View Single Post
Algren
Algren is offline
#28
Jan25-12, 11:58 AM
P: 47
Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
I dont give what you think and your rude insult mr. "science advisor"
Mr. Reggnar, if this gives you relief from any perspective: I am 16 too, that doesnt mean i have to be so rude or ungrateful like you are.

Dont say this:

Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
But what do i know im only 16.
Do not under estimate yourself, by saying that statement you yourself are implying that you do not aim to understand further.

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

Back to the topic:

So, universe is expanding, right...

and lets return to the place where we left the topic, about 10 posts ago, thanks to...nevermind:

By Phinds "Why do you see the two situations as related. That is, what does the heat death of the universe have to do with whether or not it started with a singularity?"

By saying "Death", kind sir, you automatically proved that it had a "Birth" right? Now, current observations are pointing to a "Dense Young Universe" billions of years ago, right?

One sec, how did you say they were unrelated to each other? Dude, its expanding, and it will perhaps have a death upto null radiation when it is very spread-out. Then, there must have been an earlier state when everything was close together and had extensive radiation?

Nice, with that single statement of urs, i proved u wrong.

So, are there any scientific proofs backing the existence of multiverses? i.e. many universes?

And, can they possibly be in multiple dimensions other than the ones we are currently present? Perhaps, the molecules might even be in a strange octahedrilon* shape.

*Some random 64 (8^2) dimensioned shape i made up.

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

And about philosophy: I do think the same that its better to first look into philosphy and then derive its scientific proof, but no, thats what not is correct. Although its necessary to be 'philosophical' to some extent before further scientific progress, i.e. we must think about other ways and laws and imaginations of a particular state b4 we can take the next step. But that does not mean that we first go to philosophy and then derive reality from something which is just a well-thought-dream.

Religion is even more inaccurate than philosophy, and goes to explain stuff with what not miracles and etc. Religion and philosophy both try to define what is currently beyond the realms of science, but they cannot be assumed as perfectly true without scientific backing.