My questions: Where was primeval atom located? How fast are we travling away from that location? , page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 06:44 PM by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


I can support that view.

Btw I was born and raised in the Eastern part of the land of great water. Lapeer County. Must be something in the great water we drank over the years to think in the same sort of terms.


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 07:37 PM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Oh? That's quite the absolute statement on multiverse theory. I used to hold the same view. Then I thought, "Dr. Kaku is a theoretical physicist. And I am what?"

This is what I used to open my mind up to Dr. Kaku's theories. I weighed "Dr. Kaku theoretical physicist > BobE layman." And so my mind was opened.
No I'd say it relates to the definition of science. What is the key to science? Do you know?

Observations or experiments that can be repeated and verified are at the heart of science. If you don't have that, do you have science?

Dr Feynman explains it:
Feynman- The key to science

Notice that he says "it doesn't matter how smart he is, or what his name is" which you can take as a reference to Michio kaku or anybody else for that matter. So I'd say this debunks your claim above that it even matters if Dr Kaku said it, if he has no experiments or observations to back up his claim.

In that context, Multiverse theory is a "guess" which along with many other "guesses" have not been scientifically verified in the additional steps he explains. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the key to science explained by Dr Feynman.


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 07:39 PM by Scramjet76
reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Humans have always been slow to change things on a mass conscious scale and our history is proof of that. Of course proponents of inflationary theory have huge egos and so they resist change. They are naturally against a model which differs from the one they have spent their whole life pushing for and believing in.

The Big Splat makes a lot more sense in terms of patterns found in nature. Sure cyclical cosmology has shortcomings, but much are the same problems inflationary theory faces already. The cyclical approach of two 3-brain universes colliding gives way to physical conditions which just so happen to be extremely close to what they'd be a moment after the burst of inflationary expansion.

Take your pick, but I prefer my human instincts saying cyclical like everything else in nature. Plus, the best part of cyclical cosmology is the dark energy factor. Dark energy can be incorporated into the inflationary model but it seems more like a clumsy add-on.



reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 08:05 PM by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by Arbitrageur


Oh? Well tell him yourself > kaku@bigthink.com

And Yes I do understand fully the definition of science and what it consists of, but I also understand how a theory is born.
edit on 21-1-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: Today's fiction can become tomorrow's discovery giving birth to invention dawning a new age.



reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 08:33 PM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by Arbitrageur


Oh? Well tell him yourself > kaku@bigthink.com

And Yes I do understand fully the definition of science and what it consists of, but I also understand how a theory is born.
You want me to tell him that the validity of his idea isn't dependent on how smart he is or what his name is?

If he's half as smart as you give him credit for, he already knows it, and he also probably knows that without verifiable experimental evidence it's not a "theory".

Yes some science fiction does become science fact, but certainly not all of it. You seem to be treating it as if it will all become fact if you accept what Kaku says without evidence.


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 10:22 PM by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by Arbitrageur


Dr. Kaku I don't think would yak multiverse if he thought there was no possibilities of it being true is what I am saying. I feel he must be weighing information you and I are not considering as he is much more informed in the area of this subject matter than you and I.


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 06:39 AM by MichiganSwampBuck
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


I can support that view.

Btw I was born and raised in the Eastern part of the land of great water. Lapeer County. Must be something in the great water we drank over the years to think in the same sort of terms.


Thanks for the nice reply!

I was expecting to get shot down really quick by a Sheldon Cooper type character (You know, from the TV show Big Bang Theory, LOL).

My Dad's side of the family settled in Huron County, so I'm related to a lot of folks there. There is even a town in the thumb named after the family. Figure that one out and you can get really close to figuring out my true identity!


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 04:58 PM by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


South of, Ubly? If so then you must be related to folks who own an ice-cream parlor located in Marlette. That's Sanilac Co. however.


reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 05:02 PM by LilDudeissocool
Originally posted by ZeussusZ
reply to post by LilDudeissocool


everything is the primeval atom. It is everywhere.
I like how you summed it up. Everything in this universe was contained in the primeval atom.


reply posted on 10-2-2012 @ 12:13 PM by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by hisshadow
,,,this should not be possible, if there was a big bang with an epicenter for the entire universe...



You're thinking of it wrong. Don't think of it as the "matter" in the universe expanding from a single point in space. That's not what the Big Bang is supposed to be. According to the Big Bang theory, there was no space to expand in. The Big Bang is an expansion of the whole universe itself -- including 'empty' space, NOT simply matter expanding within that empty space.

One analogy could be to think of the fabric of the universe as the 2D surface of a balloon (just the surface -- ignore the air inside the balloon). There is no "central point" on that surface, not even when it is deflated; it is a continuous surface. Suppose you drew dots on that balloon symbolizing galaxies and started to inflate that balloon. As the balloon inflates, all of the dots you drew would begin to move away from each other -- no matter which dot you chose as a point of reference. Those dots would all be moving away from each other on that surface without ever having a "central point" to move away from. You can't "run the universe backwards" to see what central point all the matter has expanded from, because there was no central point to speak of.

I'm not saying the universe is exactly like that 2D surface of the balloon, but it's a good analogy to help understand how the universe can expand without having a center of that expansion.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^