of ‘scientists’ treat it as a religion. AGW is a cult in every sense of the word.

Here’s the thing: I’m not disputing any of that. What I dispute is the claim that it’s our fault that the earth is warming or cooling. We’re not that powerful. I know some people like to pretend we are, but it’s just not true. If it were, then Mars wouldn’t be warming up, and I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs weren’t burning millions of tons of fossil fuels a year.

The earth is so much greater than we are; we are specks, infinitesimal beings in the sea that is the universe. We don’t even rank with plankton on that scale, yet we have achieved great things because of who our creator is. But to claim that we can pollute and destroy the earth to the point of no turning back? There is more greenhouse gas emitted in a ten-minute span during a volcanic eruption than there is in a year of driving cars in all of North America. Somehow, the earth survives despite all the volcanoes; why anyone would actually believe that we’re the problem is beyond rational.

Well I am a Scientist. I have yet to meet a Scientist who treats their job as a religion. However, I have met plenty of sports people and fans that treat their sport as a religion.

What is AGW ?

I am not getting into a discussion about the effect of anthropogenic symptoms for a change in climate. I would suggest you , or anyone interested , have a look at global dimming.

I will say, whether or not my flying in a plane helps or hinders climate change, it wont stop the ice age.

And I will say , to loan a popular term on CAF, the volcanic spewing out the earth’s guts is a straw man argument. Variables involved don’t equate.

God , as He states in Job, set the Celestial Law in motion ,then asks Job if he has grasped these laws. And then God, in this Book, asks Job and company if they can run this writ on Earth.
God says in Job , regarding Ostriches, they are deprived of their wisdom , having not been given a share of intelligence, but in amends, they can fool (and scare) horses and riders.
So yep, God created everything, and Blessed His creatures with different levels of wisdom and intelligence , so as to work stuff out, or not.
.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

CAF , great for Scientist bashing too. Really Lion! Some of your comments.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The multiverse is scientific psycho-babble. The universe is the sum total of existence; how can anything (materialistic, that is) possibly exist outside of it?

I think there are semantic differences between the term “multiverse” as used here and in other scientific papers. It is important to realize that the terms “multiverse” and “universe” both have more than one usage and identifying the usage being invoke is important in interpreting the intended message. I think among people working in the field the awareness of the different usages probably results in them probably being able to more contextually identify which one is being invoked. There’s also confusion that can be introduced by reading how a writer interpreted something (which may be colored by intentions of getting ratings and increasing the number of people reading the article instead of communicating truth).

One usage of the word “universe” is the set of all things that exists. Another common usage is a set of things that exists that could have some interaction with each other (even if that interaction is limited to weak gravitational, radio, or photon interactions). This is known as the “observable universe.” The “Observable universes” are continuous and overlapping in that an observable universe is dependent on the position of the observer. An observable universe that is sectioned off from the rest of the universe would be considered a “pocket universe.”(See Eternal Inflation Model)

BTW: Here’s the 1 paragraph in the paper where the ‘bubble’ universe is mentioned.

If not explained by a ΛCDM ISW effect the Cold Spot could have more exotic primordial origins. If it is a nonGaussian feature, then explanations would then include either the presence in the early universe of topological defects such as textures (Cruz et al. 2007) or inhomogeneous re-heating associated with non-standard inflation (Bueno
S´anchez 2014). Another explanation could be that the Cold Spot is the remnant of a collision between our Universe and another ‘bubble’ universe during an early inflationary phase (Chang et al. 2009, Larjo & Levi 2010). It must be borne in mind that even without a supervoid the Cold Spot may still be caused by an unlikely statistical fluctuation in the
standard (Gaussian) ΛCDM cosmology

Of the 12 pages of the publication that is the only paragraph that mentioned a bubble universe. I followed the reference to the paper references that is all about this ‘bubble’ universe. In looking at the other paper that was reference with respect to this ‘bubble’ universe and they take the time to define it. Note that neither of the papers mentioned a “parallel universe.” Though a summary might require knowledge that is more specialized than general. There’s a significant gap between their usage and how it is being interpreted in this thread.

From my understanding of quantum physics the laws of physics takes into account the presence of consciousness. That is, the whole scientific law, at its most basic level, assumes consciousness.

Quantum mechanics does not assume consciousness. There have been new-age interpretations of the usage of “observation” within Q.M. as “consciousness.” But the usage of the word “observation” in Q.M. is most synonymous with “measurement.”

 

[Michael68]

I’ll believe it when I see it; else I’ll just continue living life.

Like putative space aliens, this does not affect me until there is something my eyes can see.

ICXC NIKA

Have you seen God? Not through any act but have you actually seen God in person? Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

Old news. I discovered the portal over a decade ago.

democrats.org/party-platform