musKeeto: Replace authority with God. It'll aid his assimilation.

Shhhh. How dare you blaspheme the great god yahweh who created this whole universe in just six days.

If you cant achieve such a feat of creating complex things in six days like he did, just keep shut.

cyrexx: @OP,

Perhaps you need to heed the words of one of the greatest scientists of all time, if you truly want to know and not merely asking your usual tactical questions

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.
— Carl Sagan

Dogma?? Really?? Have you been paying any attention at all??

davidylan:

I was hoping he wouldnt embarrass himself for once. I guess i have to keep hoping.

David, David, David...how many times did I call you?? You no go use laf wound person, u hear ba?

Ishilove:
David, David, David...how many times did I call you?? You no go use laf wound person, u hear ba?

Ishilove, why does your gender oscillate between female and male and back again?

Mr_Anony:
At least he is making a rational attempt unlike his insult-pandering friend; our in house "knight of atheism"

Yea! The dark light of atheism.

Mr_Anony:
Ishilove, why does your gender oscillate between female and male and back again?

I'm undecided on which gender I prefer.

Females have too many issues.

Males are egocentric peacocks.

You see my dilemma?

Mr_Anony: Lol, don't you just love it when our "knight of atheism" posts a video he didn't watch attentively.


In the same way Intelligent design is also a scientific hypothesis?

The fine-tuned universe is a scientific fact that the multiverse theory tries to explain away (more on that later)

Now let us look at what our scientists actually said:

Watch Dr Michio Kaku again and try to notice how many times he uses "could be" phrases. In fact Michio Kaku makes it clear to us throughout that interview that this is something he hopes will come true after the LISA satellite is launched (by the way it is scheduled to be launched in 2014) so fingers crossed.

For now, his hypothesis is just as scientific as the hypothesis a while ago that there could be colonies of alein life forms living in Mars. There has been no observations to back up his hopes just the idea that there could well be multiple universes. Good science fiction but hardly any science there.

Brian Greene then shows up in the second video and describes the multiverse thing as a mathematical idea. Watch your video again closely from 1:15 - 2:15 and 3:09 - 3:34. He does not endorse it in any way other than saying that it is mathematically possible.

I can tell you something else that is mathematically possible: [b]"A plate of Amala and Egusi soup is currently orbiting the planet Uranus as we speak" that's a very mathematically plausible statement but it doesn't prove anything or make it scientific until we can make observations.
[/b]

Now to the meat of the matter. The question you were supposed to be answering was to show that the big bang and the multiverse theory are not incompatible. Let us examine this shall we?

1. The big bang is the explanation given as the origin of space and time. The multiverse theory must reject this because multiple universes are banging. This allows for the featuring of a lot of pre-big bang theories.

2. If the multiverse theory is true, the big bang can no longer describe the expansion of space rather it becomes a universe expanding alongside other universes within space.

[b]3. I don't know how much attention you were paying to that video but you would notice that Dr Kaku uses the exact same language of "outside the universe speculation" you accuse theists and deists of using when we talk about subjects like the nature of the first cause etc.
At a point he even talks about many universe beginnings sprouting up in a timeless realm. He even keeps talking about throwing out the old way of understanding cosmology for the new method he is proposing. A clear indication that the two theories for explaining the cosmos are incompatible

[/b]My friend, you have not shown us any scientist that claims that the two are compatible. For the multiverse theory to work, the big bang has to be modified and tweaked to fit.


Let me even add cherry on top by telling you this:
Even if the multiverse rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument were true, it would not be michio kaku's model because the cosmological constants that allow the birth of any parallel universe originate from the ones allowing it's parent universe and therefore will remain fine-tuned to permit life.

If however in the event that the process of birthing is unstable and somehow results in a change of local physical 'cosmological constants', then it will require a very high level of precise fine tuning to prevent universes from completely destroying each other because for instance, an infinite number of gravities, and nuclear forces would all be externally acting upon our universe in varying degrees and pulling it's particles in varying directions thereby resulting in the need for a new cosmological constant to explain nature. The many universes will all be existing in such a delicate balance that they will be shooting up the fine-tuning precision astronomically.

The model for the multiverse rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument needs multiple separately tuned universes (roughly about 10⁵⁰⁰ in number) whose forces exist totally independent of one another. Only then will it be acceptable to infer that conscious life on our universe is a product of chance. If this model exists, then whatever is inbetween any two universes cannot possibly be space because once space exists between them, their "gravities" will act across it.





Poor try, you have scored no points I'm afraid.

So you have argued that someone (Michio Kakau) should not use "could be" when describing a hypothesis? You also complain that people are not sure of a hypothesis.

Now, I understand your problem.

cyrexx:

Shhhh. How dare you blaspheme the great god yahweh who created this whole universe in just six days.

If you cant achieve such a feat of creating complex things in six days like he did, just keep shut.

smh... If you must derail the thread from a scientific topic about which you are very ignorant, do it with a little intelligence.

The creation account of Genesis describes, not the creation of the universe or even the earth itself, but the preparation of a pre-existing earth (which God made in the beginning together with the heavens or universe) for life. Is that so hard to comprehend?

@topic, I have enjoyed mature contributions from thehomer and mr anony so far. Keep it up.

Logicboy03: So you have argued that someone (Michio Kakau) should not use "could be" when describing a hypothesis? You also complain that people are not sure of a hypothesis.

Now, I understand your problem.

Lol, is that all you have to say? You are such a funny chap.

Ishilove:
I'm undecided on which gender I prefer.

Females have too many issues.

Males are egocentric peacocks.

You see my dilemma?

You can choose to have the best of both worlds you know. Ever tried being a hemaphrodite? It might just be what you need.

Mr_Anony: Lol, is that all you have to say? You are such a funny chap.

what else do you want him to say when you guys just cant understand the meaning of simple words like "Hypothesis"



Different different versions of the multiverse idea float around. If you bothered to look, you'll find them. One of which is the idea that multiverse coexists at different "frequencies" in the same location. getting "tuned" to the right frequency will expose you to the "right" universe. Just in the same way there are thousands of radio waves running around you where u sit and type this now. Tune in to the right frequency and you can hear a nice Jazz tune playing of someone reading the news. These are all simple ideas, what you would call an educated guess. No one is telling you this is scientific theory.


ps: you fail when you have to post a video of Dinesh D'souza to confirm your cliams

Area_boy:

what else do you want him to say when you guys just cant understand the meaning of simple words like "Hypothesis"

can you base Facts on HYPOTHESES ?

frosbel:

can you base Facts on HYPOTHESES ?

Direct answer: NO!

Can you point to me ONE reputable scientist claiming fact from a Hypothesis? just ONE

Mr_Anony:
If by this you mean that there is no space between any two universes but that the universes a in a sense glued together, then surely our expanding universe must collide with other universes with different cosmological constants and therefore, the natural laws occurring at these boundaries would be logically incoherent and this will cause inconsistencies within our universe.

What I mean is that there is no matter between those universes in the cosmos i.e, between them is a void.

Mr_Anony:
The other scenario to eliminate this problem is that our universe expands directly proportional to the contraction of our boundary universes such that the multiverse is held in a tight balance of multiple oscillating universes so that we don't experience the disturbance from other universes causing inconsistent natural laws in our universe.

Those other universes aren't necessarily contracting either. They're just so far apart that they don't meet.

Mr_Anony:
The problem with this is that your model of the multiverse will need a much higher amount of precision and fine-tuning to maintain this very delicate inter-universe balance.

This so called balance isn't needed.

Mr_Anony:
Are you saying that there is space and time outside the universe?

No, I'm saying that according to the concept of the multiverse, they exist within universes so within a universe, you have space and time but not in the void between them.

Mr_Anony:

Lol, don't you just love it when our "knight of atheism" posts a video he didn't watch attentively.


In the same way Intelligent design is also a scientific hypothesis?

The fine-tuned universe is a scientific fact that the multiverse theory tries to explain away (more on that later)

See the lies you have to tell to hold on to your delusions? I didnt watch the video attentively? Gaddem liar.


Intelligent design has been proven wrong on many philosophical and scientific grounds. It would be impossible to work from a hypothesis of intelligent design to a theory.

The multiverse on the other hand remains a possibility that people are working towards to understand if true or false.

Mr_Anony:
Now let us look at what our scientists actually said:

Watch Dr Michio Kaku again and try to notice how many times he uses "could be" phrases. In fact Michio Kaku makes it clear to us throughout that interview that this is something he hopes will come true after the LISA satellite is launched (by the way it is scheduled to be launched in 2014) so fingers crossed.

For now, his hypothesis is just as scientific as the hypothesis a while ago that there could be colonies of alein life forms living in Mars. There has been no observations to back up his hopes just the idea that there could well be multiple universes. Good science fiction but hardly any science there.

Your complaint is that Michio Kaku uses "could be" to describe a hypothesis? Are you okay? Or you dont know the meaning of a hypothesis?

We have been studied mars. We know that it is highly unlikely that there is intelligent life on mars. We dont work with such hypothesis (although there could be some unicellular life there in the past)

Mr_Anony:
Brian Greene then shows up in the second video and describes the multiverse thing as a mathematical idea. Watch your video again closely from 1:15 - 2:15 and 3:09 - 3:34. He does not endorse it in any way other than saying that it is mathematically possible.

I can tell you something else that is mathematically possible: "A plate of Amala and Egusi soup is currently orbiting the planet Uranus as we speak" that's a very mathematically plausible statement but it doesn't prove anything or make it scientific until we can make observations.

Flying Amala and a multiverse have the same probability of being true? Simple mathematics for you.
Furthermore, simple wikipedia will tell you that there are different versions of the multiverse theory

Mr_Anony:
Now to the meat of the matter. The question you were supposed to be answering was to show that the big bang and the multiverse theory are not incompatible. Let us examine this shall we?

1. The big bang is the explanation given as the origin of space and time. The multiverse theory must reject this because multiple universes are banging. This allows for the featuring of a lot of pre-big bang theories.

Does the big bang theory discuss the earliest initial conditions of the expansion? No.

1)We could have come from the contracted version of another universe that expanded into ours. A universe from another universe.

2) There could be multiple ban.ging.

Mr_Anony:
2. If the multiverse theory is true, the big bang can no longer describe the expansion of space rather it becomes a universe expanding alongside other universes within space.

Does the big bang theory discuss the earliest initial conditions of the expansion? No.

1)We could have come from the contracted version of another universe that expanded into ours. A universe from another universe.

2) There could be multiple ban.ging.

Mr_Anony:
3. I don't know how much attention you were paying to that video but you would notice that Dr Kaku uses the exact same language of "outside the universe speculation" you accuse theists and deists of using when we talk about subjects like the nature of the first cause etc.
At a point he even talks about many universe beginnings sprouting up in a timeless realm. He even keeps talking about throwing out the old way of understanding cosmology for the new method he is proposing. A clear indication that the two theories for explaining the cosmos are incompatible

My friend, you have not shown us any scientist that claims that the two are compatible. For the multiverse theory to work, the big bang has to be modified and tweaked to fit.

Simple philosophy and reasoning....any universe will be by definition outside another universe.

Try again

Mr_Anony:
Let me even add cherry on top by telling you this:
Even if the multiverse rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument were true, it would not be michio kaku's model because the cosmological constants that allow the birth of any parallel universe originate from the ones allowing it's parent universe and therefore will remain fine-tuned to permit life.

If however in the event that the process of birthing is unstable and somehow results in a change of local physical 'cosmological constants', then it will require a very high level of precise fine tuning to prevent universes from completely destroying each other because for instance, an infinite number of gravities, and nuclear forces would all be externally acting upon our universe in varying degrees and pulling it's particles in varying directions thereby resulting in the need for a new cosmological constant to explain nature. The many universes will all be existing in such a delicate balance that they will be shooting up the fine-tuning precision astronomically.

The model for the multiverse rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument needs multiple separately tuned universes (roughly about 10⁵⁰⁰ in number) whose forces exist totally independent of one another. Only then will it be acceptable to infer that conscious life on our universe is a product of chance. If this model exists, then whatever is inbetween any two universes cannot possibly be space because once space exists between them, their "gravities" will act across it.

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology - a general relativity based theory due to Roger Penrose in which the universe expands until all the matter decays and is turned to light - so there is nothing in the universe that has any time or distance scale associated with it. This permits it to become identical with the Big Bang, so starting the next cycle.


There are many versions of the multiverse.....one is that we came from another universe- a cycle of contracting and exapnding universes

Mr_Anony: Lol, don't you just love it when our "knight of atheism" posts a video he didn't watch attentively.


In the same way Intelligent design is also a scientific hypothesis?

Intelligent design creationism as a hypothesis is testable and has so far failed.

Mr_Anony:
The fine-tuned universe is a scientific fact that the multiverse theory tries to explain away (more on that later)

How do you know the universe is fine-tuned if you do not know what it was fine-tuned for? So no, it isn't a scientific fact. The scientific fact is that we've been able to precisely measure certain characteristics it has.

Mr_Anony:
Now let us look at what our scientists actually said:

Watch Dr Michio Kaku again and try to notice how many times he uses "could be" phrases. In fact Michio Kaku makes it clear to us throughout that interview that this is something he hopes will come true after the LISA satellite is launched (by the way it is scheduled to be launched in 2014) so fingers crossed.

For now, his hypothesis is just as scientific as the hypothesis a while ago that there could be colonies of alein life forms living in Mars. There has been no observations to back up his hopes just the idea that there could well be multiple universes. Good science fiction but hardly any science there.

Brian Greene then shows up in the second video and describes the multiverse thing as a mathematical idea. Watch your video again closely from 1:15 - 2:15 and 3:09 - 3:34. He does not endorse it in any way other than saying that it is mathematically possible.

I can tell you something else that is mathematically possible: "A plate of Amala and Egusi soup is currently orbiting the planet Uranus as we speak" that's a very mathematically plausible statement but it doesn't prove anything or make it scientific until we can make observations.


Now to the meat of the matter. The question you were supposed to be answering was to show that the big bang and the multiverse theory are not incompatible. Let us examine this shall we?

1. The big bang is the explanation given as the origin of space and time. The multiverse theory must reject this because multiple universes are banging. This allows for the featuring of a lot of pre-big bang theories.

No, the big bang is the explanation for the origin of our own space and time. What it means is that other universes would have their own space and time.

Mr_Anony:
2. If the multiverse theory is true, the big bang can no longer describe the expansion of space rather it becomes a universe expanding alongside other universes within space.

Okay. But it isn't that the other universes are expanding within space because space is found within the universe not outside it.

Mr_Anony:
3. I don't know how much attention you were paying to that video but you would notice that Dr Kaku uses the exact same language of "outside the universe speculation" you accuse theists and deists of using when we talk about subjects like the nature of the first cause etc.
At a point he even talks about many universe beginnings sprouting up in a timeless realm. He even keeps talking about throwing out the old way of understanding cosmology for the new method he is proposing. A clear indication that the two theories for explaining the cosmos are incompatible

My friend, you have not shown us any scientist that claims that the two are compatible. For the multiverse theory to work, the big bang has to be modified and tweaked to fit.


Let me even add cherry on top by telling you this:
Even if the multiverse rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument were true, it would not be michio kaku's model because the cosmological constants that allow the birth of any parallel universe originate from the ones allowing it's parent universe and therefore will remain fine-tuned to permit life.

For me, the fine-tuning argument is simply a poor argument based on hubris and puddle thinking so I don't see a need to introduce a multiverse though I've read somethings about the idea.

Mr_Anony:
If however in the event that the process of birthing is unstable and somehow results in a change of local physical 'cosmological constants', then it will require a very high level of precise fine tuning to prevent universes from completely destroying each other because for instance, an infinite number of gravities, and nuclear forces would all be externally acting upon our universe in varying degrees and pulling it's particles in varying directions thereby resulting in the need for a new cosmological constant to explain nature. The many universes will all be existing in such a delicate balance that they will be shooting up the fine-tuning precision astronomically.

Again, not if the singularities that universes arise from are far enough apart.

Mr_Anony:
The model for the multiverse rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument needs multiple separately tuned universes (roughly about 10⁵⁰⁰ in number) whose forces exist totally independent of one another. Only then will it be acceptable to infer that conscious life on our universe is a product of chance. If this model exists, then whatever is inbetween any two universes cannot possibly be space because once space exists between them, their "gravities" will act across it.

Poor try, you have scored no points I'm afraid.

And that is one of the problems with the fine-tuning argument. It assumes that the universe was created for the purpose of generating life while someone else who looks at the universe can easily come to a different conclusion.

Mr_Anony:

Are you saying that there is space and time outside the universe?

This is just wrong. Why are you trying to put words in his mouth ?

thehomer:
No, I'm saying that according to the concept of the multiverse, they exist within universes so within a universe, you have space and time but not in the void between them.

Didnt fall for it. Good.

Seriously?


Anony ran away from this thread?

cyrexx: @OP,

Perhaps you need to heed the words of one of the greatest scientists of all time, if you truly want to know and not merely asking your usual tactical questions

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.
— Carl Sagan

lol and what does Cyrexx know about science besides using his severely limited knowledge of it as a figleaf for his own delusion? Its funny that he closes out with Carl Sagan's quote about the unacceptability of arguments from authority... the irony being that the major pillar of the atheist argument on here is simple - > 90% of scientists are atheists so atheism must be right.

I'll save the quote for the next mule who tries that tactic.

Mr_Anony: Lol, is that all you have to say? You are such a funny chap.

You know! When i saw he quoted you i was expecting a detailed riposte. Such a shame.

davidylan:

lol and what does Cyrexx know about science besides using his severely limited knowledge of it as a figleaf for his own delusion? Its funny that he closes out with Carl Sagan's quote about the unacceptability of arguments from authority... the irony being that the major pillar of the atheist argument on here is simple - > 90% of scientists are atheists so atheism must be right.

I'll save the quote for the next mule who tries that tactic.

davidouchebag, will you please try and make some sense.

Your knee-jerk reactions and blind hatred for anything non-christian is clearly clouding your thinking faculties.

Kindly read my post and Sagan quote again and see the irrelevant reply you just gave.

Does religious bigotry lead to dementia?

cyrexx:

davidouchebag, will you please try and make some sense.

Your knee-jerk reactions and blind hatred for anything non-christian is clearly clouding your thinking faculties.

Kindly read my post and Sagan quote again and see the irrelevant reply you just gave.

Does religious bigotry lead to dementia?

this is quite a stupid non-response. All you did was throw ad hominems without responding to ANYTHING i said.

Let me repeat myself... Sagan's point about the validity of arguments from authority is routinely abused by atheists here.

If you have nothing cerebral to say, it is ok to acknowledge that and move to threads that accommodate your limited intellect.

davidylan:

this is quite a stupid non-response. All you did was throw ad hominems without responding to ANYTHING i said.

Let me repeat myself... Sagan's point about the validity of arguments from authority is routinely abused by atheists here.

If you have nothing cerebral to say, it is ok to acknowledge that and move to threads that accommodate your limited intellect.

LOL,

See davidouche accusing someone of ad hominien. This must be the nairaland joke of the year.

First, your bigoted brains fail to understand the concept of Sagan's statement and then you open your dirty gutters, launch some insults without actually giving appropriate response to the post/quote and then spew more irrelevant nonsense here.

Listen well, douche, Sagan was saying that to have a truly scientific mind, argument from authority should be avoided (e.g. Bible said.. Quran said.. God said... )

That should not be hard for you to grasp if not for your brainless one-way reactionary myopic response to anything perceived by you as non-christian.

cyrexx:

LOL,

See davidouche accusing someone of ad hominien. This must be the nairaland joke of the year.

First, your bigoted brains fail to understand the concept of Sagan's statement and then you open your dirty gutters, launch some insults without actually giving appropriate response to the post/quote and then spew more irrelevant nonsense here.

Listen well, douche, Sagan was saying that to have a truly scientific mind, argument from authority should be avoided (e.g. Bible said.. Quran said.. God said... )

That should not be hard for you to grasp if not for your brainless one-way reactionary myopic response to anything perceived by you as non-christian.

and by extension, to have a truly scientific mind, arguments from authority should be avoided like "hey see the latest thing Rich Dawkins said"... "70% of members of the national academy of science are atheists"... etc

See that was the point i was making... atheists routinely abuse Sagan's point. If you took 5 secs to think it should have been clear.

Secondly, it doesnt appear that you thought much of your response thru (appears to me you were more interested in insulting me really).

Faith is NOT a scientific approach so "God said..." is not so much an argument from authority as it is a direct affirmation of a belief system.

davidylan:

and by extension, to have a truly scientific mind, arguments from authority should be avoided like "hey see the latest thing Rich Dawkins said"... "70% of members of the national academy of science are atheists"... etc

See that was the point i was making... atheists routinely abuse Sagan's point. If you took 5 secs to think it should have been clear.

Try to engage your rational brain for one second and briefly deactivate your religious brain, will you?

Now, richard dawkin is not quoted as authority. He himself would encourage independent thinking from people. If his or any other person's words make sense and quote-worthy, they are quoted but if not, they are rejected.

But a muslim will never think through what his quran say and just quote it as authority on every issues even beyond what the author of the book meant. He will never reject any bulls.hit contained therein. The same things with christian.

But i'm not expecting your myopic hate-filled mind to grasp what i just said now. Your bigoted mind is just too clouded. I can only hope...

cyrexx:

Try to engage your rational brain for one second and briefly deactivate your religious brain, will you?

Now, richard dawkin is not quoted as authority. He himself would encourage independent thinking from people. If his or any other person's words make sense and quote-worthy, they are quoted but if not, they are rejected.

But a muslim will never think through what his quran say and just quote it as authority on every issues even beyond what the authors of such books meant. He will never reject any bulls.hit contained therein. The same things with christian.

But i'm not expecting your myopic hate-filled mind to grasp what i just said now. Its just too clouded. I can only hope...

For starters... read your posts, compare to mine... easy to tell who has the "hate".

Back to your point... enough with the attempted dribble, Richard Dawkins is definitely quoted as an authority and i cant count the number of times thehomer, mazaje and even you have used the "70% of NAS members are atheists" argument as "evidence" that they cannot be wrong.

Secondly, i'm not sure you read or understood my last point. Here it is again and this time in highlights - Faith is NOT a scientific approach so "God said..." is not so much an argument from authority as it is a direct affirmation of a belief system. Sagan's point does not apply.

thehomer:
What I mean is that there is no matter between those universes in the cosmos i.e, between them is a void.



Those other universes aren't necessarily contracting either. They're just so far apart that they don't meet.



This so called balance isn't needed.



No, I'm saying that according to the concept of the multiverse, they exist within universes so within a universe, you have space and time but not in the void between them.

Wow! a void you say? Exactly how would you go about describing this "void"? Remember that space is within the universes so I'd like to see you describe this void non-spatially. Thank you.

davidylan:

For starters... read your posts, compare to mine... easy to tell who has the "hate".

Back to your point... enough with the attempted dribble, Richard Dawkins is definitely quoted as an authority.

Secondly, i'm not sure you read or understood my last point. Here it is again and this time in highlights - Faith is NOT a scientific approach so "God said..." is not so much an argument from authority as it is a direct affirmation of a belief system. Sagan's point does not apply.

Making accusations with no evidence?


Does any rational person need Dawkins as an authority when a biology textbook is there to explain evolution?


Your foolishness knows no bounds

=================================================
Edited; for the lying post below, that comment was taken out of context. I was replying to davidylan who camplained that people were denying evolution in private and I asked him to prove his claim.


Explained here
https://www.nairaland.com/1165701/laymans-question-multiverse-theory/3#13914514

The ink had barely dried on my post when i saw this on another thread...

Logicboy03:

1) If they laughed in private, how would you know?

[size=18pt]2) Feel free to name a reputable scientist that denies evolution in private[/size]

Sagan's wise words have never been more apt. The argument here being that evolution MUST NEEDS be true since no "reputable scientist" denies it?

Atheists are a joke.

Logicboy03:

Making accusations with no evidence?


Does any rational person need Dawkins as an authority when a biology textbook is there to explain evolution?


Your foolishness knows no bounds

^^^ See my last post dude. You are a complete joke.

Logicboy03:

See the lies you have to tell to hold on to your delusions? I didnt watch the video attentively? Gaddem liar.


Intelligent design has been proven wrong on many philosophical and scientific grounds. It would be impossible to work from a hypothesis of intelligent design to a theory.

The multiverse on the other hand remains a possibility that people are working towards to understand if true or false.










Your complaint is that Michio Kaku uses "could be" to describe a hypothesis? Are you okay? Or you dont know the meaning of a hypothesis?

We have been studied mars. We know that it is highly unlikely that there is intelligent life on mars. We dont work with such hypothesis (although there could be some unicellular life there in the past)









Flying Amala and a multiverse have the same probability of being true? Simple mathematics for you.
Furthermore, simple wikipedia will tell you that there are different versions of the multiverse theory






Does the big bang theory discuss the earliest initial conditions of the expansion? No.

1)We could have come from the contracted version of another universe that expanded into ours. A universe from another universe.

2) There could be multiple ban.ging.



Does the big bang theory discuss the earliest initial conditions of the expansion? No.

1)We could have come from the contracted version of another universe that expanded into ours. A universe from another universe.

2) There could be multiple ban.ging.









Simple philosophy and reasoning....any universe will be by definition outside another universe.

Try again





Conformal Cyclic Cosmology - a general relativity based theory due to Roger Penrose in which the universe expands until all the matter decays and is turned to light - so there is nothing in the universe that has any time or distance scale associated with it. This permits it to become identical with the Big Bang, so starting the next cycle.


There are many versions of the multiverse.....one is that we came from another universe- a cycle of contracting and exapnding universes

In all honesty, I've read these responses of yours twice now and I can't make the head or tail of it.

davidylan: The ink had barely dried on my post when i saw this on another thread...



Sagan's wise words have never been more apt. The argument here being that evolution MUST NEEDS be true since no "reputable scientist" denies it?

Atheists are a joke.

As usual, Davidylan will quote mine, lie and remix to prove his failed point;

davidylan:

[size=18pt]The most hilarious part of your one-man evolution crusade is that even your fellow atheists dont take it seriously either. For all your claims of "evidence", its amazing that those who do not believe in religion (i.e. are now "thinkers" led by reason) laugh at the theory of evolution in private.[/size]

Logicboy03:




[size=18pt]1) If they laughed in private, how would you know?

2) Feel free to name a reputable scientist that denies evolution in private

[/size]