Parallel universes either don't exist or can't be accessed
| If both time travel and travel between parallel universes are possible, we should see signs. |
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| 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.
@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.
Last edited on
| 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? |
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.
<edit>
And that's not even taking into account the tremendous expanses of time that are likely involved.
</edit>
| we have proof that Jupiter has a surface |
| The reason the Parallel Universes theory is a theory |
Last edited on
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| we have proof that Jupiter has a surface |
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).
@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'm not saying you don't know what it means. I'm saying you don't know what it implies and what it doesn't imply.
| L B wrote: |
|---|
| 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
Doesn't Jupiter have a solid core, or is it just "effectively solid" because the gas is so dense (or am I wrong on all counts)?
zo'o All the electrons have the same charge and mass. they are actually the same electron travelling through time.
> Ohm's law
rofl
> because the gas is so dense
wait... ¿why isn't the gas expanding? (¿why did it ever concentrate?)
> Ohm's law
rofl
> because the gas is so dense
wait... ¿why isn't the gas expanding? (¿why did it ever concentrate?)
Gas being concentrated and not expanding doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a solid core. Nebulae, for example, don't have cores (or do they?).
I wasn't pointing to that.
Supposedly, gas will fill any container. However, we have a situation were several cumulus were created.
Moreover the initial force was of expansion.
Never mind, conceptual error.
Supposedly, gas will fill any container. However, we have a situation were several cumulus were created.
Moreover the initial force was of expansion.
Never mind, conceptual error.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.