In the multiverse theory of reality, anything that can happen, happens on some plane of the brane (not precisely the theory, but it rhymes). Time travel simply places you in one of those possible timelines where history is such that your presence cannot create a paradox. All those disappearing people and body parts couldn't/wouldn't happen. The film takes a more determinist and uni-universe slant, I guess.

Still a fun movie. I don't have a problem with science fiction movies taking creative liberties with the science.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^soulmonarch:
... the same cannot be said of time travelers. (i.e. If it was possible, we would have already met them, etc.)

Assuming our species survives long enough to develop it, which is improbable, imho. If you believe that the development of time travel is inevitable (if it is possible), then the lack of visitors from the future may simply mean we are doomed, at least in this plane of the brane.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't disprove anything, nor was it meant to.


I kind of like the sci-fi idea that we make a time machine in some distant future. The time travel event works, but also collapses to universe down to a singularity. Time time travel event works, however, and sends our time traveler back to the original singularity causing a massive disturbance, which causes the singularity to erupt. The end of time causing the start of time, to end all over again. All this completely consistent with the current understanding of general relativity.

>> ^soulmonarch:

... the same cannot be said of time travelers. (i.e. If it was possible, we would have already met them, etc.)


Assuming our species survives long enough to develop it, which is improbable, imho. If you believe that the development of time travel is inevitable (if it is possible), then the lack of visitors from the future may simply mean we are doomed, at least in this plane of the brane.

The Fermi Paradox doesn't disprove anything, nor was it meant to.

Let's just say we both mischaracterized eachother, I'm sorry, and move on.

What I want to say is that I really admire Stephan Hawking for this theory. I applaud his intellectual honesty. He knows that infinite universe theories, string theory, brane theories, and the like are just so much fluff, that prop up big bang cosomology. That they are just acting as place holders to keep the theory from falling under the shadow of its Ultimate Cause. He knows that time, space and matter had a beginning at the big bang and doubtless he sees the obvious implications of this. But it can't be God, so he takes the denial of a Creation to its natural conclusion. He proposes as the Ultimate Solution to the problem of the Ultimate Cause, the God of atheism, the anti-God: nothing at all. This is the Ultimate Solution for science, to get something from nothing. You see, scientists don't like the big bang theory. It disturbs them. They were much happier when they all believed the Universe had always existed. They don't want to have to deal with this, because a Universe with a beginning inescapably leads to an eternal, transcendent first cause. All Stephan Hawking has done is remain true to their logic and to their denial. He is intellectually honest enough to admit that the big bang strongly implicates God, so since God can't exist, the Universe must have been created by nothing.


Stephan Hawking was asked in an interview that if he could have any one of his questions answered, what would it be? He answered "Why is there something rather than nothing." The sad irony of this question is painful to contemplate. The mental gymnastics he has gone through to deny the obvious fact of Creation just boggles the mind.


>> ^jmzero:
@shinyblurry
Before it was "NO ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING STUPID!"
No, that's a lie. What I said was:
No. The "Big Bang Theory" does not say that "nothing exploded".
And then here:
.before you said, that something comes from nothing makes no sense.
No, that's a lie. What I said was:
We don't know where it came from, but it's not very likely to be "nothing", as that doesn't make much sense.
I said it doesn't make much sense. I still don't think it makes much sense and I still think it's unlikely to be true. But it could be true. I could be wrong.
Maybe you think I'm being a jerk or something, but mischaracterizing my opinions, as you've clearly, clearly done is dishonest. The most charitable thing I can say is maybe you thought I meant something else. I didn't. I meant what I said.
one of the foremost scientists in the world is positing that something came from nothing and everyone is nodding sagely.
He's not a shaper of modern scientific though, despite being famous and having made some important contributions earlier in his career. The reaction to this speech that I see (and to much of what he has said in recent years) is far from "sage nodding". Rather, it was more like "Is he being serious?" - well, except from the press which reacted with predictable mania.
Look, if what you'd said was "some scientists think the Universe came from nothing, and I think that's silly", I would have just agreed with you (as I've done quite a few times in different threads, sometimes when your opinion isn't popular). But you have a continued habit of pointing out speculative science you don't like and arguing against it as though it was established dogma (you've done this here in the past with things like string theory). It really looked like that's what you were doing here.
If what you meant was "some scientists believe x", you have an odd way of saying it:
I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded
Between that, and your previous, repeated derision at the Big Bang theory, I suppose you can excuse me for thinking that's what you thought the scientific consensus was. And if you did understand that this wasn't the scientific consensus, how can you really justify your phrasing above?

>> ^TheJehosephat:

Well I think there's a big problem in approaching things that exist outside of the universe with a scientific (not philosophical) mind. The scientific process is based on things (in our universe) being testable. Seeing as you can't test anything that exists outside the universe, any supposition or philosophy will be simply that: supposition or philosophy.
Knowing this concept means that both branes and god have an equal stance for the creation of the universe. I stand in the circle of "god" because (like GeeSussFreek mentioned), I have an understanding that if causality is the basis for our universe, where is the first link? I think that God (as a beginning) is a solid answer to that.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think there's a big difference in value between an explanation (even if it's speculation) and "God did it".
How can "God did it" ever be an explanation when God himself can't even be explained or defined?



I think it's a giant leap of faith to assume there is such a thing as "outside of the universe", never mind the assumptions you've made about things that exist outside of it.

When they talk about the age of the universe, they are talking about how long it's been since the Big Bang, ie: how long the universe has existed in its present state. Anything that may have existed prior to that is a giant question mark. We've only gotten to the point where we can even consider researching these things within the last decade.

Well I think there's a big problem in approaching things that exist outside of the universe with a scientific (not philosophical) mind. The scientific process is based on things (in our universe) being testable. Seeing as you can't test anything that exists outside the universe, any supposition or philosophy will be simply that: supposition or philosophy.

Knowing this concept means that both branes and god have an equal stance for the creation of the universe. I stand in the circle of "god" because (like GeeSussFreek mentioned), I have an understanding that if causality is the basis for our universe, where is the first link? I think that God (as a beginning) is a solid answer to that.

>> ^xxovercastxx:


I think there's a big difference in value between an explanation (even if it's speculation) and "God did it".
How can "God did it" ever be an explanation when God himself can't even be explained or defined?

>> ^TheJehosephat:

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have faith in the answers that I do think I have.
Along the same lines, wouldn't string theorists be replacing "I don't know" with "It was branes"? No one on Earth knows all the answers. We all have to work together to figure out what the hell we're doing on this rock.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^TheJehosephat:
That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well.
Then aren't you just replacing "I don't know" with "It was God"?



I think there's a big difference in value between an explanation (even if it's speculation) and "God did it".

How can "God did it" ever be an explanation when God himself can't even be explained or defined?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have faith in the answers that I do think I have.

Along the same lines, wouldn't string theorists be replacing "I don't know" with "It was branes"? No one on Earth knows all the answers. We all have to work together to figure out what the hell we're doing on this rock.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^TheJehosephat:
That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well.
Then aren't you just replacing "I don't know" with "It was God"?

>> ^jmzero:

If space and time were created in the big bang...

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.
lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!

You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.
even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.
.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.
A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.
If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).
But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.


I wish I could vote for this comment more than once : )

If space and time were created in the big bang...


You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!


You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.

even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.


Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.


It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.


I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

If space and time were created in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is transcendent and immaterial..ie, supernatural. I suggest you follow the logical conclusions of the things you believe. Your wish for a natural explanation for the beginning of the Universe will not happen because you click your heels..it could only happen if a materialist explanation makes sense, which it doesnt. I've read plenty of books and I know that science hasn't answered any of these questions, has not progressed on them one inch. It has just mired in more and more speculation..universe appears designed? no problem, lets just have infinite universes (that we can never detect) can't reconcile newtonian physics with quantum mechanics? no problem, lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother! More than that, just the creation of life itself is steeped in idiocy..abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief. If you believe in that you have a religious faith.

If it wasn't so stupid and toxic to the human mind, i would laugh..again, for the kids not paying attention, asking whether the Universe was deliberately created is entirely credible, as recognized by the greatest minds who have ever lived..and anyone saying it isn't is just closed minded and arrogant, and doesn't understand that these questions go a little deeper than the puddle they are playing in.

>> ^jmzero:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...
Well, people used to invoke religion to explain things like lightning and rainbows. Now you can say that we don't fully understand rainbows - but we understand them a lot better than when the explanation was "God made rainbows as a signal to man" (well, some of us do anyway), and very few people now would say "Well, if there's no God how do you explain rainbows?" now. Similarly, people now should have little reason to ask something like "If there's no God, how do you explain the diversity of life?" (but they still do). In any case, if you can't see the progression through history in terms of man's ability to comprehend and explain the natural world (and if you can't see the corresponding changes in how religions address the natural world, from thunder gods on down) then you're a moron and know nothing of world history or religion.
Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen?
You're bunching up some very different questions. "How did the Universe get here?" is a question for which a good answer is very difficult to imagine really, and it's also a question for which religion has absolutely no insight. Adding a non-created, always existing God isn't any different than saying "The Universe has always been there". The cold reality is "there could have been nothing - no God or anything". And yet there is something, some discontinuity that I'm perceiving now, that clearly is. All anyone could reply with is kind of an anthropic principle - a question begging, a case for special pleading - that clearly there is more than nothing, because there is.
The other question, "How did we get life from non-life" is very different, and something we may well have strong candidate answers for in our life time. Already, there are many possible ideas, your ignorance of them being wholly unsurprising. Read a book. Also, your idea that scientists believe "time and space begun with the big bang" is simplistic. You're not understanding how the ideas of "time" and "space" are being used, and how it would make perfect sense (to someone who understands these ideas) that the precursor to a big bang could be perfectly natural. The big bang is not the ex-nihilo beginning, it's just a threshold beyond which it's difficult to see. Again, read a book.

If elementary particles undergoing quantum effects isn't physical, then I don't know what is.

>> ^raverman:
This makes some broad generalisations to make a point specifically against religion.
Most quantum theory also enters this area of non-physical substance. By this measure we should stop all research and say "only what we can physically percieve is real".
Dark matter is considered to exist because it is inferred by the nature of the physical universe. In yet it has not been physically proven to have substance.
Quantum entanglement was impossible in earlier physics. Physical objects should not be able effect each other in a seemingly non-physical way.
Most mathematical theories of the universe require non-physical substance to complete the picture. Extra dimensions, time as a 4th layer, Branes of time and space.
If non-physical can exist outside the our 3 physical percievable dimensions it says more about our tools for detection than it does about the known vs. unknown of the universe.

This makes some broad generalisations to make a point specifically against religion.

Most quantum theory also enters this area of non-physical substance. By this measure we should stop all research and say "only what we can physically percieve is real".

Dark matter is considered to exist because it is inferred by the nature of the physical universe. In yet it has not been physically proven to have substance.

Quantum entanglement was impossible in earlier physics. Physical objects should not be able effect each other in a seemingly non-physical way.

Most mathematical theories of the universe require non-physical substance to complete the picture. Extra dimensions, time as a 4th layer, Branes of time and space.

If non-physical can exist outside the our 3 physical percievable dimensions it says more about our tools for detection than it does about the known vs. unknown of the universe.

A full explanation is beyond this forum, but the quantum charging mat itself does not require any power supply. It continuously gathers energy by rectifying the natural peaks in the background "quantum foam bubbles". These first versions are just 1 thousandth of a percent efficient with a 10cm x 2cm brane antenna, but that is enough for charging small items.