multiverse and more!!

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
Post Reply
StrangeQuark
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:27 pm

multiverse and more!!

Post by StrangeQuark » Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:24 pm

Im like the multiverse idea but something bigger has crossed my mind :shock:

I think this..... We have solar systems inside galaxies and galaxies inside the universe.... Well.... Im thinking that if the multiverse theory is correct (which I think it is :D ) then whats to say there isnt something bigger that holds all the universe's?? I havnt got a name for this but I think it's plausible and just maybe there is something even bigger that holds them.... If this was to be true then the possibilities are endless :o

Kasuha
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: multiverse and more!!

Post by Kasuha » Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:35 pm

I am not native english but I have a feeling there's certain difference between 'plausible' and 'possible'. Anything is possible beyond limits of our universe, including that there's God watching us from there, including the theory that our whole universe lies on back of a giant turtle, or that we are part of a multiverse. But I refuse considering any of them 'plausible' until there is at least some evidence for them.
Science is supposed to be about hypotheses that can be tested. Ever since neutrinos were proposed, too many people are trying to explain unexplainable by the unobservable. And I have a feeling that most of them are plain wrong.

Post Reply