Absolutely, without a doubt -- that is not saying that it's proven that the universe (or multi-verse) is infinite?

What is your definition of proof? Do you act with absolution in mind in everything you aren't sure of?

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

The universe is not the multi-verse.

You got that wrong and so the rest of your reply is further off the mark.

I think that if others read what I post and don't quite get it, reading your posts afterwards will further take them away. You do a disservice to your fellow man by not taking a moment to understand before impulsively hitting the reply button.

I disagree.

Just as the theory of evolution is the best and only explaination of what we observe in biology, the theory of infinate multiple universes is the best and only explaination of what we observe in qunatum mechanics. It is what we have to go on. It is what science tells us.

Want to provide a source for this claim?

If other posters misunderstand your comments, you should exhibit the courtesy of elaborating upon or clarifying what you intended to convey. Your second sentence above is impolite and really skirting a civility & decorum violation. Please check your tone.

I would like to see this as well.

I think what Qilliam Thompson and QM scientists call "Multiple Universes" are not the same thing.

__________________
My son is my universe.

Check his.

If I may jump in here; there is quite a body of opinion which supports the idea that our universe is but one of many.
Sir Martin Rees, our Astronomer Royal, has explored the idea, not least in his book Just Six Numbers;
Here is a review of that book
http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/bo.../r/rees-2.html
from that review
but it is only an opinion, and one opinion among many. In particular it is impossible to measure universes which we cannot gain access to. So it is probably wrong to say that the multiverse idea is definitely true; it does have support however.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense- Novella Contest Issue! . OA Flickr set

I requested other moderators review Lonewulf's above post to which you took offense. Myself and three other mods share the view that Lonewulf's comments are not insulting. He's simply asking questions, which I note you're not answering. Further, a number of posters have asked you questions (myself included) spanning several threads which to date you've not addressed.

I'll have to get right on that.

But forgive me if I assumed someone would jump in and offer support as eburacum45 just did.

Thank you very much. It was a common idea back in college. But finding material is hard since there is so much to wade through. Anyone, it seems can write a book these days.

It was explained to me in a way that made a lot of sense (and answered a lot of problems) by professors and students whose opinion I had respect for.

Since then I had thought it had a wide following.

We knew black holes existed before they were discovered.
We knew that anti-matter existed before it was discovered.
Infanite Multiple Universes seems on that same footing. It provides answers to many things and I have not heard other theories that do so.

Since he thinks I meant something I did not mean or really say, and since others have done the same, the questions that went unanswered were questions to things that I did not say.

They were not questions to me.

How can I answer questions that have nothing to do with what I said? It is like that scene from "My Cousin Vinny" where the police interviewer completely misinterpreted what a suspect said as a confession to a murder when he was confessing to stealing a can of soup and the police interviewer asked, "When did you shoot the clerk?"

Mis-interpretation seems to be a big issue here, but mis-statements are just as big an issue. let me re-phrase to clarify.

Some astronomers hypothesized black holes existed before they were discovered, Which in some circles is still under debate but it is now generally accepted they exist.
Some physicists hypothesized that anti-matter existed before it was discovered; the extent of which it is present is still being debated.
Infanite Multiple Universes seems on that same footing.

It is hard to know something before we discover it.

__________________
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.
--Isaac Asimov

Indeed!

On the multiverse convo, I have heard that gravity is the only thing known that can fall out(or extend through) the universe, making it possably detectable in another universe, althought that is if the same principle laws apply in such a place. This is correct right? I mean, did I get bad information?

I picked this one out as an example.

I never mentioned bacteria. That, in fact, is pretty evolved life. Since you are asking a question to something I did not say, it is not really a question to me.

I also cleared this up somewhere where I said I was talking specifically about the jump from polymers to self-replicating polymers. There is a lot that one has to have that the other one does not have at all. There is no such thing as evolution of something that is not alive since natural selection does not come into play. Selection? How?

This might be a little unrelated but I offer it as an example. It takes a lot of finely selected components to write a computer program that self-replicates. Random data falling into place to make such a thing would be rare. And rare is an understatement. This is something that I actually could calculate the probability of. But it goes one step further. There needs to be some room for change in the program. The program needs to have the capacity to mutate a little after each replication in order to allow for evolution.

I did not answer this immediately also because I was considering doing a probably analysis of this and posting the results.

What is more, I considered is accusation of being swayed by emotion as an insult and an irony since I thought that about his post since if he was thinking logically he would have noticed I did not say what he accused me of saying.

And, once again, I am not talking about ID.

We seem to be reading from different text books. And reading different news reports about some discoveries.

I better check with them and get back to you.

WHere did you hear it?