The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[shunyadragon]

Given that Sagan died in '96, and that was the year Linde proposed infinite inflation, i'm curious as to your evidence for putting him on the list.

You are behaving worse than seer and sparko. If you object to what Carl Sagan and Lindt proposed cite them.

Sagan's death does not take away from his cosmological view.

As far as Linde proposed as far as infinite inflation and the multiverse. These two concepts are not in conflict.

Source: https://www.edge.org/conversation/andrei_linde-a-balloon-producing-balloons-producing-balloonsa-big-fractal

Now we have a consistent picture of the multiverse, so now we can tell: "this is physics, this is something serious." That was about multiverse and different versions of it.

© Copyright Original Source

Put up with references or go back to Plato's cave.

[shunyadragon]

Except Paul Steinhardt no longer believes that, he hold to a cyclic universe, and George Ellis believes that God created the universe. And where do you get that from Carl Sagan? So your list is not trustworthy.

When you object, citations please. You are correct on Steinhardt, he originally supported a multiverse, but Turok and him have since proposed a cyclic universe based on legitimate physicas and Quantum Mechanics.

George Ellis' belief in God does not conflict with his support of the possibility of a multiverse.

[Sparko]

Add more;

George F. R. Ellis
Roger Penrose
Steven Weinberg

Please Shunya, cite their
(all of them) support of their acceptance of the universe was created from a quantum nothing. links.

[shunyadragon]

Another scientist - MICHIO KAKU - Theoretical Physicist, Author, and Science Educator

Source: http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/a-voyage-through-the-multiverse-and-higher-dimensional-hyperspace

A Voyage Through the Multiverse and Higher Dimensional Hyperspace

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Please Shunya, cite their
(all of them) support of their acceptance of the universe was created from a quantum nothing. links.

The scientists that support the multiverse view support the Quantum Mechanics theory o the formation of universes from this Quantum world which is described as Quantum nothing. That is the nature of the multiverse is Quantum nothing.

There are o course limits to the multiverse theory, and those that support it only consider the evidence to demonstrate the possibility o the multiverse, because of the limits of evidence, but nonetheless those that do support the multiverse support the Quantum origin of our universe based on the evidence of Quantum Mechanics.

[shunyadragon]

JimL is helping you with your analogies, isn't he.

Not necessarily, but agreement and consensus among scientists is by far greater than anything among theologians. Terrible meaningless analogy.

[Cow Poke]

Not necessarily, but agreement and consensus among scientists is by far greater than anything among theologians.

Has "consensus" among scientists ever been proven wrong?

[Sparko]

The scientists that support the multiverse view support the Quantum Mechanics theory o the formation of universes from this Quantum world which is described as Quantum nothing. That is the nature of the multiverse is Quantum nothing.

citations from all of your scientist sources please.

There are o course limits to the multiverse theory, and those that support it only consider the evidence to demonstrate the possibility o the multiverse, because of the limits of evidence, but nonetheless those that do support the multiverse support the Quantum origin of our universe based on the evidence of Quantum Mechanics.

more assertions. Shuny, so far all you have shown is that scientist believe in such a thing as a multiverse and/or quantum nothingness creating universes based on NO evidence. That is just a presupposition, not science.

Not to mention, exactly HOW would there be a multiverse made up of quantum nothingness? If it is nothing then it sure isn't a multiverse is it?

[TheLurch]

You are behaving worse than seer and sparko. If you object to what Carl Sagan and Lindt proposed cite them..

Read what i wrote. Read it again. Now think carefully about that, and tell me what exactly i need to cite? Do i need to provide a copy of Sagan's death certificate?


I'll note again, that since you're the one claiming that Sagan supported this idea, it's up to you to provide the evidence, not me. I just find your demand for a citation of when someone died to be more than a little bizarre.

[TheLurch]

Has "consensus" among scientists ever been proven wrong?

Occasionally, though it's far more common for edge cases and exceptions to it to be identified.

[shunyadragon]

Read what i wrote. Read it again. Now think carefully about that, and tell me what exactly i need to cite? Do i need to provide a copy of Sagan's death certificate?


I'll note again, that since you're the one claiming that Sagan supported this idea, it's up to you to provide the evidence, not me. I just find your demand for a citation of when someone died to be more than a little bizarre.

The point of the list was primarily those that the greater universe always existed from which our universe arose based on the evidence of Quantum Mechanics, which will logically include those who support the possibility of a multiverse.. It is a act that those that believed in the multiverse supported the description that our universe arose like a bubble within the greater Quantum cosmos. Carl Sagan is on the list because he supported the belief that the greater universe from which our universe has 'always existed.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlIYnKmGV4

You did not respond concerning Andre Linde, which I gave an accurate citation, and you only gave an incomplete phony assertion.

It is a matter of record you have behaved like a rogue disrupter, and anal grammarian like seer and Sparko, and actually have cited nothing to support a coherent argument.

[shunyadragon]

citations from all of your scientist sources please.




more assertions. Shuny, so far all you have shown is that scientist believe in such a thing as a multiverse and/or quantum nothingness creating universes based on NO evidence. That is just a presupposition, not science.

Not to mention, exactly HOW would there be a multiverse made up of quantum nothingness? If it is nothing then it sure isn't a multiverse is it?

The exspurt (the drip that failed) expounds brilliantly and profusely without any qualifications whatsoever.

It can be assumed from your perspective that you reject the theories and hypothesis of all the scientists that support the origin of our universe, and all possible universe from Quantum nothing based on Quantum Mechanics. Your bias without qualifications is a witness here.

[Sparko]

Occasionally, though it's far more common for edge cases and exceptions to it to be identified.

Actually whenever a new idea takes over, the old consensus is "proven" wrong. Plate tektonics for example. Or the static model of the universe, and so on.

[shunyadragon]

Actually whenever a new idea takes over, the old consensus is "proven" wrong. Plate tektonics for example. Or the static model of the universe, and so on.

In science old consensus are not "proven" wrong. Some old consensus are falsified and discarded such as the 'static universe,' most other contemporary theories and hypothesis evolve and change as new information becomes available.

[TheLurch]

The point of the list was primarily those that the greater universe always existed from which our universe arose based on the evidence of Quantum Mechanics, which will logically include those who support the possibility of a multiverse.. It is a act that those that believed in the multiverse supported the description that our universe arose like a bubble within the greater Quantum cosmos. Carl Sagan is on the list because he supported the belief that the greater universe from which our universe has 'always existed.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlIYnKmGV4

Wow, that's fundamentally dishonest. In that video, Sagan said nothing about quantum mechanics. He didn't even say that he thought that the universe always existed - he simply suggested it as a possibility. If this is the sort of thing you're using to put together your list, your list is worthless.

You did not respond concerning Andre Linde, which I gave an accurate citation, and you only gave an incomplete phony assertion.

I didn't respond to what you said about Linde, because all i said about Linde was that he proposed eternal inflation in '96. That's it. The date is all that matters, since i was comparing it to Sagan's death, as an indication that Sagan couldn't support this concept because he was, at best, dying of cancer when it was proposed.

Since you are incapable of reading comprehension, you rambled off into some issue that i didn't even mention. Therefore, i had nothing to respond to.