Starship Asterisk*

Multiverses??

APOD must be kidding!! I am still asking where has all the intelligence gone?

Maybe APOD missed the April Fool's joke by exactly one month

not only was that disturbing to view, it was also offensive on several levels. not what i've come to expect after 4 years visiting the astronomy pic of the day.

This stuff belongs on some mystic page, not APOD! It goes right along with such heady stuff as the long-running theological debate 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?'

All 'parallel universe' theories are absolutely untestable, and hence unverifiable, and hence have nothing whatsoever to do with science, or astronomy.

If these folks wish to contemplate that umpteen gazillion universes have come into existence since I started typing this message (oops! ...another gazillion! ...another gazillion! ...another gazillion!) I think that they should contemplate their theories--and their navels--elsewhere.

I agree, it belongs to the other APOD ( Astrology Post of the Day ). I remember the physics professor telling our class that if you can't assign numbers/units of measure to it, it doesn't exist .

All science is theory until proven. To not ponder, is to not achieve.

Ignorance does not an argument make.

I appreciate a change of scenery now and then. It brings out the less tolerant and unimaginative folk around us.

CRAP! and to those who think it's interesting or imaginative I suggest a healthy enema for their cranium.

agreed
i come to APOD to see fantastic images of REAL things

marges90 wrote:All science is theory until proven. To not ponder, is to not achieve.

The point is, marges90, any 'multiverse theory' *cannot* be tested, hence it *cannot* be proven. This kind of 'pondering' will achieve exactly nothing.

People have every right to theorize anything; astrologers have every right to ponder or assert any belief. But APOD should not present it in the context of astronomy or science.

It does not constitute intolerance to point out that this was a poor choice of content for an astronomy site.

Like a lot of other folks, I found the artists rendering of some quantum speculation out of place on the APOD. I gave up reading Scientific American some mnths ago for the same reason - they seemed to be seeking something sensational to publish on the theory this would atdtract more customers. Well it lost one, and I now read with great interest the American Scientist, which has a healthy perspective on fancy speculation and a wonderful collection of articles which always teach me something I did not know I wanted to know!
I am hopeful the APOD will hear the voice of the People and give up any more of the nonesense none of us liked.

marges90 wrote:All science is theory until proven. To not ponder, is to not achieve.

Theories can never be proven, only disproven.

In case you didn't know....

The Total Universe is not bound by our ability to understand and measure it.

Hello all

Re the link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060301.html

It states that :"Some multiverse hypotheses may therefore be great fun to think about but not practically falsifiable and therefore have no predictive scientific value"

I think the APOD gives us a round about nothing.

Still its worth stating that???????

As to the question. Is there Multi-universes?

If the Universe is all, how can all have parts.

So! No

what is untestable is "parallel universe". if another universe is not parallel, it may therefore intersect our, and so prove its existance.

Martin wrote:In case you didn't know....

The Total Universe is not bound by our ability to understand and measure it.

How do you know this to be a fact? Sounds like more "wishfull thinking"

In the illustrious words of those for whom the Sanskrit Language was invented and designed for, might have said;

See the truth in order to comprehend the truth, and the truth may be more subtle than you can ever imagine.

Sort of like how when walking along the road during the gloaming in India
and you, from the corner of your eye, mistake a rope lying on the ground
for a snake;
You first must have seen it,
then you jumped to the wrong conclusion,
but then you saw what it truly was and realized your mis-take.

You saw it first, veiled by the veiling power of Tamas,
Then you jumped to the wrong conclusion when it was mistaken for a snake, under the projecting power of Rajas.
Then when you see it rightly, and realize it is only a rope in the dirt, you are seeing it correctly with the revealing power of Sattva.

These are the 3 Gunas !

But this is a discussion of what the Universe looks like ! hahaha

And we expect we can see it rightly ? (more laughter)

If we cannot look upon the universe and laugh
or gape at it in astonished wonderment
then there is no hope for us.

Better yet Mr. J D Writer....

Please tell me when has our world, galaxy or universe ever been bound by our infinite ability to comprehend it?

Is our world still flat? Is Earth the center of the universe? Is the smallest matter an atom? Is the most powerful explosion a super nova?...................................

It is ignorant to think- "because you can't see it, taste it, touch it, measure it, calculate it or predict it" that it doesn't exist. History has shown us time and time again that we were WRONG. I say let's keep an open mind, be humble and always entertain the possibility.

Not to say they don't exist; but I have trouble with parallel universes. Multi universes; I can fathom as I believe that space is endless. Proving any of this could be very difficult. Anyway; for a negative APOD This subject has created a lot of responses.
Orin

To not imagine a multiverse is denying science an opportunity. Every scientific theory began with a speculation. Some theories with assigned numbers have proved to be just a number game. The quest for further scientific explaination expires when you say "It can not be proven."

Keep an open mind, we may someday even be able to prove multiverse.

[quote="ta152h0"]I agree, it belongs to the other APOD ( Astrology Post of the Day ). I remember the physics professor telling our class that if you can't assign numbers/units of measure to it, it doesn't exist .[/quote]

How big's the universe?

[quote="harry"]Hello all

Re the link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060301.html

It states that :"Some multiverse hypotheses may therefore be great fun to think about but not practically falsifiable and therefore have no predictive scientific value"

I think the APOD gives us a round about nothing.

Still its worth stating that???????

As to the question. Is there Multi-universes?

If the Universe is all, how can all have parts.

So! No[/quote]


I agree, 'multiple universes' is an oxymoron.

And if you ask 'how big is the universe?' the answer is in your question.

[quote="fastartceetoo"]This stuff belongs on some mystic page, not APOD! It goes right along with such heady stuff as the long-running theological debate 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?'

All 'parallel universe' theories are absolutely untestable, and hence unverifiable, and hence have nothing whatsoever to do with science, or astronomy.

If these folks wish to contemplate that umpteen gazillion universes have come into existence since I started typing this message (oops! ...another gazillion! ...another gazillion! ...another gazillion!) I think that they should contemplate their theories--and their navels--elsewhere.[/quote]


Astronomy wouldn't exist without the much older astrology. Sometimes we don't give credit where it's due.

I also don't see how multiverse theory has anything to do with astrology, other than that both evidently produce questionable fantasy artwork.

rummij wrote:

harry wrote:Hello all

Re the link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060301.html

It states that :"Some multiverse hypotheses may therefore be great fun to think about but not practically falsifiable and therefore have no predictive scientific value"

I think the APOD gives us a round about nothing.

Still its worth stating that???????

As to the question. Is there Multi-universes?

If the Universe is all, how can all have parts.

So! No

I agree, 'multiple universes' is an oxymoron.

And if you ask 'how big is the universe?' the answer is in your question.

Universe linguistically is a word, which could be defined as, (Credit Dictionary.com)

· All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
· The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

The word universe is in use from the time before, models such as big bang were hypothesized. With improved technology we have been able to put a limit to observable “universe”. Since than we have hypothesized existence of one or many such universes with their own laws. The new term derived to define many such universes is multiverse.

You need to understand when the word was coined and what has it come to define.

Besides, if you had told ppl of stone age that one day eletricity would power BBQs, they would have laughed at you the same way as you are doing to multiverse. If something can not be proved now with our limited knowledge, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Examples, existance of gravity before Newton. More complex theory of General theory of relativity to define some of the same phenomenas.

Hello makc

I do not understand your statement.

I'm slow right now.

My brain has been burnt.