Multiverse idea may be testable:

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So don't even try. With all these addendums you propose you end up with no proof at all about the rotation of the earth. It's much eaiser to prove anything with "god did it that way".

This thread have gone off-topic to the extent that the original ideas has gone lost altogether. So I am off here unless we don't return to the subject.

... which reall ...[text shortened]... he distance between two universes. And what kind of answer would be appropriate? 'Light years'?"

If the multiverse idea bears fruit, I would expect any idea of 'distance' would have to be framed in higher dimensions, so you would have to say how much distance is involved in the 6th dimension or something like that. If we in fact live in a multiverse, it would by its very nature have to exist in higher dimensions I would think, where our universe may be some kind of holographic projection of a higher dimensional universe.

You do know about the circular features found in deep analysis of the CMB surrounding everything don't you? They found these patterns of circles covering a pretty big slice of the sky, where the pattern is only regions of slightly hotter and cooler areas. There is no explanation for these features in the standard model and so they are perhaps stepping out on a scientific limb by saying these features could be the results of another universe bouncing into ours and leaving these circular patterns.

Here is a link to this topic:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/12/epic-discovery-update-we-are-one-of-many-universes.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
If the multiverse idea bears fruit, I would expect any idea of 'distance' would have to be framed in higher dimensions, so you would have to say how much distance is involved in the 6th dimension or something like that. If we in fact live in a multiverse, it would by its very nature have to exist in higher dimensions I would think, where our universe may be ...[text shortened]... ://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/12/epic-discovery-update-we-are-one-of-many-universes.html

"I would expect", "would have to be", "If we in fact", "it would by", "may be some kind of"... What kind of language do you use? It seems to me that you've read the language of RJHinds too much. Of what you write in the first paragraph I can read that there are only fancy ideas, nothing else.

About the 'circular features': "There is no explanation for these features in the standard model", well I agree. The explanation can rather be found in flaws in the numeric methods used. Remember when they found the neutrinos goes in a faster-than-ligth velocities? Explanation: Flaws in calculations. A theory isn't better only because you present it with a diagram with nice colours. And a multidimensional multi-universe can be very nicely presented with coloured diagrams.

If we treat this as science then we have problems, big problems. If we treat this as religion ( "wouldn't it be wonderful if..." ), then we can relax in our armchair and enjoy the discussion. I know, I do.

Anything about a multiverse should be treated as speculations, and nothing more.
But yet, we should be aware that if the truth presents itself, we should also have an open mind. So - keep on speculating.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"I would expect", "would have to be", "If we in fact", "it would by", "may be some kind of"... What kind of language do you use? It seems to me that you've read the language of RJHinds too much. Of what you write in the first paragraph I can read that there are only fancy ideas, nothing else.

About the 'circular features': "There is no explanation for ...[text shortened]... e that if the truth presents itself, we should also have an open mind. So - keep on speculating.

And conversely, keep on doubting! It's in the interest of science to have a healthy population of doubters who try to throw monkey wrenches in new theories or old ones. Critics play a vital role in science so keep it up! At this point in the multiverse game we don't have much more that 'it could be', perhaps, and so forth.

I just like the idea of the multiverse, hope it works out, it would be one more step in the decentralization of mankind.

You know, like a thousand years ago or more, Earth was considered the center of the universe with everything revolving around it and by extension, the whole universe therefore revolving around mankind. Then that nasty telescope came in and mucked things up with all that Earth revolving around the sun nonsense🙂 Now earth was not the center of the universe.

Then came better telescopes and they found out we live in a galaxy of billions of other stars, some just like the sun. Now even the SUN was not the center of the universe.

Now we find the possibility that the UNIVERSE is not the center of the universe🙂 I find that very ironic and attractive!

Originally posted by sonhouse
And conversely, keep on doubting! It's in the interest of science to have a healthy population of doubters who try to throw monkey wrenches in new theories or old ones. Critics play a vital role in science so keep it up! At this point in the multiverse game we don't have much more that 'it could be', perhaps, and so forth.

I just like the idea of the mu ...[text shortened]... ty that the UNIVERSE is not the center of the universe🙂 I find that very ironic and attractive!

I hope you don't misunderstand me. I love the idea of a multiverse! Really I do! And I read everything I can get my eyes to to know more!

And I love the idea of 'beam me up, Scottie' too. To travel as a probability wave though the universe is a wonderful idea.
And the hyper space drive as shown in Star Gate and Star Trek and other SF, not to mention the Star Gate grid all over our galaxy and beyond.
Not to mention the time machine! Oh, what I like to test one of those...

But what I like is not what I get. The theory of today about the things above is nothing more than speculations, made by science fiction writers. And sometimes they are right (Jules Verne - " From the Earth to the Moon" ), and sometimes they are wrong (Jules Verne - " Journey to the Center of the Earth" ).

But if scientists get their motivation from SF, that's good, because sometimes a blind hen can find a corn too. But we shouldn't be sorry if they don't find the solution to a probability wave in macro scale, and stable worm holes and everything else.

I like the ideas, but I realize they are just speculations. So far.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I hope you don't misunderstand me. I love the idea of a multiverse! Really I do! And I read everything I can get my eyes to to know more!

And I love the idea of 'beam me up, Scottie' too. To travel as a probability wave though the universe is a wonderful idea.
And the hyper space drive as shown in Star Gate and Star Trek and other SF, not to mention t ...[text shortened]... oles and everything else.

I like the ideas, but I realize they are just speculations. So far.

Do you get Scientific American? The latest issue has a front cover about our universe being a 'hologram' of a larger universe, where ours is just one of possible infinities of them. You might like the article. Of course its in the speculation stage with little in the way of evidence.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you get Scientific American? The latest issue has a front cover about our universe being a 'hologram' of a larger universe, where ours is just one of possible infinities of them. You might like the article. Of course its in the speculation stage with little in the way of evidence.

In our library we have SciAm, an amazing magazine indeed. Thanks for the tips. 🙂