Did you know that the universe was born as …

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 21, 2013

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

… as a space-time bubble that popped up inside an even bigger metaverse?

Metaverse = a bigger turtle:

In this picture, our universe arose from quantum fluctuations in a much bigger cosmos called a metaverse. The quantum effects caused a phase transition in the fabric of the metaverse, and our universe popped into being, like an air bubble forming in boiling water.

Can we know if this is true?

Probably not, says Marc Kamionkowski, a co-author of the 2008 paper and now at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. The bubble walls are expanding at the speed of light, so we could never catch up with them.

Is it fun? Yes, if you must watch water boil (for safety reasons, of course). 😉

Comments

Alan Fox: Yes, I am. Don't forget it. 5for: What were the books you read the quotes in and what were the names of the people who made the quoted statements? Google is your friend. EL: "You are still missing the point. What you quoted was not “from books written by people who believed in evolution” as far as anyone can tell." I stated as much. My article contained statements that were generalizations. Reciprocating Bill doesn't seem to get that. "It seems to have written by a creationist who said that it was what was written “in twelve books by eleven different creationists”. Then start Googling and you'll find the books and the evolutionists. "Presumably it was intended as a precis, therefore, not as a direct quotation. But as neither you, nor your source, cite either the books or the authors, we cannot tell whether what they actually wrote was “propaganda” or not." Google is also your friend.Barb_{September 23, 2013
September
09
Sep
23
23
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

RB: Sheesh. Who knew that the real struggle for Darwinists was reading comprehension?
RB: The article does not say that “nothing can breach the barrier in either direction.”
Right. It only implies that probably, nothing can breach the barrier in either direction. Most likely, we cannot escape, and probably, stuff cannot come in.
RB: The article plainly states, “if something could enter our universe from the metaverse, from our perspective it would seem to appear at the moment of the big bang, and would get mixed with the rest of the early matter. Today such an intruder would only be noticeable as an oddly large cluster of galaxies.”
Right again. If something could enter our universe from the metaverse, but it probably cannot. Can anything breach the bubble? Probably not. If something could, we might notice it, but it probably cannot (or will not), so we'll probably never know. Will we ever know if any of this is true? Probably not. Why? Because, probably nothing can (or will) breach the barrier in either direction. EL:
CR: because the original question implies the one asked by the author of the OP
EL: No. It does not.
Yes. It does. At least for those not actively searching for nits.Phinehas_{September 23, 2013
September
09
Sep
23
23
2013
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Barb:
What I quoted were from books written by people who believed in evolution, not creationists. That is the fact that’s apparently in dispute here. The quotes were used by creationists.
You are still missing the point. What you quoted was not "from books written by people who believed in evolution" as far as anyone can tell. It seems to have written by a creationist who said that it was what was written "in twelve books by eleven different creationists". Presumably it was intended as a precis, therefore, not as a direct quotation. But as neither you, nor your source, cite either the books or the authors, we cannot tell whether what they actually wrote was "propaganda" or not.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 23, 2013
September
09
Sep
23
23
2013
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

5for:
What were the books you read the quotes in and what were the names of the people who made the quoted statements?
Charges of "quote-mining" only get you so far. Then someone like me comes along, who goes out an buys all those books that are being quoted in the "creationist" literature, just to make sure. Then someone like you becomes just another troll.Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

What were the books you read the quotes in and what were the names of the people who made the quoted statements?5for_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

What I quoted were from books written by people who believed in evolution, not creationists. That is the fact that's apparently in dispute here. The quotes were used by creationists. The only ones making themselves look childish and silly are the atheists who are butthurt over the OP.Barb_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Barb, if you just admit you are wrong you will feel better and won't feel compelled to resort to insults. You asked EL and RB to condemn remarks you referred to as propaganda and called them hypocrites if they didn't. The remarks you quoted as if they were made by scientists were in fact made by creationists. You want them to condemn creationist propganda? I am sure they would happily oblige. But we all know that's not what you meant. You are making yourself look childish and silly.5for_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

RB writes,
By implication, you attributed it to advocates of evolutionary theory. There is no other intelligible reading of your post.
I quoted an article which used quotation marks around the statements. And if you'd read my other post where I quote Dawkins and Gould, you'd get the point.
Which doesn’t change the fact that it is, or that it was obviously authored by the author of that screed.
Not necessarily. Two separate authors can cite the same source. You are aware of this simple fact, are you not?
Google “Evolution is universally accepted by scientists competent to judge” and the screed I cite pops up, repeated several times, the first in 2003. There are no other sources. </blockquote. The sources, as near as I can see from my article, came from books authored by evolutionists.
Work at it. You’ll get there.
Why should I? You're the one with your panties in a knot over a post made on an internet forum. Seriously, the epic atheist butthurt in this thread is amusing.
Barb_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Barb
I was quoting statements I had heard but I did not attribute the quote to anyone in particular.
By implication, you attributed it to advocates of evolutionary theory. There is no other intelligible reading of your post.
I had no knowledge that it was also found in a creationist screed.
Which doesn’t change the fact that it is, or that it was obviously authored by the author of that screed. Do you really not know how to Google a quotation? Finding the source isn’t that hard if you’re willing to work at it. Google “Evolution is universally accepted by scientists competent to judge” and the screed I cite pops up, repeated several times, the first in 2003. There are no other sources. No one repeating the creationist screed bothers to cite the original. Nor does the creationist screed itself cite the sources to which it attributes the quoted sentiments. Dog bites man.
The statements made have the ring of propaganda.
That's because they were written by a creationist propagandist.
I wish I could care what you think.
Work at it. You'll get there.Reciprocating Bill_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

You are priceless Barb, never forget it.Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Barb: yes, I do, fortunately.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

I found it in an article on evolution.
Jesus Christ on a bicycle, Barb! You are priceless.Alan Fox_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

EL @ 38; do you really not know how to Google a quotation? finding the source isn't that hard if you're willing to work at it.Barb_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

RB @ 37:
First, you put it in quotes. That makes it a quotation.
Not necessarily. I was quoting statements I had heard but I did not attribute the quote to anyone in particular. This isn't a problem for people with basic reading comprehension skills, which you clearly lack. <blockquote?Second, you claimed it was “pure propaganda.” By implication, propaganda promulgated by “evolutionists,” as that is the only reading that is remotely intelligible. The statements made have the ring of propaganda. Read my post quoting Stephen Jay Gould for more direct examples. The same statement "evolution is a fact" is repeated over and over again, making it propaganda.
Thid, it is, in fact a direct quotation – the provenance of which is a creationist screed. You didn’t know its provenance, but felt secure in characterizing it as propaganda and attributing it by implication to “evolutionists.”
I found it in an article on evolution. I had no knowledge that it was also found in a creationist screed. We apparently have different sources. You seem to not understand this simple fact.
You’re as sloppy as “News.” (Which isn’t news.)
I wish I could care what you think.Barb_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

So, it turns out it is "propaganda" - but it's creationist propaganda! And the site on which it appears gives no source for the twelve books by eleven different evolutionists it is alleged to summarise. So there's no way we check whether it's what they said.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Barb:
I never claimed it to be a direct quotation.
First, you put it in quotes. That makes it a quotation. Second, you claimed it was "pure propaganda." By implication, propaganda promulgated by “evolutionists," as that is the only reading that is remotely intelligible. Thid, it is, in fact a direct quotation - the provenance of which is a creationist screed. You didn't know its provenance, but felt secure in characterizing it as propaganda and attributing it by implication to "evolutionists." You're as sloppy as "News." (Which isn't news.)Reciprocating Bill_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

I didn't say you did. All I'm saying, is that in order to tell you whether it is "propaganda" I'd need to see the source and the context.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

EL: "If you can provide evidence, Barb, as to who wrote it, and the context, I will see whether I think it is “propaganda” or not.' That's just it. I never claimed it to be a direct quotation. I stated that I had read the following statements. I did post several quotations from Stephen Jay Gould on another thread which more or less stated the same thing. It's not my fault if people jump to conclusions without reading or comprehending what I posted.Barb_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Barb, I never stated that. You made that assumption, and wrongly I might add. She made that assumption (as did I) because your post strongly implies that the statement was made by a supporter of evolutionary theory. After all, calling it propaganda is meaningless otherwise. That is exactly the problem with sloppy (or worse, deceptive) use of quotations. With your post and News's above, the reader walks away with a false impression created by the misleading use of quoted words. When you quote a text, the reader should come away with an accurate impression of what was said, who said it, and what they meant. It doesn't matter if confusing the matter is useful in making your point or if you find the deception interesting, as CR does. If you have a point to make that can't be made by using the original author's words clearly, unambiguously, and fairly, then use your own words to make it (or find another quote). The regulars here seem to have very little regard for straightforward communication.Pro Hac Vice_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Barb:
I also am unfamiliar with the “creationist screed” that you referred to.
So, you present as an exemplar of "pure propaganda" - by implication, propaganda promulgated by "evolutionists" (don't deny it) - a passage of which even YOU don't know the origins. Follow the links. They contain the passage you quote, word for word - a creationist's summary of "twelve books by eleven different evolutionists." Pray tell, how does a passage penned by a creationist become an exemplar of "pure propaganda" created by advocates of evolutionary theory?Reciprocating Bill_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

BTW, I notice that news has post up here about a cosmological theory that she seems to like better:
This may not hold up, but it is more reasonable than a bunch of stuff we have heard recently.
Odd that it turns out to be the same theory.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

If you can provide evidence, Barb, as to who wrote it, and the context, I will see whether I think it is "propaganda" or not. As an informal statement, the statement that we are descended from fish is about as true as provisional scientific conclusions get (as long as we read "fish" as a lay term for Sarcopterygii, or lobe-limbed fish. There simply is no serious doubt within science that we belong to the Sarcophterygii clade, and so "fact" is a reasonable term to describe it. But like all scientific facts, it is held provisionally.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

RB @ 29: "The clear implication of Barb’s quote is that these are the direct assertions of evolutionary biologists, and call for repudiation." I never stated that. You made that assumption, and wrongly I might add. I also am unfamiliar with the "creationist screed" that you referred to. Try again.Barb_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Barb:
In reading comments about evolution, I have seen the following stated: ‘Evolution is universally accepted by scientists competent to judge. It is recognized by all responsible scientists. All reputable biologists agree that it is an established fact. No informed mind today denies that man descended from the fish. It is no longer a matter of doubt. ‘The evidence is overwhelming. No further proof is required by anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices.’
The clear implication of Barb's quote is that these are the direct assertions of evolutionary biologists, and call for repudiation. But the fact is that the passage is drawn from a creationist screed repeated in a few locations over at least the past ten years. Examples: http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/one-of-my-local-book-stores-has-the-bible-in-the-fiction-section.41629530/page-4#post-41682061 http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=154706&t=1379859717&page=1#comment1701312 So, here we have yet another misleading use of quoted material - in a discussion concerning the misleading use of quoted materials!
That is disingenuous. It is pure propaganda, nothing more. Do EL and PHV plan on condemning this, or not? If not, then they are little more than hypocrites.
Pot, meet kettle.Reciprocating Bill_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

In reading comments about evolution, I have seen the following stated: ‘Evolution is universally accepted by scientists competent to judge. It is recognized by all responsible scientists. All reputable biologists agree that it is an established fact. No informed mind today denies that man descended from the fish. It is no longer a matter of doubt. ‘The evidence is overwhelming. No further proof is required by anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices.’ That is disingenuous. It is pure propaganda, nothing more. Do EL and PHV plan on condemning this, or not? If not, then they are little more than hypocrites.Barb_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

I appreciate it. I'll go read it now.Brent_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Brent: post up at TSZ here.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

CR:
It’s not a quote, so that’s not very flat a fact after all.
You're right. I should have said, Flat fact: The OP is inaccurate and misleading.
Go ahead and cry foul; the point was made and it was relevant.
OK. "Foul." That the foul is committed in the service of making a point is irrelevant. All quotemines and other forms of deliberate distortion are motivated by the wish to make a point.Reciprocating Bill_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

OK, but I'll probably do it at TSZ, and leave a link here.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

EL, I'd be grateful if you'd respond to my post to you here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-afford-to-be-charitable-to-darwinists/#comment-473347 before you take that absence. Thank you.Brent_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply