Posted on 02/19/2011 1:59:12 AM PST by LibWhacker
If you want to think of it metaphorically, go ahead ~ I simply read it the way God said it ~ and as you know God is omniscient!
OK, so it's ALL the way out there, but how far is far ~ it's a darned long way. And, we know as we get closer and closer to the edge the stars will look bigger and bigger and closer together as we go back in time to the beginning. We will be able to see ever greater detail ~ not just quarks, etc., but "stuff" that occurred along the way to the very instant of creation.
It's really not surprising to find that when you get all the way to the edge of time there's a beaker!
Disturbing but not surprising!
Don't believe him. In another universe the same guy said "No."
“Modern cosmology has become a religion. It requires belief in things that are not verifiable. Deviance from the official dogmas means expulsion. Adherents continue to believe in spite of valid rational proofs that they are wrong.”
Nicely stated.
You look at that and there are still people who think we aren’t really the Machine Men from Earth!
“Is there any observational evidence???? I thought the Scientific Method started with
1. Unexplained fact or phenomenon.
2. Fact gathering ........”
Science, shmience, who needs it?
As long as I can imagine how it MIGHT have happened and it fits in with the rest of my worldview, well, that’s all that’s important. /s
I think what you be a needing is some purple microdot.
V4641 Sagittarii is the closest known black hole to Earth at a distance of about 1,600 light years.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_the_nearest_black_hole_to_earth#ixzz1ESpmRSnQ
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68661/title/Neighboring_black_hole_puts_on_weight says 50 MILLION light years. Sorry if that scared you. At 51 light years out we’d know all about this sucker wouldn’t we? (Bwahahahaha)
Could our multiverse be one of many multiverses?:)
So if you can detect or observe any part of a 'different Universe' then - by definition - what you have observed is actually part of your own Universe..I disagree. It really depends on your definition of the word "universe". The standard dictionary definition is "all that there is", and by that definition you are correct.So for instance: different dimensions, different 'branes', phase-spaces of existance with different physical laws - if you can find them, then they are not a different Universe - they are simply proofs that the current Universe is more extended and more extraordinary than previously thought.
But if there is a multiverse, then we need to use the word "universe" in a different way.
The word "universe" can be used to describe not "all that there is" but rather "all that came from 'our' Big Bang".
Looked at that way, the word "universe" has a somewhat different meaning. You can argue that it's wrong to change the meaning of the word "universe", but then you're arguing semantics, which is fine, but I think it's also fine (in my opinion, anyway) to say, "let's use the word 'universe' to describe all the matter and energy that emanated from 'our Big Bang' and use the word 'multiverse' to describe the collection of all Big Bangs, including our own".
Leaving aside any semantic arguments that might ensue from using those words in that way, I would argue with you that the multiverse is "non-provable".
I'm not saying that there is a multiverse (no one can say that), but I am willing to say that if there is a multiverse we can't know for certain that it is impossible to leak information from one Big Bang system to another and if it is possible to establish/detect such a leak that would not invalidate the definition of "universe" to mean the contents of a single Big Bang and the word "multiverse" to mean the collection of all Big Bangs.
Again, I'm not saying there is a multiverse and I'm not agreeing with anything that Alan Guth says (although I have to admit I do enjoy reading him); what i am saying is that I disagree with you. If there are multiple Big Bangs it is not necessarily impossible to detect the existence of another Big Bang outside our own and that if such detection ever does become possible it doesn't invalidate the "altered" meaning of the word "universe".
Again, I'm not saying there is a multiverse (no one can say that), just saying that if there is a multiverse it doesn't invalidate the word 'universe' and doesn't NECESSARILY preclude the detection of one Big Bang from within a different Big Bang.
Also, on the question of whether all this is science, science fiction or fantasy, I believe that it is science fiction. It is, in fact, exactly what science fiction does. Darn good science fiction, at that.
Should tax payers be funding this? Of course not. Defund, defund, defund... that's my motto.
But does it make for good reading? I think so.
¨Numba, numba..to many numba.¨ —Vic Ten
The fifth chapter of Daniel has an interesting scene, as someone in a real where/when reaches into the where/when of palace party central to write on the wall ... just the hand/forearm is in the palace where/when, while the remainder of the being to whom the arm belongs remained in a different where/when. From the where/when of the writer some means had been arranged allowing a resident in that where/when to intersect the where/when of the palace in Babylon.
Without time events cannot occur; without space things cannot exist. The arm reached from a spacetime not discernible to the Babylonian king, but it is obvious from the message written that the spacetime of the king was discernible to the writer's spacetime. Some seek to understand how that is arranged, as created by the author of this and all other universes.
kerping
Ancient rabbis figure out that God created space and filled it with information energy which caused an enormous inflation followed by time grabbing hold ... and there was evening and morning, day one.
That's a self-defeating assumption that is probably not warranted. "By definition" is always a red flag: we don't get to define the properties of the universe, we only get to discover them.
Excellent point.
If there are indeed a number of dimensions that are not perceptible to our senses, as many of the string theory and other attempts to create a “theory of everything” posit, then there is the possibility that we will develop a way to move ourselves or information into or through or between these dimensions.
Stargate or FTL travel, anyone?
Both are impossible based on our present understanding of physics, but the notion that we at present perfectly understand the makeup of the universe (or possibly the multiverse) is remarkably silly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.