Catfishbilly

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit.

As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

Again I ask, has your multiverse models been scientifically verified and are they scientifically verifiable?

butterflylion:
Catfishbilly I am waiting for my answer. I do not need many words to always shoot you down. My case and your own is like Papa and pikin own with you being the pikin.

So IS THE MULTIVERSE HYPOTHESIS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?

You've started with the name calling now, abi? If I call you names now, you'll start crying. Bloody hypocrite.

Multiverse hypothesis is a scientific HYPOTHESIS. It is there in the name, are you that dumb?

Now, I've always dwelt on Aguirre and Gratton's work which is a scientific MODEL

Now, theories, models and hypotheses are explained here.

While some people do incorrectly use words like “theory” and “hypotheses” interchangeably, the scientific community has very strict definitions of these terms.


Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an observation, usually based on a cause and effect. It is the basic idea that has not been tested. A hypothesis is just an idea that explains something. It must go through a number of experiments designed to prove or disprove it.


Model: A hypothesis becomes a model after some testing has been done and it appears to be a valid observation. Some models are only valid in specific instances, such as when a value falls within a certain range. A model may also be called a law.


Scientific theory: A model that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed may become a scientific theory. These theories have been tested by a number of independent researchers around the world using various experiments, and all have supported the theory. Theories may be disproven, of course, but only after rigorous testing of a new hypothesis that seems to contradict them.

http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/physicalsci/session2/closer1.html
Also explains models

You seem not to even know what you type. The multiverse can never be verified. You haven't even been able to visit other planets conclusively and you want to verifiably visit other universes?

Surely you do not know how this particular model is unverifiable.

After explaining what a scientific model is,you're still asking that question? It has undergone some testings and its observations are found to be valid. That's why it was published in a Cornell University paper

Dogfishbilly:
After explaining what a scientific model is,you're still asking that question? It has undergone some testings and its observations are found to be valid. That's why it was published in a Cornell University paper

So multiverse is valid
Chai what a joke.

Secondly, you seem to not know that a paper doesnt mean fact automatically.

Hian SMH

felixomor:


So multiverse is valid
Chai what a joke.

Secondly, you seem to not know that a paper doesnt mean fact automatically.

Hian SMH

Some portions of Aguirre's model is valid yes, else it won't be called a model.
Do you have a problem with it?

Dogfishbilly:

Some portions of Aguirre's model is valid yes, else it won't be called a model.
Do you have a problem with it?

"Model" is a scientific term used to describe a group of postulates or explanation theories.

It doesn't mean "truth' automatically.
Neither does it confer "valid"

You are falling hand o. Honestly
You throw scientific terms around, not knowing the meaning

Dogfishbilly:
After explaining what a scientific model is,you're still asking that question? It has undergone some testings and its observations are found to be valid. That's why it was published in a Cornell University paper

Oga multiverse can never be verified.

By the way since it has not been verified as pure science what would you call it?

Dogfishbilly:

Some portions of Aguirre's model is valid yes, else it won't be called a model.
Do you have a problem with it?

That model is called a HYPOTHESIS!

don't tell me you do not know what a hypothesis means.

Seems like butterflylion and Felixomor are having a hard time understanding the meaning of scientific model. Let me post it again.

Model: A hypothesis becomes a model after some testing has been done and it appears to be a valid observation. Some models are only valid in specific instances, such as when a value falls within a certain range. A model may also be called a law.

felixomor:


"Model" is a scientific term used to describe a group of postulates or explanation theories.

It doesn't mean "truth' automatically.
Neither does it confer "valid"

You are falling hand o. Honestly
You throw scientific terms around, not knowing the meaning

All he sees is scientific paper and peer review. Once he sees those words he does not see anything else.

butterflylion:


That model is called a HYPOTHESIS!

don't tell me you do not know what a hypothesis means.

He doesn't.

He doesn't even know that many of the journals he lifts are hypothesis.

For him once they appear in journal, it is "fact"

felixomor:


"Model" is a scientific term used to describe a group of postulates or explanation theories.

It doesn't mean "truth' automatically.
Neither does it confer "valid"

You are falling hand o. Honestly
You throw scientific terms around, not knowing the meaning

When did I ever call Aguirre's model the truth? Just point one instance. Lying for Jesus.

butterflylion:



All he sees is scientific paper and peer review. Once he sees those words he does not see anything else.

Lolzz

Dogfishbilly:
Seems like butterflylion and Felixomor are having a hard time understanding the meaning of scientific model. Let me post it again.

Model: A hypothesis becomes a model after some testing has been done and it appears to be a valid observation. Some models are only valid in specific instances, such as when a value falls within a certain range. A model may also be called a law.

One of the most vocal opponents of the multiverse theory is ironically one of its original architects. Paul Steinhardt, Princeton University, helped develop inflation, the theory of the origin of our universe. It’s the one that struggles to explain the cold spot, whilst also giving rise to the multiverse because according to its maths once a universe starts to form it triggers more to be born ad infinitum.

However, Steinhardt turned against his own theory.

In 2014, he told Scientific American magazine, “Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge in a multiverse?).”

Read this over and over and over again until you fully understand it and I mean fully!

Notice he also said the big bang has its own set of problems?

Dogfishbilly:

When did I ever call Aguirre's model the truth? Just point one instance. Lying for Jesus.

Dumbo
By presenting it, you called it truth

Dogfishbilly:
Seems like butterflylion and Felixomor are having a hard time understanding the meaning of scientific model. Let me post it again.

Model: A hypothesis becomes a model after some testing has been done and it appears to be a valid observation. Some models are only valid in specific instances, such as when a value falls within a certain range. A model may also be called a law.

So they tested multiverse?

LoLllz
Abeg take some rest

butterflylion:



All he sees is scientific paper and peer review. Once he sees those words he does not see anything else.

Gosh...this dude ehn, your 'mouth' na acid

Ishilove:

Gosh...this dude ehn, your 'mouth' na acid

My problem is that I do not know how to pretend.

butterflylion:



One of the most vocal opponents of the multiverse theory is ironically one of its original architects. Paul Steinhardt, Princeton University, helped develop inflation, the theory of the origin of our universe. It’s the one that struggles to explain the cold spot, whilst also giving rise to the multiverse because according to its maths once a universe starts to form it triggers more to be born ad infinitum.

However, Steinhardt turned against his own theory.

In 2014, he told Scientific American magazine, “Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge in a multiverse?).”

Read this over and over and over again until you fully understand it and I mean fully!

Notice he also said the big bang has its own set of problems?

Sure, no doubt, big bang has its problems, the inflationary models have its problems. No one has ever said that they're fool proof. I'm taking you up on your submission that it's not science.

The Big Bang despite all its problems made it all the way to a scientific theory.

Aguirre's work made it to a scientific model. So that means portions of it were tested scientifically and found to be valid. So, it's science.

felixomor:


So they tested multiverse?

LoLllz
Abeg take some rest

Aguirre's hypothesis was tested and was found to be a scientific model.
Can't you see the difference?
Oh, you're dumb. Never mind.

felixomor:

Dumbo
By presenting it, you called it truth

Show me where I did so, calling it the truth. Lying for Jesus Christ Chisos Cry

Dogfishbilly:

Aguirre's hypothesis was tested and was found to be a scientific model.
Can't you see the difference?
Oh, you're dumb. Never mind.

Oh
SHUT up please.

If they start with you now, u will ask where did I say it's 'truth?

Ediort

Dogfishbilly:

Show me where I did so, calling it the truth. Lying for Jesus Christ Chisos Cry

Read above, you will see it.
Blind fish.

Dogfishbilly:

Sure, no doubt, big bang has its problems, the inflationary models have its problems. No one has ever said that they're fool proof. I'm taking you up on your submission that it's not science.

The Big Bang despite all its problems made it all the way to a scientific theory.

Aguirre's work made it to a scientific model. So that means portions of it were tested scientifically and found to be valid. So, it's science.

That model is never science until fully tested and I mean fully. Or your version of science accepts partial or minute tests as proof of verification?

Why do you think any and every scientist calls the multiverse hypothesis pseudoscience? You are a herbalist and no scientist so why do you think you know more than they do?

Below is why it can never be proven. I told you to read it again and again but you wouldn't


“Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge in a multiverse?).”

The multiverse explanation is highly problematic. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that the existence of such parallel universes can be neither verified nor falsified. The model is thus ad hoc and contrived. Second, given that the biofriendliness of the universe is in no way conducive to cosmic sustainability, no form of selection process or “cosmic evolution” can be invoked. Third, if the multiverse thesis is to commend itself as a plausible hypothesis, then a mechanism for generating such universes needs to be advanced. The concept of a ‘bubble’ of universes, each with their own fundamental constants and values, only throws the paradox back one step as one could easily ask who built the generator to give rise to this cosmic lottery.

Science is founded on the notion of the rationality and uniformity of nature. The universe is ordered in a rational way, and scientists seek reasons for why things are the way they are. If the universe as a whole is without transcendency or purpose, then it exists without reason. It is therefore ultimately arbitrary and absurd. We are subsequently invited to contemplate a state of affairs in which all scientific chains of reasoning are ultimately grounded in absurdity. The concept of a cosmic order would then have no foundation. Thus, the multiverse theory undercuts the very premise upon which the scientific method is founded.

Without a scientifically rigorous means by which such a multiverse concept can be tested, verified and falsified, the idea remains as but a conjecture -- a fudge factor invoked merely to evade the apparent design of our cosmos. In addition, the idea suffers from a number of scientific difficulties and problems -- but a handful of which are discussed herein.

Whereas one knows that one universe exists, one does not nor can know whether more than one universe exists. Once observers exist in universe A, the theory of general relativity indicates that the space-time envelope of that universe can never overlap the space-time envelope of any other possibly existing universe. In other words, even if God made ten universes, we would forever lack the scientific means to detect any universe besides our own. The sample size of universes therefore is limited to one. Thus, the only rational option is that there exists only one universe and that God exquisitely designed the universe for the benefit of mankind.

READ THIS AS ADVICED MORNING AFTERNOON AND NIGHT FOR OPTIMUM UNDERSTANDING.

butterflylion:


That model is never science until fully tested and I mean fully. Or your version of science accepts partial or minute tests as proof of verification?

Why do you think any and every scientist calls the multiverse hypothesis pseudoscience? You are a herbalist and no scientist so why do you think you know more than they do?

Below is why it can never be proven. I told you to read it again and again but you wouldn't


“Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge in a multiverse?).”

The multiverse explanation is highly problematic. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that the existence of such parallel universes can be neither verified nor falsified. The model is thus ad hoc and contrived. Second, given that the biofriendliness of the universe is in no way conducive to cosmic sustainability, no form of selection process or “cosmic evolution” can be invoked. Third, if the multiverse thesis is to commend itself as a plausible hypothesis, then a mechanism for generating such universes needs to be advanced. The concept of a ‘bubble’ of universes, each with their own fundamental constants and values, only throws the paradox back one step as one could easily ask who built the generator to give rise to this cosmic lottery.

Science is founded on the notion of the rationality and uniformity of nature. The universe is ordered in a rational way, and scientists seek reasons for why things are the way they are. If the universe as a whole is without transcendency or purpose, then it exists without reason. It is therefore ultimately arbitrary and absurd. We are subsequently invited to contemplate a state of affairs in which all scientific chains of reasoning are ultimately grounded in absurdity. The concept of a cosmic order would then have no foundation. Thus, the multiverse theory undercuts the very premise upon which the scientific method is founded.

Without a scientifically rigorous means by which such a multiverse concept can be tested, verified and falsified, the idea remains as but a conjecture -- a fudge factor invoked merely to evade the apparent design of our cosmos. In addition, the idea suffers from a number of scientific difficulties and problems -- but a handful of which are discussed herein.

Whereas one knows that one universe exists, one does not nor can know whether more than one universe exists. Once observers exist in universe A, the theory of general relativity indicates that the space-time envelope of that universe can never overlap the space-time envelope of any other possibly existing universe. In other words, even if God made ten universes, we would forever lack the scientific means to detect any universe besides our own. The sample size of universes therefore is limited to one. Thus, the only rational option is that there exists only one universe and that God exquisitely designed the universe for the benefit of mankind.

READ THIS AS ADVICED MORNING AFTERNOON AND NIGHT FOR OPTIMUM UNDERSTANDING.

The very definition of model means parts of it are verifiable, I never called it what its not. All these rubbish you copies and pasted there is unnecessary.

Aguirre's work is a scientific model. Confirmed by his peers and published in reputable scientific journals. Not ICR and definitely not crev.info
Aguirre's work never mentioned any parallel universe if you've even bothered to read it.

Your personal belief and bias don't amount to shitttt. Whether you believe in it or not, it's a scientific model, your idle rants here won't change it.

Dogfishbilly:

The very definition of model means parts of it are verifiable, I never called it what its not. All these rubbish you copies and pasted there is unnecessary.

Aguirre's work is a scientific model. Confirmed by his peers and published in reputable scientific journals. Not ICR and definitely not crev.info
Aguirre's work never mentioned any parallel universe if you've even bothered to read it.

Your personal belief and bias don't amount to shitttt. Whether you believe in it or not, it's a scientific model, your idle rants here won't change it.

Dude no model is scientific until fully verified. Your multiverse model is absolutely 100% scientifically unverifiable.

If you had a modicum of sense you would stop arguing after what I posted from the horses mouth. The very man who began the hypothesis came out to slam it in 2014 to debunk it with his own mouth long after Aguirre made his submission in 2005 and a non verifiable model in 2012 and you still dey talk?

Every scientist says it will not work, Peiris who modelled the multiverse model along with Aguirre says that in order to scientifically verify this It requires not only that we live in a multiverse also that our universe must collide with another in our primal cosmic history.

Are we living in a multiverse? Can our own universe collide with other multiverses?

The answer to these questions is NO! So tell me how it can possibly be verified?

Educate me please.

butterflylion:


Dude no model is scientific until fully verified. Your multiverse model is absolutely 100% scientifically unverifiable.

If you had a modicum of sense you would stop arguing after what I posted from the horses mouth. The very man who began the hypothesis came out to slam it in 2014 to debunk it with his own mouth long after Aguirre made his submission in 2005 and a non verifiable model in 2012 and you still dey talk?

Every scientist says it will not work, Peiris who modelled the multiverse model along with Aguirre says that in order to scientifically verify this It requires not only that we live in a multiverse also that our universe must collide with another in our primal cosmic history.

Are we living in a multiverse? Can our own universe collide with other multiverses?

The answer to these questions is NO! So tell me how it can possibly be verified?

Educate me please.

Does that catfish read? No he doesn't

He is ready to hang on blindly.
Allow him to swim in his ignorance.

You can imagine what is coming from his mouth that it was tested

Ask him how it was tested. He will enter voicemail.

The guy is shameless!

Ranchhoddas:
You used to be bright. What happened?

I guess am evolving.

Ranchhoddas:
You used to be bright. What happened?

How can a dumb person possibly see brilliance in another? Mental and verbal roaming ain't brilliance duh!

LightandDarkness:


As in, you and felixomor should go and destroy evolution once and for all. The world is waiting, share on nairaland when your science shattering proofs are ready.

Are you trying to shift your responsibility?