The Irish Ram
LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough
Which Universe Am I In?"
I've read some of your posts. Pretty sure you're in the Twilight Zone...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes I agree it is inane, but it is true, that is what "universe" means. The invented word "multiverse" is pop-science, not science, a better term would perhaps have been "multicosmos".In the context of the thread?
Most anything than this inanity "He's correct, since universe literally means everything that exists, no matter what form that takes."
the quality of being extremely silly or having no real meaning or importance, or something that is extremely silly like this: I was amazed at the inanity of her comments. His speech was full of inanities that were meant to be funny. See. inane.
"invented word?"Yes I agree it is inane, but it is true, that is what "universe" means. The invented word "multiverse" is pop-science, not science, a better term would perhaps have been "multicosmos".
Redefining "universe" in such a way that one can have multiple instances of everything that exists is to abandon logic and rationality.
almost funnyWhich Universe Am I In?"
I've read some of your posts. Pretty sure you're in the Twilight Zone...
No it isn't a theory, no matter what term you choose to label it with it is not a theory because it cannot be falsified."invented word?"
and as for the rest of your post, do you actually listen to yourself?
"Multiverse" is a scientific theory. Making up (inventing..) the term "multicosmos" to suggest some inane thought that popped into your head is weird.
There's only one universe.No has redefined the term "universe" but you.
How can it be falsified then?
You posted that the multiverse is not scientific theory.How can it be falsified then?
Good question. Many scientists argue this is philosophy, not science, for that very reason.How can it be falsified then?
But the net energy of our universe may be (and looks as if it probably is) zero. So what you are saying may be nonsensical.According to e=mc^2 it would take the energy of 2 billion of our universes to produce it.
If they understand physics they'll understand the importance of falsification, one cannot even legitimately call an explanation a "theory" UNLESS one can develop experiments to falsify it, if it isn't falsifiable it isn't a theory - ask any scientist.You posted that the multiverse is not scientific theory.
why would anyone bother with taking you seriously?
What world are you living in?If they understand physics they'll understand the importance of falsification, one cannot even legitimately call an explanation a "theory" UNLESS one can develop experiments to falsify it, if it isn't falsifiable it isn't a theory - ask any scientist.
Why don't you say what EXACTLY it is you disagree with rather than rely on inuendo? Speak plainly man.What world are you living in?
So? take a look at what Roger Penrose says about string theory you ill mannered dingbat:In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other.
Why don't you say what EXACTLY it is you disagree with rather than rely on inuendo? Speak plainly man.
So? take a look at what Roger Penrose says about string theory you ill mannered dingbat:
Why don't you say what EXACTLY it is you disagree with rather than rely on inuendo? Speak plainly man.
So? take a look at what Roger Penrose says about string theory you ill mannered dingbat:
You'll understand physics much better once you understand what Penrose is talking about.
Penrose knows that it currently makes testable predictions (not falsifiable) and therefore it isn't a theory.Unlike you, he's not saying it is not a scientific theory.
I've seen this video.
and?
Stick with pop shit:Penrose knows that it currently makes testable predictions (not falsifiable) and therefore it isn't a theory.
If string theory was wrong, how would you find out? what tests can people do to find out?The problem is you are unable to distinguish between theories. Positing a theory is one thing. Proving a theory is another.
noun: theory; plural noun: theories
- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
Good lord man, not having a theory is not the same situation as having one that can't be tested.Stick with pop shit:
Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics
One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain — and the universe itself — must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered.