What is the proof for the multiverse theory? It seems more like speculation by people who like to guess about things and then elaborate them to ridiculous levels of incomprehensibility.

 

You are such a pessimistic little [wagon] it's unbelievable. I pity you.

 

...

 

Why do we exist?

Maybe he was being optimistic?

 

And to the question: Why not?

What is the proof for the multiverse theory? It seems more like speculation by people who like to guess about things and then elaborate them to ridiculous levels of incomprehensibility.

 

You are such a pessimistic little [wagon] it's unbelievable. I pity you.

Actually, that was just a normal question. What exactly is pessimistic about saying "What is the proof for..."? I am not familiar with the topic, I thought someone on the philosophy thread might know more than I do. There's no need to flame.

 

wait, what :blink:

What is the proof for the multiverse theory? It seems more like speculation by people who like to guess about things and then elaborate them to ridiculous levels of incomprehensibility.

 

You are such a pessimistic little [wagon] it's unbelievable. I pity you.

 

...

 

Why do we exist?

 

 

Because that's not been answered a million times before. It's one of the most popular psuedo-philosophical questions ( at this point in time) to be used on the internet.

 

 

There are reasons all around you:

 

Relgious: God made you to glorify him. Or whatever your religion dictates you to perpetuate.

 

Atheistic: We are the product of the explosion that formed all of us.

 

 

That's why.

What is the proof for the multiverse theory? It seems more like speculation by people who like to guess about things and then elaborate them to ridiculous levels of incomprehensibility.

Its there to explain how the Big Bang happened: by two clashing multiverses rather than out of nothingness.

What is the proof for the multiverse theory? It seems more like speculation by people who like to guess about things and then elaborate them to ridiculous levels of incomprehensibility.

Its there to explain how the Big Bang happened: by two clashing multiverses rather than out of nothingness.

He didn't ask why the theory was made. He asked what the proof for it is.

What is the proof for the multiverse theory? It seems more like speculation by people who like to guess about things and then elaborate them to ridiculous levels of incomprehensibility.

Its there to explain how the Big Bang happened: by two clashing multiverses rather than out of nothingness.

He didn't ask why the theory was made. He asked what the proof for it is.

Truthfully from what I understand it seems the most extreme parts of science is built around possibilities with little or no proof.

 

But I'm not a scientist. If it exists and whoever knows, post the proof.

I heard this from somewhere, probably just pasta but -

 

"It is known that when you die, your brain goes into heavy activity for about 15 minutes before you encounter total necrosis of the cerebral neurons - the lack of oxygen causing irreversible brain death. In a separate study on sleep paralysis it was found that when subjects reported experiencing weeks and sometimes even months whilst dreaming, in actuality it was only a fraction of a second of a single REM cycle. This is why so many people have reported having their "life flash before their eyes".

 

What does this means for us ? We could be already be dead."

 

 

 

 

I take this with a pinch of salt, but it's still interesting to think about.

The only "good" evidence for the multiverse theory is that photons are a particle and a wave.

Photons are particles to small to have any noticable mass, they are proven to have mass only because they are affected by gravitational pull.

 

I believe the big bang was created due to the unstability of total vacuum, and when it ripped nothing into matter and antimatter a fraction of each never came in contact with the other.

Photons are particles to small to have any noticable mass, they are proven to have mass only because they are affected by gravitational pull.

 

...REALLY!?!??!?!??!??!!??!?!?

Photons are particles to small to have any noticable mass, they are proven to have mass only because they are affected by gravitational pull.

 

...REALLY!?!??!?!??!??!!??!?!?

Is it possible to be affected by a gravitational pull without mass? :-k

Photons are particles to small to have any noticable mass, they are proven to have mass only because they are affected by gravitational pull.

 

...REALLY!?!??!?!??!??!!??!?!?

Is it possible to be affected by a gravitational pull without mass? :-k

Nope. If something doesn't have mass, it's either energy (I actually don't know 100% on that one), or non existent.

Energy is not corporeal, it's a state, movement is energy, heat is energy (though heat = movement), waves are energy (example; magnetism). All of those are affected in the form af alteration by gravitational pull. We also have so-called potentaial energy out of which elastity is the only one that can be called energy.

What about chemical potential energy? And nuclear potential? Damn science...

They're not actual energy, but can be made into it.

And elastic?

Elastic energy is always doing something, it needs to be blocked in order not to transform into another form of energy, the organic and other such energies must be set in action.

Energy is not corporeal, it's a state, movement is energy, heat is energy (though heat = movement), waves are energy (example; magnetism). All of those are affected in the form af alteration by gravitational pull. We also have so-called potentaial energy out of which elastity is the only one that can be called energy.

 

Magnetism is not a wave...

 

They're not actual energy, but can be made into it.

 

Potential energy is not actual energy?

WHAAA....?

Magnetism is a field, the static equivalent of a wave.

Ehh, no. I thought waves ARENT static.

Also a mindbleep

 

1. Get a mirror, place it 10 lightyears away in space

2. Get a telescope, look in the mirror

3. See yourself 20 years ago.

I thought a wave was energy being transferred through a substance.

Also a mindbleep

 

1. Get a mirror, place it 10 lightyears away in space

2. Get a telescope, look in the mirror

3. See yourself 20 years ago.

No, no you'd see what you looked like 20 years ago. After all, 20 years ago you hadn't been standing there yet.

Also a mindbleep

 

1. Get a mirror, place it 10 lightyears away in space

2. Get a telescope, look in the mirror

3. See yourself 20 years ago.

No, no you'd see what you looked like 20 years ago. After all, 20 years ago you hadn't been standing there yet.

You mean you would see whatever was standing twenty years ago where you are standing now.

 

It's an interesting concept, if not entirely possible if you consider error and the atmosphere and dust clouds and all that space junk I know nothing about. Maybe, if perfected, scientists could use it to see dinosaurs? It would be an intersting tie between astrophysics and archeaology.

 

Oh, I just got an idea: If you put an infinite number of mirrors in a way that you would see one in the previous one in the previous one etc., you would eventually be seeing the past.