Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95074 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
This is a perfect definition of OUR universe. But you did not pay attention at the end when he touched on the subject of multiverse.
And said that is is the subject of another verse.
So you missed the meaning of another universe completely, and I find that awfully convenient on your behalf.
I did not miss anything. Multiverse can logically apply only to the term observable universe, NOT the totality of existence.

Henry Reich defined the terms in the video:
Universe (capital U) that encompasses absolutely everything that exists (even all possible universes of any number of your so called multiverses).

universe (not capitalized) that is observable to us.

Do you accept these terms as explained by Henry Reich? Yes or no?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#95075 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not miss anything. Multiverse can logically apply only to the term observable universe, NOT the totality of existence.
Henry Reich defined the terms in the video:
Universe (capital U) that encompasses absolutely everything that exists (even all possible universes of any number of your so called multiverses).
universe (not capitalized) that is observable to us.
Do you accept these terms as explained by Henry Reich? Yes or no?
No, I accept it that you aren't saying the same thing he is ,
and that cosmology and astrophysics don't say the same thing you do. He explains observable vs entire here(note there is no distinction between U and u).

https://plus.google.com/114328975933589556247...

Accept the fact there could be more of them. You know plural
Universe's
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95076 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>I did not miss anything. Multiverse can logically apply only to the term observable universe, NOT the totality of existence.

Henry Reich defined the terms in the video:
Universe (capital U) that encompasses absolutely everything that exists (even all possible universes of any number of your so called multiverses).

universe (not capitalized) that is observable to us.

Do you accept these terms as explained by Henry Reich? Yes or no?
Only if you point out this is a new definition that science now needs to use because they are unable to come up with a new word for their new ideas.
The word universe NEVER needed to capitalized in the past to mean what it was first penned to mean.

"The Universe is defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy."

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#95077 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No that isn't what we were talking about, we were talking about an entirely disconnected reality separate from this universe.
Some people have a problem with this concept.
We can not even see all of this universe as a whole so thinking there is anything beyond it is all just speculation.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is everything we can observe and beyond.
Which is observable Universe and it will always be finite(limited: having an end or limit) "what we can see"

The Universe as a whole which may be may be infinite(not measurable: without any finite or measurable limits) "the beyond"
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Then there is the possibility there are more of them. Aside from the fact the U or u has exactly the same meaning.
More of them is just a speculation.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#95078 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the fact the U or u has exactly the same meaning.
The only difference I know about the spelling is - Universe capitalized = proper noun. universe not capitalized = common noun.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#95079 Jul 7, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
We can not even see all of this universe as a whole so thinking there is anything beyond it is all just speculation.
<quoted text>
Which is observable Universe and it will always be finite(limited: having an end or limit) "what we can see"
The Universe as a whole which may be may be infinite(not measurable: without any finite or measurable limits) "the beyond"
<quoted text>
More of them is just a speculation.
No shit, I did say it was a concept, one exactly like what is beyond the observable universe in THIS one. More speculation and isn't any different. But there is evidence of a separate universe also. So it isn't blind speculation it is hypothesis that has a prediction that has been thought to be found in several ways.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#95080 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No shit, I did say it was a concept, one exactly like what is beyond the observable universe in THIS one. More speculation and isn't any different. But there is evidence of a separate universe also. So it isn't blind speculation it is hypothesis that has a prediction that has been thought to be found in several ways.
I guess I missed that class. What evidence do we have that there may be a separate universe?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#95081 Jul 7, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I missed that class. What evidence do we have that there may be a separate universe?

Dark Flow and the disbursement and distribution of matter is not even as it should be, This was predicted to be found by a few physicists. Then data gathered by the Planck spacecraft shows anomalies that can be explained by gravitational pull outside this universe. as they predicted. It's not much but it is enough for them to call it evidence. Whether or not it is so many are calling the dark flow evidence of something outside our universe affecting it.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#95082 Jul 7, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the Lewis Overthrust Fault is another figment of a geologists' imagination. The contact of plates is exactly what happened. Science has seen it, but you keep clicking those heals together Dorothy. Wish it into the cornfield.
What has arguing about a fictional flood have to do with railing against God? This is always the parting shot of the young earthers as they retreat in defeat.
If you take some time and read the lit, the last 2 major USGS studies concluded it shows no sign of an overthrust, so take it up with those folks. No retreat here, it all sits on a thin veneer of shale, no fracturing at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95083 Jul 7, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
If you take some time and read the lit, the last 2 major USGS studies concluded it shows no sign of an overthrust, so take it up with those folks. No retreat here, it all sits on a thin veneer of shale, no fracturing at all.
I am sure that you misread the article. The boundary of an overthrust can be small, but it is noticeable.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95084 Jul 7, 2013
And SBT, please link the articles you are talking about.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#95085 Jul 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And SBT, please link the articles you are talking about.
He did if you took time to look back at his comment. Need someone to read it for you too?

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#95086 Jul 7, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
He did if you took time to look back at his comment. Need someone to read it for you too?
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...

This is talking about the grand canyon.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95087 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop whining.
The common definition of the Universe is EVERYTHING that exists (known and unknown to us).
The definition of the known universe is everything observable to us now.
These have been clearly defined in this discussion. I would not be surprised to see you try to straw man the term Universe.
Nevertheless, scientists now contrast the term universe with a broader term multiverse, whatever the "common definition" is.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95088 Jul 7, 2013
JBH wrote:
<quoted text>
=========
He did not say the universe was created. He said the universe had no origin.
But if you believe other scientists say, this universe has a lot of other sayings.
Some people even say this universe continues to expand IN THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT MY SAYING. And if based on what they say, I WOULD TEND TO put it then, that THE UNIVERSE extension IS BUILDING UPON SPACE expansion
And yet we know that the universe we live in did have an origin, and its called the big bang. Whether something outside that event generated it, such as a quantum fluctuation in the multiverse, or as an act of God, OUR universe containing our constructs of space, time, and physical laws, can only be dated to this time and therefore its an origin as far as we know.

If you think I was jumping the gun and making assumptions about HB's direction with his post, I plead guilty. However, I have had discussions with HB before, and rightly or wrongly anticipated where he was going with this.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95089 Jul 7, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I am amazed that people enjoy all the benefits God has provided for our welfare and easy living on this blue planet, yet spend all this time railing against Him. We are blessed. Hatred and pride is our foe, love and truth is our ally.
And now another tell that we can add to your crazy suggestions that scientists "admitted" things that are actually not sheepishly admitted but are simple mainstream, that evidence is hidden or ignored, and that evolution is "liberal".

Now we see you are another that thinks evolution is "railing against God" when its nothing of the sort. It is inconsistent with literal Genesis, but that has nothing to do with whether God exists. Merely whether we should take some primitive accounts of God written by neolithic goat herders seriously.

So my question is, do you really love God or are you a Bible idolator who will distort the evidence of God's works to serve your true object of worship - ancient jewish goat herder fairy tales?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95090 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. It is much easier to discuss when all share the same understanding of the used terminology.
Good. Then you will agree that in discussing the universe and origins, no origins, evidence etc, we should use the up to date terminology of science, not some vernacular that can mean anything to anyone.

In modern science, "the universe" refers to this universe as developed from the big bang, and acknowledges there may be OTHER universes outside of that.

Best that we are all on the same page, don't you think?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95091 Jul 7, 2013
JBH wrote:
THE PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD must have human rights freedom and free choices of fundamental liberty righteous rights to live or move to reside in places having these anywhere if they do not have, at where they are.
People can choose not to live by their old grand-parents' places, or barns, or farms or inner cities if finding too corrupted or too MANY BUSYBODIES(nosy snoopy people or big brothers snooping) troubling them.
Workers and security guards at bar places would harass and even beat non-smoker customers because they think non-smokers would spend less on alcoholic drinks. Yet other workers would even go along with bad people for being silent and corrupted, and besides, workers don't even have such rights to say something, or else would be told by leaking secrecy and be disciplined
If nothing can do and can change the corrupted establishment, people are having such bad and ugly environment, then they can move to other lands with other people having societies of no corruption but great value and liberty rights and privacy freedom, with no snooping on public at all.
Countries around the world must keep on building societies and be supported, so that humans have choices for their human rights freedom with no snooping agenda, and also have free choices of fundamental liberty righteous rights to live or move to reside, on the planet.
Many countries would not do as US does on snooping programs, while people can file charges if such snooping occurs too extremely for unjustified reasons to them. Then the human rights free choices societies will be rewarded with building excellent rules and systems for all the dignified people's needs, and many needy people who are thirsty for all these can move to, and they will be dynamic, as all these are constructive and valuable.
As countries on the planet are facing the radicalism of US doing the coalition of willing again (as if like the standpoint of Iraq war), some of those countries as Austria, France, Italy and Spain are the willing, and forge by joining US to pursue on the Snowden case like the Iraq war. Spain did wrong to conduct the detour of airplane going to Bolivia because being one of the willing. First, there were no facts of truth of full evidences of Snowden on board airplane and that was ugliness of Spain. Then in doing the detour of airplane was another wrongdoing by messing up a lot to make bad troubles. Countries can choose not to be with the willing or joining so that the world is not being made so bad, corrupted without rules.
US has damaged relationship with many countries by chasing Snowden, by creating destructive way of International disorder. Whether US has broken International regulations, which can be sued or penalized, those people so concerned are saying of the wrongs and wrongdoing of such--making the world in chaos. US way of doing is not the new world's needs and wants. US ought not to make the world to be bad in volatility in addition to further suffer more harms of relation and economy, by doing the too extreme on Snowden story and violate International rules and systems. It ought to let its people have free choices, and not suppress human rights freedom of choices of dissidents (e.g., Snowden), ADVERSARIES, AND non-believers and let them move to places where they belong and want, just as other countries do to their dissidents by taking lots from their homeland to US.
The world must be a free world with freedom liberty choices for all, so that human rights freedom and free choices of fundamental liberty righteous privacy rights exist in many places around the world, that all people can have basic free rights values to live everywhere and anywhere.
I agree. Liberal do-gooders are just as big a threat to liberty as over zealous anti-terrorism measures, corporate lobbying power, and excessive militarism. Ron Paul was the only real defender of freedom that has had a voice, and the media did its best to ignore him for as long as possible.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95092 Jul 7, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you point out this is a new definition that science now needs to use because they are unable to come up with a new word for their new ideas.
The word universe NEVER needed to capitalized in the past to mean what it was first penned to mean.
"The Universe is defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy."
Sometimes definitions change over time as our understanding increases. Definitions are not the underlying knowledge. You can argue all you like over the "correct" terminology but the fact is physicists, even including the one cited by HB, regard this universe as a subset of the possible universes and do speak of a multiverse. They know what they mean when they use these terms.

If the past is anything to go by, our friend HB is going to beat this forum to death with an endless, boring, futile argument that purports to be about the subject but is really only confusing definitions with the actual substance these definitions represent.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95093 Jul 7, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
We can not even see all of this universe as a whole so thinking there is anything beyond it is all just speculation.
A multiverse would not reveal itself at the physical "edge" of our universe, and there may not even be one. Another universe would be not spatially removed from ours but dimensionally, and so it might impinge on us directly, right in front of our faces. For example, its time vector might be moving at a different orientation to ours.

Our own universe could exist for infinitesimal time but infinite space in an inflaton field because our time vector is at right angles to it.

Don't blame me for this mindf&"k. Its consistent with the laws of physics as we now understand them. These same laws make remarkably accurate predictions within our known universe, so their wider implications cannot be ignored.
Which is observable Universe and it will always be finite(limited: having an end or limit) "what we can see"
The Universe as a whole which may be may be infinite(not measurable: without any finite or measurable limits) "the beyond"

More of them is just a speculation.
It is now. But there may be ways to test the hypothesis. For example Bell's Theorem was a truly creepy reinterpretation of how time and space works, but was not testable until 40 years after it was hypothesised. And then it was vindicated.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 4 min CJ Rocker 1,190
Hillary pic 4 min dragoon70056 2
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 5 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1,991
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 8 min Enzo49 38,434
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 9 min -Lea- 28,557
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 9 min Hoosier Hillbilly 41,001
Zoo offers creepy way for lovelorn to get even ... 14 min Abrahammock Regions 1
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 16 min Good-Evil 155,199
"man" words 24 min Hatti_Hollerand 188
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 17,617
More from around the web