If both time travel and travel between parallel universes are possible, we should see signs.
What if time travel is possible, but so hard that humanity doesn't figure it out before going extinct? The universe is very large, and it's possible some other species do figure it out, but why would they be interested in this particular planet at this particular time? We could be separated by billions of light years and billions of years. The odds would be astronomically against us.
If by "it doesn't" you mean "there's a reason we don't see proof", then yes you are correct.
Alright, so by your insinuation, the surface of Jupiter is either impossible/nonexistent just because their has been no signs of it due to NASA not being able to get through the violent atmosphere. Your insinuation of parallel universes/time travel/universe jumping is basically the same, just because their is no proof then it can't exist. Sounds like you would have been happier living back when they thought the world was flat.
@darkestfright: I thought that by now I had made it clear I was talking about traveling back in time.
@helios: We should still see signs from any kind of thing creating any kind of time travel between parallel universes. And wouldn't there be infinite scientists each interested in visiting a different part of space, and at least a handful in visiting Earth now? Even by accident?
@BHXSpecter: we have proof that Jupiter has a surface and we have proof that that the Earth is round. The reason the Parallel Universes theory is a theory is because it has not been proved.
a theory, by definition, is something that's been proven (or, to be even more precise, what withstood so many attempts at proving it wrong that it's generally accepted as true). Scientific knowledge doesn't get any more certain than a theory. Parallel universes in general are fiction, and MWI in particular (which I suspect is at the root of this thread because of the line from the first post about, how these universes split off each other) is not even a hypothesis, it's an interpretation.
And wouldn't there be infinite scientists each interested in visiting a different part of space, and at least a handful in visiting Earth now?
You really seem to like to throw around the word "infinite" as if it was a magic word that can make any nonsense suddenly completely logical.
Either space is finite and totally occupied by these infinite scientists, or it is infinite and this scientific cloud has an average density. Let's say x scientists per cubic kiloparsec. Now, just by saying "infinite", you're not saying anything about this density. For all we know, there could be 10^-14 s/kpc^3. Rather a big region of space to explore, no matter how determined you are.
And that's not even taking into account the tremendous expanses of time that are likely involved.
we have proof that Jupiter has a surface
What is this I hear about gas having a surface?
The reason the Parallel Universes theory is a theory
It's a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has passed a number of attempts to prove it wrong and is now generally accepted to be true. It is epistemologically impossible to prove a theory.
That is interesting, I just saw something about Jupiter on the news last week that said they only theorize that Jupiter has a surface, but don't know as they can't get through the turbulent atmosphere. When did we land a rover on Jupiter to have proof that it had a surface?
Though it is only our universe that we don't know of time travel or universe sliding. Have to be careful though, as this subject matter goes hand and hand with UFOs and all the conspiracy theories that have come about with those. Though, some scientists do consider ETs to be proof of fast space travel, time travel, worm holes, etc. If UFOs do exist then logically the others have to exist even though we have had no proof of their existence yet.
Oh, we don't have proof that Jupiter has a surface. I was just assuming that you assumed I didn't believe in anything that was proven. I don't keep track of Jupiter's "Current Events" for obvious reasons.
@helios: yes I use infinite because I don't know what it means.
@Cubbi: I'd like to hope you're confusing "theory" and "law" else my science classes in schools were poorly taught (they probably were).
I'd like to hope you're confusing "theory" and "law" else my science classes in schools were poorly taught (they probably were).
Probably: I've seen that strange phrase "theory becomes law" on the Internet too. It's wrong: theories explain laws, sometimes centuries later (Ohm's law and the conservation laws are good examples).
Anyway, back to Sliders