parallel universe/multiverse

[birch]

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-cosmologist-says-he-s-found-possible-signs-of-a-parallel-universe

There was a time when this speculation was said to be 'impossible' by the science community too.

That there was only one universe (only this one) and its infinite (how the heck would they know that??) ad nauseum. a self-centered view and that wasnt even science. Not much different than the belief the earth was the center of the solar system. It was just a belief or theory at best but theory on absolutely nothing just as well.

How could anyone know when you cant even get out out of your solar system but you think you know whats past billions of light years which you cant even see.

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-cosmologist-says-he-s-found-possible-signs-of-a-parallel-universe

There was a time when this speculation was said to be 'impossible' by the science community too.

That there was only one universe (only this one) and its infinite (how the heck would they know that??) ad nauseum. a self-centered view and that wasnt even science. Not much different than the belief the earth was the center of the solar system. It was just a belief or theory at best but theory on absolutely nothing just as well.

How could anyone know when you cant even get out out of your solar system but you think you know whats past billions of light years which you cant even see.

You appear to have a bitch about something?
Parallel Universes and such are speculation, not scientific theories: You can google to find the difference.
We do know a lot though, simply by the fact that when you look into the night sky tonight, you are looking back into the past: eg: The light you receive from Andromeda, left it 2.5 million years ago, so you are seeing it as it was, not as it is.
And of course science, particularly cosmology is a discipline in infinite progress; We are learning all the time:
The new gravitational wave discovery has opened up a new window for more logical speculative scenarios and knowledge, possibly even firm scientific theories.

 

[Oystein]

Another non-science person (man or woman, we're not sure , most of us don't care) who doesn't know the scientific meanings of the words: speculation, hypothesis, and theory. What you have here is completely unsupported (wild) speculation.

 

[birch]

Another non-science person (man or woman, we're not sure , most of us don't care) who doesn't know the scientific meanings of the words: speculation, hypothesis, and theory. What you have here is completely unsupported (wild) speculation.

What part of 'speculation' did you miss in the op?

 

[birch]

We do know a lot though, simply by the fact that when you look into the night sky tonight, you are looking back into the past: eg: The light you receive from Andromeda, left it 2.5 million years ago, so you are seeing it as it was, not as it is.

I know as it takes time for light to travel so a star you see may have gone supernova and you are looking at an image of the past.

But still you can only see so far into space. For now. So whether this universe is the only one or is infinite is 'wild speculation' just the same.

 

[Oystein]

But still you can only see so far into space. For now.

I can see an object two million light years into space, with my naked eyes. Did so last night.

 

[DaveC426913]

There was a time when this speculation was said to be 'impossible' by the science community too.

It was impossible to the science community. No evidence, no way of getting any.

No scientist states categorically that things don't exist. You don't hear them saying invisible fire-breathing dragons are impossible. What you hear them saying is occam's razor - there's no reason to think they exist until there's a reason to. Let the philosophers worry about what might be.

That there was only one universe (only this one) and its infinite (how the heck would they know that??) ad nauseum. a self-centered view and that wasnt even science. Not much different than the belief the earth was the center of the solar system. It was just a belief or theory at best but theory on absolutely nothing just as well.

You've got it completely backwards. Scientists have nothing to say about imaginary things.

You got one thing right. It isn't even science. So why are you dragging then into it?

You are tilting at windmills here.