/sci/ - Science & Math

So...
What can u tell me about parallel universes?

Ok so retard level high school sophomore with a question about the multiverse theory. If the multiverse exists then universes would have to exist where the multiverse doesn't exist. Which both proves and disproves the theory making it true and false at the same time. Which makes me think of schrödinger and then my brain melts. can someone just explain everything to me?

>>5189601
But a question IS a sentence.

OP looks up M-Theory.
It's about 11-dimensional membranes moving in hyperspace which collide and the energy from the collisions is transferred into the explosion of space-time and heat which was the big bang.

>M-Theory
Also look up Michio Kaku, he is a big proponent of this theory.

There is also my idea that inside a black hole time stops at the event horizon, and reverses as the particles continue to accelerate towards the singularity.
When it reaches the center the energy is looped back to the beginning of time and spat out at the big bang.
Creating a self-referential loop with no beginning or end.

>THIS WILL FUCK YOUR MIND

Particles accelerate towards the speed of light as they approach a black hole.
It is proposed that if you go faster than light speed you will travel back in time.
At the event horizon of a black hole, particles reach light speed and relative to us, time stops.
I propose that the particles continue to travel faster and faster as they approach the singularity at the core of the black hole.
Traveling faster than light speed causes time to reverse.
A black hole, sucking in space-time and vast quantities of energy, in reverse is an explosion of space and time itself, accompanied by a huge energy outburst. This is the Big Bang.
I do not know if each black hole spawns a new universe, creating a seemingly infinite multiverse (this does not sound simple elegant to me), or if the act of reversing time within the black hole somehow loops the energy and space-time back to the big bang of our universe (this sounds better but still leaves the question of why is there the loop in the first place?).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727703.000-every-black-hole-may-hold-a-hidden-universe.html?
DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Hi /sci/.
I want to test my new ideas on some intelligent minds.
Here we go:
Consciousness requires a functioning and active neural net (possibly of a specific complexity to allow for self awareness).
God has intentions, desires, emotions, self awareness, etc. All the signs of a neural net.
Thus god must have a neural net.
The only known neural nets exist on Earth and our observations of the cosmos do not suggest a vast inter-galactic communications highways needed to uphold a god-like consciousness.
In fact, the only way a god-like being could exist is if it filled higher dimensional hyperspace and wrapped itself around the space-time membrane of our universe (like a balloon wrapped around a pocket of air) and monitored every particle interaction in the universe and fed it into its brain.
This is a preposterously absurd preposition with no evidence to back it up.
Thus it can be easily concluded that not only does god not exist, due to a lack of a brain, but the laws of physics do not allow for a cosmically conscious all powerful being.

This is why I know with 100% certainty that god does not exist.
Nature does not allow for gods.

To sum up:
The laws of physics do not allow for a consciousness to perceive on a universal scale.
Only a consciousness existing in 11 dimensional hyperspace with its superstring sensors permeating our entire universe could experience the lives and thoughts of animals throughout the cosmos.

Basically what I'm saying is, why don't WE, the atheists, define what God should be and thus show not only does it not exist but it CAN NOT exist due to the laws of nature?

This is a quote from an interesting article:
99.9% of atheists won't claim (with the certainty that religious folks do to the contrary) that they know there isn't a god.

If someone asked me "Is there a god?" I'd probably just say "No", but the full answer would really be something like "I think the chance that there is a god is extremely small."

Most atheists don't usually respond with the fully qualified answer, which I think leads to people to make the assumption that atheists are 100% sure that god doesn't exist.

This is not the case. We don't KNOW that god doesn't exist. I am totally open to the possibility of god existing, (and bigfoot, alien abductions, the lock ness monster, and holistic medicine) and as soon as there is evidence to support any of it, I will reevaluate my position.

/end quote.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/14/741013/-Understanding-atheism,-the-atheist-strawman-
arguments-and-what-atheism-isnt