Our Universe Is Not As Special As Previously Thought -- Scientists Make Shocking Discovery

[sparky]

Of course, there is something new to see here. Specifically, we may have just gained a new understanding of dark energy.

More they are simply catching up For Fun

Atlas Dark Energy

~S~

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, there is something new to see here. Specifically, we may have just gained a new understanding of dark energy.

More they are simply catching up For Fun

Atlas Dark Energy

~S~

You will not find these new findings in that book. Ya sound goofy.

 

[sparky]

Where's Stephen Hawkings when he's needed?

~S~

 

[miketx]

Our Universe Is Not As Special As Previously Thought -- Scientists Make Shocking Discovery

By Cathy Zhang
May 28, 2018 7:07 pm Last Updated: May 28, 2018 7:07 pm

Our universe is not as special as previously thought, according to new research.

A team of scientists from the UK and Australia studying “dark energy,” the mysterious force accelerating the expansion of the universe, found that varying amounts of dark energy can support life—a conclusion that goes against currently held views on the issue, and opens up the possibly that a Multiverse, if it exists, could be hospitable to life.

Current theories posit that our universe has just the right amount of dark energy to support life. Any more would cause a rapid expansion leading to the breakdown of matter before life could be formed.

However, the new study suggests that variations in the amount of dark energy only have a modest impact on star and planet formation, meaning that the conditions for support life are not as narrow as previously thought.

More:
Our Universe Is Not As Special As Previously Thought — Scientists Make Shocking Discovery

If there's unlimited number of universes within the multiverse does each one have its own god? Or is there just one?

Each one will have it's own physical limits such as speed of light. If universe 34 has a speed of light of 1000 times ours then we can go places!

 

[westwall]

No, it is not. It is a "thought construct" It exists nowhere save in the imagination of the creator.

You could not know the truth of that, which makes you just as guilty of being wrong as of anyone who claims with certainty that it does exist.

You are siy wrong, for all of the reasons I already stated. I don't need to repeat myself. Theoretical evidence is evidence, but not empirical evidence.

No, it isn't. Evidence is that which can be tested, or observed, empirically. Theoretical physics first posits an idea, then they develop ways to test that idea, but nowhere in that process until they come up with a way to test it, is that idea in any way evidence. That is a simple fact.

 

[westwall]

There was LOTS of prior work done on DNA.

Yes, all aided by the theoretical evidence which helped them know what to do.

For instance, they knew not to look for a Volkswagen shaped molecule, because the theoretical evidence told them this was probably folly.

Exactly my point, thanks for the assist.

No, all aided by ACTUAL PHYSICAL WORK. The scientists of old spent years formulating methods of testing the ideas that sprang out of the discovery of DNA. You need to get a better understanding of what constitutes evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evidence is that which can be tested, or observed, empirically.

No. Mathematical evidence is mathematical evidence. Empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

Mathematical evidence is how we knew to look for time dilation. And we found it, by empirical evidence. We might possibly have ruled it out, by empirical evidence

You're just wrong, dude. You can read published science on theoretical evidence. A simple internet search will give you more results than you can read on a lifetime.

 

[westwall]

Evidence is that which can be tested, or observed, empirically.

No. Mathematical evidence is mathematical evidence. Empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

Mathematical evidence is how we knew to look for time dilation. And we found it, by empirical evidence. We might possibly have ruled it out, by empirical evidence

You're just wrong, dude.

Oh? Please provide us a definition of Mathematical Evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evidence is that which can be tested, or observed, empirically.

No. Mathematical evidence is mathematical evidence. Empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

Mathematical evidence is how we knew to look for time dilation. And we found it, by empirical evidence. We might possibly have ruled it out, by empirical evidence

You're just wrong, dude.

Oh? Please provide us a definition of Mathematical Evidence.

Any mathematical proof is evidence. I think maybe you are confused...I think you are creating a specious little convenient constrico, under which "not proof = not evidence". You fall victim to these errors a lot, due to tossing off the first emotional idea that comes into your head, then defending it to the death, depsite it being demonstrably incorrect.

 

[westwall]

Evidence is that which can be tested, or observed, empirically.

No. Mathematical evidence is mathematical evidence. Empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

Mathematical evidence is how we knew to look for time dilation. And we found it, by empirical evidence. We might possibly have ruled it out, by empirical evidence

You're just wrong, dude.

Oh? Please provide us a definition of Mathematical Evidence.

Any mathematical proof is evidence. I think maybe you are confused...I think you are creating a specious little convenient constrico, under which "not proof = not evidence". You fall victim to these errors a lot, due to tossing off the first emotional idea that comes into your head, then defending it to the death, depsite it being demonstrably incorrect.

You fell for it. A Mathematical Proof is something entirely unrelated to what you are trying to say. Try again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evidence is that which can be tested, or observed, empirically.

No. Mathematical evidence is mathematical evidence. Empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

Mathematical evidence is how we knew to look for time dilation. And we found it, by empirical evidence. We might possibly have ruled it out, by empirical evidence

You're just wrong, dude.

Oh? Please provide us a definition of Mathematical Evidence.

Any mathematical proof is evidence. I think maybe you are confused...I think you are creating a specious little convenient constrico, under which "not proof = not evidence". You fall victim to these errors a lot, due to tossing off the first emotional idea that comes into your head, then defending it to the death, depsite it being demonstrably incorrect.

You fell for it. A Mathematical Proof is something entirely unrelated to what you are trying to say. Try again.

Wrong, a mathematical proof is a type of evidence. You don't know what you are saying.

But, let's get more detailed. Sound logic is, indeed, evidence. And, sometimes, it is more "important" than empirical evidence (but in no way independent of it). For example, we know, ultimately, by mathematical evidence, that black holes exist. Sure, we may measure gamma ray emissions from large regions and velocity of orbiting stars. However, those things are merely empirical evidence which place constraints on the density of a volume of space. It is by mathematics that we understand that the mass in that space has condensed to the equivalent of a singularity. And yes, this is an accepted fact, despite never directly witnessing the event nor recreating it. Why? Mathematics says it must be so.

Similarly, all of relativity was accepted by many top scientists on virtually only mathematical evidence, in lieu of good ways to test it. The tests were eventually designed to test the mathematical evidence for relativity. Again, the mathematical evidence directed the search for the empirical evidence and the methods used to find it.

Yes, mathematical evidence is evidence.

For others not so intransigent: A light summary from a seminar is linked below. I tried to find a similar paper by a guy named Beineke, but couldn't. Probably could w/LexisNexis.

"I. Notes for the presentation: ‘Evidence in Mathematics’": http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/papers/Math.presentation2.pdf

 

[westwall]

Evidence is that which can be tested, or observed, empirically.

No. Mathematical evidence is mathematical evidence. Empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

Mathematical evidence is how we knew to look for time dilation. And we found it, by empirical evidence. We might possibly have ruled it out, by empirical evidence

You're just wrong, dude.

Oh? Please provide us a definition of Mathematical Evidence.

Any mathematical proof is evidence. I think maybe you are confused...I think you are creating a specious little convenient constrico, under which "not proof = not evidence". You fall victim to these errors a lot, due to tossing off the first emotional idea that comes into your head, then defending it to the death, depsite it being demonstrably incorrect.

You fell for it. A Mathematical Proof is something entirely unrelated to what you are trying to say. Try again.

Wrong, a mathematical proof is a type of evidence. You don't know what you are saying.

But, let's get more detailed. Sound logic is, indeed, evidence. And, sometimes, it is more "important" than empirical evidence (but in no way independent of it). For example, we know, ultimately, by mathematical evidence, that black holes exist. Sure, we may measure gamma ray emissions from large regions and velocity of orbiting stars. However, those things are merely empirical evidence which place constraints on the density of a volume of space. It is by mathematics that we understand that the mass in that space has condensed to the equivalent of a singularity. And yes, this is an accepted fact, despite never directly witnessing the event nor recreating it. Why? Mathematics says it must be so.

Similarly, all of relativity was accepted by many top scientists on virtually only mathematical evidence, in lieu of good ways to test it. The tests were eventually designed to test the mathematical evidence for relativity. Again, the mathematical evidence directed the search for the empirical evidence and the methods used to find it.

Yes, mathematical evidence is evidence.

For others not so intransigent: A light summary from a seminar is linked below. I tried to find a similar paper by a guy named Beineke, but couldn't. Probably could w/LexisNexis.

"I. Notes for the presentation: ‘Evidence in Mathematics’": http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/papers/Math.presentation2.pdf

Then why can't you find a definition of mathematical evidence?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Where's Stephen Hawkings when he's needed?

~S~

This Is the Direct Result of Media Mediocrities Using "Gates' (Net Worth)" Instead of "Gates's"

Stephen Hawking committed suicide because too many people were adding an s to his last name.

 

[sealybobo]

Our Universe Is Not As Special As Previously Thought -- Scientists Make Shocking Discovery

By Cathy Zhang
May 28, 2018 7:07 pm Last Updated: May 28, 2018 7:07 pm

Our universe is not as special as previously thought, according to new research.

A team of scientists from the UK and Australia studying “dark energy,” the mysterious force accelerating the expansion of the universe, found that varying amounts of dark energy can support life—a conclusion that goes against currently held views on the issue, and opens up the possibly that a Multiverse, if it exists, could be hospitable to life.

Current theories posit that our universe has just the right amount of dark energy to support life. Any more would cause a rapid expansion leading to the breakdown of matter before life could be formed.

However, the new study suggests that variations in the amount of dark energy only have a modest impact on star and planet formation, meaning that the conditions for support life are not as narrow as previously thought.

More:
Our Universe Is Not As Special As Previously Thought — Scientists Make Shocking Discovery

If there's unlimited number of universes within the multiverse does each one have its own god? Or is there just one?

Our universe is not infinite but space in all directions is. That means there must be something beyond our growing universe even if it is just infinite dark matter, or whatever you call what’s beyond our universe.

Our universe keeps getting bigger. What is it taking over? What is beyond our universe? The space our universe is invading as it grows bigger.

It never ends. There is no end and no beginning. Time and space existed before our universe was born.

Not only are we all made of star stuff, the atoms in our bodies were in the Big Bang. And they must have existed before the Big Bang.

And you may not all be from the same star. Your left eye may come from one star that blew up and the right a completely different star.

How lucky we were born huh? A lot had to happen.

Lastly, I think the infinite cosmos is like a lava lamp. It’s not infinite universes it’s more like a google of them. They are born and die all the time. And no, I don’t believe there’s another me in another universe. I think that’s a misconception pushed by deniers because it’s been suggested but imo is also ridiculous. No two universe is the same

 

[Unkotare]

Why am I not surprised Bobobrainless can’t understand this?

 

[Slyhunter]

Why am I not surprised Bobobrainless can’t understand this?

Got anything pertinent to add to the conversation? Pointless bassing someone is just that pointless.

 

[james bond]

If dark energy is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, then gravity would be the force to be pulling it back. Isn't this what Einstein's ToG says? Einstein stated that spacetime would curve at some point. Minkowski developed spacetime into a 4D reality (still to be confirmed). Prior to it was creation scientist Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation which was excellent for computational purposes for most of the universe and still is, but our universe is not static as thought before.

All of the gravitational phenomena in the Universe, from the acceleration of masses on Earth to the orbits of the moons around the planets to the planets themselves revolving around the Sun, his theory described it all. Objects exerted equal-and-opposite gravitational forces on one another, they accelerated in inverse proportion to their mass, and the force obeyed an inverse square law. By time the 1900s rolled around, it had been incredibly well-tested, and there were no exceptions. Well, with thousands upon thousands of successes to its credit, there were almost no exceptions, at any rate.

Pantheist Einstein thought it was different when we approached the speed of light. And where does gravity start to pull back? The event horizon. Schwarzschild was Jewish.

Event Horizon
Event horizon - Wikipedia

BTW I was right about the new claim that the universe is over 15 B years old (NASA is using it now), something like 15.8 B (just add 2 billion to today's estimate).

Dark Energy, Dark Matter
Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate

So, where is the Bible in all this. It states that the universe is like a scroll. Flat and it rolls up at the edges. Science backs up the Bible.

 

[abrere]

doesn't matter, since we're never going to find out, just like all the other galaxies. We aint getting there and anyone there can't get here, either.

 

[james bond]

doesn't matter, since we're never going to find out, just like all the other galaxies. We aint getting there and anyone there can't get here, either.

If there are intelligent aliens superior to us, i.e. travel 10% or 20% the speed of light, then they would've had enough time to get to us.

 

[james bond]

Multiverse...

This is the infinite regress fallacy.