"The Multiverse Falsified" and fake physics.

[MikeMcMann]

Anyway good luck to all trying to discuss this topic him.

A man a lot smarter than I once said 'I can tell you and give the evidence but I cannot make you understand it'. And sadly with religious people (the dumbest amongst them it seems) they think there lack of comprehension equals proof that others are wrong. They demand you give them data in a way they can understand when in fact, could not understand a simple calculus question let alone General Relativity or Quantum Physics. But they hold to 'if I don't understand it, it can't be true'.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I've never said sky daddy, what are you talking about? But if you're talking about quantum vacuum fluctuations in the quantum field then yes, according to QM it's always existed.

You've never used sky daddy or any equivalent term to mock God?

QM isnt empirical

 

[Darkballs]

Why say stupid shit just to instantly backtrack? Then you want to call ME a shitty poster? Troll on dude

Well you guys make the same stupid "I haven't personally observed that" argument. I think that justifies a suspicion that we are dealing with one dishonest poster, rather than two dishonest posters making the same dishonest argument.

Ultimately, I don't care.

Now do you want to reply to the actual meat of my post, or just keep dodging?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I don't have an opinion on the multiverse but I do have faith in the scientists studying this area that they will put forth real information for study and conclusions to be drawn upon as it becomes available.

Unlike your view which is to never seek facts or information and just say it must be so despite the fact your God could not exist without defying everything you keep pointing out.

Oh fuck off. I dont seek facts and information?

I'm just here directly engaging the topic with what? Conjecture? Opinion? That would be the side that is arguing for THEORETICAL science over empirical science. All conjecture with that bunch

 

[7437]

Oh God that is rich. Please link their empirical evidence for a multiverse

Their results found no evidence of a multiverse. Thats the title of the thread. Too dumb to read even that?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You've never used sky daddy or any equivalent term to mock God?

QM isnt empirical

No, I would use something more clever than sky daddy if I did. QM isn't empirical?.... I'm not sure you know what that means as QM has been called the most precisely tested theory in all of Science.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Well you guys make the same stupid "I haven't personally observed that" argument. I think that justifies a suspicion that we are dealing with one dishonest poster, rather than two dishonest posters making the same dishonest argument.

Ultimately, I don't care.

Now do you want to reply to the actual meat of my post, or just keep dodging?

Read my other posts here as I've already addressed it.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Their results found no evidence of a multiverse. Thats the title of the thread. Too dumb to read even that?

So what is your disagreement with me?

 

[TheComebackKid]

I don't have an opinion on the multiverse but I do have faith in the scientists studying this area that they will put forth real information for study and conclusions to be drawn upon as it becomes available.

I can't imagine how that could go wrong...

 

[MikeMcMann]

Oh fuck off. I dont seek facts and information?

Correct.
You are here to try and point out science does not have every answer while simultaneously ignoring that you have no data or answers for your god but somehow that is ok.

I'm just here directly engaging the topic with what? Conjecture?

yes 100%. What facts do you present?

Opinion?

Yes 100%. What facts do you present?

That would be the side that is arguing for THEORETICAL science over empirical science. All conjecture with that bunch

Again i am wasting my time trying to make you understand something but science does not claim to know exactly how the Universe started or exists. There are competing theories each backed with different evidence. That is OK as science does not have to know NOW. the nature of science is to continue to learn over time by considering new evidence. That makes sense.

There are lots of things, we man, cannot explain or did not know but that does not mean they do not exist.

Your entire argument is a false one and a garbage one summed up as ''if we cannot answer these things today then...god' and you seem really dumb enough to think one flows from the other. But then you are dumb.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Was gonna reply to this until the TCK accusation. You trolling dude?

@TheComebackKid

These guys are idiots

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

No, I would use something more clever than sky daddy if I did. QM isn't empirical?.... I'm not sure you know what that means as QM has been called the most precisely tested theory in all of Science.

So we know the precise conditions of the singularity? I'm taking about QM in the context of this singularity

Also the OP disagrees with it being precisely tested. Unless you count failing

 

[Zazen]

We can't we all just get along? Religion seeks to answer the why and science seeks to answer how.

All I see in this thread is name calling and it is a shame that nearly every "intellectual" conversation goes this way. Based on the posts in this read I've realized that scientism is just as much as a religion as the ones they make fun of. It takes some humility to admit we will never figure it all out.

Plus there are religious texts out there that scientists are now coming to believe is true and they were written thousands of years ago.

 

[meauneau]

You've never used sky daddy or any equivalent term to mock God?

QM isnt empirical

QM is the most empirically successful science.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

You are here to try and point out science does not have every answer

I did no such thing. Physics tells us no matter is created or destroyed. The singularity began to exist. Which part do you disagree with?

while simultaneously ignoring that you have no data or answers for your god but somehow that is ok.

God is inherently supernatural. He transcends natural law

yes 100%. What facts do you present?

The first law of thermodynamics

Your entire argument is a false one and a garbage one summed up as ''if we cannot answer these things today then...god

You're arguing with a ghost. You guys are trying to make this about God not me..

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

QM is the most empirically successful science.

In the context of the singularity it is not testable, observable or repeatable.

 

[meauneau]

In the context of the singularity it is not testable, observable or repeatable.

In principle it is repeatable. With a large enough hadron collider they could repeat it but at a smaller scale. It is physical and so repeatable. The only problem is the apparatus we have.

 

[ShadBo]

In the context of the singularity it is not testable, observable or repeatable.

lol at "in the context of the singularity"

You are so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

So we know the precise conditions of the singularity? I'm taking about QM in the context of this singularity

Also the OP disagrees with it being precisely tested. Unless you count failing

There was no singularity in cosmological models using Quantum Mechanics. What you are describing are models like the Lambda CDM which was born out of General Relativity. Also, the opening post does not say that.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

In principle it is repeatable. With a large enough hadron collider they could repeat it but at a smaller scale. It is physical and so repeatable. The only problem is the apparatus we have.

How would you know if you accurately resembled the singularity?