Chronovisor Posts

Time02112

January 25, 2001 2:31 pm
Post Count

DA Viper,
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.
< http://www.egroups.com/group/autodynamics>

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
[email protected]

From: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001230.html

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

Bill Slawson
1621 Grand
Spencer, IA
51301-3433
712-262-1111
[email protected]

(C) Copyright 2000 usual rights, usual rates

Slight reference:
AutoDynamics: http://www.flic.net/~saa/

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

borgus

January 25, 2001 9:29 am
Post Count

Well, I don’t have much confidence in the parallel timelines (multiuniverse existance) theory of time. It makes much better sense to consider time a property of motion in the 4th dimension (axis).

But if time is indeed a 4th dimension then it is always difficult to convert that into a visual model that our brains can understand.

What if time is a property of gravity… where you fall through time at a constant rate relative to the gravity. Problem with this is that time would pass at different rates on different planets (which hasn’t been proven either way).

If you imagine yourself, and everything else on Earth, falling through time. Then Newton’s laws of motion would apply to time. If an object is falling through time it will continue falling until a force stops it. The force required to stop it (or accelerate it) is proportional to the velocity and mass. And there must be an equal and opposite reaction to motion through time.

Using this (fictional) model how would you stop someone from falling through time, or accelerate them away from it (back in time)?

You would need to understand the properties of the time-force, whether it is related to gravity fields, whether it is related directly to mass, or space.

Also this would delete the notion of parallel timelines. If one object were to be pushed into an acceleration away from the time force, then they would no longer exist in their previous position in relation to everything else that is falling. Once they are placed in a location behind the previous, and began to fall again at a constant rate. Would they, or not, be in the past? Would familiar objects be seen around? ..existing in a previous time? Becuase you have to visualize it as another plane of existance. so the other dimensions would be connected to it.

Like i said, its very hard to visualize the 4 dimensional properties. But perhaps the “falling” model will help.

[email protected]

January 25, 2001 6:52 am
Post Count

Deviper: I believe that I read that quote from revelation, but I respect your beliefs and yor right to have them. I am not here to convince anyone that God exists. I am only here to speak the truth as I know it.

I am just a vessel and god hardens whom he wants to harden and softens the hearts of whom he wants to soften. As for the qoute, it was stating that what ever God has done, said, or created can not be added to or taken away from.

A similar conspeptual logic exists in science as well, the law of conservation of energy,mass,and momentum. Even in the case where energy is borrowed from the vacuum of space there is no vialation of this in that the source of energy was gained from an existant source…space. If energy is gained from nothing; then this law is vialated.

Edwin G. Schasteen

Everyone:

I appologize for not double spacing, I was in a hurry. I also got that screen and that is why I have three of the same posts. Hmmm.

DaViper

January 25, 2001 1:06 am
Post Count

Hey Moderator.

I DID NOT post that last post twice. I did get a 505 Internal Server error on the first one tho.

I got one last night also, but it did not result in two identical postings.

(Just FYI)

DaViper

January 25, 2001 1:00 am
Post Count

rgrunt:

You had me going in your first post. I thought it was well thought out. Well reasoned, and stimulating. Whether it is correct or not I cannot say. Maybe, maybe not.

But then you lost me again in your subsequent post(s) by bringing what you say you believe “God Says” into it.

Not sure just where “God Says” this. It ain’t in the Bible anyway.

Besides, in contemplating the very existence of God one is left to ask “Who Created God”? Then if the answer is “God always was”, it begs the further question, “If God COULD always have been, why not the Universe itself without the need for a God to ‘create’ it”?

Not that I’m Atheistic, merely Agnostic. If God exists, so be it. If not, so be it. Only one thing is for sure…Whether one BELIEVES in a God or not, has no effect whatsoever on whether there truly is or is NOT one.

Besides, I’ve never been one to let others make descisions for me. I can do that quite well by myself thank you. I won’t dismiss God, but I’m really not sure why I need him.

Borgus:

Yes, I’ve heard views similar to yours before, and no offense intended, but they don’t answer my question. For instance, if we extrapolate just a tad further, I could ask that if infinite universes exist, and I have no free will control over my own fate in any of them, why not just commit suicide. I’ll go on in another universe, since “all things are so”. I could just keep commiting suicide until I finally arrive at a life timeline where I consider EVERYTHING to be SO perfect that I stick around for a while.

But then, this line of reasoning is really pretty silly isn’t it.

Naw, Multiverse is a nice cute theory that, like I said, crops up over time to explain certain paradoxes, but it has never been resolved to be provable by any evidence. Besides, as such, I see it as a cop out for side stepping the issue of Time Travel.

If Time Travel is to be solved, we have to begin to think beyond the old easy trains of thought and try to grasp that which we do not yet even understand the concept of.

We need to re-examine our old concept of what we refer to as “Time” itself.

We’ve exhausted the old theories. They don’t work. There are no Time Machines. And PROBABLY no “parallel” Universes. Other Universes perhaps, but not Parallel Ones we have “counterparts” existing in. Can’t buy it.

New thought is what is called for.

I may not be capable of it, but those who are need to focus ahead into new territory. Not hack away at the old.

Peace.

DaViper

January 25, 2001 1:00 am
Post Count

rgrunt:

You had me going in your first post. I thought it was well thought out. Well reasoned, and stimulating. Whether it is correct or not I cannot say. Maybe, maybe not.

But then you lost me again in your subsequent post(s) by bringing what you say you believe “God Says” into it.

Not sure just where “God Says” this. It ain’t in the Bible anyway.

Besides, in contemplating the very existence of God one is left to ask “Who Created God”? Then if the answer is “God always was”, it begs the further question, “If God COULD always have been, why not the Universe itself without the need for a God to ‘create’ it”?

Not that I’m Atheistic, merely Agnostic. If God exists, so be it. If not, so be it. Only one thing is for sure…Whether one BELIEVES in a God or not, has no effect whatsoever on whether there truly is or is NOT one.

Besides, I’ve never been one to let others make descisions for me. I can do that quite well by myself thank you. I won’t dismiss God, but I’m really not sure why I need him.

Borgus:

Yes, I’ve heard views similar to yours before, and no offense intended, but they don’t answer my question. For instance, if we extrapolate just a tad further, I could ask that if infinite universes exist, and I have no free will control over my own fate in any of them, why not just commit suicide. I’ll go on in another universe, since “all things are so”. I could just keep commiting suicide until I finally arrive at a life timeline where I consider EVERYTHING to be SO perfect that I stick around for a while.

But then, this line of reasoning is really pretty silly isn’t it.

Naw, Multiverse is a nice cute theory that, like I said, crops up over time to explain certain paradoxes, but it has never been resolved to be provable by any evidence. Besides, as such, I see it as a cop out for side stepping the issue of Time Travel.

If Time Travel is to be solved, we have to begin to think beyond the old easy trains of thought and try to grasp that which we do not yet even understand the concept of.

We need to re-examine our old concept of what we refer to as “Time” itself.

We’ve exhausted the old theories. They don’t work. There are no Time Machines. And PROBABLY no “parallel” Universes. Other Universes perhaps, but not Parallel Ones we have “counterparts” existing in. Can’t buy it.

New thought is what is called for.

I may not be capable of it, but those who are need to focus ahead into new territory. Not hack away at the old.

Peace.

observer1

January 24, 2001 10:17 pm
Post Count

You forgot to space your sentences.

rgrunt

January 24, 2001 12:26 pm
Post Count

Borgus,

I am not at all convinced that the universe is expanding. I was in such a hurry to post due to time constraints that I was not able to post my views accurately. I appologize for the confusion. I am more convinced that the universed is fixed and not expanding. I believe God when he says that nothing can be added and nothing taken away. But at the same time I am not fully convinced that the universe is entirely a closed system either. I believe that energy can be formed at an area where no energy is present by drawing energy from beyond the center of a measured region. I call the area beyond the centermass of every particle and field subpoint space because it is an area that exists beyond the centermass. This is my theory and it is not even a theory yet. It is truelly a hypothesis. In a littly while I may be able to produce evidence to support or deny my hypothesis. As soon as I have confirmed the viability of my claims or lack there of, I might post the results. The conscept I was trying to describe above is more related the how energy and space interact. The theory you proposed also sounds like a viable alternative to the current model. I believe that there are limits to every field and that at some distance from a given grouping of mass there is zero gravity. For example, if you quantize space and allow for a device pump space into a given container such as cup that has an internal temperature of 91degrees farhenheit, then the temperature in that cup will decrease more as the numerical quantity of thermal photons occupy a greater volume of space. Basically as an electromagnetic field occupies a greater volume of space the density and strength of that field decreases. Now if one were to vacuum out the space from the cup that is 91 degrees farhenheit, then the temperature within that cup will increase significantly as the numerical quantity of the thermal photons within that space occupy a lesser volume of space. Basically, as an electromagnetic field(or any other photon mediated field) contracts to occupy a lesser volume of space, the strength and density of that field will increase. This goes right along with your own theory about areas outside the galaxies. For an area with zero densityand infinity energy density the velocity the vacuum velocity of light will increase without bounds. If one decreases the energy density within a given region to zero then the space-time density within that region will increase to infinity and the light speed velocity in that region will decrease to zero absolute velocity.

regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen

[email protected]

January 24, 2001 12:25 pm
Post Count

Borgus,

I am not at all convinced that the universe is expanding. I was in such a hurry to post due to time constraints that I was not able to post my views accurately. I appologize for the confusion. I am more convinced that the universed is fixed and not expanding. I believe God when he says that nothing can be added and nothing taken away. But at the same time I am not fully convinced that the universe is entirely a closed system either. I believe that energy can be formed at an area where no energy is present by drawing energy from beyond the center of a measured region. I call the area beyond the centermass of every particle and field subpoint space because it is an area that exists beyond the centermass. This is my theory and it is not even a theory yet. It is truelly a hypothesis. In a littly while I may be able to produce evidence to support or deny my hypothesis. As soon as I have confirmed the viability of my claims or lack there of, I might post the results. The conscept I was trying to describe above is more related the how energy and space interact. The theory you proposed also sounds like a viable alternative to the current model. I believe that there are limits to every field and that at some distance from a given grouping of mass there is zero gravity. For example, if you quantize space and allow for a device pump space into a given container such as cup that has an internal temperature of 91degrees farhenheit, then the temperature in that cup will decrease more as the numerical quantity of thermal photons occupy a greater volume of space. Basically as an electromagnetic field occupies a greater volume of space the density and strength of that field decreases. Now if one were to vacuum out the space from the cup that is 91 degrees farhenheit, then the temperature within that cup will increase significantly as the numerical quantity of the thermal photons within that space occupy a lesser volume of space. Basically, as an electromagnetic field(or any other photon mediated field) contracts to occupy a lesser volume of space, the strength and density of that field will increase. This goes right along with your own theory about areas outside the galaxies. For an area with zero densityand infinity energy density the velocity the vacuum velocity of light will increase without bounds. If one decreases the energy density within a given region to zero then the space-time density within that region will increase to infinity and the light speed velocity in that region will decrease to zero absolute velocity.

regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen

rgrunt

January 24, 2001 12:25 pm
Post Count

Borgus,

I am not at all convinced that the universe is expanding. I was in such a hurry to post due to time constraints that I was not able to post my views accurately. I appologize for the confusion. I am more convinced that the universed is fixed and not expanding. I believe God when he says that nothing can be added and nothing taken away. But at the same time I am not fully convinced that the universe is entirely a closed system either. I believe that energy can be formed at an area where no energy is present by drawing energy from beyond the center of a measured region. I call the area beyond the centermass of every particle and field subpoint space because it is an area that exists beyond the centermass. This is my theory and it is not even a theory yet. It is truelly a hypothesis. In a littly while I may be able to produce evidence to support or deny my hypothesis. As soon as I have confirmed the viability of my claims or lack there of, I might post the results. The conscept I was trying to describe above is more related the how energy and space interact. The theory you proposed also sounds like a viable alternative to the current model. I believe that there are limits to every field and that at some distance from a given grouping of mass there is zero gravity. For example, if you quantize space and allow for a device pump space into a given container such as cup that has an internal temperature of 91degrees farhenheit, then the temperature in that cup will decrease more as the numerical quantity of thermal photons occupy a greater volume of space. Basically as an electromagnetic field occupies a greater volume of space the density and strength of that field decreases. Now if one were to vacuum out the space from the cup that is 91 degrees farhenheit, then the temperature within that cup will increase significantly as the numerical quantity of the thermal photons within that space occupy a lesser volume of space. Basically, as an electromagnetic field(or any other photon mediated field) contracts to occupy a lesser volume of space, the strength and density of that field will increase. This goes right along with your own theory about areas outside the galaxies. For an area with zero densityand infinity energy density the velocity the vacuum velocity of light will increase without bounds. If one decreases the energy density within a given region to zero then the space-time density within that region will increase to infinity and the light speed velocity in that region will decrease to zero absolute velocity.

regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen

[email protected]

January 24, 2001 12:24 pm
Post Count

Borgus,

I am not at all convinced that the universe is expanding. I was in such a hurry to post due to time constraints that I was not able to post my views accurately. I appologize for the confusion. I am more convinced that the universed is fixed and not expanding. I believe God when he says that nothing can be added and nothing taken away. But at the same time I am not fully convinced that the universe is entirely a closed system either. I believe that energy can be formed at an area where no energy is present by drawing energy from beyond the center of a measured region. I call the area beyond the centermass of every particle and field subpoint space because it is an area that exists beyond the centermass. This is my theory and it is not even a theory yet. It is truelly a hypothesis. In a littly while I may be able to produce evidence to support or deny my hypothesis. As soon as I have confirmed the viability of my claims or lack there of, I might post the results. The conscept I was trying to describe above is more related the how energy and space interact. The theory you proposed also sounds like a viable alternative to the current model. I believe that there are limits to every field and that at some distance from a given grouping of mass there is zero gravity. For example, if you quantize space and allow for a device pump space into a given container such as cup that has an internal temperature of 91degrees farhenheit, then the temperature in that cup will decrease more as the numerical quantity of thermal photons occupy a greater volume of space. Basically as an electromagnetic field occupies a greater volume of space the density and strength of that field decreases. Now if one were to vacuum out the space from the cup that is 91 degrees farhenheit, then the temperature within that cup will increase significantly as the numerical quantity of the thermal photons within that space occupy a lesser volume of space. Basically, as an electromagnetic field(or any other photon mediated field) contracts to occupy a lesser volume of space, the strength and density of that field will increase. This goes right along with your own theory about areas outside the galaxies. For an area with zero densityand infinity energy density the velocity the vacuum velocity of light will increase without bounds. If one decreases the energy density within a given region to zero then the space-time density within that region will increase to infinity and the light speed velocity in that region will decrease to zero absolute velocity.

regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen

borgus

January 24, 2001 9:24 am
Post Count

rgrunt…

why are you so sure that the universe is expanding? the only evidence for a big bang is the doppler effect of the light from the surrounding stars and galaxies. What if this effect is caused, not by expansion, but by the pattern of light slowing down as it enters our galaxy.

It makes equal sense that if manipulation of space is possible, then space itself is a force occupied only within a galaxy. The goal would be to create a void within space equal to that outside the galaxy (where there would be no gravity.) This idea is based on a non-gravity universe, where gravity only exists within galaxies.

Therefore galaxies do not attract each other, and do not risk being hurled into a big bang. Instead they are freely floating in a nuetral environment where light can travel much faster between them.

Light then slows down as it enters the force of a galaxy and creates a pattern we see as the doppler effect.

This means that light speed is related only to the amount of galaxy force it is traveling through. If you create a void within the galaxy force, then light could travel faster, and then relative to that of course, would be time travel.

Lara

January 24, 2001 7:58 am
Post Count

The mulitiverse theory, basicly, is that everything that can happen, does happen. It doesn’t ‘decide’ to split if you change history, or if two snowflakes collide or don’t. The possibilities already exist.

Anyway, who’s to say we have free will or thought? For all we know we could be playing a role, like mindless zombies. Not a pleasant thought, but just as possible as anything else.

I guess the big question is why? If there are infinite universes, what would the point be of their existence? If time travel is possible, it would prevent paradoxes. Is that the only reason, like some sort of self preservation mechanism?

[email protected]

January 24, 2001 7:00 am
Post Count

Dear Everyone,

I was thinking yesterday and came up with an addition to a conscept I stumbled into last week while thinking.

I was reading a book on astronomy that states that the universe is expanding. Now as the unverse expands the temperature of the universe decreases. The author that wrote the book stated that scientist now believe that micro seconds after the big bang there was one super force composed of strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force. Gravity was seperate from these forces at that time as it is today…so they say. As the universe expanded and cooled this super force broke up into three seperate forces; strong, weak, and electromagnetic. This is what I propose. I believe that space is confined to a fixed shpere of a fixed size and more space is added so that the pressure of the space begins to build up and the density of space begins to increase. One would normally think that compressing space would result in an increase in the temperature of space as a result of the compression of energy that is confined to that region of space. However I believe the opposite is true. To compress space by increasing the volume of space is to confine the energy within that region of compressed space to a greater volume of space. This results in a decrease to the density of energy. If one doubles the volume of space that a quantity of energy occupies, the energy density of that energy will be equall to the inverted square of the density of the new density of space. (S=1/e^2) where s=new density of space, and e=the density of energy occupying that space. Further more, I believe that energy is also expanding at the same rate as space. One might say, if this is so then why does the energy density of space decrease as space expands? If the increase of energy is proportionate to the increase of space, then shouldn’t the space-time temperature remain constant? The answer, quite counterintuitively, is no. The reason is that even if a quantity of space doubles and the energy in that space also doubles, the new energy and space must form around the old energy and space because the new energy and space cannot occupy the same region. This of course does not explain the differential in energy density from space density. The reason that energy density deacreases is because to quanta of energy that are closer to one another gain extra density. This manifested in a magnetic field for as the photons increase there distance as they stray from each other the density of the field and strength of the field decreases. The oldest energy is closer then the new energy. The increase in density decreases the density of space in the old energies region and increases the density of space in the new energies region. This creates the warping of the space-time continuum that is present in a dense grouping of energy. Got to goe

DaViper

January 24, 2001 12:03 am
Post Count

There is really only one thing I don’t understand the “Theory” of. (Relative to the topic of this board that is.) Or why it is even a Theory at all.

That is of “Parallel Universes” or “Alternative Timelines”. It remains a Paradox for me.

Someone correct me where I’m wrong here but as I understand it, these Parallel Universes or Alternative Timelines are “created” by events in our own, (timelines) or even in others.

What events? For instance…

I prevent Lee Harvey Oswald from assassinating JFK? OK. This one is easy to follow. But…

What “authority” or controlling force determines just what “events” qualify for the creation of a new timeline or universe?

God? Is this then just another Religious theory?

Or perhaps ALL events create new timelines and universes. Like the collision of two snowflakes during a snowstorm. How about the collision of the outer molecules of the snowflake with the molecules of the atmosphere? Each collision as it falls? Each snowflake? Each storm? Each molecule? WOW!

There must be a lotta Timelines out there and alternative Universes huh. Infinitely so even.

If infinite, then why am I possesed with the gift of individual thought, free will and the choice to make my own descisions since nothing I think matters anyway in view of all the possibilities that are all true anyway. Given these infinite timelines.

Hmmm.

This seems a bit foolish to me but I can’t DIS-prove it. But then in science, dis-proving something, should be easy. Except a negative which is a folly in logic.

It would seem to me that “infinite” universes and timelines is totally contrary to the principle of Occam’s razor. But then Occam’s razor is not an axiom, merely a postulate. Although it has worked really well so far.

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?

Thank you.

DaViper

January 24, 2001 12:02 am
Post Count

There is really only one thing I don’t understand the “Theory” of. (Relative to the topic of this board that is.) Or why it is even a Theory at all.

That is of “Parallel Universes” or “Alternative Timelines”. It remains a Paradox for me.

Someone correct me where I’m wrong here but as I understand it, these Parallel Universes or Alternative Timelines are “created” by events in our own, (timelines) or even in others.

What events? For instance…

I prevent Lee Harvey Oswald from assassinating JFK? OK. This one is easy to follow. But…

What “authority” or controlling force determines just what “events” qualify for the creation of a new timeline or universe?

God? Is this then just another Religious theory?

Or perhaps ALL events create new timelines and universes. Like the collision of two snowflakes during a snowstorm. How about the collision of the outer molecules of the snowflake with the molecules of the atmosphere? Each collision as it falls? Each snowflake? Each storm? Each molecule? WOW!

There must be a lotta Timelines out there and alternative Universes huh. Infinitely so even.

If infinite, then why am I possesed with the gift of individual thought, free will and the choice to make my own descisions since nothing I think matters anyway in view of all the possibilities that are all true anyway. Given these infinite timelines.

Hmmm.

This seems a bit foolish to me but I can’t DIS-prove it. But then in science, dis-proving something, should be easy. Except a negative which is a folly in logic.

It would seem to me that “infinite” universes and timelines is totally contrary to the principle of Occam’s razor. But then Occam’s razor is not an axiom, merely a postulate. Although it has worked really well so far.

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?

Thank you.

Fast

January 23, 2001 7:07 pm
Post Count

Paul…
i dont think your first post provoked this discussion..it was TT_0’s claims of time travel…

FastWalker2

1984-

January 23, 2001 4:30 pm
Post Count

John,
Iam worried about you let me know you are ok.
-psalm 139:7-10

DrMises

January 23, 2001 3:40 pm
Post Count

Prophet,

Perceptive, but not really.

Dr. Gustav Fechner (1801-1887).

He was a scientist and precursor to experimental psychology who had a difficult time settling an internal conflict between his psychophysical research and his conflicting viewpoints.

To alleviate this strife, he published a series of scathing articles under the pen name “Dr. Mises.”

It felt appropriate, for slightly different reasons. Thanks for asking!

-Theo

Prophet

January 23, 2001 12:02 pm
Post Count

DrMises:

Is your name in honor of Ludwig von Mises?