vasoline73 United States. Mar 30 2014 22:12. Posts 808
Thank you for video link, I will try to find the relevant section The multiverse theory is fine and we may prove it but there's still the question of "what started the multiverse/is there something outside the multiverse/etc." Again, not really trying to be outlandish, but there is definitely data that we will be unable to retrieve at some point.
If we're surrounded on all sides by a "wall" thick of 100 universes, how do we ever hope to see the multiverse edge? If the multiverse is infinite, why does it follow a different pattern/have different properties/ than the finite universes inside of it? If it's finite, is it surrounded by more multiverses and is there an edge to this "omniverse" of multiverses (whatever you would like to call it) and then the questions continue on.
There's a limit to observation (imo) and unless humanity is around another million years and technology continues to grow exponentially (both unlikely), I doubt we will ever be able to tackle "impossible" questions like this.
Last edit: 30/03/2014 23:13
1
vasoline73 United States. Mar 30 2014 22:26. Posts 808
On March 30 2014 04:08 vasoline73 wrote:
There's no evidence or direct proof of nothing outside of the universe (edit: and there never will be) but you believe in it's existence, is all I'm saying.
From what i read, some scientists are trying right now to prove the multiverse may exist. They believe acceleration of our universe is caused due to a gravitational pull from another universe. Seens like it will take 100 years to find evidence to prove their calculation are accurate.
You may be right but saying stuff like "and there never will be" its usually a very dumb statement.
Wouldn't being surrounded by a multiverse likely compress our universe? Gravity of all the other universes around us pushing in? Or is the multiverse expanding as well and why? Is there only one other universe or...?
Last edit: 30/03/2014 22:26
1
vasoline73 United States. Mar 30 2014 22:30. Posts 808
Watching the Dawkins answer to the nothing question... from wikipedia...
"In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with virtual particles continually popping into and out of existence. It had long been theorized that space is distinct from a void of nothingness in that space consists of some kind of aether, with luminiferous aether postulated as the transmission medium for propagating light waves (whose existence has been disproven in the now famous Michelson-Morley experiment)."
If there is a "nothing" it has not been observed and never will be...
The fancy hyperboles are good at catching laymen's attention, but do not forget:
1.) We have no evidence of a big bang. We have, however, been very keen to attribute our observations to the theory of one. Science has, for a long time, worked a little bit awkwardly in regards of this, and instead of analyzing test results and drawing conclusions from the work, we have set our minds into a state where we have already reached a conclusion, and are hell-bent on getting our observations match it.
2.) The 'infinitely expanding universe' is still mostly based upon red shift of light. Now coupled with the previous hard-coded dogma of current sciences, it is given as a proof of a big bang which exploded the universe outwards into infinity.
These two examples are the staples of today's cosmology, but they are a form of circular reasoning where you have already decided the outcome. Interwoven together, like time (how long it takes for light to travel a certain amount of meters) to space (how much space does light travel through in a certain amount of time).
The finding itself is meaningless. Much like Higgs boson, the finding of which was alike finding a new harmonics when you already know the rules they adhere to, but could have not created an instrument to go that low -- an engineering feat, but not a scientific breakthrough.
On March 31 2014 04:40 Kusimuumi wrote:
The fancy hyperboles are good at catching laymen's attention, but do not forget:
1.) We have no evidence of a big bang. We have, however, been very keen to attribute our observations to the theory of one. Science has, for a long time, worked a little bit awkwardly in regards of this, and instead of analyzing test results and drawing conclusions from the work, we have set our minds into a state where we have already reached a conclusion, and are hell-bent on getting our observations match it.
2.) The 'infinitely expanding universe' is still mostly based upon red shift of light. Now coupled with the previous hard-coded dogma of current sciences, it is given as a proof of a big bang which exploded the universe outwards into infinity.
These two examples are the staples of today's cosmology, but they are a form of circular reasoning where you have already decided the outcome. Interwoven together, like time (how long it takes for light to travel a certain amount of meters) to space (how much space does light travel through in a certain amount of time).
The finding itself is meaningless. Much like Higgs boson, the finding of which was alike finding a new harmonics when you already know the rules they adhere to, but could have not created an instrument to go that low -- an engineering feat, but not a scientific breakthrough.
and why is it exactly that scientists are desperate of proving that a big bang happened?
The cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered accidentally by people who didn't give a fuck about the BB model theory
If you think the entire scientific community is blinded from selectively looking at the the facts that validate their misconceptions, do us both a favor and crush their stupidity with a paper that will make you famous and rich and the rest of us wiser and able to say " I knew that guy"
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
On March 30 2014 04:08 vasoline73 wrote:
There's no evidence or direct proof of nothing outside of the universe (edit: and there never will be) but you believe in it's existence, is all I'm saying.
From what i read, some scientists are trying right now to prove the multiverse may exist. They believe acceleration of our universe is caused due to a gravitational pull from another universe. Seens like it will take 100 years to find evidence to prove their calculation are accurate.
You may be right but saying stuff like "and there never will be" its usually a very dumb statement.
Wouldn't being surrounded by a multiverse likely compress our universe? Gravity of all the other universes around us pushing in? Or is the multiverse expanding as well and why? Is there only one other universe or...?
Gravity doesn't push it pulls, so obviously no compression.
IIRC, the enormous amount of energy that indirectly shows in our universe (for example it is slowing the expansion) but that we cannot find, could be the gravity of other universes leaking to ours through all 10/11 dimensions that we are said to have. The rational being that gravity is the only long-range interaction as well as being always attractive, whole universes would be heavily attractive.
On the other hand, it is not sure that gravity makes any sense outside of the universe, where there would be no space or time. Just like asking what happened "before" the big bang makes no sense since time began there.
On March 30 2014 04:08 vasoline73 wrote:
There's no evidence or direct proof of nothing outside of the universe (edit: and there never will be) but you believe in it's existence, is all I'm saying.
From what i read, some scientists are trying right now to prove the multiverse may exist. They believe acceleration of our universe is caused due to a gravitational pull from another universe. Seens like it will take 100 years to find evidence to prove their calculation are accurate.
You may be right but saying stuff like "and there never will be" its usually a very dumb statement.
Wouldn't being surrounded by a multiverse likely compress our universe? Gravity of all the other universes around us pushing in? Or is the multiverse expanding as well and why? Is there only one other universe or...?
Gravity doesn't push it pulls, so obviously no compression.
IIRC, the enormous amount of energy that indirectly shows in our universe (for example it is slowing the expansion) but that we cannot find, could be the gravity of other universes leaking to ours through all 10/11 dimensions that we are said to have. The rational being that gravity is the only long-range interaction as well as being always attractive, whole universes would be heavily attractive.
On the other hand, it is not sure that gravity makes any sense outside of the universe, where there would be no space or time. Just like asking what happened "before" the big bang makes no sense since time began there.
This will be my last statement in the thread (unless someone quotes directly and wants to continue) because I think we all realize there's no point in a derail where no one reaches any conclusion...
...but gravity is what causes massive stars to form and there is massive compression at the center of said stars, because of gravity. It may be that all the hydrogen was pulled together, but push and pull are kind of relative terms (I think?) when it comes to gravity, don't you think? Anything at the center of a mass is being compressed by additional mass it has pulled to itself; in a sense that matter is being "pushed" by gravity? Or rather, it's gravity is pulling mass towards it which in turn is "pushing into it," so "in a way" one could say gravity is causing the compression.
So yeah there's a chance we are could be expanding because of gravity of other universes, definitely. I imagine it would be more like a stretch of our space-time fabric (universe being compressed but ripped apart [seemingly expanding to us inside of it] at the same time.)
Pretty crazy stuff to think about, and to stay on OP's original post, amazing scientific discovery. Good shit.
Last edit: 31/03/2014 20:53
1
vasoline73 United States. Mar 31 2014 21:35. Posts 808
On March 31 2014 12:13 Mariuslol wrote:
SPACETIME BEGAN THERE! SPACETIME!! yeeaah
On March 30 2014 04:08 vasoline73 wrote:
There's no evidence or direct proof of nothing outside of the universe (edit: and there never will be) but you believe in it's existence, is all I'm saying.
From what i read, some scientists are trying right now to prove the multiverse may exist. They believe acceleration of our universe is caused due to a gravitational pull from another universe. Seens like it will take 100 years to find evidence to prove their calculation are accurate.
You may be right but saying stuff like "and there never will be" its usually a very dumb statement.
Wouldn't being surrounded by a multiverse likely compress our universe? Gravity of all the other universes around us pushing in? Or is the multiverse expanding as well and why? Is there only one other universe or...?
Gravity doesn't push it pulls, so obviously no compression.
IIRC, the enormous amount of energy that indirectly shows in our universe (for example it is slowing the expansion) but that we cannot find, could be the gravity of other universes leaking to ours through all 10/11 dimensions that we are said to have. The rational being that gravity is the only long-range interaction as well as being always attractive, whole universes would be heavily attractive.
On the other hand, it is not sure that gravity makes any sense outside of the universe, where there would be no space or time. Just like asking what happened "before" the big bang makes no sense since time began there.
This will be my last statement in the thread (unless someone quotes directly and wants to continue) because I think we all realize there's no point in a derail where no one reaches any conclusion...
...but gravity is what causes massive stars to form and there is massive compression at the center of said stars, because of gravity. It may be that all the hydrogen was pulled together, but push and pull are kind of relative terms (I think?) when it comes to gravity, don't you think? Anything at the center of a mass is being compressed by additional mass it has pulled to itself; in a sense that matter is being "pushed" by gravity? Or rather, it's gravity is pulling mass towards it which in turn is "pushing into it," so "in a way" one could say gravity is causing the compression.
So yeah there's a chance we are could be expanding because of gravity of other universes, definitely. I imagine it would be more like a stretch of our space-time fabric (universe being compressed but ripped apart [seemingly expanding to us inside of it] at the same time.)
Pretty crazy stuff to think about, and to stay on OP's original post, amazing scientific discovery. Good shit.
Gravity indeed is causing compression "inside" a star by pulling stuff to its center. But on the other hand, a planet nearby will be stretched by, not compressed, since stuff is pulled "outside" of the planet, towards the star. That's how I think of the gravity of a universe stretching a nearby universe, not compressing it.
I understand that I could be completely wrong since attraction between universes is kinda crazy. It's just the "pushing" term that bothers me, like gravity could be repulsive somehow (which it never is).
On March 18 2014 16:51 Mariuslol wrote:
I wonder what it's like to live in a die hard religious family, when stuff like this happens, when Cosmos is on TV. Do they never watch it, talk about it? How does that work, I don't get it, must be so weird, at least I think it's weird.... But what do I know lol
The family thinks you are weird. They become upset and angry at each other if the topic is brought up. The husband lashes out and applies strict rules with strong prejudice, shaming the family from none pure thoughts. The mother feels stress to keep unity in the family, she supports her husband. The kids go to bed feeling ashamed as they wonder what it means to be alive, thoughts of jesus or allah or whoever speak to them through their inner monologue. They feel a connection to their faith, yet, strangely find that connection is not from an outside force, instead the force is coming from within. They question if it is faith that pieces them together or if they are their own living being. The emotional abuse caused by religious dogma corrupts their self esteem and self understanding, creating undue stress and agony, fueling mental instability. The hierarchy of unity punishes them for speaking out. They feel trapped, with most giving up, broken by a system of control and manipulation.
The father is ashamed at night, feeling a sense of failure as his family struggles to follow the dogma which was brainwashed into him as a child. The wife feels ashamed at night, feeling a sense of falure as the family struggles to follow the dogma which was brainwashed into her as a child. The children feel ashamed at night, feeling a sense of failure as they try to understand the world around them and the faith being forced upon them.
You have to be wrong or the unity that has built the family will crumble. You are wrong.
Okay, I'll bite.
There's a very strange irony to your post; it comes more from a place of dogma than the family you illustrate, in how inaccurate it is in capturing an actual religious family and more a caricature of one. If you wanted to illustrate a dogmatic family you've succeeded, if you wanted to illustrate a religious family you've failed. not all "religious" families are dogmatic. you could also just as easily sub in political dogma for religious dogma in your illustration; but then does it really capture strictly a religious family? no. it's too much of a reduction to equate religious experience with dogmatic experience, and it's pandering to the same popularist crowd that people like dawkins like to cater to and think their achieving any meaningful critique. all you're really communicating is the idea that religious belief comes from a place of dogma, which is ludicrously wrong and only applies to a minor subset of the religious population who are more dogmatic than they are religious.
Most people are pseudo-religious. He asked for die hard religious. Politics and Religion are one in the same, at present. Most people are pseudo-political. My statement would apply equally to a fanatical (staunch) Democrat or Republican household. In politics it would be possible to have a party that was based purely on science or a present party changing to become more pragmatic, thankfully.
This is not the first time in humanity that people have more rights to think freely and act justly. Further, the present time is not guaranteed to progress into more rights and freedoms. History has shown that Religion or Dictatorship can overpower a group previously living in freedom, creating hysterical divide: known as the corruption from power.
None-Religious people can fall into similar circumstances of die-hard or fanatical religious (and certain cultures) people. Racism, Sexism, Prejudices, Stereotypes, Xenophobia are all learned behaviors. Religion by definition and practiced by definition is a harmless projection of humanity questioning consciousness. Religion at present and past, indoctrinate some or all of the following: Racism, Sexism, Prejudices, Stereotypes, Xenophobia.
I have learned from poker that being at the table is not a grind, the grind is living and poker is how I pass the time
Sadly the discovery made is yet to be proven as an evidence to the theory and it most likely wont. So much for the amazing discovery bleh :/
I sometimes wonder... imagine these physicists doing all this theoretically genius work for years and then they could struggle their entire lives to find a solid proof that their ideas are actually very much practically real and not do it. Must be damn hard, would probably feel like they wasted their life and yet if we didn't have these people we'd be probably still under the dictatorship of the church and the US wouldn't even exist.
Speed of light is the universal constant; there is no way far galaxies move faster. Its just time runs different way for fast moving objects more base info
Lammerman
1
2primenumbers United States. Jul 27 2014 22:09. Posts 199
its BS everything in the universe is moving at once
www.youtube.com/RichardGamingo - All of your commentated gaming entertainment.
The certainty and confidence people talk about gravity leaking through dimensions in the multi-verse when they can barely do basic algebra its kind of funny but I guess general interest and wonder in science is better than apathy for not understanding it
On July 28 2014 01:44 Baalim wrote:
The certainty and confidence people talk about gravity leaking through dimensions in the multi-verse when they can barely do basic algebra its kind of funny but I guess general interest and wonder in science is better than apathy for not understanding it
iono it annoys the fuck out of me lol. new age hipsters evolving into ppl who "fucking love science"
"broooooooo, we're just stardust, trying to understand the universe. like were just the universe trying to understand itself."
