as you said earlier…”Actually, in science, “Multiverse” theory is something that has NEVER been proven. For lack of evidence. It crops up from time to time as a way to explain certain SEEMING paradoxes like the EPR double slit experiment with polarized light. But then, just because it can be used to explain something doesn’t mean it is so.
Tiny invisible rubber bands could explain gravity if it weren’t for the fact that it simply isn’t true.
Multiverse Theory is not automatically true because it “explains” some things. Lot’s of things explain “some” things. Most of them are NOT true.
So help me here. Where did multiverse come from as a theory? Where is the observable evidence of it’s existence and the experiments to back it up that can be duplicated with certainty and repitition?
Like the speed of light for example. Or Time Dilation which is so easy to demonstrate now it’s considered commonplace. (It occurs on every single filght of the Space Shuttle.) At least science is TRYING to prove “Frame Dragging” which IS an experiment under way.
But “Multiverse”? Who can demonstrate this with integrity?”
Perhaps the following might lend some additional clues, as to “shed some light on the subject.”
When engaging upon a string quartet of talented musicians, there are only two types of designations,
*Those who participate.
*Those who observe.
NOTE:> The following posts were extracted from “Autodynamics” *Egroups Forum.
Scientists Bring Light to Full Stop, Hold It, Then Send It on Its Way
In today’s New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com
(You have to register at the site to read the article).
From: Bill Slawson
Date: Sun Jan 21, 2001 12:02pm
Subject: AutoDynamics ?
Douglas Scott 01/21/01
During the last coupla years, I have been looking at SAA, AutoDynamics in general, and the formulations of Ricardo Carezani. Sometime in 1999, I began thinking about the possible degradation of photonic energy by the theoretical picograviton. The “tired photon” hypotheses, to explain the smooth redshift variation with respect to distance/time, have a number of (surmountable) problems. But, the generally accepted solution for this smooth variation, (namely: BigBang), also has many problems.
If you would, could you supply me with your short list, in links or references, describing why you may or may not support this tired photon thinking?
Anisotropy of CMB:
In the image of the above link, I can see that there is a calico feature to the CMB. The dark patches are limited by the resolution of the scale. I wonder how far off the scale are the depths of the dark patches? Is there data available to recalibrate the image to a different, (lower), central “zero value”? Further, if one were to gather multiple images of the same patch of sky, would the calico pattern remain strictly identical? Over what period of time? The careful comparison of differing images could reveal the changes as being instrumental artifacts or actual sky change.
I wildly wonder if there may be a nominal “rest state” for photonic radiation? If, after a looong journey through “space”, the photonic energies are “wound down” by being bent hither and thither through the gravitational wedges of the intergalactic medium – – then, is the result that the background has a rather even “look” to it? Is this “even” appearance some kind of undulating dispersion of photonic energies around and about the nominal “rest state” average value? Or can the true “rest state” be an equilibrium point whereby photonic energies are hardly affected and mostly unaffected by the “picograviton density fluctuations”?
Everything is natural
(C) Copyright 2000 usual rights, usual rates
The boundary of the “observable” universe may be only limited by the distance it takes for “most” photonic radiation to wind down to the equilibrium rest state of the microwave background radiation energy. If we can develop “graviton” apertures and detection instruments, the “observable” horizon could be extended way far.
– – p n Jones