Aran613 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Whatever. But the thing is, if there were separate universes, it could be a possibility that they were organized in a certain way (or they couldn't). What I'm trying to discuss, is, if they were true, imagine how even smaller we would be than we already are in our universe right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 But, seriously, test that theory, will you? For a theory to become an accepted law, it must go through tons of testing until it's proven true. Scientific theories do not somehow upgrade into laws. Are we still waiting to test germ theory so that it can become germ law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freohr Datia Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I don't think it matters if there's something outside of our universe or not. If there's just the universe then it's gonna probably take up an infinite amount of space. Either that or there's just an infinite amount of empty space outside the universe. There's gotta be something outside of this whether there's something or nothing. Thinking of infinite space is mind boggling enough for me >_< I already know how small this universe is, even though everything may as well be small since it's infinite anyway~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Theory: 2 + 2 = 3. Discuss. 1.6 rounds to 2 1.6 + 1.6 = 3.2 3.2 rounds to 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Anyways, if there is a parellell universe, and we all were the opposite, I'd probobly be....very well off, but without any sense of ethics, moral, or knowledge of right 'n wrong.. Not to mention being complete opposite physically.... Also, if we want to do something that we don't know how to do, would we not look up a source of information so that we can gain the knowledge on how to do it? Also, just imagine, SF when all of us are the complete opposite in personality, skills, and physically. Even if there is a parallel universe, there's no reason to assume that it would be the opposite of ours in such a way. It might lack ethics, morals, and knowledge of right and wrong primarily by lacking intelligent life to begin with. Or things could be strikingly similar to here. with the expanding infinitely, it sure is possible there is a planet that has someone looking and living same as everyone here. though that would be an infinite amount solar systems away, no way we'd ever get to see them. How would there be any guarantee of an even dispersal of intelligent life? The chances may be small of coinciding races, but that isn't the same thing as saying it wouldn't happen. It's possible the universe is so large that it would be "likely to happen" somewhere in the universe, if not necessarily here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 1.6 rounds to 2 1.6 + 1.6 = 3.2 3.2 rounds to 3 3=4. Not that hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Wouldn't it be 3≐4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zkirsche Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) But what makes these strings? Nothing. After all, there is a smallest distance in the universe, and nothing can be smaller than that (I believe its like 1.6 * 10^-35m). Strings are supposed to explain everything in existence, thus making string theory a "theory of everything", so is something was in a string, then surely that something is what causes everything? String theory is about the only possible theory which gives any kind of backing to multiple dimensions, but these dimensions are not the same things as our universe and so I don't believe that they are what you are thinking of. If multiple worlds did exist then I guess it would kind of be cool to go from one world to another but I don't think that is going to reasonably happen, and I'd rather we focus such efforts on trying to solve our own universe first. Wouldn't it be 3≐4? I believe the joke is that it is wrong. Edited February 24, 2012 by kirsche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 If the big bang was caused by a compression of matter, since matter from the current big bang is accelerating, how did that compression occur (or did it really occur)? How do we know there hasn't been another big bang within our universe, especially before the one we theorize about? And to contradict your point, though t he universe as we know it may all come after the big bang, how do we know there wasn't something before. (at the very least, the "dark energy" or other such t hings which are theorized to cause the acceleration that has been observed) I'm not quite sure i understand your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I'm not quite sure i understand your point. Well, which part of it? All of it? Also, it was a post that was intended to elaborate with further questions, not to disagree with what you said. Edited February 24, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Theory: 2 + 2 = 3. Discuss. Two packs of hotdogs and Two packs of buns makes three meals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well, which part of it? All of it? Also, it was a post that was intended to elaborate with further questions, not to disagree with what you said. And to contradict your point, though t he universe as we know it may all come after the big bang, how do we know there wasn't something before. (at the very least, the "dark energy" or other such t hings which are theorized to cause the acceleration that has been observed) That one because it doesn't sound contradicting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 You're right, it doesn't, I have no idea why I said that though I am sure stupidity factors in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) An interesting concept, with some interesting physics equations to back up string theory, superstring theory, and M theory, is about all we got. You think people like Michio Kaku actually believe this stuff as it stands now, though? No. You think Leonard Susskind believes this stuff as it stands right now? No. Science is about evidence. These theoretical physicists such as Brian Greene and Kaku don't think these theories are supported by enough evidence in order to accept it. The difference between these physicists and someone like Lawrence Krauss is that they think it's more probable, while people like Krauss think it's pretty silly to put forth, especially considering we cannot observe and test any of the hypotheses with any sort of respectable scientific scrutiny. So why would these theories be proposed at all? Because they DO make some sense. Following a chronological order of our size in relation to the Universe is rather interesting: first we're the center, then we're the orbiter of a sun in a huge solar system, then we're a spec in a galaxy, then we're just a galaxy in a universe. It seems likely that we're just a universe in an astronomically sized pool of universes. There's also a bit of math that backs this up, though obviously it's not enough. What about parallel universes and where they would be? I would strongly suggest this episode of The Universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KsHo2AKPgA There's many places where they can be purported to lie. I feel like, after reading the responses here, very few would actually care to watch five minutes of this, but that's fine. My personal philosophy on this is that it's an interesting thing to ponder, and its implications are truly grandiose, but as for actually accepting it as believable science, I'm gonna need some more evidence. I'm also the person that WANTS this to be true. Just think, a Universe larger than a googolplex, where at this immense size particles start to realign themselves in similar ways to us. And even larger, maybe 10^10^120, entire universes begin to repeat (since the amount of combinations of particles our universe is perceived to have is 10^10^70 or something like that). Amazing stuff which I wished had more evidence supporting it. Edited February 25, 2012 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 As for the video, from the way they explained cosmic inflation, it wouldn't result in an infinite universe, just a universe that was constantly growing. The amount would still always be finite. There was actually a lot of points where it seemed like they seemed to falsely conflate massive or indefinite with infinite. Also, for the triangle of light, I don't understand how they could form the third line of the triangle that might allow the curvature to be measured, since that would require having probes out at the edges of our portion of the universe shooting light at each other (or one shooting and one receiving). In terms of big problems, my main problem is that they assume that if the universe is of infinite size, there would be multiple formations of matter throughout it similar to ours. I don't think we know enough about the big bang to explain what happened before it with confidence (but maybe we do?), meaning we can't assume that more than one would occur. I know I was talking up the possibility of such things occurring just a little earlier, but the scientists in the video seemed to have assumed such a thing as definite without giving any evidence as to why they did. I got bored and tuned out after the 2nd level part. The coolest part was when the guy took out the bubble maker that was shaped like a sword and then branched out into a triangular quadrilateral. I have never seen something like that before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aran613 Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 I found that video very interesting, although, I do think that they put it that they were certain that it all existed, instead of it only being a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) As for the video, from the way they explained cosmic inflation, it wouldn't result in an infinite universe, just a universe that was constantly growing. The amount would still always be finite. There was actually a lot of points where it seemed like they seemed to falsely conflate massive or indefinite with infinite. Also, for the triangle of light, I don't understand how they could form the third line of the triangle that might allow the curvature to be measured, since that would require having probes out at the edges of our portion of the universe shooting light at each other (or one shooting and one receiving). There are multiple ways to interpret "infinite." For example, a spacecraft trying to move to the edge of the universe would never succeed because the universe is expanding faster than him. Similarly, we can say that the universe is certainly unbounded. Unbounded can seem like infinity. In calculus, when using integrals to determine area and volume, the amount of cross-sections available is said to be infinity, even though the integral sets limits on what you're calculating. We have theoretical points at which the observable universe ends. This video does not get into any substantial amount of minutia and detail, but the curvature of the universe is measured this way, and is mathematically accurate, considering scientists accept it. In terms of big problems, my main problem is that they assume that if the universe is of infinite size, there would be multiple formations of matter throughout it similar to ours. I don't think we know enough about the big bang to explain what happened before it with confidence (but maybe we do?), meaning we can't assume that more than one would occur. I know I was talking up the possibility of such things occurring just a little earlier, but the scientists in the video seemed to have assumed such a thing as definite without giving any evidence as to why they did. We can't assume that only one occurred, either. That's the beauty of exploring these ideas. That's all they did. Or at least, that's what I got from it. You and Aran613 say they were quite confident in their words. It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. I still see that as a problem though, the show should get the point across that so far this is only something to ponder, not something to consider. I got bored and tuned out after the 2nd level part. :( Edited February 26, 2012 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aran613 Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 On the bright side, at least I watched the whole thing AND found it interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Yes, that is true. :) On the other hand, I honestly cannot understand how someone can find this dull. The way it's shown, I can understand, but the idea? I don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Yes, that is true. :) On the other hand, I honestly cannot understand how someone can find this dull. The way it's shown, I can understand, but the idea? I don't get it. It's completely the way it's shown. It is actually obnoxious. Not necessarily a bad thing. But a thing I would rather ignore past a certain point. Edited February 27, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaketheGr3at Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I prefer blissful ignorance to matters beyond my comprehension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriemhild Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Theory: 2 + 2 = 3. Discuss. Two fathers and two sons together are actually just three people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Two fathers and two sons together are actually just three people. Not always, just sometimes. Also as that video posted... I soooo want to watch it but damn limited internet... If i watch something that long, my brother would likely have a heart attack. Edited March 1, 2012 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Not always, just sometimes. 2+2 =/= 2+2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.