I’m guessing the knowledge thing in your signature is for the purpose of irony.
But yes, this is a pretty interesting theory. It makes sense, but we don’t have the current information. If we find that there’s a “preferred” direction of spin, then it’d go some way into proving the theory.
EDIT: Master, just read the articles, they make sense.
Mattemuse, I don’t know about the mathgods you worship, but this is a free country and I wont have you force your religious beliefs down my throat. I’m a man of science after all.
ha! I’m sorry, did I accidentally your Faith in the Big Bang or something?
Mattemuse, I’m not sure why you keep saying it as though it’s fact.
i admit it’s not a fact - it’s a very plausible, mathematically sound theory with no reason to believe it’s incorrect. satisfied?
Sure am.
Basically, yes. With all the people complaining about how religions supposedly turn people into blind faith followers who can’t think for themselves, it gets really annoying with you then see people on the side of the scientific community essentially doing the same thing. (even if you aren’t specifically one of the people claiming that about religions) Based on math or not, there’s still an issue whether the facts the math is based on might be erroneous, or if there are other unknown variables that will alter the outcome of the theory.
If there does end up being observable proof for this, then awesome, but until then it only makes you look bad when you state things in complete absolutes like that.
Now let’s all hug and enjoy science together as a whole.
…Says the guy who is denying the validity of a scientifically sound, mathematically proven theory on the basis of nothing other than the unshakeable belief in a previous theory (despite the fact that this one corrects a key variable in the previous theory).
Seriously, what is the basis for rejecting this theory that is so compelling you’d demand “observable proof” in addition to mathematical proof? Is there even a basis, other than adherence to scientific dogma?
Again - it was DECADES before anyone found “observable proof” for General Relativity, and yet the theory was widely accepted previously (not as a “fact” but as the best guess at the time) because the mathematical proof held up to examination. General Relativity is still not considered a fact, because it hasn’t been integrated successfully with other aspects of physics. It’s just widely accepted as the best guess based on the available evidence.
You can’t really compare the two. General relativity fits in with so much of physics then it’s generally accepted to be correct. The blackhole-universe theory makes sense, but there’s no evidence (that we’ve found or are able to look for) either way.
Also, the articles you linked quote scientists as saying that it’s a possibility, nothing more. Far from replacing currently held theories, in other words.
It’s a purely mathematical theory with nothing else to support it, so more work and research has to be done to validate or invalidate the theory.
Wait, why can’t I compare the two? They both fit equally with physics, actually the blackhole multiverse fits better with standard physics because it doesn’t include the concept of a “singularity” (which is science-talk for "i have no fucking idea what this is).
People keep saying there is no evidence, but this isn’t right - there is no physical evidence, but there is mathematical evidence. Things like certain elementary particles, and black holes for that matter, were “discovered” by mathematics years before their existence was confirmed through observation. The fact that the equations are correct is
strong evidence in favor.
who the hell are you talking about?
what are you getting at, soup? Are you unaware that the black hole multiverse theory is entirely based on the concept that instead of a singularity at the center of a black hole, it’s a new universe forming? That’s the whole reason physicists are taking this seriously, because it eliminates the need for a singularity (again, synonymous with "we have no fucking idea what this is) in the equations of General Relativity.
…or were you simply poking fun at my mistyping “blackhole” ?
Surely it has to reach a singularity first?
Matt, I am not trying to argue that this isn’t a plausible theory that is to be taken seriously, I’m just saying it isn’t to be considered as scientific fact on the same level as relativity or gravity.
Anyway…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t it basically come down to this:
In a black hole, gravity is so strong that space-time as we perceive it is “compressed” (for lack of a better word) so that we obtain “access” (in theory, of course) to other instances of space-time. These instances of space-time (universes, in other words) are in effect instances of the fourth dimension in the same way that our universe at one point in time or another are different instances of the third dimension.
Anything wrong with that assessment?
It’s to do with angular momentum.
EDIT: My bad mattemuse, still in normal black hole mode.
so basically, you accept it as fact simply because it’s easier to believe? If that’s all it takes, awesome, I’ll use that argument the next time I need to explain religion to an aetheist and see how well that flies.
So far, I haven’t seen anyone take issue with the theory being flawed or false in any way. The only thing I’ve seen anyone take issue with is you taking that theory (no matter how perfect and mathematically supported it may seem) as a fact. In response, the only thing I’ve really seen from you is reacting as if we’re trying to argue the theory as being false, when in reality it is neither true or false yet, merely a strong contender for possibility.
All you’re really accomplishing by embedding yourself in this theory is closing yourself off to being able to accept other possible theories that may come up later. I’m of the opinion that it is a decent theory, but still just a theory, and I’m perfectly happy to wait for someone to come up with a method to test it BEFORE putting it into a true/false category.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.