Lake found on Mars

[nc0gnet0]

There are theories that there will be a big crunch where the universe will contract back to a singularity and then start again with another big bang.

Not to mention in a multiverse there are most likely big bangs going on all the the time or universes being created from black holes.

https://www.google.bs/amp/s/www.out...no-big-bang-black-hole-created-universe-AMPED

I have a few theories myself , however, conventional wisdom still supports the big bang, a one time occurrence.

 

[number51]

Yeah, I read through the thread specifically for brett's take. Love watching him try to argue against science. It's pure entertainment.

That was good stuff, although IMHO the guys taking him seriously was much better. Come on, they didn't know they were talking to an idiot?

 

[remydat]

If true....still theories

Still not as wacky as us living in a 3d projection of reality taking place on a distant flat surface

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Agreed just theories as unlikely to be able to prove it anytime soon.

I have a few theories myself , however, conventional wisdom still supports the big bang, a one time occurrence.

What do you mean conventional wisdom? Think it is pretty well established that we live in a multi-verse given the many worlds interpretation is the current accepted theory to explain the universal wave function? The competing copenhagen interpretation was rendered problematic by Schroedinger's dead or alive cat.

Not to mention string theory also asserts the multi-verse exists and it is currently the most accepted theory that seeks to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity. So the big bang is unlikely to be a singular occurence.

The only question is how it arose across the multiverse and the ultimate fate of this particular universe. Quite possible ours was not the first big bang and we are in the middle of a never ending cycle of big bangs and big crunches. Current estimates of dark energy suggest the universe is open and thus will habe a big freeze ie expand forever but that is based on very uncertain estimates.

Finally Lawrence Kraus' theory of a universe of nothing (bearing in mind it is not actually nothing) suggests the big bang arose from quantum fluctuations in virtual particles. These quantum fluctuations likely still occur so big bangs could be happening all the time with different laws of physics arising as a result.

 

[modo]

Agreed just theories as unlikely to be able to prove it anytime soon.



What do you mean conventional wisdom? Think it is pretty well established that we live in a multi-verse given the many worlds interpretation is the current accepted theory to explain the universal wave function? The competing copenhagen interpretation was rendered problematic by Schroedinger's dead or alive cat.

Not to mention string theory also asserts the multi-verse exists and it is currently the most accepted theory that seeks to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity. So the big bang is unlikely to be a singular occurence.

The only question is how it arose across the multiverse and the ultimate fate of this particular universe. Quite possible ours was not the first big bang and we are in the middle of a never ending cycle of big bangs and big crunches. Current estimates of dark energy suggest the universe is open and thus will habe a big freeze ie expand forever but that is based on very uncertain estimates.

Finally Lawrence Kraus' theory of a universe of nothing (bearing in mind it is not actually nothing) suggests the big bang arose from quantum fluctuations in virtual particles. These quantum fluctuations likely still occur so big bangs could be happening all the time with different laws of physics arising as a result.

Copenhagen theory is still widely taught but is falling out of favor. Technically Copenhagen can still describe quantum activity so it holds merit from a pure mathematical standpoint.

There have been re-workings of Copenhagen. The whole cat thing is taken way out of context because it assumes a human observer must collapse it which is Copenhagen taken out of context quite a bit.

There are several quantum interpretation and some go in and out of favor. Copenhagen still technically predicts quantum behavior as does mwi as does, Ensemble interpretation as does, Consistant histories approach, etc. Most differ from a philosophical approach only, but most can accurately measure quantum activity and are good with probabilities.

We may never know which one is the right approach. and it probably won't matter. In MWI for example there are still versions of thought the the other realities may be real or unreal. From my understanding most physicists tend to gravitate towards the unreal interpretation of mwi.

Most physicists are happy with a system that is good with understanding quantum probabilities.

 

[remydat]

Hence why I said SC makes the CI problematic not obsolete. However MWI has definitely replaced it as the most accepted. Further there is really no scientific basis to conclude MWI is unreal. The math is the math. People just question whether it is real or not based on non-scientific reasons. By contrast SC is a clear scientific attempt to explain why the CI is problematic.

String and M-theory also predict a multiverse. So we aren't just talking MWI. Further think it is incorrect to claim most physicicists believe the unreal interpretation when you have Hawking, Degraase, Susskind, Kaku, Krauss, Tegmark etc., that support the idea of a multiverse. There are plenty of well known minds that support it. Think that claim came from Martin Gardner and is far from scientific.

The main criticism of it is that it is unlikely to be observed since one cannot traverse these different universes but it is still the most elegant solution with the fewest issues currently available.

 

[modo]

Hence why I said SC makes the CI problematic not obsolete. However MWI has definitely replaced it as the most accepted. Further there is really no scientific basis to conclude MWI is unreal. The math is the math. People just question whether it is real or not based on non-scientific reasons. By contrast SC is a clear scientific attempt to explain why the CI is problematic.

String and M-theory also predict a multiverse. So we aren't just talking MWI. Further think it is incorrect to claim most physicicists believe the unreal interpretation when you have Hawking, Degraase, Susskind, Kaku, Krauss, Tegmark etc., that support the idea of a multiverse. There are plenty of well known minds that support it. Think that claim came from Martin Gardner and is far from scientific.

The main criticism of it is that it is unlikely to be observed since one cannot traverse these different universes but it is still the most elegant solution with the fewest issues currently available.

From what I read Hawking actually started to move away from an infinite universes theory. According to some of his theories with holography there can be many universes but potentially finite.....one of his dissatisfactions with infinite universes is that science would start to be become pointless. There would be no more needing to reason why things are because all things are possible so there is no point in asking the question. He started to explore mathematically a limited universes, multiverse.

Another interesting thing I found was that there were several parallel/multiverse theories. In that a quilted multiverse is different than parallel universes. Susskind, who's work I really admire, has started to explore that parallel universes exist within a multiverse. It has to do with his extensive work with holography and black holes.

 

[remydat]

Yes there is a distinction between infinite universes and a limited multiverse. Thought you were against the idea of a multiverse in general. Hawking released a paper right before he died that argued for a more limited multiverse where he theorized that only universes that had laws of physics similar to our own could exist in a multiverse.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43976977And

And there are definitely different versions of the multiverse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_ensemble

 

[modo]

Yes there is a distinction between infinite universes and a limited multiverse. Thought you were against the idea of a multiverse in general. Hawking released a paper right before he died that argued for a more limited multiverse where he theorized that only universes that had laws of physics similar to our own could exist in a multiverse.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43976977And

And there are definitely different versions of the multiverse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_ensemble

not against anything science can come up with either from proof or overwhelming math. some sort of MWI version seems to make sense mathematically, although nothing has ruled out a broad interpretation of Copenhagen....its just a lot less elegant than MWI from a math standpoint.

Susskind is proposing that there be combined multiverse and parallel universe that satisfies both an infinite universe and quantum theory.

His work in holography is what interests me the most because I find it ridiculously bizarre.

 

[brett05]

* The earth was made first, and the other heavenly bodies made on the fourth day were for signs and seasons for the earth.

* The heavens, the earth, and everything therein were created in six days (Exodus 20:11). Man is the crowning glory of creation, and all creation is to be subservient to him.

* For man’s sake, because of Adams fall, all creation is cursed and subject to futility and ‘bondage to decay’ (Romans 8). Other civilizations, presumably sinless, would then have to share in the effects of this cursed cosmos

* It was on this earth that the Creator Himself became flesh, and bled and died for Adam’s hapless race—and because of His redeeming action, all creation will one day share in the effects of total redemption/restoration. For beings unrelated to Adam to share in the cosmic effects of both curse and restoration seems to ignore the whole thrust of Scriptural cosmology.



The Bible does say we are made in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). Man was immediately created a fully intelligent being about 6,000 years ago and was involved in craftsmanship shortly thereafter (Genesis 4:22). Since that time, even we have not been able to develop technologies advanced enough to travel to other star systems. If aliens were capable of developing incredible faster-than-light spaceships needed to get here, one would presume they must have been created with vastly superior intellect to ours—which would make them even more in God’s likeness in that sense than we are. Or, their creation is much older than the 6,000 years of the biblical six-day timeframe; the aliens were created before man and had sufficient time to develop their technologies. However, God created Earth on Day 1 and later the heavenly bodies on Day 4.

https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets

Although the Bible does not say that no life was created elsewhere, it is loaded with logical and theological inconsistencies and contradictions.

Debateable.

 

[brett05]

How can anyone believe the world is 6K years old when Dinosaurs went extinct... EXTINCT (meaning thrived for who knows how long on this planet)! 65 million years ago

For me, as someone who rejects an old universe, you seem to have been indoctrinated to not even question why you believe that the dinosaurs are 65 million years old.

 

[remydat]

Pretty sure he knows why he believes in an old earth. It is accepted science.

Unlike a young earth that magically corresponds to what a bunch of ignorant sheepherders claimed thousands of years ago.

 

[Ares]

Pretty sure he knows why he believes in an old earth. It is accepted science.

Unlike a young earth that magically corresponds to what a bunch of ignorant sheepherders claimed thousands of years ago.

Science is always better when you start with the answers and then attempt to fit all evidence/data inside the answer you started with.

That's the best way to science.

 

[remydat]

I know right!

 

[Bears_804]

For me, as someone who rejects an old universe, you seem to have been indoctrinated to not even question why you believe that the dinosaurs are 65 million years old.

I'll bite. What do you mean someone who rejects an old universe?

 

[brett05]

I'll bite. What do you mean someone who rejects an old universe?

I do not subscribe to the evidence that it points to an old universe.

 

[Bears_804]

I do not subscribe to the evidence that it points to an old universe.

Well, alright then.

 

[airtime143]

Pretty sure he knows why he believes in an old earth. It is accepted science.

Unlike a young earth that magically corresponds to what a bunch of ignorant sheepherders claimed thousands of years ago.

Does anyone know which of the following brett was brainwashed to believe?

A- Dinosaur fossils were planted by god playing a prank to test our belief
B- Dinosaur fossils were a conspiracy planted by evil science types to erode religious belief

Or C-

 

[remydat]

If I recall Brett thinks carbon dating is inaccurate. So advanced dating techniques used by thousands of scientists in the 21st century are bullshit but some shepard in 2000 BC wrote humans living 900 years using sheep dung and that is legit.

 

[Bears_804]

This old Bill Hicks comedy always had me rolling.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/51...-these-people-actually-believe-that-the-world

[h=1]“Fundamentalist Christianity: fascinating. These people actually believe that the world is twelve thousand years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well, we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages? Twelve thousand years."
"Well, how fucking scientific, OK. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble there. That's good. You believe the world's twelve thousand years old?"
"That's right."
"OK, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?"
"Uh huh."
"Dinosaurs."

You know, the world's twelve thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, and existed in that time, you'd think it would been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point:

And O, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in its paw. And the disciples did run a-screamin'. "What a big fucking lizard, Lord!"
"I'm sure gonna mention this in my book," Luke said.
"Well, I'm sure gonna mention it in my book," Matthew said.
But Jesus was unafraid. And he took the splinter from the brontosaurus paw, and the brontosaurus became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch, O so many years, attracting fat American families with their fat fuckin' dollars to look for the Loch Ness Monster. And O the Scots did praise the Lord: "Thank you, Lord! Thank you, Lord!"

Twelve thousand years old. But I actually asked this guy, "OK, dinosaur fossils-- how does that fit into your scheme of life? What's the deal?" He goes:

"God put those here to test our faith."
"I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. I think I've figured this out."

Does that-- That's what this guy said. Does that bother anyone here? The idea that God might be fucking with our heads? Anyone have trouble sleeping restfully with that thought in their head? God's running around burying fossils: "Ho ho! We'll see who believes in me now, ha ha! I'm a prankster God. I am killing me, ho ho ho!" You know? You die, you go to St. Peter:

"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, yeah. There were fossils everywhere. (trapdoor opens) Aaaaarhhh!"
"You fuckin' idiot! Flying lizards? You're a moron. God was fuckin' with you!"
"It seemed so plausible, aaaaaahh!"
"Enjoy the lake of fire, ******!"[/h]

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

Pretty sure Science was the first on Brett's ignore list.

"I don't subscribe to the evidence ... " LOL