• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Expansion Theory of Multiple Universes

First you are not capable to define your own position in a coherent way, and now you surrender your position because you are not capable of defending your self.

My guess now is that you are just stuck in movie land, which means you were expecting Darth Vader to be referred to as some kind of metaphor or that Luke Skywalker is a real person.

Your words demonstrate immaturity.


=======================================



You and I have been over this before that there is lots of real evidence that God exist:

1) Scientific proof as like the "Big Bang" is proof of a Creation Day.
2) Evolution is proof of the ongoing Intelligent Design.
3) The reality of spirits and Ghost and Demons is a proof of a real spirit life and spirit world.
4) Plus the fantastic revelations given in the Bible is proof too, see US & B in Prophesy.

No, that is pure faith on your part. Why is the Big Bang proof of god? Who created your god?
 
First you are not capable to define your own position in a coherent way, and now you surrender your position because you are not capable of defending your self.

My guess now is that you are just stuck in movie land, which means you were expecting Darth Vader to be referred to as some kind of metaphor or that Luke Skywalker is a real person.

Your words demonstrate immaturity.


=======================================



.
and unfortunately your words represent nothing short of idiocy.sorry to be so blunt, but you make absolutely no sense

defending myself??? you abdicated.
 
No, that is pure faith on your part. Why is the Big Bang proof of god? Who created your god?
Obviously you have no idea of what "faith" really means.

When we have hard evidence and decisive proof as we do then there is no faith involved.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." KJV, Hebrews 11:1

As like we see a Ghost - then there is no faith in Ghost, as it is then a thing which is seen and experienced which is thereby not faith.

A lot of people are confused that "faith" means religion or church or denomination which it does not mean that.

Also I did not say that the "Big Bang" was a proof of God, as it is a proof of the Creation Day, and that Creation Day is the self-evident proof of God.
 
Also I did not say that the "Big Bang" was a proof of God, as it is a proof of the Creation Day, and that Creation Day is the self-evident proof of God.

There was no "day". Your imaginary god has nothing to do with science.
 
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it is just changing form. (Thermodynamics) Then why is there energy? The Constructal Law makes it much more meaningful. Our Universe consists of various flow systems, and systems will align its structure to further facilitate the system's flow. That is why there is common structure in nature. Why trees are shaped like lungs, our arteries compared to our neurons, and electricity to branches. The structure is the same because the system changed structure to increase the efficiency of that system. But what about the flow system of energy itself? Put simply, successful mutations resulted in outcomes that were more efficient at transporting energy. So if the evolution of the inanimate system are under the right conditions, energy will be fully expressed thru life. The species that are higher on the food chain are able to move more energy per unit of energy compared to the species below them on the food chain.

Pluto had a philosophy that there was a life force in all things. But when humanity was able to cut thru a rock and see there are no breathing parts, De Cartes was created to fulfill the void. Basically the universe consists of various processes that we can learn about. This results for no rsetraint at using Earth's resources for profit because it is non-living.

The Gaia Hypothesis states that The Earth is a perfect super-organism, and that the inanimate have a symbiotic relationship with the animate. What the Constructal Law is showing that it is from the inanimate that created life thru the flow system of energy itself.

I'm self-educated. I read non-fiction as much as I can, and I read on topics that I am interested about. All of these ideas can be found in books seperately, however understanding how they inter-twine is another feat. What I just shared, is a brief synopsis of what reality is in front of me based upon the relationships of those ideas outlined above. That part is my doing, the rest is just reading those works.
 
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it is just changing form. (Thermodynamics) Then why is there energy? The Constructal Law makes it much more meaningful. Our Universe consists of various flow systems, and systems will align its structure to further facilitate the system's flow. That is why there is common structure in nature. Why trees are shaped like lungs, our arteries compared to our neurons, and electricity to branches. The structure is the same because the system changed structure to increase the efficiency of that system. But what about the flow system of energy itself? Put simply, successful mutations resulted in outcomes that were more efficient at transporting energy. So if the evolution of the inanimate system are under the right conditions, energy will be fully expressed thru life. The species that are higher on the food chain are able to move more energy per unit of energy compared to the species below them on the food chain.

Pluto had a philosophy that there was a life force in all things. But when humanity was able to cut thru a rock and see there are no breathing parts, De Cartes was created to fulfill the void. Basically the universe consists of various processes that we can learn about. This results for no rsetraint at using Earth's resources for profit because it is non-living.

The Gaia Hypothesis states that The Earth is a perfect super-organism, and that the inanimate have a symbiotic relationship with the animate. What the Constructal Law is showing that it is from the inanimate that created life thru the flow system of energy itself.

I'm self-educated. I read non-fiction as much as I can, and I read on topics that I am interested about. All of these ideas can be found in books seperately, however understanding how they inter-twine is another feat. What I just shared, is a brief synopsis of what reality is in front of me based upon the relationships of those ideas outlined above. That part is my doing, the rest is just reading those works.
While I have not knowledge of your "PLUTO" there is a distuted planet, and a character, however Basically we are on the same page.
 
While I have not knowledge of your "PLUTO" there is a distuted planet, and a character, however Basically we are on the same page.

I think he meant Plato, the inventor of the plate. Humanity was able to cut through rocks long before Plato was born.
 
QUOTE=OrphanSlug;1063989434]We seem to be getting to a pivot point when it comes consideration of The Expansion Theory of Multiple Universes or Variation Expansion Space / Time Bubbles. And it also seems to come down to a concept of "multiverse" in terms of universes existing in parallel disposition to each other perhaps with different orientations for laws of physics and/or in terms of universes expanding at different rates where such laws may not exist in properties we can even define them.

If you think about any bubble model that is based upon an inflation oriented expansion, say exponential growth in any direction (or all directions,) then it becomes a challenge to build that model without seeing a "multiverse" condition develop. Now this is way out on left field theoretical physics but if a local model shows that phenomenon then what is stopping the universe as we see it and define it from doing the same? So now you can at least confirm the idea using local models that there is an inherent, not accidental, link between inflation oriented expansion and "multiverse." And you can then theorize that inflation oriented expansion is in itself instability (how can it be otherwise? It is not a constant... or so we think.)

50 years ago this theory would be dismissed with ease. And even today we can be skeptical but at least today (and more so tomorrow) we can look outward into the universe and look for inflation oriented expansion in a way the bubble models suggest. Even if today they are limited by using light, or microwave background radiation, there may be other means down the road to view said expansion. If there is any truth to big bang at all, as well as if there is any truth to variation in laws of physics as we know them to be constants, then it becomes more plausible that alternate universes of some degree exist in a way our own laws prevent us from interacting with them on our terms. So, parallel and probably governed by their own properties undefinable as of today.

The crux of the theory is finding that microwave background radiation in a manner not consistent with our universe. Say a bubble within a bubble that is expanding in a manner undefinable in comparison to what we do define. That has not happened yet, but is exciting to consider as it tells us our universe may have plenty of parallels to others and even exist within one another. And even crazier question, is our expanding universe existing within another or are are others expanding within ours? (Or, both?) Better than all of that, was Big Bang simply a result of other expansive universes hitting a point of such instability perhaps interacting with one another that ours was created?

In terms you have put forth here, our relationship to systems of belief (God) then things get more interesting. Is one (or more) of the parallel universes something we define in deity terms? There are plenty of people within the Quantum Sciences fields suggesting we are at least confirming the idea of bridging the gap between what we define in our universe terms and others. If there is a deity in how we define it, was it simply a measure of what we could understand then and now? Were as tomorrow deity may have an entire new meaning? And that is often the case, science and discovery tends to push systems of belief to evolve. Just as we have, just as the universe has, just as just about every inflation oriented expansion model shows has.[/QUOTE] To me, the parallel existence is where the afterlife could exist, and in my opinion does.[
 
To me, the parallel existence is where the afterlife could exist, and in my opinion does.[
That is a logical and sensible deduction, and best of all is that it is so realistic.

The idea of going to some mystical "Heaven" as if the universe itself was irrelevant was never realistic or sensible.
 
First you are not capable to define your own position in a coherent way, and now you surrender your position because you are not capable of defending your self.

My guess now is that you are just stuck in movie land, which means you were expecting Darth Vader to be referred to as some kind of metaphor or that Luke Skywalker is a real person.

Your words demonstrate immaturity.


=======================================



You and I have been over this before that there is lots of real evidence that God exist:

1) Scientific proof as like the "Big Bang" is proof of a Creation Day.

Actually, no. it isn't, at least in the way you are using 'Creation'. I would say 'a point in time there was an expansion of time/space'. It is unknown what cases space/time to expand. However, Creation, as you are using it. There is a big lack of information about the conditions that caused the expansion, if it was part of a 'cyclical' condition, or what ever. This makes the claim this is evidence for a deity the logical fallacy known as 'Argument from Ignorance', also known as 'Argument from personal incredulity' or 'argument from personal belief'.


2) Evolution is proof of the ongoing Intelligent Design.
[/quote]

Incorrect. The concept of Intelligent Design currently is metaphysical gobble gook. It makes no predictions. The basic concept that gets pushed (irreducible complex) is shown to be totally natural, and not evidence of any 'intelligence' behind it. The only thing that the people who push "Intelligent Design" do is act poltiically, and attempt to attack the theory of evolution (inaccurately at that). As such, this is not even evidence of 'ongoing intelligent design'. The TOE shows how the mechanism for change is entirely mindless.

3) The reality of spirits and Ghost and Demons is a proof of a real spirit life and spirit world.
Please provide any evidence that 'spirits and ghosts and demons' are more than peoples imagination.

4) Plus the fantastic revelations given in the Bible is proof too, see US & B in Prophesy.

Can you show that these claims for prophecy are actually real, rather than vague references, retrofitting after the fact, shoe honing, or self fulfilling prophecies? OH, and mistranslations, .. we must not forget that. The samples in the web site you use seem to fit all that.
 
Please provide any evidence that 'spirits and ghosts and demons' are more than peoples imagination.
That can only be done by honesty, and there is no way to get around that criteria.

As in I am being honest, and it is up to your self to be honest about that too.

No other evidence is needed or required.

If you wish to deny the reality of such things then that is not up to me to counter.

Can you show that these claims for prophecy are actually real, rather than vague references, retrofitting after the fact, shoe honing, or self fulfilling prophecies?
I can show to my self that those claims are true and correct, but for you or for anyone else then you must do your own seeing and knowing for your self.

No one can do that for you.
 
That can only be done by honesty, and there is no way to get around that criteria.

As in I am being honest, and it is up to your self to be honest about that too.

No other evidence is needed or required.

If you wish to deny the reality of such things then that is not up to me to counter.


I can show to my self that those claims are true and correct, but for you or for anyone else then you must do your own seeing and knowing for your self.

No one can do that for you.

Nice dodge, and also complete nonsense.
 
Nice dodge, and also complete nonsense.
In my view then I am really pleased and proud of my response given there.

It went directly to the heart of the matter and it established the real boundary for the truth.
 
In my view then I am really pleased and proud of my response given there.

It went directly to the heart of the matter and it established the real boundary for the truth.

So all statements should be accepted as true if the maker of the statement has an honest face?
 
That can only be done by honesty, and there is no way to get around that criteria.

As in I am being honest, and it is up to your self to be honest about that too.

No other evidence is needed or required.

In other words, this is an unsupported claim that you can not support, from an honest point of view.
If you wish to deny the reality of such things then that is not up to me to counter.

And this combines the logical fallacies of shifting the burden of proof, as well as the argument from personal belief. Sorry, but that does not make that claim real, obvious or rational.
I can show to my self that those claims are true and correct, but for you or for anyone else then you must do your own seeing and knowing for your self.

No one can do that for you.

And, this is a perfect example of 'confirmation bias'. Sorry, but that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
I only pass on what I read and view on shows about the beginning of existence and if the intellectuals believe the odds of a multi universe are increasing then I believe them. I admit trying to understand them is sometimes impossible but it does not matter as long as it makes sense to those that do understand this problem. P.S. Get off the God thing-if it was done by God so be it but that three letter word has no place here or anywhere in science.
 
P.S. Get off the God thing-if it was done by God so be it but that three letter word has no place here or anywhere in science.
It was you your self who put God into the very first and opening posting as a part of the thread subject, and God has remained the topic ever after.

Perhaps you expected that God would be excluded when in fact your discussion would have little substance if that three-letter-word was removed.
 
It was you your self who put God into the very first and opening posting as a part of the thread subject, and God has remained the topic ever after.

Gods are off topic in this thread.
 
First you are not capable to define your own position in a coherent way, and now you surrender your position because you are not capable of defending your self.

My guess now is that you are just stuck in movie land, which means you were expecting Darth Vader to be referred to as some kind of metaphor or that Luke Skywalker is a real person.

Your words demonstrate immaturity.l
.
Sir, * I appologized to you because I realized we were on different planes and, could not come together, I was quite content to leave it as two people with different opinions, However, It appears that you need to get nasty about it, so, OK, IN RESPONSE

You are correct that I can not adequately define my position to a party who can not comprehend simple English, and simply guesstimates what they think (imagine) the other person means.

I could hardy surrender a position I did not have, and which is only in your immagination

My only connection with Star Wars was the statement "LET THE FORCE BE WITH YOU" which seemed to be a reasonable way of explaining my belief that there is a NATURAL FORCE out there which regulated the happenings around us, but is not a GOD "per Se"

I have no other connections or beliefs regarding STAR WARS or it's characters. That is only in your idiotic mind set.

Quite frankly, your attitude demonstrates ANYTHING but stability, and maturity.
 
Back
Top Bottom