Inflation

File: 891 KB, 854x724, What be this niggahs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Inflation Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:06:57 2016 No.8256922 [Reply] [Original]

In relation to the inflation hypothesis, what does our universe ‘exist in’?

I mean to ask, what exists outside of the universe(s)?

Is it an infinite dimensional Hilbert space?

>Pic related; yes it's a wholly inaccurate artistic representation, but you get the idea.

Also what’s imaginary time all about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:10:30 2016 No.8256926 its all bullshift

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:12:18 2016 No.8256927 >>8256922 There is no outside, the universe expands into itself

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:26:12 2016 No.8256935 >>8256926 Cool, what's the bullshit answer to my question? >>8256927 >what is the universe expanding into? >my question Pick one.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:26:40 2016 No.8256937

General Relativity is constructed so that the space neither has to curve into nor expand into any space other than itself. Maybe you should study GR before asking questions like this.

>Is it an infinite dimensional Hilbert space?
Do you even know what that means?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:29:02 2016 No.8256939 >>8256935 >I mean to ask, what exists outside of the universe(s)? There is no outside

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:31:25 2016 No.8256943

>>8256922
>what exists outside of the universe(s)?
There are no multiple univeres, and universe is the thing that encapsulates everything as a concept. There is nothing outside the universe and whatever you think is outside would be included inside the universe.

/thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:33:20 2016 No.8256945 >>8256937 I understand GR and yes, yes I do. Do you understand inflation? Please answer that question honestly. >>8256939 There is nothing outside of the potentially infinite number of universes? Please explain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:34:00 2016 No.8256946 >>8256945 >There is nothing outside of the potentially infinite number of universes? There is only one universe, and it contains everything that is

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:34:21 2016 No.8256948 >>8256943 Ok, what's outside of our non-inflating region of space?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:35:04 2016 No.8256949 >>8256945 >potentially infinite number of universes? post evidence of your claim in your next post or go back to >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:36:21 2016 No.8256953 >>8256948 There is no non-inflating region of space

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:37:32 2016 No.8256956

>>8256948
Space.
I think you just read the title of some popsci garbage and you were too lazy to actually read anything about it.

"Universe is expanding" is an oxymoron. Universe is infinite. So is the space. The matter inside is finite and it's been pulling apart from each other into the infinite space. Thats what they mean by expansion and thats where we look to see the redshift to confirm the expansion.

I'm wondering if you have highschool education at this point asking such retarded illiterate questions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:37:40 2016 No.8256957 >>8256949 It's natural implication of inflation. Inflation hadn't been falsified/verified as of yet. BICEP has been working on that for a while now.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:41:04 2016 No.8256967

>>8256956

I'm asking about the hypothesised nature of the space that exists outside of our particular region of non-inflating space.

Let's say that our region has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time, which is resultant of the nature of the quantum fluctuations that led to the formation of our universe.

What about the space outside of 'our universe' or region of space?

Infinite dimensional?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:45:23 2016 No.8256971 >>8256967 >What about the space outside of 'our universe' or region of space? There isnt any. Why are you not understanding this?

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 06:46:06 2016 No.8256973

>>8256957
then don't use idiotic words like multiple universes with zero evidence

>>8256967
>the hypothesised nature of the space that exists outside of our particular region of non-inflating space.
Are you mentally challenged ? Space is infinite, it can't expand into anything.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:07:41 2016 No.8256999

>>8256971
>>8256973

Ok I'm asking a question about an aspect or implication of a hypothetical model.

Hypotheses by definition do not have supporting evidence.

Inflation is the strongest competitor when it comes to hypotheses regarding the formation of our universe.

Ok, the basic idea is that a quantum energy density fluctuation allowed for energy to become 'trapped' in a particular region of space, which led to the creation of a false vacuum (which is tantamount to a well of potential energy), whereafter a quantum fluctuation led to a phase transition of sorts, which took the form of the Big Bang.

It could be thought of as analogous to water existing in liquid form in a subzero environment, which is referred to as a meta-stable state; an energy density fluctuation can then initiate a phase transition in which it turns to ice.

The laws of physics of our universe are thought to be determined by the nature of the quantum fluctuations that led to its creation.

In other universes, the laws could be entirely different.

What I am asking, is that in relation to this hypothetical model, what is the nature of the space that exists outside of our particular universe/region?

Is it infinite dimensional?

If you don't know enough about the hypothetical model, then that's fine but stop replying.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:10:44 2016 No.8257004

The thing is, spacetime and the shit it it is all an illusion created by your mind. Everything is forces and energy, and essentially intangible nothingness which due to our own nature, seems otherwise.

Consider a video game, there are rules and to the avatar in the game, those walls are effectively no different to the wall in front of you. But do those virtual walls exist? Does that virtual gravity hold you to the surface? Is it real or not?

This is the increasingly apparent view of our own reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:11:24 2016 No.8257006 >>8256999 >In other universes >hypothetical model >do not have supporting evidence There's a reason why we don't know baseless autistic unscientific drivel with zero evidence. Please keep these threads where they belong >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:12:36 2016 No.8257008 >>8256999 There isn't any "space" outside of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:15:19 2016 No.8257010 >>8256999 Why are you asking us about the theoretical implications of your made up model? Work them out yourself

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:24:20 2016 No.8257022

>>8256999

Why can't you accept that everything is a story, and that some are useful to be believed, and some are not?

There is no difference between a hypothesis, theory, analogy, physical law, dogma, argument, fiction, moral, thought, or any object or word you can think of.

A story is a story; it is all the Narrative.

What does evidence have to do with anything? Evidence just makes the story useful, but doesn't make it any less of a story.

You can never see the universe. It is a story you put together.

You can never experience anything directly. If you could, then you wouldn't need the story.

The world is; it has no use of a story.
And you trick yourself into thinking the story is the world when you find the story useful to be believed, but that doesn't mean your story is the world.

Why don't you focus your argument on why your story is useful to be believed instead of wasting time trying to convince and persuade using the rhetorical trick of an appeal to the Platonic Fallacy by invoking what amounts to a religious argument of "God said so" by claiming your story is real because it works in this situation, for this perspective.

I swear, Scientists are worse than Popes!

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:26:53 2016 No.8257029 >>8256922 >what exists outside of the universe(s)? literally nothing

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:28:18 2016 No.8257030
File: 25 KB, 361x300, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8257006
>>8257008
>>8257010

>science isn't built upon hypotheses that are later falsified of verified via experimentation/observation

>there is only one definition of the term universe, even if an individual is explicit about their particular use of it, which may or may not differ from typical usage

>I, the OP of this thread, developed the inflation hypothesis

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:28:45 2016 No.8257033 >>8256973 holy shit, did you only have highschool physics or something?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:30:22 2016 No.8257038 >>8257030 Whatever faget. :)

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:31:03 2016 No.8257039 >>8257006 >>8257008 >>8257010 AUTISM just admit if you cant answer the question also, please pick up a real book on cosmology and stop watching videos from black science man

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:32:25 2016 No.8257040 >>8257029 this thats your answer OP /thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:32:31 2016 No.8257041 >>8257030 There is no "outside" the universe under normal theories of inflation, unless you are talking about something totally different that you made up

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:33:42 2016 No.8257043 >>8257022 Who are you even replying to? I didn't make any of the claims you are attempting to refute. >>8257029 Hello, Dr. Krauss.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:34:37 2016 No.8257044 >>8257033 >>8257039 back to >>>/x/ with your unscientific baseless """hypothetical""" models of the universe you pull out of your ass.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:34:55 2016 No.8257045 >>8257039 Might as well ask us to describe the precise physical dimensions of olympus

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:37:32 2016 No.8257050 >>8256935 >he didn't get the joke

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:43:23 2016 No.8257065 >>8257050 >he doesn't understand Poe's law

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:44:11 2016 No.8257069 >>8257065 How was that poe's law, it was clearly a clever little pun

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:46:13 2016 No.8257073 >>8257044 >pick up a real book on cosmology and stop watching videos from black science man your dunnin-kruger is showing

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:47:13 2016 No.8257077 >>8257045 >pick up a real book on cosmology and stop watching videos from black science man your dunning-kruger is showing

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:48:03 2016 No.8257078 >>8257073 ssshhh...your friends are calling you from the other universe dumkid ;) >>>/x/

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:50:19 2016 No.8257083

>>8257041

>There is no "outside" the universe under normal theories of inflation

Inflation implies multiple universes.

These universes have their own physical laws and dimensions, i.e. four forces and 4D space time.

What is the space outside of these regions/universes hypothesised to be like?

Is it infinite dimensional?

That's my question.

You can call everything that exists the universe or the multiverse or the everything, call it whatever you like.

So let's not get into the definition of the term 'universe'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:51:09 2016 No.8257085 >>8257083 >Inflation implies multiple universes No it literally does not. Where did you get this idea?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:53:29 2016 No.8257087 >>8257069 Oh shit, I didn't even see that. I have sun stroke from being outside all day yesterday BBQing.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:53:51 2016 No.8257088

>>8257083
>Inflation implies multiple universes.
explain. the matter in universe has been expanding since its birth, explain how this even proves that there is another universe.

>These universes have their own physical laws and dimensions
First show your evidence for the existence of these universes and then show your evidence that they have diffrent laws of physics

If you can't, then don't bother and just go back to >>>/x/

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:57:48 2016 No.8257095

>>8257078
ssshhh...your friends want you back >>>/x/
ssshhh back to your board ufokid >>>/x/
sshhh...aliens can hear you m8. better put on one of these so they can't read your thoughts.
ssshhh keep your head down rapefugee
ssshhh...keep breathing now little bronie...let all your anger out...this is your safe space...just forget you got cucked again it never happened...keep breathing now....

CANCER

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:59:19 2016 No.8257099 >>8256943 This.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 07:59:43 2016 No.8257100 >>8257078 There is nothing /x/ about the inflation theory. If would actually pick up a textbook on entrylevel cosmology, you would learn that. Stop spreading unscientific bullshit on here >>>/x/ >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:00:39 2016 No.8257103 >>8257095 back to >>>/x/ with your no-evidence claims and "hypothetical" 8 grader universe models

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:00:45 2016 No.8257104 >>8257088 we are talking about a hypothesis

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:02:26 2016 No.8257110 >>8257104 You have yet to explain how exactly inflation implies multiple universes. So far everything you have said is /x/ tier wank

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:04:56 2016 No.8257114 >>8257104 Based on which scientific grounds ? Talking about pink singing ponies in alpha centauri is also a hypothesis but we don't discuss autism here. back to >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:06:12 2016 No.8257115 >>8257110 This place is for adults to discuss science. You think a hypothesis means "random shit I just made up" and dont understand basic levels of cosmology. Educate yourself on science before posting here, faggot

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:07:04 2016 No.8257117

>>8257085
>>8257088

If our universe is resultant of quantum energy density fluctuations in space leading to the creation of a false vacuum and hot big bang phase transition, then given an infinite amount of time there will be an infinite number of universes.

The physical laws that govern our universe and its dimensions were determined by the nature of the fluctuations that gave rise to our universe.

The pre-big bang space is considered to be infinite, which I have just remembered and therefore answered my own question.

This thread is now redundant to me but feel free to continue arguing amongst yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:07:16 2016 No.8257118 >>8257114 see >>8257115

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:08:45 2016 No.8257121 >>8257114 >alking about pink singing ponies in alpha centauri is also a hypothesis well, it isnt you huge fucking retard >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:10:18 2016 No.8257125 >>8257118 you autism does not go beyond random shit you made up unless you insist on not showing the credible scientific basis for your bullshit claims >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:11:38 2016 No.8257127 >>8257125 ssshhh aliens are here dumkid. keep quiet or they gonna probe ya. as bible said ;)

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:13:21 2016 No.8257130 >>8257125 >the inflation theory is MY bullshit claim and has no scientific basis PLEASE PICK UP A BOOK ON COSMOLOGY AND EDUCATE YOURSELF I am not even saying this to be snarky, but you really lack in knowledge of very basic concepts

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:15:32 2016 No.8257133 File: 55 KB, 440x460, zing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the "go back to >>>/x/ autist" ruins yet another thread by not understanding science

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:16:01 2016 No.8257136 >>8257130 >where is your evidence ? >ITS IN THERE SOMEWHERE >>>/x/

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:16:45 2016 No.8257138

>>8256935
>>what is the universe expanding into?
>>my question
>Pick one.

He's not wrong.

You asked:
>>8256922
>what does our universe ‘exist in’?
...as though the universe were floating in a beaker full of formaldehyde sitting on a shelf in God's living room.

What's more, you framed this in the context of the inflation hypothesis.

Assuming we aren't expanding "into" anything, then we don't "exist in" anything either.

>>8256943
>universe is the thing that encapsulates everything as a concept
Well... that's like insisting that an atom must surely have no internal parts, because of how we originally defined the word "atom".
"Universe" doesn't mean quite what the word originally meant, any more than "world" or "atom" do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:19:00 2016 No.8257145 >>8257138 >What's more, you framed this in the context of the inflation hypothesis. >Assuming we aren't expanding "into" anything, then we don't "exist in" anything either. You don't understand inflation, but that's ok.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:19:05 2016 No.8257146 >>8257133 >>8257138 For the 50000th time, where's your evidence ?

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:22:46 2016 No.8257149

>>8257146

>A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

>For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

>Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

>Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

>A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted model proposed for further research

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:24:36 2016 No.8257150

>>8257136
>i need spoonfeeding

Wont happen. You can use this to get a basic understanding of it and follow the notes to get to some more advanced textbooks on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

This thread is for people who already understand the subject, not to convince brainlets of it. Sorry, I charge a lot for teaching

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:25:27 2016 No.8257152 >>8257150 Are you pretending to be OP? t. OP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:25:55 2016 No.8257154 >>8257146 Ssshhh go stay in your loser corner with Bernie sad little man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:25:55 2016 No.8257155 >>8257149 >I have no credible scientific basis nor evidence to back up my retarded model of the universe. Finally you've come around. >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:27:21 2016 No.8257156 >>8257152 no. how? Was I that much of a faggot? >>8257155 >a scientific hypothesis is unscientific ok

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:29:55 2016 No.8257160 >>8257155 ssshhh...stop crying and focus on the thread already. how about you post a flag of what you think would fit for the technorepublic ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:34:30 2016 No.8257165 >>8257155 >my retarded model Yeah that's right guys, I developed the inflation hypothesis and am the reason there's a multimillion dollar experimental program running at the South Pole right now. #BICEP I'm a big deal, basically.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 08:54:21 2016 No.8257178 >>8257156 >>8257160 >>8257165 /x/tards must remain in >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:01:14 2016 No.8257184 >>8257178 ssshhh...keep your head down you small IQ brainlet

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:03:09 2016 No.8257186 >>8257184 >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:06:14 2016 No.8257189 >>8257186 ssshhh you're wasting whatever IQ you got left little braintard. Not that it matters to you anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:09:00 2016 No.8257190 /x/tards got BTFO once again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:27:06 2016 No.8257201 ITT: one samefag theater. This should be in sticky as an example of what not to post. Our OP manages to be: retarded, autistic, magically thinking, underaged, butthurt about facts, popsci fag.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:29:38 2016 No.8257204 >>8257201 and then there is all the spamming

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:30:43 2016 No.8257208 >>8257204 not a scientific thread so nobody cares

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:33:16 2016 No.8257213

>>8257201

I'm, OP.

These are my posts:

>>8256922
>>8256935
>>8256945
>>8256948
>>8256957
>>8256967
>>8256999
>>8257030
>>8257043
>>8257083
>>8257117
>>8257152
>>8257165

This post >>8257117 made the thread redundant.

Nobody ITT understands inflation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:35:41 2016 No.8257219 >>8257213 >Nobody ITT understands inflation. ...said the /x/tard

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:37:03 2016 No.8257223 >>8257213 no, this post did it >>8257029 it answered your question. stop crying now

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:39:01 2016 No.8257224 >>8257208 The spammer seems to care immensely. Autistic. If you see a thread you dont care about, dont post in it. If it is really off-topic it will get deleted anyway. No reason to turn this into /b/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:44:10 2016 No.8257230 >>8257224 >if you see an /x/ thread, just let it go How about no. /x/tards can't complain that their retarded threads constantly get shit on here. If they wanna discuss unscientific subjects their place is /x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:46:55 2016 No.8257233 >>8257230 Thats right and all. But I dont see how cosmic inflation is unscientific

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:49:49 2016 No.8257238

Hi, OP.

To answer your question:

It is possible that the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity may have an infinite number of dimensions, but not necessary.

For example, the Hartle–Hawking state is a proposed wave function of the Universe, which is calculated from Feynman's path integral.

It is a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space that describes this wave function and it is a functional of the metric tensor defined at a (D − 1)-dimensional compact surface, the Universe, where D is the space-time dimension.

The precise form of the Hartle–Hawking state is the path integral over all D-dimensional geometries that have the required induced metric on their boundary.

According to the hypothesis, time diverged from three state dimensions after the Planck time and such a wave function of the Universe can be shown to satisfy the Wheeler–DeWitt equation.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 09:53:41 2016 No.8257242

>>8257238

>It is possible that the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity may have an infinite number of dimensions, but not necessary.

Yeah, I guess it depends on what one takes as their Hilbert space when drawing up a model.

It'd be cool if the universe was an infinite fractal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:03:17 2016 No.8257248 >>8257242 >It'd be cool if the universe was an infinite fractal. It would, but I feel like it'd make new age hippy types feel as though they had discovered the true nature of the universe while high on shrooms.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:11:01 2016 No.8257255 >>8257248 >muh ego death Yeah, but that would be a laugh though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:19:20 2016 No.8257261 It took 83 replies, 15 of which were OP trying to explain inflation to idiots, before an actual reply was posted here >>8257238 This board is cancerous.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:21:15 2016 No.8257263 >>8257261 answer already posted here >>8257029

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:34:18 2016 No.8257272 >>8257263 It was obvious to anyone who understands inflation what OP meant by 'universe' and on top of that, OP clarified his definition multiple times. You're far too autistic to understand this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:48:42 2016 No.8257294 >>8257272 >hurr u just dont understand Oh the irony. Sure the answer was a bit short, but it was obvious to anyone who understands inflation and what OP meant by 'universe'

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:51:32 2016 No.8257298 "The universe" describes every point in space which has had or currently has matter or energy in it. "Outside" of the universe is just completely empty space.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:53:18 2016 No.8257304 >>8257298 not even that. There isnt even space. There is absolutely nothing

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 10:56:08 2016 No.8257305 >>8257294 >>8257294 OP here. I wanted to know if the Hilbert space was always infinite in eternal inflationary models. I also clarified my definition of 'universe' to mean 'region of non-inflating space'. So, you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 11:02:47 2016 No.8257313 >>8257305 I wasnt wrong. It just wasnt detailed enough for you it seems. So fair enough

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 11:06:11 2016 No.8257318 >>8257313 You thought that my use of the term 'universe' meant everything that exists. This would be the multiverse in relation to eternal inflationary models. It was a misunderstanding, resulting from my question being too ambiguous to be fair.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 11:22:18 2016 No.8257346 >>8257304 there is the potential for matter and energy to occupy it, it's just that nothing has been there yet

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 13:06:39 2016 No.8257498
File: 186 KB, 463x515, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8256922
>>>/x/ here. Hi everybody!

Got one question
A very serious one

>>8256927
>There is no outside, the universe expands into itself
>>8256939
There is no outside
>>8257008
>There isn't any "space" outside of the universe.
>>8257041
>There is no "outside" the universe under normal theories of inflation
>>8257029
>literally nothing

Does this mean that all points on the surface of the balloon are the actually the same point?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 14:00:53 2016 No.8257625 >>8256949 >>8257006 >>8257044 >>8257078 >>8257088 >>8257095 >>8257100 >>8257125 >>8257136 >>8257155 >>8257178 >>8257186 What does the paranormal board on 4chan have to do with science?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 14:07:01 2016 No.8257641 >>8257213 Your implication assumes that space exists independent of the universe. There isn't anything physically external to our universe, therefore, your implication does not follow. There is, was and will ever be one universe

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 14:12:33 2016 No.8257653 >>8257625 It doesn't, which is why you have to go back.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 14:25:52 2016 No.8257681 >>8256973 Inflation predicted the scalar spectral index was less than one, as confirmed by WMAP. Contrary to your ignorance inflation does have supporting evidence and it naturally predicts eternal inflation.

H Mon Aug 8 17:33:53 2016 No.8258065

>>8256922
Ignore the people in this thread that don't understand the picture, but you also need to forgot all the nonsense you think you know (i.e this >>8257117).
The universe doesn't need to be inside some larger space to expand - the expansion is just distanced between galaxies growing with time. Inflation was a period where expansion was very large (that's actually a lie - it has to do with the rate of change of expansion, but it caused very fast expansion in the past). Again, this doesn't require any larger space.

Your picture is suggestive of an alternative, called eternal inflation. This is where inflation doesn't stop, like it does in our standard cosmological models, but continues in most of the universe forever. Small pockets stop inflation and become like our universe, which in this model isn't the entire universe, just part of it - they call the whole universe the multiverse, and our non-inflating part the universe, but that's just terminology. The big universe is still 4D, just like in the usual model. Imagine an inflating balloon, that someone occasionally sprays glue on. The balloon keeps inflating forever, but these small patches get hit by the glue and stop inflating, instead expanding much more slowly as the glue sets.
Something like that ;)

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 17:49:37 2016 No.8258091 >>8257498 See >>8257004

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 17:56:51 2016 No.8258105 >>8258065 >expansion is just distanced between galaxies growing with time. Is this "relativity?"

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 18:03:21 2016 No.8258112
File: 312 KB, 1920x1080, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8258091
That does not even remotely answer the question.

Let me try this.
Are all points (regions), in general, (if not exact then close to) the center of the Universe? (When viewed from that location)

As the Planck Event (balloon) expands, is the perceived surface of the expanding balloon really just a single point.

Shouldn't the answer to this question be "of course!" ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 18:04:19 2016 No.8258113 >>8258112 You're not getting it. All of those points? They DON'T REALLY EXIST!

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 18:07:21 2016 No.8258119 >>8256922 >I mean to ask, what exists outside of the universe(s)? If you are talking about some hypothetical space in which each point corresponds to a universe, mathematically that could be some type of moduli space.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 18:11:15 2016 No.8258133
File: 43 KB, 604x483, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8257498(me)
>>8258112(me)
Can someone knowledgeable in expansion theory please answer my question without some esoteric answer about everything not existing?

I am trying to understand the geometry (topology, whatever) of the Universe, not debate whether it's all in our head.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 18:33:40 2016 No.8258191 >>8258133 Sorry man but the answer you want, it doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 18:55:27 2016 No.8258249 >>8257653 Edgy one right here. I don't think you should be too confident my friend.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 18:56:37 2016 No.8258252
File: 1.25 MB, 2561x3400, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8258191
How can the answer not exist?
Given that
1. Nothing exists outside the Universe 2. The Universe is Expanding (inflating)
3. The Universe has no "edge".
Then Shouldn't what we would intuitively think of as the edge, simply be the same point, such that the Universe wraps around?

You have a circle. The locus of points which make up the circle are collocated.

You have a sphere. The surface is all one point.

Does the Universe "wrap around"?

If I instantaneously project a line (ray) from the Earth, will said line arrive back here, from the opposite direction?

Shouldn't the answer be, OF COURSE!

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 19:13:11 2016 No.8258281 >>8258252 see >>8258065 >The universe doesn't need to be inside some larger space to expand - the expansion is just distanced between galaxies growing with time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 19:20:30 2016 No.8258290 File: 59 KB, 453x439, 1458691647614.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8258133 Fuck off with your shitty memes

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 19:34:30 2016 No.8258311

>>8258112
The common analogy is a balloon or raisin bread.

The surface of the balloon is the universe
There is nothing that exists off the surface of the balloon.
There is nothing that exists in the region bounded by the balloons surface.

Only the surface exists.
In this sense, there is no center.

While it's true that the material of the balloon could be stretched out and a center be found, that has no equivalence in spacetime.

When we talk about the shape of the universe being curved, or locally flat, it's just a description of the constraints used, not relating to physical properties. This is similar to particle spin, as they are not actually spinning.

Also, the surface of the balloon is 2d. Spacetime is 3d, which causes us to imagine intuitively, a 4d embedding and other "space" that these objects occupy. Again, these notions should be disregarded as there is no need for this to be the case in solutions to GR.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 19:40:48 2016 No.8258317

>>8256922
you are fundamentally misunderstanding the universe

the big bang wasn't an explosion that happened at a point in space, the big bang was an 'explosion' that happened everywhere, all at once with space expanding and accelerating eventually as matter gets generally farther and farther apart

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 19:49:17 2016 No.8258321

>>8257117
Damn you're salty. First off, you're wrong; such that given an infinite amount of time you have no reason to believe that there will be an infinite number of Universes. It seems that the most abused fallacy on this board, and by all religious fanatics and facebook popsci kids alike, is the fallacy of composition. You have no reason to believe that just because subsets of this Universe need a cause, that the Universe itself needs a cause. It doesn't; that's fallacious. And there was no space before the big bang you ignorant fucking autist, the big bang was the literal start of spacetime; the big bang wasn't a fucking explosion at a point in fucking space jesus fucking christ. I'm getting more and more salty thinking about all your comments. Literally these people are making fun of you for a reason, because you're being ignorant; even if they're wrong, you deserve this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 19:51:10 2016 No.8258323 >>8256926 Potentially underrated post.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 19:56:06 2016 No.8258330
File: 99 KB, 333x500, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8258311
Okay.
I am at a point on the surface of your balloon.
For the sake of argument, I am at the Equator on the Prime Meridian (it could be any point).
I walk in any direction.
I end up arriving back at the same point from the opposite direction.

Also. ANY point in the surface of the ballon can be considered the "center" of said surface.

The answer is "of course", right?

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 20:06:43 2016 No.8258345

>>8258330
Technically no.
If you took a square piece of rubber, marked the center and then tied it together into a balloon, it would only have one center.

Your argument is that you can rotate the balloon so that this mark occupies any other point. This is true, assuming you have some axis of motion perpendicular to the surface.

Since spacetime isn't embedded in higher dimensions, your analogy doesn't hold because there's no need or way to demonstrate change in coordinates.

To your credit, if you marked multiple points on the balloon, expansion would from the perspective of each point originate from them.

But this doesnt mean each point is the same, or that each is a center.
The notion of a center has no relevance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 20:06:47 2016 No.8258346 >>8258290 >Fuck off with your shitty memes >posts a shitty meme

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 20:15:54 2016 No.8258360
File: 356 KB, 1024x1457, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8258345
Disregard the concept of the center

If I walk in a direction
I will arrive back where I started
I will arrive from the opposite direction

If I could instantaneously "look" in one direction and see an object 1.5 pi r around the ballon.
When I turn around, I would see the same object 0.5 pi r away.
I would also see myself 2 pi r away regardless of what direction I "look".

Right?

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 20:21:16 2016 No.8258369

>>8258321
>And there was no space before the big bang
He's talking about inflation, not t=0. You don't even understand what he's talking about. I really don't know how people like you can be so ignorant and confident at the same time.

>>8258317
You misunderstand his question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 20:39:00 2016 No.8258396 >>8258360 Sure, that is reasonable

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 20:41:43 2016 No.8258402

>>8258369
The fuck are you talking about you fucking retard he literally said, and I quote, "the pre-big bang space is considered to be infinite, which I have just remembered and therefore answered my own question."

Which is what both of us were referring to. "Pre-big bang space" is an oxymoron.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 20:56:43 2016 No.8258428

>>8258402
No it's not in some terminology. Many people who have written of eternal inflation have described the decay of the false vacuum as big bangs or local big bangs. It's not what is understood as a big bang classically but that idea is outdated.

Even Guth does it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

It's pretty obvious what he meant from the context if you had any knowledge of the topic.

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 20:58:08 2016 No.8258431
File: 180 KB, 640x937, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8258396
Thank you for your answer.
Bend your mind.
I want to take this to the next dimension.
Let's assume (for visualization only!!!) that the Universe is the Volume of a Sphere (the balloon).
1. All points on the Surface of the Sphere should simply be the same point.
2. The Surface of the Sphere and the Center of the sphere should be the same point.
3. If I look any direction, I will see myself at distance "r"

Anonymous Mon Aug 8 21:05:53 2016 No.8258449

>>8258428
"Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region."

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 21:08:28 2016 No.8258453 >>8258449 And your point is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 8 22:11:59 2016 No.8258530 >>8258346 Kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:19:51 2016 No.8258995 >>8258252 There is no space outside the universe. The universe isn't a sphere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:41:14 2016 No.8259025 >>8256956 >Universe is infinite Yeah, no it's not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:42:17 2016 No.8259027 >>8259025 The empty void of space is infinite. The matter that fills in is finite.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:43:06 2016 No.8259029 >>8259027 yeah no

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:43:29 2016 No.8259030 >>8259029 it so is

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:43:49 2016 No.8259031 >>8259027 Space isn't a void, space is as as much a substance as any force or particle.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:44:16 2016 No.8259032 >>8259030 nope if you go far enough, you'll end up where you started

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:45:38 2016 No.8259036

>>8256922
space time is the physical representation of force and energy. The future exists as much as the past and the only reason we have a bias for the present is because of entropy. Energy must be used in available states i.e organic life cannot collect energy from the past to use it in the future, it must be past-future.

When normies finally realize this, many will kill themselves. But like evolution before us, it is the only thing that makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:46:39 2016 No.8259037 >>8259036 >life cannot collect energy from the future to use in the past fixed

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:47:18 2016 No.8259040 >>8259031 Space by definition is empty and a void. If there is a substance like dark matter that fills it than thats not a void anymore. Thats why we call it empty space. But space by definition is void.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:51:18 2016 No.8259047

>>8258252
With your sphere bullshit you're basically explaining the "closed" model of the universe, which is known NOT to be true thanks to experiments such as WMAP.

The Universe is flat, i.e. finite. HOWEVER, this does not mean that the universe has an edge of sorts. In this model inflation eventually stops, however expansion continues due to the presence of dark energy.

>>8259027
Nope, nope, nope. See my above reply.

Wtf do you even mean by 'empty void of space'? As a concept it makes no sense in how we think we understand the universe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:52:02 2016 No.8259049 >>8259047 >Wtf do you even mean by 'empty void of space'? As a concept it makes no sense in how we think we understand the universe. Explain

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 04:55:42 2016 No.8259052 OP here. These are the only two people ITT who have understood my question: >>8257238 >>8258428 >>8258369 This thread is a mess.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:00:53 2016 No.8259062

>>8259049
>Explain

There's nothing to explain. You're the one making absurd claiming of some 'space' that doesn't exist.

The Universe is finite, and composed of the observable universe (what we can see) and that which is beyond. But remember the universe is finite, we don't know how large it is. Beyond the spacetime that we understand there is nothing. There is no 'outside of our universe' or 'space our universe is expanding into'. It just doesn't make sense. The universe expands similar to balloon (but in 3D), every point just gets further from every other point.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:01:06 2016 No.8259063

>>8258065

I was talking about eternal inflation and the statements made here >>8257117 describe this process:

>Small pockets stop inflation and become like our universe

The nature of the inflationary space is not 4D by default; different models take Hilbert spaces of varying dimensions, including some that are infinite.

You didn't understand, but that's fine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:05:38 2016 No.8259071 >>8259062 >You're the one making absurd claiming of some 'space' that doesn't exist. Are you retarded ? You can't comprehend the concept of nothingness ? >The Universe is finite define universe, then explain whats beyond the universe after it "finishes"

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:06:40 2016 No.8259074 >>8259040 Space is still something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:10:18 2016 No.8259081 >>8259074 Space is an empty area by definition. You can fill it with something and it will still be space.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:11:35 2016 No.8259084

>>8259071
>You can't comprehend the concept of nothingness ?

Then learn to language better. You're claiming this 'void of empty space' is nothingness, right?
Well that's the wrong way to express it. It is nothing. It's not space, it's nothing. It's not a void, it's nothing.
Space by definition has an energy associated with it due to quantum fluctuations so no matter how much of an empty void of space you say it is, it's still something. Unless it's nothing.

>inb4 Dr. Krauss

>>8259071
>define universe, then explain whats beyond the universe after it "finishes"

By universe I mean our universe, none of that multiverse shit that is unfalsifiable anyway. And by saying it "finishes" you're saying it has an edge, which I already said it didn't here >>8259047

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:11:43 2016 No.8259085 >>8259074 >>8259081 Guys, why are you using terms like 'empty space' and 'nothing' when neither have ever been observed and likely do not exist?

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:13:22 2016 No.8259089

>>8259081

Space still isn't nothing, it is something and has properties. It is as real as any force or particle. You interact with it at all times and it is warped and has shape.

An empty area is like the gap in your head where your brain should be, stupid.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:19:25 2016 No.8259099

>>8259084
Are you an aetherfag or something ? As I said, if it's energy measurable, then you are detecting something, then theres something in that space.

> you're saying it has an edge, which I already said it didn't here
I didn't claim universe have an edge either. I said its infinite. Youre confusing this one with another post.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:24:33 2016 No.8259104

>>8259099
>Are you an aetherfag or something ? As I said, if it's energy measurable, then you are detecting something, then theres something in that space.

Wtf are you on about? You never said any of that in any of your posts I replied to. Are you the 'void of empty space' fag?

The universe still isn't infinite no matter how many times you repeat it. WMAP concluded a flat universe years ago = finite universe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 05:57:58 2016 No.8259131 its curved in on itself in a spatial dimension we cannot detect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 06:01:15 2016 No.8259136 >>8259104 And the evidence for your claims ?

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 07:25:45 2016 No.8259229

>>8259040

Forces and particles are no more tangible at the level of reality than space is. Space even has it's own measurement how can you measure something which doesn't exist? You can't move 2km through nothing.

Outside the universe there is no space, no time, mass or energy. There is nothing. You can't have anything without space.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 07:34:16 2016 No.8259242 >>8258530 You first

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 07:58:55 2016 No.8259266

>>8259104

>The universe still isn't infinite no matter how many times you repeat it. WMAP concluded a flat universe years ago = finite universe.

Yeah, but isn't it a finite universe expanding infinitely?

Slowing down but never quite stopping so that at infinity v = 0?

Not the anon you're replying to btw.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 08:22:58 2016 No.8259278

>>8259136
>evidence for your claims

Any astronomy/cosmology textbook would inform you about different geometries and what each one means. But anyway, here's some evidence. Its the Planck results from 2013 (WMAP did constrain the universe to a flat geometry, Planck just improved the constraints).

Be aware its a 66 page article, but here you go -

>In summary, there is no evidence from Planck for any departure from a spatially flat geometry. The results of Eqs. (67a) and (67b) suggest that our Universe is spatially flat to an accuracy of better than a percent.

>>8259266
Correct, but according to the observations (the article I posted above) the universe is accelerating in its expansion. So rather than slowing down (at infinity v = 0) its actually going to increase to the point where it will exceed c.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 08:24:00 2016 No.8259279 >>8259278 here's the article link btw >>8259266 >>8259136

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 08:43:21 2016 No.8259300 >>8259279 Right, ok cool. Heat death then?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 08:47:45 2016 No.8259303 File: 992 KB, 389x259, 1126[2].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8259300 >thinks heat death is a possibility reading too much popsci are you ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:00:38 2016 No.8259319 >>8259300 At t = infinity theoretically yes it would.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:02:16 2016 No.8259320 >>8257498 No. How would you even conclude this from the stuff you quoted?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:04:27 2016 No.8259323 >>8259081 >Space is an empty area by definition that doesnt mean it is "nothing"

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:05:31 2016 No.8259324 >>8259303 lol moron

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:11:45 2016 No.8259333

>>8256922
>I mean to ask, what exists outside of the universe(s)?
This is a meaningless concept. There cant be anything "outside" of the universe. There is absolutely nothing. Not empty space and no weird dimension that folds in itself with nothing in it. No, literally nothing

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:13:34 2016 No.8259336 >>8257498 Why are you alway avatarfagging and introduce yourself by board name? Nobody cares. Thats cancer. just post normal

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:23:03 2016 No.8259348 >>8259333 Well that's one model. There are other models too. They all remain models until observations and data support or discredit them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:25:11 2016 No.8259350 >>8259303 Idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:26:14 2016 No.8259353 >>8259319 Sweet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:28:10 2016 No.8259357 >>8259348 We cant even measure anything outside of the universe. What are you talking about? There is nothing. Pretty much by definition and all our current understanding

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:32:04 2016 No.8259362 >>8259357 There isn't 'nothing', it's simply that the universe/multiverse is everything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:41:51 2016 No.8259371 >>8259362 Thats pretty much what I'm saying. Therefor, there is no outside. There is nothing on the "outside"

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:47:25 2016 No.8259376 >>8259371 Yes I know and so does OP.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:48:04 2016 No.8259379

>>8259357
Well I think this is just a matter of definitions. The Universe is commonly (although not always) defined as something along the lines of 'all of time and space and its contents'. But what if there is more than space and time? Sounds pretty weird, but it wouldn't be the first time physics went against our everyday experiences (such as quantum mechanics). And if space and time appeared around 13.8 billion years ago but something caused them to appear, then whatever caused them to appear would be outside our universe -outside of space and time.

However some people define the universe as 'all that exists, or has existed, or ever will exist'. That's fair enough, if that's how they want to define it then who am I to argue. I'm guessing this is what you are talking about, so in that sense I would agree with you (although I am more inclined to use the word 'cosmos' instead of 'universe', thanks to watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos series when I was younger). After all, what else can exist besides 'all that exists'? lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 09:55:06 2016 No.8259396 >>8259376 well, he knows now And if you knew then why >>8259362 >>8259348 >>8259379 Interesting idea, I guess. And yeah, there can be some semantic arguments to be made about the term "universe"

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:02:40 2016 No.8259414

>>8259396

>I know [that]...

>there is no outside.

I didn't know that you knew what I now know you know.

And OP new when he started the thread.

In later posts he defined his use of the term 'universe' as our 'region of non-inflating space', in relation to an eternally inflating multiverse.

He just didn't make that clear and expected anyone familiar with eternal inflation to read between the lines, which only a couple of anons managed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:03:42 2016 No.8259415 >>8259414 knew*

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:13:50 2016 No.8259430 >>8259414 Well, firstly it wouldnt be my fault if OP made a shitty OP. Secondly, there is still nothing ""outside"" of the universe

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:19:26 2016 No.8259436 >>8259414 >And OP new when he started the thread. >I mean to ask, what exists outside of the universe(s)? nice try op

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:21:25 2016 No.8259441

>>8259430

There is something outside of our region of non-inflating space, in relation to eternal inflationary models and if 'universe' is defined as 'region of non-inflating space', then there is something outside of our universe; which would be the multiverse.

This is a pointless argument, however; it's merely semantic and the definitions used were defined.

But yeah, OP was being ambiguous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:22:26 2016 No.8259443 >>8259436 I'm not OP, but see >>8259441 if you still don't understand.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:23:02 2016 No.8259444

>>8257006
Fuck off, you actual retard.

>>8257010
>he hasn't heard of inflation

Holy shit, I am mad. Sorry OP, can't answer your question.

I didn't realise /sci/ was so fucking awful. Full of ignorant 'muh iq is 160' retards who only post here to feel smart because actually they're failing their first year of high school.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:24:58 2016 No.8259446 >>8259441 No, there cant be something "outside" of the universe my man. >multiverse [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:26:49 2016 No.8259448 >>8259443 I understand. You claimed Op knew what was outside. But he asked what was outside in the OP

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:33:18 2016 No.8259463

>>8259446

>multiverse

We've all made it very clear that we are dealing with eternal inflationary models ITT, even if OP didn't.

>>8259448

He asked if the outside was infinite dimensional.

He didn't know what the outside was like, in relation to dimensions.

This was answered here >>8257238

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:35:37 2016 No.8259470 >>8259463 >We've all made it very clear nice citation

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:37:24 2016 No.8259473 >>8259470 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=multiverse+site%3Aarxiv.org

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:42:04 2016 No.8259479 >>8259473 >lmgtfy nice snarky comment. But dont bother, I know about this theory. I'm not the one baselessly assuming stuff "outside" of it

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:44:42 2016 No.8259483

>>8259479

Well it's not one theory, the multiverse is central to a large number of models which would be better described as hypotheses.

And nobody assumed anything that isn't within the scope of an eternal inflationary model.

So, it sounds like you don't know shit lad m8.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:46:49 2016 No.8259486 >>8259479 lol moron

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:50:17 2016 No.8259492

>>8259483
Oh boy, there were a lot of assumptions.
>So, it sounds like you don't know shit lad m8.
How ironic. But hey, resorting to namecalling is always a sound argument

>>8259486
stop spamming shitposts everywhere
>>/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=lol+moron

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 10:54:32 2016 No.8259495 >>8259492 I called you lad m8; that's not an insult, lad m8. >there were a lot of assumptions. Identify one assumption not implicit to an eternal inflationary model.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:06:23 2016 No.8259510 >>8259495 >"u dont know shit" is not just cheap namecalling >"there are things outside of our universe" and "there are other universes" are not just assumptions Check out /x/.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:18:00 2016 No.8259527

>>8259510

>there are things outside of our universe

This has already been settled; see >>8259441

>there are other universes

This has also already been settled; see >>8259463

>We've all made it very clear that we are dealing with eternal inflationary models ITT

I think you might have a learning difficulty, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:19:22 2016 No.8259529 >>8259510 lol moron

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:23:21 2016 No.8259533 >>8259510 assumption: >a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Who accepted any aspect of any model as true or certain? You don't even understand the words you're using, let alone science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:23:33 2016 No.8259536 >>8259527 >links to the posts where he made baseless assumptions >"settled" >hurr u just dumb oh the irony >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:27:09 2016 No.8259545 >>8259536 >links to the posts where he made baseless assumptions You don't know what the word assumption means. As this anon >>8259533 has plainly pointed out. >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:30:46 2016 No.8259549 >>8259536 Please leave this board, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:34:12 2016 No.8259552 >>8259545 >>8259549 Yeah, the thread is full of people who made huge assumptions. Nice damage control "hurr they were only pretending to be retarded". >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 11:36:56 2016 No.8259554 >>8259552 >Yeah, the thread is full of people who made huge assumptions. [citation needed]

>>	H Tue Aug 9 12:54:07 2016 No.8259703 >>8259104 Flat universes are infinite. They look like Minkowski space at each instant of cosmic time, hence the term FLAT.

>>	H Tue Aug 9 12:55:10 2016 No.8259704 >>8259703 There could be topological identification, making space a torus for example, which would be finite, but flat does not imply finite in general.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 13:17:16 2016 No.8259740

>>8256946
Remember people retrograds are shit tier:

>There's only our country hurr durr.
>There's only the flat earth - don't go far you'll fall.
>There's only Sun and Moon orbiting our earth.
>There's only earth and stars
>There's only what we can observe
>There's only this universe

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 13:26:59 2016 No.8259754 >>8259533 >The thing supposed; a postulate, or proposition assumed; a supposition. >>8259554 Ok, maybe half the thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 13:30:51 2016 No.8259759 >>8259703 >>8259704 >Finite but expanding infinitely Would you class that as finite or infinite?

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 13:36:38 2016 No.8259769

>>8259754

>The thing supposed; a postulate, or proposition assumed; a supposition.

Firstly, that's not the definition of assumption.

Secondly, this thread concerns hypothetical models which by definition are based on limited evidence.

Hypothesis:

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

>Ok, maybe half the thread

[citation need]

Just link to the posts, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 13:40:15 2016 No.8259776 >>8259754 lol moron

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 13:50:28 2016 No.8259796

>>8259769
>the definition
it is a definition. it might not be the definition you thought of

>based on limited evidence.
Or sometimes, completely made up stuff. Could I even falsify the beliefs about stuff "outside" of our universe?

>>8259776
nice spamming

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 14:41:03 2016 No.8259902

>>8259796

>it is a definition. it might not be the definition you thought of

I know exactly where you got the definition.

The 1913 edition of Webster’s Dictionary.

>the imported definitions may be significantly out of date, and any more recent senses may be completely missing.

You went and found an archaic definition that is more than 100 years old, which happens to compliment your argument.

That's kind of sad, anon.

>Could I even falsify the beliefs about stuff "outside" of our universe?

Yes, but you would already know all about that wouldn't you?

As you said here >>8259479

>I know about this

All of a sudden, you don't seem to know much at all.

How about you learn about inflation before posting next time.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 14:41:45 2016 No.8259904
File: 413 KB, 1521x1374, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8256967
OP fuck off
Imagine a piece of graph paper. The graph paper is the observable universe. Draw lines between all the preexisting lines. You have just expanded the vector space by 3,000% without expanding into any other space.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 14:53:52 2016 No.8259917 >>8259904 strong

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 15:12:45 2016 No.8259954

>>8259902
Well, thats exactly the kind of condescending bullshit I expected. No argument at all. Just dumb vague implications that I am wrong. Dunning-Kruger effect at full force.

So, if it makes you feel better about yourself:
You know so much about this. Please enlightend me about the evidence of things outside of our universe. Please enlighten me about how you could possibly prove the existence of things outside our universe. How can you falsify it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 15:13:24 2016 No.8259957 >>8256956 wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 15:16:54 2016 No.8259961 sci join ##sci on freenode let's continue these discussions webchat.freenode.net /join ##sci need to grow

>>	H Tue Aug 9 15:28:05 2016 No.8259980 >>8259759 Usually when people talk about the universe "finite" refers to the spatial part. In a flat universe space is actually infinite. It is infinite as close in time as you want to the big bang.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 15:54:41 2016 No.8260019 >>8259904 I'm fully aware of how space expands, without expanding 'into' anything. You do not understand the thread, but that's ok. The question was answered here >>8257238

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 15:55:26 2016 No.8260021

>>8259902
>>8259902
>Yes
Other guy here. Would also be interested in the falsifiability of the multivers hypothesis. Isnt it the point of this, that the different universes within the multiverse were causally disconnected due to inflation? Isnt everything between those universes also causally disconnected from our universe?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 16:02:58 2016 No.8260029 >>8259954 You're asking me to teach you about the very thing you claimed to have knowledge of. If anyone is Dunning-Kruger-ing it up in here, it's you mate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 16:05:06 2016 No.8260036 >>8260021 Ok, I'm just popping out but I'll come back and reply to you regarding how we could ever confirm a multiverse hypothesis.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 16:07:09 2016 No.8260042 >>8259980 Ok, we're on the same page.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 16:13:59 2016 No.8260065

>>8260029
>thinks he knows shit
>makes snarky comments, thinking he knows more than other people
>not dunning kruger
Well, or you are just trolling. Either way, it is just sad.

But to calm you down here. I said I have knowledge of it. Yes. But isnt it obvious, that by asking you something, that I dont know about the particular thing I am asking you about? People can know about something without knowing every little detail about it. Is that so hard?
So tell me, without namecalling or stupid excuses and dodging, how can we falsify the "hypothesis" that there things "outside" of our universe?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 16:25:10 2016 No.8260089 >>8260036 Would be nice, I'm looking forward to it. Can barely find anything regarding this and hope it is not just a cop out

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 17:40:41 2016 No.8260216
File: 666 KB, 300x220, image.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8260065

>not dunning kruger

No, it's not you cunt flap.

It's called being arrogant, facetious and rude.

To put it crudely, Dunning-Kruger requires ignorance combined with arrogance.

You have no idea if I am ignorant of the topic at hand, as I have refused to properly engage with you.

I shan't be engaging with you in any meaningful way, as I think you are a cum guzzling wank puffin.

I'll be writing something up for this anon >>8260089 shortly, however; therefore, you can watch from the sidelines.

P.S. I hope you get anal cancer, endure a long and arduous fight for survival and then make a full recovery, only to be cornered in a dark alley years later and brutally anally raped, during which your attacker comments on how unusually tight your anus is and it's then that you realise...

The cancer has returned.

P.P.S.

Do us all a favour and follow in the footsteps of Budd Dwyer.

>pic related

P.P.P.S

Fuck you.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 17:56:50 2016 No.8260238

>>8260216
>another stupid excuse to not answer a simple question
I get the impression, that you cant answer the question and have too much of an ego to just admit this. And for someone getting so upset over rudeness and arrogance you were very great at throwing around insults and baseless accusations about my knowledge so far.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 18:41:46 2016 No.8260284

>>8256922
This is b8. OP is b8ing.

How can I tell? Because he claims to know everything there is about inflation, and asks a very simple question about it.
When criticized or given literally any answer, he replies "fuck off obviously you don't know about the theory." Which begs the question, if he knows more about the theory than everyone else, why can't be answer his own question?

His obnoxious and provocative manner doesn't help him sound serious either.

Stop feeding the troll.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 18:47:53 2016 No.8260293

>>8260238

Ok fuck it...

The multiverse isn't a hypothesis, it's a prediction of certain hypothesis/theories.

For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, we do not need to be able to observe and test all of its predictions, merely at least one of them.

General relativity for example, predicts the detailed motion of Mercury around the sun, gravitational lensing and the gravitational slowing of clocks; however, it also predicts the spatial nature of the interior of black holes and what happens at their event horizons.

Inflation is now referred to as a theory, as it has made testable predictions, which this anon >>8257681 kindly pointed out earlier.

So it is a falsifiable theory that has supporting evidence, the eternal aspect of which will be confirmed to a much greater degree of accuracy if BICEP manages to detect the right sort of polarised radiation signal.

If you don't know what I'm referring to in that last paragraph, then you can google it.

Anyway, eternal inflation predicts what is referred to as the level II multiverse by some; this describes the region contained within our light cone (level I) and our region of non-inflationary space/universe.

Other theories that also predict a multiverse involve up to three, or even four levels.

For example, collapse-free quantum mechanics models and certain external reality hypotheses (fractal universe hypotheses, for example).

When it comes to falsifiable theories with supporting evidence, you either accept them as they are or go back to the drawing board and start again.

You can't say 'I like how general relativity predicts gravitational lensing, but not black holes so I'll omit those'; you either accept them, or come up with another equally viable mathematical model that is equally proficient at making predictions.

The same is true of eternal inflation.

I'm not home atm; I'll return later with a proper break down of inflation and its predictions.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 18:54:50 2016 No.8260302

>>8260284
>is the inflationary space that exists outside of our particular region of non-inflating space, which is mathematically represented as a Hilbert space, necessarily infinite-dimensional?

Such a simple question.

Oh and the answer is not necessarily, but in many models yes.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 20:42:49 2016 No.8260429

>>8260293
>The multiverse...
sure
>Inflation is now referred to as a theory, as it has made testable predictions
sure
I know, but good summary.
>So it is a falsifiable theory that has supporting evidence...
Yeah, sure. I also already read about BICEP. Good thing, that I didnt question infaltion theory itself.
>more stuff that we already know
Again, nice rundown.
But you unfortunately didnt really adress my question, which was specifically about predictions of things "outside" of our universe.
To recapture:
I asked
>>8259796
>Could I even falsify the beliefs about stuff "outside" of our universe?
to which you answered
>>8259902
>Yes, but you would already know all about that wouldn't you?
>Yes

I also expanded on this question here
>>8259954
To which you answered in a tone, as if there were things to be known about it.

So please dont try to teach /sci/ about the very basics of inflation or the philosophy of science. Instead back up your claims already.

Anonymous Tue Aug 9 20:51:24 2016 No.8260448

>>8260284

>When criticized or given literally any answer, he replies "fuck off obviously you don't know about the theory."

This is a trend I also witnessed throughout the thread.

> if he knows more about the theory than everyone else, why can't be answer his own question?

exactly. even after getting an answer he sperged out. I dont think OP wants an answer and samefags his own posts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 21:39:48 2016 No.8260525 >>8260216 >I'll be writing something up for this anon yay! Please do so

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 22:15:07 2016 No.8260568 why cant it be self referential meaning that universes are in a univers and vica verca

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 9 23:53:48 2016 No.8260675 >>8260568 That's not self reference. Also, anything in a universe is part of that universe so there's no way for them to be nested

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 01:52:03 2016 No.8260852

>>8256922
What inflation hypothesis? There are many.

If Eternal Chaotic Inflation is true, and if our universe is not the "first," then our universe (our observable universe) exists inside a multi verse with many other universes. So there would be more space outside our own universe.

Infinite dimensional Hilbert space does not exist; it is merely a mathematical construct, so the question does not make sense, unless a sort of Platonism is presupposed, or taken in consideration.

Imaginary time is a like another direction in space, and it is perpendicular to real time, much like an imaginary number line is perpendicular to the real number line.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 02:00:28 2016 No.8260865 >>8259089 kek. .

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:01:12 2016 No.8260984 >>8260429 >which was specifically about predictions of things "outside" of our universe. Other universes are outside our universe. That anon answered your question.

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:12:17 2016 No.8260998

>>8260429
>Could I even falsify the beliefs about stuff "outside" of our universe?

this was explained here >>8260293

>For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, we do not need to be able to observe and test all of its predictions, merely at least one of them.

>inflation predicts what is referred to as the level II multiverse by some; this describes the region contained within our light cone (level I) and our region of non-inflationary space/universe

that's how inflation can make predictions about things outside our universe/non-inflating region.

your question has been answered yet you're pretending it hasnt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:15:27 2016 No.8261003 >>8260429 You're either playing dumb at this point or just being contrarian for keks. I've answered your question, anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:17:14 2016 No.8261004 >>8260448 I ( >>8260293 ) am not OP, btw. I think he jumped ship ages ago.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:29:18 2016 No.8261024 >>8261003 just ignore him, he's obviously trolling at this point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:33:39 2016 No.8261032 File: 906 KB, 500x282, image.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8260429

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:42:02 2016 No.8261044
File: 25 KB, 347x300, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8260429
>how can the multiverse be falsifiable?

>the same way the interior of blacks holes can be

>dont try to teach /sci/ about the very basics of inflation or the philosophy of science. Instead back up your claims already.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:43:21 2016 No.8261047 >>8261032 source on dat .gif?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 04:45:01 2016 No.8261051 >>8261047 Your underage is showing. >The Shining

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 05:02:04 2016 No.8261074 >>8260852 you're a bit late to the party, laddo.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 05:04:21 2016 No.8261079 File: 43 KB, 476x594, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >this thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 05:13:23 2016 No.8261087 File: 1.50 MB, 230x172, image.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8260429 >So please dont try to teach /sci/ about the very basics of inflation or the philosophy of science. Instead back up your claims already

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 06:01:43 2016 No.8261127 >>8260675 that makes multiverses impossible to exist..

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 06:57:06 2016 No.8261187

>>8260984
No, it wasnt, I know what it cahn predict. That wasnt the question.

>>8260998
Please learn to read. I actually recaptured the question. You are just avoiding the question. The first line you quoted was about inflation theory, the second just says something about its predictions. Again, see>>8260429.

>>8261044
Yes, the black hole analogy doesnt make sense.
black holes can be observed (at least indirectly).
Things "outside" our universe are causally disconnected from us entirely.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:02:16 2016 No.8261197 >>8260216 >>8260525 Wait. Was this what you were talking about >>8260293 ????

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:12:21 2016 No.8261206 >>8261004 eeeeeeeh... good for you, I guess

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:13:51 2016 No.8261208

>>8261003
see
>>8261187

and see
>>8260429
But you unfortunately didnt really adress my question, which was specifically about predictions of things "outside" of our universe.
To recapture:
I asked
>>8259796 (You)
>Could I even falsify the beliefs about stuff "outside" of our universe?
to which you answered
>>8259902
>Yes, but you would already know all about that wouldn't you?
>Yes

Stop claiming you answered my question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:14:05 2016 No.8261209 >>8261127 >multiple infinities

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:25:44 2016 No.8261226

>>8261208

>the black hole analogy doesnt make sense.

>black holes can be observed (at least indirectly).

Well then it's a good thing my argument didn't relate to the existence of black holes:

>it also predicts the spatial nature of the interior of black holes

The interior of a black hole cannot be observed directly or indirectly, but its nature is predicted by general relativity.

General relativity makes certain predictions about things that cannot be observed.

Eternal inflation does exactly the same thing and the multiverse is one of these predictions.

The analogy holds; the question has been answered.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:28:49 2016 No.8261230 >>8261208 anon, you've been BTFO. just accept it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:30:10 2016 No.8261235 >>8261197 No it isn't, anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:31:35 2016 No.8261238 >>8256943 Well there is still the Multi-World interpretation of quantum mechanics and higher dimensions in String Theory but both of these option have no real basis.

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:41:51 2016 No.8261251

>>8261187
>>8261197
Another anon here, trying to actually give you an answer.

At first, we can agree, that predictions of other universes is mathematically sound and that, within the frames of inflation theory, the cosmology is logically consistent, right?

>Could I even falsify the beliefs about stuff "outside" of our universe?

So lets look at falsifiability:
>A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

So we are left with making observations/measurements of something outside our universe. Some people are saying this is currently not possible. I dont see where they are comming from, as our inability to interact with things that arent part of our universe, isnt barely anything to do with our technological shortcommings. As people already pointed out, we are totally disconnected from everything outside our universe.
It cant be falsified, other universes cant be observed at all. It is more metaphysics than anything. So the other anon was wrong with his idea about a falsifiable multiverse.
However, I strongly disagree with your notion of "completely made up stuff". Sounds a bit too harsh for me, since it actually can answer things about the fine tuning problem and is predicted by solid models

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:49:51 2016 No.8261260

>>8261226
The analogy doesnt hold. Black holes can be observed indirectly. Things outside our universe cant. An unobservable prediction cant really be a point where a hypothesis can be falsified.
Anyway, that is besides the point, since you just described the inflation theory. Learn to read. Read the posts, where I recaptured this shit. You claimed, one could falsify the existence of things outside our universe.

HOW CAN I FALSIFY THINGS OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE?
you didnt answer this question and just claim you did, to safe face.
>>8261230
oh, it is (You) again, please answer the question or admit, that your answer was wrong
it is getting sad

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 07:54:12 2016 No.8261264

>>8261251

You're cherry picking the predictions of a falsifiable and experimentally confirmed theory.

I already addressed this here >>8260293

>When it comes to falsifiable theories with supporting evidence, you either accept them as they are or go back to the drawing board and start again

>You can't say 'I like how general relativity predicts gravitational lensing, but not [the spatial nature of the interior of] black holes so I'll omit those'; you either accept them, or come up with another equally viable mathematical model that is equally proficient at making predictions.

>The same is true of eternal inflation.

The model is falsifiable, explains observations, makes accurate predictions and one of its predictions happens to be a multiverse.

If you don't like the multiverse, then come up with an alternative model to inflation that explains observations, makes accurate predictions and doesn't involve a multiverse.

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:05:23 2016 No.8261273

>>8261264
Well, I just explained to the other anon how other universes or a space between universes cant possibly be observed. Never tried to rattle on infaltion theory
see
>At first, we can agree, that predictions of other universes is mathematically sound and that, within the frames of inflation theory, the cosmology is logically consistent, right?

However, I disagree with your notion of disregarding a whole theory because some predictions are untestable. Inflation answered a lot of questions about our universe and is a steady changing theory as new measurements/experiments are made all the time.
But yes, I can cherrypick and criticise it for its unprovable predictions. A lot of people do.

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:05:24 2016 No.8261275

>>8261260

>Black holes can be observed indirectly

You have strawmanned this point twice now.

I said that:

THE INTERIOR OF A BLACK HOLE CANNOT BE OBSERVED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YET GENERAL RELATIVITY MAKES PREDICTIONS ABOUT ITS SPATIAL NATURE, WHICH WE ACCEPT AS THE MODEL IS FALSIFIABLE AND HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED.

>HOW CAN I FALSIFY THINGS OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE?

This might be a semantic problem at this point.

The inflationary model(s) is falsifiable, explains observations, makes accurate predictions and one of its predictions happens to be a multiverse

It makes certain predictions about unobservable things, just like general relativity does.

If you accept general relativity, then you accept the predicted spatial nature of the interior of black holes, even though you can never observe such a thing.

If you accept inflation, then you accept the multiverse even though you can never observe such a thing.

You can't cherry pick predictions.

You have to accept the models as it is, warts and all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:09:25 2016 No.8261277 >>8261273 >However, I disagree with your notion of disregarding a whole theory because some predictions are untestable. I'm clearly arguing the polar opposite of that. See >>8261275

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:10:37 2016 No.8261280

>>8261251
>trying to actually give you an answer
it is about time

>At first, we can agree, that predictions
Depends on the predictions. But if you mean what I think, then basically yes.

>It cant be falsified, other universes cant be observed at all. It is more metaphysics than anything.
Well, thats what I thought. This really makes much more sense. Other dude just confused me.

>However, I strongly disagree with your notion of "completely made up stuff"
It is not on the same level as pink unicorns in chocolate land, but after all it seems still pretty unscientific to me.

Thanks, based anon. Finally someone who can just answer a simple question

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:15:37 2016 No.8261286

>>8261280

>Other dude just confused me.

Well that's what I thought, hence I said I thought the problem might be semantic here >>8261275

I have a long history of being ambiguous and then spurning people when they don't understand [read: I'm autistic].

If you feel that way about inflation, then the interior of a black hole might as well be a sea of unicorns and you reject the unobservable predictions of general relativity.

Just so you know...

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:22:19 2016 No.8261289

>>8261275
But general relativity isnt falsifiable because of its predictions about the interior of black holes. Yes, the interior is in the same way speculative as the multiverse. But at least with black holes, we can study the effect surrounding it and can indeed use these observations to make educated guesses. With the "outside" of our universe, there is no interaction at all.

And talking about strawmanning. You keep talking about inflation and the philosophy of science as if I dont know about it and as if I didnt repeatedly refered to the very specific question I made.

You said, you can falsify the existence of stuff outside our universe

To recapture:
I asked
>>8259796
>Could I even falsify the beliefs about stuff "outside" of our universe?
to which you answered
>>8259902
>Yes, but you would already know all about that wouldn't you?
>Yes

You cant just claim, things "outside" our universe are (dis-)provable, just because the theory the prediction is based on, made other predictions that could be proved.

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:27:11 2016 No.8261292

>>8261277
>I'm clearly arguing the polar opposite of that.
well, then this statement
>If you don't like the multiverse, then come up with an alternative model to inflation that explains observations, makes accurate predictions and doesn't involve a multiverse.
Was quite the bipolar slip, I guess.

I think one can "cherrypick" predictions. Why shouldnt I be more skeptical about predictions, that cant be observed? I accept the theory, but I acknowledge its flaws.

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:30:07 2016 No.8261293

>>8261289

Treating you like an idiot isn't strawmanning, anon.

Ok, our disagreement is semantic.

The multiverse cannot be observed, but it also cannot be removed from inflation.

The interior of a black hole is no different as it cannot be observed; according to your logic, your stance on the spatial nature of the interior of black holes is identical to your stance on the multiverse.

I'm happy to accept that; you should be too.

Inflation is falsifiable, so you can think of the multiverse as indirectly confirmed as a result of inflation or ignore it as an interesting but useless prediction.

That's up to you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:31:45 2016 No.8261295 >>8261292 That statement isn't contradictory with any other of my statements, once you realise that my stance on this matter: >I think one can "cherrypick" predictions Is that I disagree. Why do you think you can cherry pick predictions?

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:40:01 2016 No.8261299

>>8261293
>Treating you like an idiot isn't strawmanning, anon.
hurr. you are so superior, anon. good point, but arguing against a point I never made is indeed strawmanning

>Ok, our disagreement is semantic
It isnt. I just want an answer to a simple question

>The multiverse cannot be observed
And there it is. So you were wrong. One cant falsify the beliefs about stuff outside our universe. Was that so hard?

>your stance on the spatial nature of the interior of black holes
No. Learn to read. I explained how these things are a little bit different.

>Inflation is falsifiable
Never claimed it wasnt.

>multiverse as indirectly confirmed as a result of inflation
thats not how it works

>as an interesting but useless prediction
exactly

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:43:56 2016 No.8261304 >>8261299 >arguing against a point I never made is indeed strawmanning Never happened. >I explained how these things are a little bit different You didn't. >thats not how it works It is.

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:46:58 2016 No.8261305

>>8261295
I thought your "I'm arguing the opposite of disregarding a whole theory" and "if you dont like, come up with an alternative" were a bit contradictory. Not my primary language. Whatever.
>Why do you think you can cherry pick predictions?
As I said. Because they can be observable or not. This isnt some sort of dogma. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about purely speculative things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:48:42 2016 No.8261310 >>8261304 see >>8261289 But thanks again for admitting you were wrong and your butthurt apology

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:50:19 2016 No.8261312 >>8261304 >It is multiverse isnt confirmed

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:50:45 2016 No.8261313 >>8261305 Ok, but how do you explain the multiverse being intrinsic to inflationary models? Do you think that part of the model is wrong and that a new model will explain it away?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:52:28 2016 No.8261317 >>8261310 You've made a gravely important mistake, anon. You've overlooked key evidence in your fit of religious fervour! See >>8261312

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:53:53 2016 No.8261320 Guys, where were you that day the multiverse was confirmed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 08:57:24 2016 No.8261322 >>8261312 Indirectly it is; honour by association lad m8.

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:05:45 2016 No.8261332

>>8261305

Are you really going to reject the only real explanatory framework we have.

Guide me to the reason behind such a stance.

Mentally, I can't see you being sound.

From your perspective, everything seems totally bonkers if you ask me.

Ignorance isn't something to celebrate anon.

22449

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:16:31 2016 No.8261357

>>8261310

Really anon, you've just completely contradiction yourself.

Utterly surprised that you can't see the gaping hole in your argument.

Sorry if you can't see it, but if you look hard enough it will be obvious.

Even then, it's a little hard to come back from that.

1111

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:17:53 2016 No.8261360

>>8261332
>Are you really going to reject the only real explanatory framework we have.
What? no.
Actually read my posts and get what I'm saying.
>we can agree, that predictions of other universes is mathematically sound and that, within the frames of inflation theory, the cosmology is logically consistent
>But yes, I can cherrypick and criticise it for its unprovable predictions. A lot of people do.
>Why shouldnt I be more skeptical about predictions, that cant be observed? I accept the theory, but I acknowledge its flaws.
>This isnt some sort of dogma. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about purely speculative things.

skepticism =/= ignorance
nothing bonkers here
nothing important rejected

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:20:36 2016 No.8261365

>>8261357
not an argument

meanwhile
>>8261293
>The multiverse cannot be observed
>The multiverse cannot be observed
>The multiverse cannot be observed
thanks again for admitting you were wrong and your butthurt apology

Playtime is ogre. Your status: BTFO

0042

Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:26:34 2016 No.8261381

>>8261360
>>8261365

Ok the jig is up.

The four digit numbers are a character based key that allow you to read the actual meaning of my last two posts.

Read the number of characters specified by the code with each digit representing each sentence.

I.e. Here >>8261332

2 = the first two digits of the first sentence = Ar

While here >>8261357

The first 1 = R

It was fun while it lasted; great thread lads.

P.S. I'm OP.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:28:18 2016 No.8261385 >>8261304 >>8261320 Multiverse CONFIRMED Will /sci/ now get a nobel prize?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:30:40 2016 No.8261387 >>8261385 It'll have to as my astonishing proof was posted anonymously. We all win.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:31:14 2016 No.8261388 >>8261381 take your meds, retard >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:33:20 2016 No.8261393 >>8261381 >Ar >gu >ment >from >ignorance >R >U >S >E thank you for wasting the time of 46 other posters with this shitty troll thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:34:40 2016 No.8261400 >>8261393 >implying I changed my identity at least ten times. I'd say that at least 50% of this entire thread is me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:35:26 2016 No.8261403 >>8261381 >I was only pretending to be retarded Of course anon. of course.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:37:13 2016 No.8261406 >>8261400 Everybody knows that most of the posts are OP. The one making the longest posts, investing the most time and getting mocked from all sides. Yeah, sure you showed us

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:38:15 2016 No.8261411 No, I am OP. Dont believe this retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:38:35 2016 No.8261414 >>8261403 I'm just bored bro. Nobody actually talks about anything interesting on /sci/; it's just noobs, homework threads, career pissing contests and homework threads. At least this thread was entertaining. >for me

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:39:29 2016 No.8261416 OP here. Fuck off back to >>>/b/ you brainlets.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:40:06 2016 No.8261418 >>8261406 Actually, I received a string of counter arguments that lasted over 24 hours. They were also combative and indicated frustration. I had a great time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:40:59 2016 No.8261419 >>8261414 There was actually some good discussion in here (well, for /sci/), so your intention and the fact that I dont believe you is irrelevant

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:41:31 2016 No.8261420 No I am OP, damn it!

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:43:26 2016 No.8261424 >>8261419 Well I enjoyed two days of counter arguments from frustrated anons, which I very much enjoyed. You're disbelief is irrelevant to my enjoyment. Im glad we all had fun.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:44:30 2016 No.8261426 >>8261418 only butthurt guy is this one >>8260216

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:44:52 2016 No.8261427 YES! THIS! THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:46:15 2016 No.8261430 >>8256949 >I am not smart enough to google the multiverse theory. Really nigga?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:46:21 2016 No.8261431 >>8261426 Nah that was also me. The anal cancer spiel is from a Frankie Boyle comedy routine. This whole thread is a joke, tbf.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:47:57 2016 No.8261434 Thats funny. I was also trolling. It made people so mad, when someone just claimed there is nothing outside the universe >hurr we tork aboot inflashiun!!!!111 TOP KEK I know, faggots. stay mad

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:48:24 2016 No.8261435 OP why did you feel the need to make this abomination of a thread?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:49:19 2016 No.8261437 >>8261431 >I was the only one getting mad, but enjoyed the frustration of the people who calmly explained stuff to me >I was only pretending to be retarded take your meds, retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:49:34 2016 No.8261440 >>8261435 Shits n' giggles m8.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:50:28 2016 No.8261444 DAT DAMAGE CONTROL mcfucking kill yourself SAD A D

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:50:37 2016 No.8261448 >>8261437 Nah, plenty of anons were mad; especially the hurr durr posting anon. And I'm not going to take my meds.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:52:16 2016 No.8261455 File: 1.35 MB, 959x720, DUBS.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8261444 >trips confirm OPs mental breakdown The autism is real #REKT

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:53:57 2016 No.8261460 >>8261448 >it was totally not me who was trolled >no, no. I was the ruse master all along Keep telling that yourself. >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 09:55:15 2016 No.8261464 >>8261434 trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls Except for OP, who has been exposed early on as a shitty baiter

OP Wed Aug 10 09:57:05 2016 No.8261469

I'd just like everyone to know that I posted this thread and then went to see my aunt in the hospital three states over.

I haven't been back online since then.

I have no idea who this maniac >>8261381 is, but he's not OP and if you look at all his posts he's clearly British as he's using British English

He's dominated the thread right from the beginning while pretending to be OP and I can't even begin to understand why.

This wasn't an epic lmao ruse thread, I just didn't understand inflation all that well.

My misunderstanding has been cleared up thanks to a number of anons in the thread, so thank you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 10 10:49:50 2016 No.8261567 its curved in on itself in a dimension that we cannot detect, or possibly flat

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math