Multiverse

[james bond]

So you think you know that atheist scientists didn't read the bible but we do know that you didn't read Lawrence Krauss' books because you just admitted it. You're just going off hearsay. That's exactly what you do with god. You have no scientific evidence. You're simply swallowing a 2000 year old book written by sheep herders.

You are wacko. Satan. LOL

No, I'm saying why would atheist scientists read the Bible in order to contradict it with their theories? That's stupid. I would think evolutionists writing about evolution write about what they find or what pops in their heads and then you guys buy the better lies hook, line, and sinker.

 

[sealybobo]

I don’t think I have to explain this one to you. Now, some of these are able to be understood. Like the river becoming blood could have been a blooming form of bacteria. The locust and fly invasion could have happened in the real world. But the falling storm of frogs from the sky?

Talking Snake/Magic Tree with Magic Fruit

The Virgin Birth

Lazarus Being Raised from the Dead

So, for example, if you knew nothing about science, and you read, say, the Bible, the Old Testament, which in Genesis, is an account of nature, that’s what that is, and I said to you, give me your description of the natural world based only on this, you would say the world was created in six days, and that stars are just little points of light much lesser than the sun. And that in fact, they can fall out of the sky, right, because that’s what happens during the Revelation.

Noah’s Ark

God
The Bible
What is the thing that connects the disparate elements of all of these impossibilities? God. He is the thing that makes it all possible, if you believe all that to be true. God is the being with magical powers and the ability to do all of this. And with so much magic that is connected to this being, then the ultimate thing in the Bible that does not exist, if only the rules of this universe exist, is God.

Probably better for the religious forum. Instead of trying to hijack the thread or show your ignorance and prejudices, why can't you stick to the topic? Oh yeah, it's based on feces.

My oh my how little you bible thumpers know.

They call it the multiverse. It’s a cosmos in which there are multiple universes. And by multiple, I mean an infinite number. These uncountable realms sit side by side in higher dimensions that our senses are incapable of perceiving directly.

Yet increasingly astronomers and cosmologists seem to be invoking the multiverse to explain puzzling observations.

It sounds bonkers but the latest piece of evidence that could favor a multiverse comes from the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society. They recently published a study on the so-called ‘cold spot’. This is a particularly cool patch of space seen in the radiation produced by the formation of the Universe more than 13 billion years ago.

It is supremely puzzling. Most astronomers and cosmologists believe that it is highly unlikely to have been produced by the birth of the universe as it is mathematically difficult for the leading theory – which is called inflation – to explain.

“We can’t entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard [theory of the Big Bang]. But if that isn’t the answer, then there are more exotic explanations. Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe. If further, more detailed, analysis … proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse.”

You see, we are still looking for answers. You think you have the answers. We think your answers are hogwash.

Heady stuff. But the irony is that if there is a multiverse, scientists will have to accept that the ultimate goal of physics – to explain why our universe is the way it is – could be forever out of reach.

The endgame for physics has been to provide the reason why our universe takes the form it does. To do this it must explain why certain fundamental quantities have the values they do. For example: the speed of light, the mass of an electron, the strength of the gravitational interaction.

If there is a multiverse, however, that quest could be doomed to failure.

One of the most vocal opponents of the multiverse theory is – ironically – one of its original architects. Paul Steinhardt, Princeton University, helped develop inflation, the theory of the origin of our universe. It’s the one that struggles to explain the cold spot, whilst also giving rise to the multiverse because according to its maths once a universe starts to form it triggers more to be born ad infinitum.

Put this way, a multiverse doesn’t sound attractive. It would cut to the very heart of physics’ purpose. Nature, of course, doesn’t care about this. Maybe the cosmos really is this way and we just have to accept it. Certainly, there are many who are willing to defend the multiverse as a valid direction for thought.

So who knows? Certainly not you.

 

[james bond]

I don’t think I have to explain this one to you. Now, some of these are able to be understood. Like the river becoming blood could have been a blooming form of bacteria. The locust and fly invasion could have happened in the real world. But the falling storm of frogs from the sky?

Talking Snake/Magic Tree with Magic Fruit

The Virgin Birth

Lazarus Being Raised from the Dead

So, for example, if you knew nothing about science, and you read, say, the Bible, the Old Testament, which in Genesis, is an account of nature, that’s what that is, and I said to you, give me your description of the natural world based only on this, you would say the world was created in six days, and that stars are just little points of light much lesser than the sun. And that in fact, they can fall out of the sky, right, because that’s what happens during the Revelation.

Noah’s Ark

God
The Bible
What is the thing that connects the disparate elements of all of these impossibilities? God. He is the thing that makes it all possible, if you believe all that to be true. God is the being with magical powers and the ability to do all of this. And with so much magic that is connected to this being, then the ultimate thing in the Bible that does not exist, if only the rules of this universe exist, is God.

Probably better for the religious forum. Instead of trying to hijack the thread or show your ignorance and prejudices, why can't you stick to the topic? Oh yeah, it's based on feces.

My oh my how little you bible thumpers know.

They call it the multiverse. It’s a cosmos in which there are multiple universes. And by multiple, I mean an infinite number. These uncountable realms sit side by side in higher dimensions that our senses are incapable of perceiving directly.

Yet increasingly astronomers and cosmologists seem to be invoking the multiverse to explain puzzling observations.

It sounds bonkers but the latest piece of evidence that could favor a multiverse comes from the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society. They recently published a study on the so-called ‘cold spot’. This is a particularly cool patch of space seen in the radiation produced by the formation of the Universe more than 13 billion years ago.

It is supremely puzzling. Most astronomers and cosmologists believe that it is highly unlikely to have been produced by the birth of the universe as it is mathematically difficult for the leading theory – which is called inflation – to explain.

“We can’t entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard [theory of the Big Bang]. But if that isn’t the answer, then there are more exotic explanations. Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe. If further, more detailed, analysis … proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse.”

You see, we are still looking for answers. You think you have the answers. We think your answers are hogwash.

Heady stuff. But the irony is that if there is a multiverse, scientists will have to accept that the ultimate goal of physics – to explain why our universe is the way it is – could be forever out of reach.

The endgame for physics has been to provide the reason why our universe takes the form it does. To do this it must explain why certain fundamental quantities have the values they do. For example: the speed of light, the mass of an electron, the strength of the gravitational interaction.

If there is a multiverse, however, that quest could be doomed to failure.

One of the most vocal opponents of the multiverse theory is – ironically – one of its original architects. Paul Steinhardt, Princeton University, helped develop inflation, the theory of the origin of our universe. It’s the one that struggles to explain the cold spot, whilst also giving rise to the multiverse because according to its maths once a universe starts to form it triggers more to be born ad infinitum.

Put this way, a multiverse doesn’t sound attractive. It would cut to the very heart of physics’ purpose. Nature, of course, doesn’t care about this. Maybe the cosmos really is this way and we just have to accept it. Certainly, there are many who are willing to defend the multiverse as a valid direction for thought.

So who knows? Certainly not you.

>>And by multiple, I mean an infinite number.<<

There's no infinite anything in the physical world because one can not divide by zero. See what I mean you believe anything people tell you. You cannot figure these things out. You do not even understand basic math yet you are spewing your false science out your nostrils.

 

[Frannie]

I don’t think I have to explain this one to you. Now, some of these are able to be understood. Like the river becoming blood could have been a blooming form of bacteria. The locust and fly invasion could have happened in the real world. But the falling storm of frogs from the sky?

Talking Snake/Magic Tree with Magic Fruit

The Virgin Birth

Lazarus Being Raised from the Dead

So, for example, if you knew nothing about science, and you read, say, the Bible, the Old Testament, which in Genesis, is an account of nature, that’s what that is, and I said to you, give me your description of the natural world based only on this, you would say the world was created in six days, and that stars are just little points of light much lesser than the sun. And that in fact, they can fall out of the sky, right, because that’s what happens during the Revelation.

Noah’s Ark

God
The Bible
What is the thing that connects the disparate elements of all of these impossibilities? God. He is the thing that makes it all possible, if you believe all that to be true. God is the being with magical powers and the ability to do all of this. And with so much magic that is connected to this being, then the ultimate thing in the Bible that does not exist, if only the rules of this universe exist, is God.

Probably better for the religious forum. Instead of trying to hijack the thread or show your ignorance and prejudices, why can't you stick to the topic? Oh yeah, it's based on feces.

My oh my how little you bible thumpers know.

They call it the multiverse. It’s a cosmos in which there are multiple universes. And by multiple, I mean an infinite number. These uncountable realms sit side by side in higher dimensions that our senses are incapable of perceiving directly.

Yet increasingly astronomers and cosmologists seem to be invoking the multiverse to explain puzzling observations.

It sounds bonkers but the latest piece of evidence that could favor a multiverse comes from the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society. They recently published a study on the so-called ‘cold spot’. This is a particularly cool patch of space seen in the radiation produced by the formation of the Universe more than 13 billion years ago.

It is supremely puzzling. Most astronomers and cosmologists believe that it is highly unlikely to have been produced by the birth of the universe as it is mathematically difficult for the leading theory – which is called inflation – to explain.

“We can’t entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard [theory of the Big Bang]. But if that isn’t the answer, then there are more exotic explanations. Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe. If further, more detailed, analysis … proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse.”

You see, we are still looking for answers. You think you have the answers. We think your answers are hogwash.

Heady stuff. But the irony is that if there is a multiverse, scientists will have to accept that the ultimate goal of physics – to explain why our universe is the way it is – could be forever out of reach.

The endgame for physics has been to provide the reason why our universe takes the form it does. To do this it must explain why certain fundamental quantities have the values they do. For example: the speed of light, the mass of an electron, the strength of the gravitational interaction.

If there is a multiverse, however, that quest could be doomed to failure.

One of the most vocal opponents of the multiverse theory is – ironically – one of its original architects. Paul Steinhardt, Princeton University, helped develop inflation, the theory of the origin of our universe. It’s the one that struggles to explain the cold spot, whilst also giving rise to the multiverse because according to its maths once a universe starts to form it triggers more to be born ad infinitum.

Put this way, a multiverse doesn’t sound attractive. It would cut to the very heart of physics’ purpose. Nature, of course, doesn’t care about this. Maybe the cosmos really is this way and we just have to accept it. Certainly, there are many who are willing to defend the multiverse as a valid direction for thought.

So who knows? Certainly not you.

There is exactly 0 percent evidence for or reason to believe in more than one universe. The fact is 85 percent of the mass is missing in this one for it to even exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The law of conservation of mass does not allow for the creation of matter, only fluctuations in form or to and from energy.

There is no law of conservation of mass. Please just stop posting.

Man you are one certified moron...

The Law of Conservation of Mass | Introduction to Chemistry

conservation of mass
noun phrase
Definition of conservation of mass


: a principle in classical physics: the total mass of any isolated material system is neither increased nor diminished by reactions between the parts
— called also conservation of matter

First Known Use of conservation of mass
1884, in the meaning defined above


Keep embarrassing yourself kiddy

Matters not to me

And that law no longer exists, thanks to Einstein and nuclear physics.

You're welcome. Now, onto 12th grade material...

 

[Frannie]

The law of conservation of mass does not allow for the creation of matter, only fluctuations in form or to and from energy.

There is no law of conservation of mass. Please just stop posting.

Man you are one certified moron...

The Law of Conservation of Mass | Introduction to Chemistry

conservation of mass
noun phrase
Definition of conservation of mass


: a principle in classical physics: the total mass of any isolated material system is neither increased nor diminished by reactions between the parts
— called also conservation of matter

First Known Use of conservation of mass
1884, in the meaning defined above


Keep embarrassing yourself kiddy

Matters not to me

And that law no longer exists, thanks to Einstein..

You're welcome. Now, onto 12th hrade material...

Sorry kid the law of conservation of mass still exist as matter can still not be created nor destroyed

Are you retarded or do you snort heroin?

Chemistry is a physical science that studies matter, energy and how they interact. When studying these interactions, it's important to understand the law of conservation of mass.

Key Takeaways: Conservation of Mass

• Simply stated, the law of conservation of mass means matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change forms.
• In chemistry, the law is used to balance chemical equations. The number and type of atoms must be the same for both reactants and products.
• Credit for discovering the law may be given to either Mikhail Lomonosov or Antoine Lavoisier.

Lay off the Vaseline

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry kid the law of conservation of mass still exist as matter can still not be created nor destroyed

100% wrong. Matter can be both created and destroyed, from and to energy. You should stop embarrassing yourself. We have known this for a long time. It's literally the reason you are holding a quantum mechanical machine in your hand right now, ya idiot.

And -- pay attention, now -- the physics show both that the net energy of our universe may be zero, and that it is, in fact, possible that our universe came from nothing.

 

[Frannie]

Sorry kid the law of conservation of mass still exist as matter can still not be created nor destroyed

100% wrong. Matter can be both created and destroyed, from and to energy. You should stop embarrassing yourself. We have known this for a long time. It's literally the reason you are holding a quantum mechanical machine in your hand right now, ya idiot.

And -- pay attention, now -- the physics show both that the net energy of our universe may be zero, and that it is, in fact, possible that our universe came from nothing.

You are a science denier. No chemical or nuclear reaction can either create or destroy matter, just change form sometimes to energy.

However do tell us where does the matter that you claim disappears go to? Perhaps into the void of the time space continuum?

Lol slather on some more vaseline champ

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No chemical or nuclear reaction can either create or destroy matter, just change form sometimes to energy.

That would be the destruction of matter.

The law is the conservation of energy. You're welcome. Try not to make the same, stupid mistake again.

 

[Frannie]

No chemical or nuclear reaction can either create or destroy matter, just change form sometimes to energy.

That would be the destruction of matter.

The law is the conservation of energy. You're welcome. Try not to make the same, stupid mistake again.

Seriously are you trying to prove that you are not mentally stable?

Law of Conservation of Matter - Conservation of Mass

The Law of Conservation of Matter – Conservation of Mass
The law of conservation of matter or principle of matter conservation states that the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes over time, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves.

The mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law requires that during any nuclear reaction, radioactive decay or chemical reaction in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.

The concept of mass conservation is widely used in many fields such as chemistry, mechanics, and fluid dynamics. In chemistry the law of conservation of matter may be explained in the following way (see the picture of combustion of methane). The masses of a methane and oxygen together must be equal to the masses of carbon dioxide and water. In other words, during a chemical reaction, everything you start with, you must end up with, but it might look different.

You really need to fold kid, but by all means continue jerking off in public

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No chemical or nuclear reaction can either create or destroy matter, just change form sometimes to energy.

That would be the destruction of matter.

The law is the conservation of energy. You're welcome. Try not to make the same, stupid mistake again.

Seriously are you trying to prove that you are not mentally stable?

Law of Conservation of Matter - Conservation of Mass

The Law of Conservation of Matter – Conservation of Mass
The law of conservation of matter or principle of matter conservation states that the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes over time, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves.

The mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law requires that during any nuclear reaction, radioactive decay or chemical reaction in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.

The concept of mass conservation is widely used in many fields such as chemistry, mechanics, and fluid dynamics. In chemistry the law of conservation of matter may be explained in the following way (see the picture of combustion of methane). The masses of a methane and oxygen together must be equal to the masses of carbon dioxide and water. In other words, during a chemical reaction, everything you start with, you must end up with, but it might look different.

You really need to fold kid, but by all means continue jerking off in public

Listen up, idiot. That applies to chemical reactions. It does not apply to the entire universe and all of the physical phenomena within it, which is plainly the nonsense you tried to pass off. You were wrong and you're still wrong, and you are embarrasing yourself.

 

[Frannie]

No chemical or nuclear reaction can either create or destroy matter, just change form sometimes to energy.

That would be the destruction of matter.

The law is the conservation of energy. You're welcome. Try not to make the same, stupid mistake again.

Seriously are you trying to prove that you are not mentally stable?

Law of Conservation of Matter - Conservation of Mass

The Law of Conservation of Matter – Conservation of Mass
The law of conservation of matter or principle of matter conservation states that the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes over time, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves.

The mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law requires that during any nuclear reaction, radioactive decay or chemical reaction in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.

The concept of mass conservation is widely used in many fields such as chemistry, mechanics, and fluid dynamics. In chemistry the law of conservation of matter may be explained in the following way (see the picture of combustion of methane). The masses of a methane and oxygen together must be equal to the masses of carbon dioxide and water. In other words, during a chemical reaction, everything you start with, you must end up with, but it might look different.

You really need to fold kid, but by all means continue jerking off in public

Listen up, idiot. That applies to chemical reactions. It does not apply to the entire universe and all of the physical phenomena within it, which is plainly the nonsense you tried to pass off. You were wrong and you're still wrong, and you are embarrasing yourself.

The Universe is made of the same stuff the Earth is, and physics is physics everywhere until proven different.

Conservation of mass
physics
Written By:

• The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

See Article History
Alternative Titles: conservation of matter, constant mass, law of
Conservation of mass, principle that the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves. Mass has been viewed in physics in two compatible ways. On the one hand, it is seen as a measure of inertia, the opposition that free bodies offer to forces: trucks are harder to move and to stop than less massive cars. On the other hand, mass is seen as giving rise to gravitational force, which accounts for the weight of an object: trucks are heavier than cars. The two views of mass are generally considered equivalent. Thus, from the perspective of either inertial mass or gravitational mass, according to the principle of mass conservation, different measurements of the mass of an object taken under various circumstances should always be the same.

You are trying to state your mythical multiverse as fact, and in your mind it may be, along with Bigfoot

Your only option is to fold, same option as all the rest thru time

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Universe is made of the same stuff the Earth is, and physics is physics everywhere until proven different.

What a stupid response. That conservation principle applies only to chemical reactions. You are a moron, if you are not getting this.

Face it...you said matter can not ever be created, because of this principle. That was wrong. And you are doubling down on stupid, because you're like a child.

 

[Frannie]

The Universe is made of the same stuff the Earth is, and physics is physics everywhere until proven different.

What a stupid response. That conservation principle applies only to chemical reactions. You are a moron, if you are not getting this.

Face it...you said matter can not ever be created, because of this principle. That was wrong. And you are doubling down on stupid, because you're like a child.

What matter is created? Where does it come from if it is created? You obviously know how to create Gold and Platinum right

LOL you are stoopud

Why do Chemical equations need to be Balanced? | KnowsWhy.com

You folded a long time ago, but at this point I am seeing that abortions are actually a necessity that your Mother neglected

 

[Wuwei]

What matter is created? Where does it come from if it is created?

Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia
The gravitational (potential) energy of the universe was found to be roughly equal to the mass energy of the universe. That means the total energy of the universe could easily be zero. One hypothesis is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero and that it came from a vacuum fluctuation. Inflation did the expansion.

.

 

[Frannie]

What matter is created? Where does it come from if it is created?

Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia
The gravitational (potential) energy of the universe was found to be roughly equal to the mass energy of the universe. That means the total energy of the universe could easily be zero. One hypothesis is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero and that it came from a vacuum fluctuation. Inflation did the expansion.

.

Actually the mass creating the gravitational energy propelling the Universe apart at an ever increasing speed was found to be 85 percent to little to be pushing the Universe apart at that faster rate of speed. Enter dark matter and energy, and the cosmological constant that fails. Try another disinformation angle.

Other hypothesis
Bigfoot
Nessie
The Mothman
Mermaids may also apply here

 

[Blackrook]

You can believe in multiple parallel universes that contain infinite versions of you but you can't believe in heaven and hell?

 

[james bond]

You can believe in multiple parallel universes that contain infinite versions of you but you can't believe in heaven and hell?

They believe in an infinite number of these universes. There must be Satan in one of them. Mwahahaahahaha.

 

[Blackrook]

You can believe in multiple parallel universes that contain infinite versions of you but you can't believe in heaven and hell?

They believe in an infinite number of these universes. There must be Satan in one of them. Mwahahaahahaha.

There is no way to prove this preposterous theory that there are infinite number of universes.

 

[james bond]

There is no way to prove this preposterous theory that there are infinite number of universes.

Yet, they believe. It doesn't matter. They also believe in the end of this world via asteroid. I guess they gave up on AGW.