| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick" |
| Date: |
13 Mar 2005 09:14:53 PM |
| Object: |
Multiple Universes? * |
Jack Martinelli wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:nf5Zd.65657$Ze3.35492@attbi_s51...
David Thomson wrote:
It's time to start a list of physics cultists. A physics cultist
is
someone who has demonstrated
1. a severe lack of critical reasoning skills,
TROLL ALERT!
Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html
In his book he writes about Multiple universes!
LMAO
Do you know what an oxymoron is?
"uni" != "multi"
You don't really think that there is more than everything do you?
Sam, where is your web-site?
No Multiverse.
Where is the universe?
The reason a multiverse is imagined by science is that it can't accept
God as the beginer of the begining.
If science were to see that there is only One Universe with a begining
it would then have to see God.
Once we ask the question: what is outside the universe?
science is left to explain it by saying: well there's
more universes filling infinity.
Consider that there is only one.
Just as a monotheist believes in One God I propose One universe also.
All science has to do is to realize that we are it.
We are the very meaning scientists would project out onto a multiverse.
If there is only one universe with nothing outside then
we are left to face God.
There is only One universe with a begining.
There is no multiverse. And all the meaning is inside of us.
Where is the universe?
It's inside God and God is inside it.
Mitch Raemsch
== Light Falls ==
.
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Multiple Universes? * |
14 Mar 2005 12:08:09 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110770093.771012.142720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
No Multiverse.
Where is the universe?
Show the math.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Multiple Universes? * |
14 Mar 2005 12:21:18 AM |
|
|
Sure, Universe = 1.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Multiple Universes? * |
14 Mar 2005 04:45:38 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110781277.970608.184390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sure, Universe = 1.
Nope, show the work, not merely the result.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Multiple Universes? * |
14 Mar 2005 11:00:04 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Morituri-|-Max
<newage@sendarico.net>
wrote
on Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:45:38 GMT
<mXdZd.13990$bh2.11062@fe2.texas.rr.com>:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110781277.970608.184390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sure, Universe = 1.
Nope, show the work, not merely the result.
This can get into some very weird philosophical territory;
if there is such thing as a "multiverse", and we could
see other universes, wouldn't the bit that we can see be
part of *our* universe? Universe, after all, is derived
from "whole" or "one" (uni-) + "turn" (-verse) in Latin.
And then there's light as a time machine -- in the sense
that, if something (say, Sirius) is 8 light years away,
it would take 16 years for a round-trip communication,
which is usually characterized as "we see it as it was 8
years ago", which isn't quite right. Therefore, it's not
at all clear what we can see beyond the CMBR.
But I agree; give me a predictable result over a philosphical
issue anytime. :-) This isn't quite the same as Spock's
(Leonard Nimoy's/whoever wrote it) "I prefer the concrete,
the graspable, the provable" [*], as one can never prove
physical theories -- but it's close. (Given that, of
course, SR is very widely accepted.)
That's a bit different from an equation, but equations are
useful tools; they must conform to well-known rules and
are widely understood. An American might not be able to read Russian,
and a Russian might not be able to read English, but most
people can, when sufficiently well-versed, read equations
such as x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 = 0. (Of course it helps
if one typesets it properly; in an ASCII newsreader one might
see x²+y²+z²-c²t²=0 typeset properly, or one might not, as
the '²' isn't ASCII. But '^' is an acceptable substitute,
methinks. If one wants proper typesetting, one should
probably look into TeX, though there are a number of other
packages.)
[*] one of the few usable nuggets from Star Trek: The
Original Voyage, which was more likely than not to go
into very weird territory -- one episode was dedicated
to Apollo; another revolved around flickering lights
taking over the mind; still another involved flying
brain cells which could fly without flapping; a number
of them involved variants of telepathy, mind control,
or both, and almost all of them generally revolved
around the almost-magical transporter, which could do
anything from splitting a personality to transporting a
nuclear bomb some distance away -- but for some reason
never worked when they really needed it until Scotty
fixed it.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Multiple Universes? * |
16 Mar 2005 02:08:17 PM |
|
|
Hi Ghost There are as many universes out there as flakes of snow in an
endless storm. Those in the relative time(evolvement of gravity) are
exactly alike. Universes are born the same and all die the same way.
The Earth and our parrel anti-universe are the same right down to the
number of molecules in their oceans. Treb,and I agree 100%
on this. Creating universes is the easiest thing nature can do. Its
very simple once the exact strength of gravity is figured out. All these
infinite universes are organic. It would be a waste of spacetime to
create a universe that can not see itself. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
