Through The Wormhole: Are There Parallel Universes?

2011, Science  -   177 Comments
Ratings: 7.31/10 from 71 users.

Through The Wormhole: Are There Parallel Universes?Since the ancient Greeks first speculated that everything they observed in reality was the result of the interaction of tiny particles they called atoms, great thinkers have tried to find a single mathematical formula that governs and explains the workings of the entire universe.

So far, though, even minds as brilliant as physicists Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have been unable to come up with that single grand equation of everything, also known as the theory of everything, or the final theory. Nevertheless, they continue to try, because without that final piece of the puzzle that is reality, the sum total of what we know falls a bit short of making sense.

Perhaps the most illustrious searcher for the equation of everything was physicist Albert Einstein, who spent the last 35 years of his life trying to uncover such an overarching explanation. Einstein's own theory of general relativity, published in 1916, explained gravity, one of the strong forces in the universe, as the bending of space-time by matter. But general relativity didn't explain electromagnetism, another strong force that was even more powerful than gravity.

Einstein wasn't willing to accept that these two forces were unrelated, and he searched for a single explanation - a unified field theory - that would show how electromagnetism, gravity and space-time interacted. I see in nature a magnificent structure that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility, he once explained. But although he published a number of papers on his ideas about unified field theory, he died in 1955 without solving the problem to the satisfaction of other theoreticians. List of all episodes here: Through The Wormhole.

More great documentaries

177 Comments / User Reviews

  1. This was really freakin' cool. I've always been a believer of the multiverse theory, but it's awesome to see so many scientific perspectives on parallel universes. Nikodem Poplawski's black hole theory makes a lot of sense. I looked up gamma-ray bursts and there's a lot that we don't have answered.

    1. Check out something about the work of Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton, too, if you aren't already familiar with her. The implications of it for multiverse theory will blow your hair back, for sure.

  2. Here's a universe where i had toast for breakfast, here's a universe where i have cereal for breakfast, here's a universe where Hitler had a pet cat that he dressed in silly outfits. The possibilities are infinite

  3. Mind.Blowing. Love it,

  4. A Polish scientist gave an interesting explanation of Black Holes. The name sounded like Nicodin Ploposki. I cannot find anything about him on the internet. I would like to learn more about his theories. Can anyone help me find him?

    1. Nikodem Poplawski
      I think this is the guy your looking for, added a link but not sure if it will come through "pending moderation"

  5. Wormholes do exits, they are all around us. The Wormhole is a passage to what we have perceived as Hell. On the other side of the wormhole it is an alternate universe to the one passing through. Example: If you came from a "John Lennon" universe you will end up in a "John Wayne" universe, Where everyone carries guns like the old wild west, hangs the people who blow the whistle on corporate crooks, steals from the poor to satisfy the greedy rich, and oh ya they like to say "I'm a Christian" at the end of ranting hate. That would be Hell to someone Who "walks the walk" but doesn't have to "Talk the talk". I think I died in surgery a few years back and passed through to this alternate universe(which is HELL to me). It's like NAZI's took over America, just like in a Twilight Zone Episode or the Donnie Darko Movie.....I wish I could find the Portal Home!! I feel like Dorthy, I just want to go back to Kansas!

    1. Honestly my friend, WTF?

  6. @DonDon1

    I think I understand what you are saying, in that every moment is unique, in that the aspects that are required to make the moment are ever changing. However consider this. If every moment was unique, every structure was unique, then repetition should not exist. Think about an atom. The amount of complexity that went into the creation of one, should not be repeatable, since their should be infinite variation, but their is not. We know that an atom is made of protons, neutrons, electrons and neurtrinos. We know that certain configurations of quarks make up protons and neutrons. There is enough repetition that certain configurations of atoms have been given a name. The numbers should not repeat, with infinite variation no two numbers should be the same. I agree with you in that moments are ever changing, however quantum mechanics tells us that the atoms in your body can exist in multiple places at the same time, even in the same space. If their are infinite variations then at least one other you should exist. Your idea reminds me of another that was proposed, about stepping into a river twice.

  7. A couple of comments here that I read...All I have to say is...Something is infinite until the day we can calculate it ;)...and somethings we will never be able to calculate.

  8. Nice one

  9. you all do not exist in my reality, sorry.

  10. TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, also Thawaf seven times circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during rituals of the Hajj (Abraham).
    "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - From the Big Bang to Black Hole" by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR'AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
    Refer to all religions (Philosophia Perennis) and "inflation theory" there should be "eight" cosmos or universe?
    NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.

  11. @Lewion

    I do understand what you are saying. And yea I appreciate how difficult some things are to explain and convey so others will understand.

    I think the main concept i'd like people to grasp from all that I said was that the conditions that exist for you to exist the way you are at a given moment in time, Will never be that way again(in any space or any time) because the variables will evolve to become differnt from one moment to the next. Some will be gone forever because the conditions that existed to produce and evolve them don't exist anymore. They will NEVER be identical to what they were at any given moment anywhere else. Or at any time. They have evolved. They can be similar, but not the identical.
    So moment "A" has one set of variables. Moment "B" has a new evolved set of variables. Moment "C" has another more evolved set of variables and so on. Never ever repeating exactly. So this is what I meant by infinite varying variables. They will never repeat. Some variables will be removed, other new ones will be added. The relationships between things(variables) will have irreversably have been changed. And therefor never produce an identical lifeform.

    When an environment evolves, any single variable that you define will evolve with that environment.

    But I appreciate all your comments because you forced me to be more accurate than I was with my initial description (which were kinda not so perfect). Sometimes descriptions Have a hard time making from the way they are in your head to the page the way you want. And the way you need them to be so that others will understand what you are thinking. :)

    Scrutiny always helps to make an idea clear. And you do have a surprising amount of knowledge given your years.

    Still, this can be hard to get your head around and accept.

    Harder still.....
    Here's a kicker that can make your head spin a bit.

    When a variable evolves (Changes)with its environment, then because it's a product of this environment it's inextricably linked to it. I change my environment when I change. And when my environment changes, it changes relationship(s) with its environment, therefor changing that environment. And it's environment changes it's environment. So everything is connected. Any change in any relationship(s) between any things in reality will inevitably change relationships with other things. And those things with other things and so on. And there you have evolution.

    I have a circle of friends. if we share a new idea it may change the way all of us thought about that thing before. we have all changed. Never to think of that idea the old way again with the new insight.
    If someone dies in that circle, they aren't coming back. The circle will have irreversably changed. It will be without that person forever. It will never be the same circle. We may get someone new in that circle to replace the void left by the person we lost. But now the circle is only similar, not identical. And relationship(s) will have been irreversably changed.

    And there you have a good argument that one person can change the world aswell :)

    If I elaborate more than this I will give away the theory of everything :)

    So again I'm gonna stop now. My email is in my last post if anyone wants. I felt I owed you further explaination Lewion because you do seem to have the stones. My apologies for earlier.

  12. entertaining late night viewing...glad to view a more current update. Thanks Vlatko - also kudos for adding the 'year date' beside some of the recent docs I've viewed.

  13. @ Re Guerra

    I think unless your argument points to specific proof (as observed in nature) and what it pertains to specifically to refute either Max's theory or mine, it is nothing more than opinion. Which I think is what you have.

    We observe things in nature evolving (changing). All things. Planets, solar systems, galaxies, in fact everything in the visible universe. This includes all life forms aswell. Until you refute with specific proven examples in nature, you haven't proven anything.

  14. "His math that's incorrect because if you assume infinite variables and plug them into his math, his result becomes an infinite amount of light years to find an exact copy and not 1 with a million trillion trillion zeros light years. "

    He doesn't state that the variables are infinite, that's where you seem to really disagree with him. If the variables are infinite then of course they have no problem covering an infinite amount of space and time in infinite different configurations. If they are limited, then they can not cover that same distance and time without repeating. Trust me these guys don't get their math wrong, if they do someone will catch it far before the average person ever hears of the theory.

    1. Thanks for that Waldo,

      No Max doesnt state that there are infinite variables plugged into his math. I assert that they are missing from his math. And I attempted to demonstrate what these are and how they are observed in nature. Why they should be included in his math. There is no evidence in nature to demonstrate and prove an exact copy of a complexed biological life form is produced in nature . In fact to the contrary. All Life forms we've ever studied have some diffence. Even if we are talking about identical twins. They start out with as close to identical variables as you can get. The same DNA. The same womb. So why aren't they Identical down to the atomic level? Because they aren't exposed to exactly the same variables. The two are separated in the womb. They don't exist in the exact same space at the exact same time. Therefor, the variables that each are exposed to are different(however slight). When they leave the mother's womb and are born, even more differences will be apparent as they grow(evolve) within their slightly different environments.

      So I wasn't asserting his result was wrong given the formula he is using. Only that it was wrong by virtue of his formula not including all considerations(all the variables).

      I think the same could be said for a lot of the theoretical (unproven in nature) math that's prevalent now. Not picking on Max.
      He was just the first one in the video.

    2. There are different kinds of infinities. I see what you're saying about the space-time variations, but that doesn't matter.

      The infinity you're dealing with is a countable infinity, and in the grand scheme of things can be treated as such. Meaning that it would be like the numbers 1 to 2.

      You're saying that it's infinite with the variations of space-time, but those variations are countably infinite (space and time variations are infinite, but they are countable since we can use things to measure them; since we can measure them, anything smaller is a measurable amount until we need to switch scales, big or small). Since they are countably infinite, they can be measured in some form like the numbers 1 to 2. 1 and 2 can be seen as defined points of an infinity because there are an infinite amount of variations between the two. Yet we can still add them to a new, defined countable infinity, which would be 3. Multiply them, and they're still countable, etc.

      Do you sort of see where I'm getting at with the countable infinities? In the end, you can't compare a countable infinite to an infinite infinity. Meaning your factors are negligible, even though they are infinite in some way (but so are 1-2). Sorry for the poor explanation, but I'm really relying on you to acquaint yourself with these terms.

      I believe that the people in question did account for this, but, because these factors are countably infinite and the space is infinitely infinite, EXACT patterns and events can still form. Infinity is a concept, and not a set number. There are many shades of infinity as such.

  15. @lewion


    Again more typos. I appreciate you pointing them out. I don't really proof read so there are a lot of them. I meant infinite not infinity or "virtually infinite".

    I mean Given the infinite variables that are infinitely varying. I do quite literally mean infinite not "virtually infinite". Due to the nature of the variables always varying, and passing through a space-time itself that It is varying, some of the combinations of vaiables that a pattern is exposed to can never exist again in another particular space or time. Think about it . That particular space and time will never exist again the way it was from one moment to the next. So again The variables are infinite. Which would I believe given the math(using Max's calculation ) result in having to travel an infinite amount of light years to find an exact copy. I think it's reasonable to say the probability again is zero. We would have to approach the math a differnt way. But the resut is the same zero probability.

    It takes a varying combination of variables to create another perceived variable. In nature You can 't have one specifically perceived variable without all of the other verying variables to produce it. And each one of the varying variables it took to make that one needed another set of varying variables to perceive it and so on. They are all connected. therefor in combination they are all evolving. The combinations become infinite. I realize alot of this stuff is hard to get your head around. This is how things are in nature.

    So I guess this speaks to why I came out swinging initially. Forgive me. I have been trying to explain my insights to show that some of the theoretical math is simply incorrect, by virtue of not including all considerations or otherwise. Meeting what i perceive to be unnecessary resistance along the way.

    I think this also speaks to the point I made of the dangers of using unproven math accepted as correct(if it isn't). And the further dangers of using these theories to deduce further theories. You simply get further and further from the truth.

    thanks for sharing

  16. I love these series with Morgan...he rocks :)
    ...btw so many parallel universes , how many possibilities in common life..infinite...

  17. A peanutbutter sadwich; a glass of milk; and a wormhole! Gotta love it!

    Thanks Vlatko!

  18. So here is my ammended argument with the first gentlemans first theory in this video.

    I haven't seen his math but I'd like to. If someone knows a way for me to get a look at it I'd appreciate it so I can may have a better position to argue my points (or be corrected ).

    In his first theory he suggests that all patterns repeat in nature No matter how complexed. He said the more complexed the pattern the futher you must travel to find an identical copy of this pattern.

    He said this is true of every person. If we could travel far enough we would find an exact copy of each of us. He said he came up with a number that is one with a million trillion trillion zeros light years away. If we could travel this far we would find our exact copy down to the atomic level.

    I disagree My argument is this :

    1) Given the suggestion of an exact duplicate of another person being produced in nature, we would have to consider what variables would be of influence for this pattern reproduction to occur.

    2) Furthermore we would have to consider what we actually observe in nature. To actually prove this is possible.

    So with respect to requirement #1 some of the variables in nature for a human to exist and grow::

    What parents produced the human.(initial genetics)

    The Temperature, pressure, available sustanance( food and water), gravity, suitable breathable atmosphere (this itself could have virtually infinite variations)., weather conditions, radiation exposure etc. etc.
    And ithere exists infinite possible combinations of all these.

    Furthermore there will be infinite variables influencing the growth of this human pattern.

    Therefor I believe we could say:

    A) this human pattern is entirely a product of its environment.
    B) That there are infinite variables in an environment suitable to produce this human pattern
    C) That this environment( and all the infinite variable within) would be constantly varying aswell.

    If we assume these things as true( as observed in nature) we then should look at the math to see what the probability to produce an exact duplicate would be:
    For every variable we plug into max's calculation we would have to increase the distance. ( I think it's reasonable to assume). If we plug infinite variables into his math then the distance to find an identical copy becomes infinity. Again essentially saying zero probability this will occur.
    Furthermore there is no evidence in nature demonstrating two life forms(of any kind) exist with identical patterns down to the atomic level.

    So I can only conclude that there is a zero probability of finding an exact duplicate of a human pattern down to the atomic level existing in nature(reality)

    I welcome discussion on this.

    1. I have always viewed the vanishingly small probability of my own existance as the best intuitive evidence there is for the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

      For example, there is a Universe (in fact an infinite number of them) in which Hitler never aquired power in Germany. I do not exist in these realities, however, because they lack the mass migration of people/ect that had to come together to make my existance possible.

      My biggest issue with your objection is that you seem to assert the probability of your own existance is 0 and, as a result, it is impossible for a copy of you to have been created in an alternate Universe or elsewhere across an infinite expanse of space. If the probability that events and circumstances across cosmic time will conspire to create you are truly 0, then you could not be here to raise your objection.

    2. Thanks for the reply Darwin.
      I would like to thank you and David Foster for being thoughtful and polite with your first corrospondance with me.
      Thank you
      I'm not sure where I assert my probability to exist of being zero. I only assert the probability of an exact copy of me to be zero.

      I could elaborate further by saying the only way an exact copy of me could exist is if that copy and I existed in the exact smae position in space at the exact same time from the time we were conceived to the time the measurements would be taken to prove we were exact. Only then would we be exposed to the exact same infinitly changing set of infinite variables which influence the production and evolution of that specific human pattern.

      Of course this is ridiculously impossible, so again, the possibility of an exact doppelganger is zero. So fortunately, Hitler won't be back. Anywhere.

      I do think that parallel universes can possibly exist, however, I believe aspects of the ways they can exist and other aspects of what was said about them in this documentary are incorrect.

    3. no no no no no no nooooooo.....this is very wrong......because of two reasons: the first one is that your interpretation of the law of probabilities is very weak, and the second one is just that quantum mechanics (as it is explained here) is nothing more than a very shallow interpretation of actual quantum mechanics, so much so that it resembles bad science fiction......

      now to the first reason....even though something is VERY unlikely to happen, it will still happen..that's why it's called improbable and not impossible..and that's why you're's an improbability, alright..just consider yourself to be a very lucky being for even existing......

      the second one just kinda makes me lose faith in mankind altogether..i mean, if renowned scientists are preaching something as dumb as this, then we're screwed.....simple principles of physics should clear that out.....even if there are parallel universes, there's probably not a whole lot of copies of you scattered around them....and that is because universes aren't created at every single moment in everyone's life and just begin unfolding from there.....that's just wishful thinking....even if a universe was created, just like ours, there would probably never be another Hitler, and there would probably never be another version of you....simply because WE ARE ALL SUBJECT TO ENTROPY......ALL OF even if you somehow came up with 1,000,000,000,000 universes that were created JUST LIKE OURS, you'd probably find that in some of them, human beings never came to some others, it never really evolved..even in the ones that it did evolve, things would VERY PROBABLY be a whole lot different than they are just doesn't make ANY sense at's a VERY VERY VERY poor absolutely does not hold up under scrutiny............

    4. this is wrong..his theory says that IN AN INFINITE UNIVERSE, all combinations must happen..if the time constraints on that universe are also infinite, then ALL combinations will happen not only once, but will continue to happen..(you could argue based on simple coordinates, considering times as a coordinate, but that's pretty irrelevant)..

      so, basically, his conclusion is fairly obvious..what is flawed is his premise..the universe is not infinite..and that's where he's wrong..and btw, he's very wrong....

    5. Wow, I'm not sure who's theory your trying to refute. I assume its his in your first reply and mine in your 2nd.

      He said he believes the universe to be infinite. You say it isn't. First off you can't say there's proof either way whether the universe is infinite or not. At least Ma x says he only believes it is. You say there is no doubt it isn't. That's presumptuous on both your parts. However that's irrelevant.

      What we see in nature is everything evolving, life forms especially. Not ever repeating exactly. Being produced from the variables available at its point of origin and changing evolving with it's environment(variables) as time goes on.

      Everything those variables can produce can possibly happen once This we can say for sure. But not necessarily more than once exactly the same way and probably not. Heres why.

      Those varying variables don't remain the the same from one moment to the next. As things are produced and evolve, this changes the relationship of the variables for the production of the next things. Therefor variables never actually remain the same in relation to one another. nothing remains the same in relation to it's varying environment from one moment to the next. The universe isn't exactly the same from one moment to the next.

      If everything you define something by changes, so too does the thing you are defining. Something about it in relation to the environment around it will change from one moment to the next. It's position in space, its relative motion(s), mass,volume, energy level(s) etc. etc. However slight or great. These are facts observed in nature my friend.

      Something evolves with its evolving environment(variables). The variables themselves are evolving. If you can't get this concept I can't really explain more beyond this math issue. But this too is irrelevant to the original point I made.

      The point I was trying to make is his math is wrong.

      It's His math that's incorrect. Given an infinite universe (as he says), if you assume infinitely varying variables(in an infinite universe) for a person to be produced and evolve. and plug them into his math, his result becomes an infinite amount of light years to find an exact copy and not 1 with a million trillion trillion zeros light years.

      I can could explain more accurately the other things I was saying but not tonight and perhaps not in this forum.. Too late gotta get up early

      At this point I'll simpy say you're both wrong and leave it at that.

      Go with what you can ACTUALLY prove to be true in nature(reality).

  19. Thanks for taking the time to post those links

    See my ammended argument above.
    I actually meant "something less than infinity divided by infinity = zero" and NOT "infinity divided by infinity = zero"
    this was a typo.

    Forgive me. I have to work six days a week 12 hours a day so sometimes what hits the page isnt what im actually thinking. And by the end of that post It was the wee hours of the morning(was very tired). I was abbreviating. And I'm not trying to write a thesis or physics paper . Just trying to have a discussion.

    So no my theory is not centered on that. It's centered on the fact that infinite variables that are varying infinitely are required in the production and evolution of a human pattern. However, I think we approach this another way to prove this using very basic math.

    If we accept that there are infinite variables involved in the production and evolution of a human pattern. Which I think is irrefutable. Then for every variable we plug into max's calculation we would have to increase the distance to whatever result would occur. I can't say this for sure bacause I haven't seen his math yet( but I think it's reasonable to assume). If we plug infinite variables into his math then the distance to find an identical copy becomes infinity. Again essentially saying zero probability this will occur.

    Thanks for the links. I'll have a look at the rest of them when I have some time. Those pesky life responsibilities are getting in the way at the moment :)

    That's what took me so long to reply.

    Must sleeeeeep.

    1. not zero probability, but very close to that..and that's the entire base of the theory...that when you have infinite chances of something very unlikely happening, it will happen.........

  20. Physicists believe that we exist in parallel universes. They also claim that you are not exactly as you are here. There will be differences, such as you might be a factory worker here, but a scientist in a different universe, and a mass murderer in another.

    These differences prove this theory to be wrong. Why? Because if even the slightest differences occur then they've occurred even with the big bang. If the paralllel universes exploded into existence with just one-trillionth less energy as our big bang, or one-trillionth MORE energy than our big bang, then those universes would be totally different from ours. Planet Earth might not even exist in those universes.

    But let's say the existence of all the parellel universes had the exact same beginning, right up to (and including) the emergence of man. If physicists believe that we exist in these parallel universes, but with little alterations, then those differences began with primitive man. In our universe, a primitive man steps over a rock. In another universe, that same being trips and stumbles over the rock, which awakens a saber-tooth tiger. That being becomes lunch for the tiger, so all the decendants he was supposed give birth to (the way it happened in our universe) cannot come into existence.

    Soooo, parallel universes? Uh-uh, not buyin' it.

    1. Look there is a very simple way of understanding parallel universes.
      If possibilities are infinite, then the present is the infinite minus one. Not infinite minus infinite. Now if we collect a lot of "presents" we can see patterns.. we see infinite - 1 , infinite - 2 , infinite - x. Science determines the x. To determine what infinite is we have to know more about the x to see how it relates to the infinite. If there even is an infinite. Maybe all there is is an x.

    2. who ever said there were infinite parallel universes????? that's a very dangerous conclusion to draw....if we can just assume things, then a whole lot of bogus theories will start to make sense.......

      not how you should be approaching this....even the scientists who believe in this ridiculous theory won't say there are infinite parallel universes...........

    3. You haven't understood it a single bit.
      True, if even a very, very, very small diversity happens in the four fundamental forces of nature from our own universe, the reality as we know it wouldn't exist. However, with infinite possibilities, all diversities that can happen, will or have happened infinite times.
      That means that the universe as we experience it (including everything that has happen and everything that will happen) exists infinite times. Diversities doesn't have to happen, they can happen and most likely will happen, but not for certainty.

    4. yeah but this is not rational..time had a beginning, and therefore an end....infinite occurrences are not a part of reality....

    5. yeah, this is the conclusion any thinking person should come to....amazing how some theoretical physicists can actually not arrive just goes to show that at least 80% of the human race is not very rational, and simply just not smart at all.........

  21. @Vlatko

    I just got home and read your Post. I knew at some point you would comment on the ridiculous insult throwing affair. I truely didn't post here for that.

    First off I love this site. Thank you.

    After watching the video, I posted that I believe there are holes and inconsistancies with aspects of what was presented. Scientific holes. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy.

    So maybe that puts me in camp3. I believe in science. But I believe NOT all of the theoretical stuff is correct.

    I posted to discuss where I found some of those inconsistancies, but unfortunatley spent most of the time correcting the barrage of misquotes( at least twenty) and fielding insults from a couple of people who took extreme offence to my original post and really never got past that.

    I'll admit some of the words I chose to describe aspects of some of the theories and how vehemently some people choose to defend them were provocative. I truely wasn't trying to be personal in nature (calling some aspects poppycock). And never spoke of anyone specifically. Nonetheless offence was taken. Then things got personal. This was unintended.

    The provocative nature of some of the wording was intended to provoke debate from people with some scientific knowledge. Not provoke a barrage of personal insults. This I regret and I did promise not to open a post this way again, however the insults continued.

    I will promise to never return or respond to an insult again. They will be ignored.

    I do appreciate and will respect your concerns and wishes.

    Regarding the video...

    I would still like to intelligently and maturely discuss specific aspects of this video and others with people on this forum. And I also welcome critique of specifics with any of my positions, that provide intelligent specific refute.

    I would like to start again by discussing aspects of the theory(s) presented in this video starting with the first genlleman in the video.

    I haven't seen his math but I'd like to. If someone knows a way for me to get a look at it I'd appreciate it so I can have a stronger position to argue my points (or be corrected is fine too).

    But in his first theory he suggests that all patterns repeat in nature.No matter how complexed.( please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere). He said the more complexed the pattern the futher you must travel to find an identical copy of this pattern.

    He said this is true of every person. If we could travel far enough we would find an exact copy of each of us. He said he came up with a number that is one with a million trillion trillion zeros light years away. If we could travel this far we would find our exact copy down to the atomic level.

    My argument is this (and please tell me if I become unscientific unmathematical or philosophical at any point) :

    1) Given the suggestion of an exact duplicate of another person being produced in nature, we would have to consider what variables would be of influence for this pattern reproduction to occur.

    2) Furthermore we would have to consider what we actually observe in nature. To actually prove this is possible.

    So with respect to requirement #1 some of the variables in nature for a human to exist and grow::

    What parents produced the human.(initial genetics)

    The Temperature, pressure, available sustanance( food and water), gravity, suitable breathable atmosphere (this itself could have virtually infinite variations)., weather conditions, radiation exposure etc.
    and infinite possible combinations of all these.

    Furthermore there will be virtually infinite variables influencing the growth of this human pattern.

    Therefor I believe we could say:

    A) this human pattern is entirely a product of its environment.
    B) That there are infinite variables in an environment suitable to produce this human pattern
    C) That this environment( and all the infinite variable within) would be constantly changing.

    If we assume these things as true( as observed in nature) we then should look at the math to see what the probability to produce an exact duplicate would be.

    Given that there are infinite variables then we could only end up with a probability that would boil down to:

    infinity divided by infinity = zero

    Furthermore there is no evidence in nature demonstrating two life forms(of any kind) exist in nature with identical patterns down to the atomic level.

    So I can only conclude that there is a zero probability of finding an exact duplicate of a human pattern down to the atomic level existing in nature(reality)

    I welcome discussion on this.

    Thanks again as usual for this forum Vladko

    I will keep my promise :)

    1. Well I made no promises, you are a troll, that by your own admission, and by your own admission you said have been watching us post for 4 months.

      Vlatko is no dummy, am sure he will not fall for your poor attempt at lying and your patronizing and sucking up.

      Now this is all I will say to you. Will keep my promise.

    2. I feel bad about how I responded, so I'm going to post one last time disinterestedly. If Vlatko decides to let the post through (it has links), then that'll be it. If not, so be it.

      I, too, will keep my promise.

    3. as an observer i see that....
      You approached a group of guys having a discussion with a "water gun" in your hand, so don't be surprised by the result.
      I think you were looking for attention and were smart enough to know how to find it, by provoking, that you seem to have a problem with now.
      I agree with Achems...sucking on Vlatko reminds me of a child's game.
      Get it...the gang is saying, hit the road Dodo, come back some other time and with a different strategy because yes, your post was strategically fishing, meaning intended.

    4. I already admit that my initial post was generically provoking and cocky( but not personal). I simply wasn't trying to provoke the personal attacks that occurred. It takes two parties to have a confict. "The Gang" could have chose to respond to that post in a civil respectful manner or not at all. Instead , AFTER fielding all of the misqoutes and insults while trying to defend my position, I then became frustrated and angry enough to be drawn into the personal stone throwing affair saying things I didn't really mean in anger.

      This as I stated I regret. Lesson learned.

      I'm not sucking up to anyone. I said nothing to Vlatko I didn't mean. Doesn't matter how anyone chooses to portray it. I think It's presumptuous of anyone to assume how i feel about my post to someone else regardless of how they choose to perceive or portray it. Especially since I was being sincere.

      Unless you read all (every one) of the threads in there exact order. I think you don't have the whole story.

      But you are entitled to your opinion. Or to take a side. I have no issue with that or you.

      I do however wish to spend my time here discussing topics related to the documentaries. Not defending myself in a never ending way from "the gang" who regularly post here.

      I truely hope we move on now.

    5. If you'd like to discuss my position on topics related to the documentaries I will be happy to. I believe there are holes and inconsistancies with aspects of what was presented in this documentary and I'm prepared to point them out and prove them. I simply don't have the time to play forum patronage politics or exchange insults with "the gang" or anyone else. I will be civil and respectfull to THOSE THAT ARE WITH ME. If you see me do otherwise. Then I think you can justify telling me to "hit the road".

  22. @Vlatko,

    @wald0 and I rarely discuss. On the one occasion when @wald0 did take time to address me directly, it was with a long and well thought out post. @wald0's posting was strikingly well-balanced and in defense of the sensitivities of religiously-minded persons. Speaking to me, @wald0 said this:

    "...the very nature of religion dictates that it will be something that people cling to, something that sparks passion and emotion,... I can imagine it must be gut wrenching, almost crippling, to lose your faith after a lifetime of belief. If I were religious and had invested my life effort in some dogma or God, if I believed with all my heart that I could burn for eternity for not believing- I would fight like a mad man to retain my faith.

    "...Think about it, you won- now the other person is devastated. Everything they thought they knew is gone, they are in the middle of a huge life crisis. This is real stuff man, real stuff with real consequences. Does that mean we should just say o.k. let them believe what they need to, NO!! Of course not, but we do have to take under consideration the full impact of our actions. We do need to realize what we are asking of them and how difficult it must be from their point of view."

    I have not 'cherry-picked' this quotation, which is why it is a little longer than most quotes might normally be. To read the whole comment go to page 2 of 'Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth' and do a search on any of the contained phrases.

    I have enjoyed reading many of @wald0's postings, and they have always been -- every single one I have read -- balanced, articulate and considerate.

    I have not been involved in this particular exchange, at all, till now. I am only weighing in because I think someone must speak up on behalf of a long time contributor, consistentantly well-mannered and compassionate.


    1. Wow, thank you so much for your compliments. I am flattered, really. However, I don't think Vlatko was really trying to attack anyone or make accusations as to who has been fair or not, only to intervene in the hopes of preventing further insults and so forth, which he did elegantly in my opinion. I had started down the wrong road with DonDon1, regardless of why. Who started the insults should make no difference between adults. One of the two, if not both, should take it on themselves to stop the never ending chain of insults that invariably achieves nothing. Since none of those involved seemed to do so, me included, Vlatko stepped in to kind of break the flow and give everyone a chance to examine their own actions, take a breath, and hopefully calm down. Vlatko is good at that, he can break the tension and get you to really think about your actions without offending you or taking sides in the argument, very diplomatic and tactful- he is a skilled moderator. There is a long established mutual respect between me and Vlatko, for my part, so he doesn't really have to use kids gloves with me. Thanks though for your defense and compliments, it is really flattering. For what it is worth I have always enjoyed your posts as well, very well thought out, and at times even poetic. You seem to have a gift for expressing yourself in an interesting way. Thanks again and I wish you the all the best.

    2. I take responsibility for my part in not ending the chain of insults aswell. And for the provocative way my initial post was worded. This I regret.

    3. DonDon1, I will be plain with you.

      No, it was not just your initial post. Several posts after still had elements of arrogance and "cockiness" as you even admitted to yourself. Please check your first five or six. If you really were just being playful, why did you keep it up after people got visibly upset? It was only after three people including myself, who after challenging your ideas, did you try to victimize yourself and >then< say that you did not mean it. You have to realize why I (and I'm sure many others) did not believe in your sincerity.

      Also, I would like to elaborate as to why I acted the way I did. Many of your posts reminded me of a kid who in middleschool often said something derogatory like "your parents are scum of the city" continually to me for an entire year. Many times he would provoke me into debates or arguments, and in the process, verbally slur me. And though every time I won and closed with a plea of not to do that again, he would do it again (and yes, he did it very much the same way that you did). Although he has long since stopped, his arrogance and cockiness has made me despise people of his sort. The disgust I have for people like him is deeply entrenched. This is why I succumbed to the urge to create this user.

      Setting that aside though, I would like to say that I regret getting so emotionally charged when I could have just gone up and walked away; however, that is not so easy for me to do for the reasons aforementioned. I hated myself for doing that before, so it will be hard for me to ease back into the habit. I hope you understand.

      In the future, if you are looking for a neutral debate or a discussion, I suggest that you kindly ask for it at the beginning of a post instead of throwing various insults before making a point.

  23. Every word will have it's irreplaceable echo in time.
    Therefore choose your words carefully.
    Be silent.

    1. Very wise words. Poetic and reminiscent of a haiku.

      Words echo through time
      Therefore choose your words wisely
      Think or stay silent

  24. @ Vlatko

    No problem, I am glad you did. It made me see that I should stop replying and not play a part in this by returning his insults, that I was fanning the flames so to speak, which is just as childish as starting the fire.

  25. I love this series, thankyou for sharing it with us all

  26. Wednesday July 27, 2011

    Another great show in this series. I enjoyed it and listening to the many ideas that other researches have come up with. Some of these are known and others not.

    I would like to add my own observations about the universe.

    I believe that we live in a world of at least 6 dimensions.

    1. The dimension of length (left and right).

    2. The dimension of depth (forward and backward).

    3. The dimension of height (up and down).

    4. The dimension of space time that gives us gravity and time.

    5. The quantum dimension. This is the dimension in which the quanta of matter behave where all possibilities can happen. Our brains are wired into this dimension and are quantum computers. This dimension allows humans to experience premonitions. ie Allows human brains to experience both future and past events. Future events are premonitions. Past events are flash back memories.

    6. The spirit / life force dimension. This is the dimension that contains the life force of the universe. More and more evidence is now being discovered and documented that our bodies and our consciousness are two separate pieces but work together in unison. The body is the hardware. The consciousness is the software. The consciousness is part of the life force of the universe that exists in its own dimension.

    The spirit / life force dimension has NOTHING to do with religion. However human religions try to explain the sixth dimension in their teachings. God is nothing but the sum of the life force of the universe. An analogy would be the internet on Earth that houses all human knowledge.

    The sixth dimension, the spirit / life force dimension, contains all the knowledge that life has learned over time.

    The brain is a quantum computer and telecommunications system integrating the six dimensions together to create conscious life.

    Fundamental Law of the Universe

    Pure energy transforms itself into more and more complex states of both organic and inorganic matter until it becomes self aware to the point that it begins to understand its existence in its local environment, global environment, and universal environment.

    Pure energy becomes hydrogen atoms.

    Hydrogen atoms condense into hydrogen clouds.

    Hydrogen clouds become stars.

    Stars form into groups called galaxies.

    Stars transform hydrogen atoms into the other elements of the periodic table through the process of electromagnetism and nuclear fusion (it is believed).

    When stars explode this process of element creation is accelerated.

    The released energy, gases and elements then recombine into more complex states of matter consisting of new stars, gas clouds, planets and solar systems.

    Elements on a planet begin to combine and interact with each other resulting in more complex states of inorganic matter.

    At some point inorganic matter becomes complex enough to reproduce itself. Inorganic matter now becomes organic matter.

    Organic matter and inorganic matter continue to increase in complexity step by step. Organic matter now begins to shape inorganic matter into more complex states of matter.

    Organic matter continues to evolve until it becomes complex enough to interact with the sixth dimension (the life force of the universe) to become conscious and self aware.

    Organic matter continues this process of becoming more complex and at the same time making the inorganic matter around it more complex.

    Organic matter on the planet Earth has now reached the stage of development that it is aware of itself, its place in its environment, its place on the Earth, its place in the solar system, and its place in the visible universe.

    Human beings are the most advanced form of organic life on the planet Earth that we are aware of. Human beings have learned how to transform the inorganic elements around them into advanced tools like computers, airplanes, cars, buildings and so forth. Human beings are also able to transform thought into computer code and then into digital information. The sensory world for humans (sound, sight, thought and emotion) can now be saved as electronic digital information and manipulated in the “Quantum Dimension”.

    The fundamental law of the universe states that pure energy will transform itself into more and more complex states of inorganic matter and organic matter until it becomes self aware to the point of consciousness that it begins to understand its existence, its place in the local environment, the global environment, and the universal environment.

    The Existence of Black Holes

    I am of the opinion that black holes do not exist and that Black Holes do not exist at the centre of our galaxy or any other galaxy.


    1. A Black Hole at the centre of the galaxy would slowly consume that galaxy. This is not happening. For an analogy pull the plug out in a sink of water. This is what would happen if there was a Black Hole at the centre of each galaxy. Galaxies are NOT being consumed. Therefore there is not a Black Hole at the centre of our galaxy or any other.

    2. The rotational speed of stars at the centre of a galaxy are moving at the same rate as the stars on the outside edge of the galaxy. The greater the mass at the centre of the galaxy the faster the stars will rotate. Because there is uniform rotation there is NO Black Hole at the centre of our galaxy or any other.

    3. So how is a galaxy held together to achieve uniform rotation. Electromagnetism.

    Is the Universe expanding?



    The Red Shift theory with regards to galaxies is misunderstood.

    1. The reason why the light from distant galaxies is red shifted is because the shorter wave lengths of light are being absorbed in the dust and gases in between. Think of a sunset. As the sun sinks lower and lower on the horizon the light has to pass through a thicker atmosphere. In the end only the longer wave lengths of red light can make it through. This is the same principal for light travelling from distant galaxies. The further away the galaxy is the more red shifted the light becomes due to the shorter wavelengths being absorbed or converted into hydrogen atoms.

    2. One can also think of our universe as being curved like a ball similar to the Earth. The farther away a galaxy is the more its shorter wavelengths of light are absorbed by the dust and gas between the galaxy and the Earth. Only the longer wavelengths of red light arrive at Earth.

    3. Therefore the universe is NOT expanding. The distance between galaxies is not increasing.

    4. The fundamental flaw in the expanding universe theory is that eventually galaxies will be expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light. Based on the theoretical speed limit of light in the universe, this is impossible.

    5. Therefore the theory of an expanding universe based on the Red Shift is incorrect.

    6. Therefore there was no Big Bang. The universe is not expanding. The universe simply is infinite.

    The existence of Parallel Universes.

    The existence of parallel universes do exist in the “Quantum Dimension”. It is in the “Quantum Dimension” that every possibility can happen and does.

    However with regards to the co-existence of the six dimensions in real time there is only one universe. Quantum behaviour can only exist at the quantum level in the “Quantum Dimension”.

    Parallel universes do not exist at the macro level. Just as quantum behaviour cannot be seen at the macro scale. Macro scale = human scale

    However at the quantum level in the “Quantum Dimension” parallel universes do exist.

    Where does the energy of the universe come from?

    The pure energy of the universe comes from the “Quantum Dimension” where it comes into being.

    This pure energy once created then follows the “Fundamental Law of the Universe”.

    Pure energy transforms itself into more and more complex states of both organic and inorganic matter until it becomes self aware to the point that it begins to understand its existence in its local environment, global environment, and universal environment.

    The universe will always be creating new energy, new hydrogen atoms, new hydrogen clouds, new stars, new planets, new galaxies and new life. The process is infinite.

    1. OOH, OOH!! Now tell us the one about the one-eyed sea captain and his dyslexic pet walrus, its my favorite!!

    2. "Teh tmie has coem," the walrus said, "to takl fo many thinsg: fo shose -adn shisp -adn sealign wax...adn whethre pisg haev winsg!"

    3. I like the way you think Art Vinette. I don't agree with all the information because i think that parallel universes are real on the "Human Level." Everything that can happen, does happen. Then the quantum dimension stuff is hard for me too grasp the idea there. I just feel that your 5th and 6th dimensions are the same thing.

      I think the main idea that gets left out of documentary's like this is that conscious = experience. Experience meaning; the path u choose to live your life and the things you experience with your body and mind, that make you who you are. Experience is the most important thing and i like how u kinda touched on that with the 6th dimension idea. It makes being alive into a dimension, thus making it more real.

      The way I see it EVERYTHING is out there but it doesn't exist until you experience it. Just like your post. It is here but didn't exist until I experienced it. Thank you for putting the effort into this post, the Fundamental Law of the Universe was put together nicely. It gave me an "Oh, yeah!?!?!" moment. lol

  27. No.It is only wishful thinking.An imagination.

    1. @ Apostle Jack
      "No.It is only wishful thinking.An imagination."

      Have you been drinking?

      What " only wishful thinking" ?

      What is: "An imagination" ?


  28. @ DonDon 1

    "Persecussion" is really one of the finest portmanteaus I've ever heard! Maybe it was an accident, but it was a happy one. What a beautiful word.

  29. @ DonDon1

    Look man I am the first one on this site to defend people when they are belittled or insulted, but you came out swinging and can not play otherwise. When you start by saying things like, "...the accepted poppycock. You know all those that quote all the proven math and supposed observed fact etc. like it's the gospel. Bahh. " Surely you don't expect to be treated friendly, you started insulting people before you even made your point. Besides that not everyone insulted you, I certainly didn't. I merely said I can't debate with someone that has such different standards as to what constitutes truth or logic than I do, we have no common ground to work from. How can you admit to trolling in one breath and complain about getting flamed in the other anyway?

    1. Again, the cocky aspect which I'll admit was a little provocative . What's done is done
      Should have been a cue that it was a generic and not too personal TRoll not to be taken too personally.
      And what I said about disagreeing with aspects of things the people in the doc said. All true. I expected a little agitation. However, I also expected some thought provoking discussion about what I was talking about. Not simply close minded unreasonable attacks from professional adults who took my cockiness I think way too seriously. And used it as an excuse to behave badly.

      You said "Besides that not everyone insulted you, I certainly didn't. I merely said I can't debate with someone that has such different standards as to what constitutes truth or logic than I do, we have no common ground to work from."

      Hmm doesn't really seem warm and fuzzy to me Waldo. If you seriously can't find common ground to discuss what I said about environmental variables required in a statistics calculation where the environmental variables seem pertinent. Well I don't know what to say Man.
      Lol you also said to me "You are badly confused as to what science really is. You are talking about interpretations," Dude check the dictionary please. That's what science is and what theories are? That's what i was discussing. My issue with some existing interpretation (theory)given what I suggest is missing pertinent data and or consideration(s). Did you even read through my response to Lewion. You telling me you can't discuss anything about what i proposed.
      Not even existing data regarding perceived energy differences in pairs of electrons or
      pairs of photons and how this may be relevant... Hmmm.

      Who's playing who now man.

    2. First of all, I'm 16. But don't mistake me for some complete newbie; I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about QM; however, I'm still learning and my opinions can change. It's just that you haven't been convincing enough.

      Second, I'm insisting that it would really make things easier for me to respond to your points if you laid them out 1by1. The post is just waaaaay too long for me to stick through and address things without forgetting previous points, which inconveniences me greatly. Also, when I did try to address something, you said it was because I wasn't trying hard enough to think of an alternative reason explaining it (but I didn't see your explanation of what happened). Well, I'm perfectly willing to hear an explanation from you, but keep in mind that photons are massless and are only affected by gravity and not electricity/magnetism, which is what those detectors would have done. Also, the gravity from the speakers would have been so small that I doubt that its effects would have caused anything. To claim that a dozen scientists are just trying to stay in public favor sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me. I wonder what you would have said for evolution?

      But I'm telling you again. Whether something experiences a different time (future) or space doesn't mean that it can't be identical. Clearly you're splitting hairs. For example, if I cloned myself and removed just one cell from my clone would he still not be an exact copy down to the DNA? You're missing the point about the analogy. And regardless, as far as we know there is a set number of subatomic particles; statistically, there would HAVE to be other perfect versions of you or me in this space-time universe or another. This is irrefutable. If you had two dice to make any combination of numbers, eventually you'd get the same result after a few tries. Add another die, and the likelihood of getting a similar sequence decreases, but is still there. Add another, and so on. If this was able to continue for an infinite amount of years, you'd get an infinite amount of similar/same results. This is the nature (or concept, if you will) of infinity. Knowing that this is how statistics works, I find it very strange that you are able to say that after so large a number, the possibility of rolling another identical sequence completely disappears. That notion is even stranger than QM itself.

      Again, it would be great if you could refrain from the "subatomic differences." As far as we know of, there are no differences, and if there were any that could alter a state of matter, we would have detected it. Therefore, why trifle ourselves with the difference every single photon, every single atom, every single lepton supposedly has? It performs the same microscopically, and so I fail to see how it is relevant in the macroscopic scale where there is zero difference. But let's say that there is a difference then (no matter how insignificant). In another universe with its OWN space-time, the chance of getting something exactly the same as ours is just another die added to roll. Not only that, you have failed to prove that there IS a difference in subatomic particles from one another, and it is YOU who are going under the assertion that there is. It's not up to me to prove that there isn't a difference, but it IS up to you to prove that there is since you are the one proposing and asserting. There is viable evidence for everyone to believe that there is no difference whatsoever, but you seem to find a faulty comparison to back yourself up with as sufficient evidence.

      Now, I'll explain why your analogy is faulty. Using macroscopic scale comparisons for microscopic scale comparisons for understanding things is the SOURCE of many misunderstandings we have of QM. This is because of our consciousness that we possess and use to perceive things (which can also change things), but I won't go there. Not only that, assuming that we COULD make such comparisons, yours would be scientifically invalid due to the iota of a sample size that you used (as in "using a huge complex matter-created object and a small amount of space" system). Space is HUGE. And to expect a result that would yield EXACTLY the same thing (in every possible detail) in such small scale, though theoretically possible, is far closer to being impossible.

      Now don't say that that was just a mind exercise. Because if you were to concede that, then you'd be admitting that the comparison COULD work in any form, regardless of space-time. By extension, that would mean that somewhere in our universe could be another Earth, and, even more, that other universes could be the same.

      You're right that these scientists are placing a lot of faith in these ideas, but QM has been shown to work time and time again. And until you or someone can come up with something better that also works, QM is our best bet at understanding the universe. I know that QM can be abstract, but, guess what, so is 1+1.

      I'm finished here. I'm going to enjoy the documentary that I've abstained from for too long. It's up to you whether to admit that you were being nitpicky or whatnot, but I at least HOPE that I've made you >personally< change your mind.

    3. O.k. so civil isn't enough, it has to be warm and fuzzy. Well, you might as well look else where friend. I'm not a warm and fuzzy kind of guy, especially when someone has insulted me and my future profession- trolling or not. Besides that, you have already admitted that mathematics and observation amount to poppycock for you, that you think interpretations put forth by the sharpest minds available to man are full of holes and inconsistencies, that you think much of the accepted doctrine is incorrect, etc. So why would you desire a debate with someone that is studying to be a physicist and is going to defend their stance with the very knowledge you say is worthless?

      No, I didn't read your post to Lewion, I have no desire to, if you lack the logic skills to realize the direct relationship between the simple mathematics that support Max's theory and reality, then how could I ever hope to prove to you he may be correct? Its not fancy math, nothing new, you learned the math that says he may be right in high school, or you should have, and you see it in action around you every day. If you have a set number of variables, then there is set number of ways to arrange them. If you then see these configurations taking up an infinite space, logic tells you they have to repeat themselves. It is a waste of time in my opinion to debate that.

      I have no problem telling you that I believe mathematics IS representative of reality, that observation and experimentation controlled by the scientific method ARE the only trustworthy means humans have for finding truth, that the vast majority of accepted scientific knowledge IS correct. We simply do not have any common ground, none. Besides that, no one deserves that people should debate them or give their ideas credence simply because they demand it, only that they remain civil. That's all I owe you, to remain civil, and I have done so. If that's not enough, you'll have to get over it.

      Oh, and here is that definition of science that you so arrogantly and incorrectly told me I was mistaken about, Science - The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. In other words science is a method for finding truth, not a body of knowledge or the theories you are failing to disprove.

    4. @ Waldo or should I say Walleye


      And yes I did Troll you. You deserved it.

      I threw you in the back live well with the other whoppers already.

      I've watched you guys post for months. And got tired of your arrogance and sometimes veiled and sometimes not belittling of others.

      Funny how easily you guys outted yourselves with that troll as the truely arrogant, disrespectfull people you are considering how smart you all think you are.

      that comment you said "I can't debate with someone that has such different standards as to what constitutes truth or logic than I do, we have no common ground to work from." Seriously!

      I read that comment from you on at least 5 other occasions directed at other different people. Virtually worded exactly the same way. Did you cut and paste that?.
      I watch your posts for months and it's always the same. You , Achem's_Razor, Lewion. You're fine with people who act subordinate or submissive to your patronage tactics.Then you get to act all omni knowledgable in your positions of power.
      But I've seen you guys far too many times intimidate, bully, humiliate and belittle people who seemed to have a genuine desire to share insight and talk about some of the topics they saw here. Though they may not have had the depth of acedemic background. Shame on you.
      I'll say to you again what I said to Achems Razor. Get off your high horse and don't be jealous that people will have insight you don't. And that they can have these insights without all the requisite background you deem necessary. As you ryhme it off like a verse from the bible. Your heroes can and will be wrong occasionally. Don't take it personal if someone outside of your patronage group suggests or can spot it. Get over it.
      And you misquote me again(another tactic to confuse the issue when you don't have a valid argument) when you said "you have already admitted that mathematics and observation amount to poppycock for you, that you think interpretations put forth by the sharpest minds available to man are full of holes and inconsistencies, " Wow! Patronage!

      True I do believe and did say that SOME math (especially SOME math that can't be proven in nature amount to poppycock. Which at this point was all I had discussed. And true I do think SOME of the interpretations put forth do have holes and inconsistancies. But this doesn't mean I can't point out where they are and prove it. Apparently to your mind anyone just thinking these things is enough for you to circle the wagons.
      I won't waste anymore of my time attempting to discuss anything with you bullies.

    5. Cry me a river, should I send over some baby wipes and diaper salve? You are really making a f00l of yourself man. I gave you every opportunity to just walk away with dignity intact and no insults, you refuse to. Then you try to accuse me of petty insults, do you really think people can't see through that? Every few posts you stomp off like some spoiled child declaring, "I don't wanna play with you guys anymore, I'm taking my ball and going home", simply because things are not going your way, then you come back like some desperate id10t in dire need of the last word. Well, sorry but you are not going to get any kind of validation or respect from me, I just don't see that you warrant either. You get what you give, st*pid is as st*pid does. I will give you the last word though, since you so desperately need it. Have at it, curse and rant and stomp your feet while you squeeze your eyes shut, maybe if you hold your breath long enough someone will take pity on you.

    6. @Baby DonDon,

      Well, this time I fully agree with @waldO:
      When you get mature enough to play with us big boys, come and see us without your mommy close at hand to change your nappy!

      And by then maybe you can cut your temper tantrums. You better go and have your nap, take some religee's with you for company!

    7. "I've watched you guys post for months. And got tired of your arrogance and sometimes veiled and sometimes not belittling of others."

      I just made this profile two days ago and it was because of you. When you said "You're fine with people who act subordinate or submissive to your patronage tactics," perhaps you just meant the people who were not arrogant about their ideas. I'm perfectly fine with you believing what you want, but if you get arrogant about them and put others down, things will not get pretty. Now, if your ideas seemed completely logical, then I would have left you alone and thought about them, but - as I've said before - there were quite a bit of flaws.

      It didn't help your credibility the slightest bit either when you said that you had 'the correct' interpretation on the Double Slit Experiment but danced away from the subject. Had you not been so arrogant, I would have never argued with you.

  30. It wont work Lewion. I also disagree with some of the interpretation(s) of the double split experiment. I'm not going to elaborate further on that in this forum because it will clearly be met with more of the same garbage from those that believe everything they read in their books and never had the balls to question something bigger than them. Original thought man.....
    Dare to think. If an idea doesn't make sense.... maybe something is wrong with it.

    1. I find it ironic. Very ironic. Here you are claiming that you're being the visionary in physics and that we're being the conformists.

      But in fact, it is YOU who are being the conformist. You're not bothering to step outside the box at all. You keep comparing quantum physics to classical physics and saying that quantum physics is flawed because it doesn't match up with the things that we observe in the classical world. You are conforming to the idea that everything MUST follow the classical world. This is something you would expect from a child or a person who knows nothing about chemistry, physics, or atoms.

      If we can't even place our faith in mathematics and the concepts that come with it, I'm not even sure how you can have faith in your idea.

      What is one plus one...?

    2. Claim I'm a Visionary?? wow man you like to misquote me. Seriously think you should curb that crap. It's a bit more than provocative. And again I have no desire to share any more with you other than I already have.

      Good day sir

    3. " Because clearly much of the fundamental theory and interpretation is incorrect. Otherwise, more people than I would have the theory of everything already ;) "

      If that doesn't say that you think of yourself as a visionary, I don't know what it says.

    4. Okay, I'll play it your game for once. What is wrong with the Double Split Experiment?

      Enlighten me, oh beholder of the arcane.

    5. Lol Lewion. I enjoyed that comment. It was at least funny :)

    6. I'm glad that you did, I enjoy sarcasm sometimes. Dry humor, it's good stuff.

  31. Well again thanks for the comments Again, some without any specific refute or proof to the contrary of what I proposed in my reply to Lewion.

    I was being playfully cocky with my original post (thought it was obvious). However I didn't get one bit of constructive critisism prior to insults and immature behavior. Simply straight to battle. Hmmm

    I never claimed to be smarter than anyone, only that i disagree with aspects of others in the doc. I don't think everyone believes I think I'm smarter than everyone else. I don't. I think most people may understand and got that. Hope so anyhow.

    I know I was obviously cocky but man ...didn't expect to land such fat whopper patronage zealots with that obvious troll.
    Circle the wagon!
    Attack the outsider!
    He's a non believer! Lol.

    I also said I disagree with the others through perceived holes and inconsistancies, not that I was smarter than them or had all the answers myself (other than the theory of everything that is ; )

    Let me ask you this before I go. After suggesting how environmental variables should factor into those statistical maths that predict exact duplicates, do you still think that the prediction in the doc is accurate? Honestly?

    Ok I'm out. Thanks to those for attempting to dash my cocky spirit and my desire to find new truths and share them with others!

    My message I'd like to leave you with is accept all that irrefutable theory and never question it for god's sake! Because you might end up proposing something new, original and previously undiscovered( and possibly accurate) and become the pariah of a patronage group.

    P.S. I keep reading about that wall of words barb. I usually hear it from people who can't or don't want to discuss the substance of text in an adult manner, so they use that lame insult for the sake of throwing an insult. Original...

    1. Meaningless drivel!!

    2. Lol....that all you got left? No refutable evidence. No more condescending arrogant remarks about what I need to study to be capable of any insight like you possess?

      Sorry A.R.

    3. Well, since you're "outta here", I guess it's pointless for me to say that I also question the likelihood of parallel universes for essentially the same reasons you do.. But I have learned to keep my observations to myself in the presence of "Devout Scientists". However, for some reason I do somewhat enjoy discussing religion with the same (if only to watch the smoke coming out of their ears). :-)

    4. I take it that you haven't heard of the Double Slit Experiment too then?

      Wait for my reply to DonDon1's to get approved. I just linked a fascinating docu that should help break the foundations of his stubbornness.

      If you're interested though, search up "What Is Reality?" here at topdoc. Skip to 17:00 to get a glimpse of the crazy, but I recommend watching the entire thing.

      That is the world of quantum mechanics, but that is also the world that we live in.

    5. @Lewion. I am aware of Young's experiment. And I have already seen "What is Reality?". In fact I am quite well versed on Quantum Mechanics. And, while I can see where they get some of their theories, the greater volume is based solely on mathematical equations. This is the same faith in mathematics which produces such phenomenon as: 'Worm Holes", "Parallel Universes", and the granddaddy of all theories: "The Big Bang"... None of which have have ever been demonstrated on anything other than a blackboard.

    6. Blackholes used to belong on that list too, didn't they?

      Though we may remain skeptical, to deny the possibility is not what science is about. At least that's what I believe

      On the other hand, I'm happy to know that you have done your own research on Quantum Mechanics beforehand and then made a decision. I respect that. But I really wonder, what is it about QM that makes you feel uneasy?

    7. Nothing about it makes me feel uneasy. Just saying, at the moment it's more faith than physics. I don't have a problem with either. A lot of people here do, though.

      The 'things I have trouble with' are.. hmm... let's see...

      Well, let's take the name "Black Hole", for instance. Not entirely an accurate description, is it? I feel the same about "particle" and "wave".

      Knowing that matter and energy are interchangeable (E=MC²), anything falling under the definition of "solid matter" (such as a particle) doesn't really make sense, does it? It's 'form' is only a function of how it affects it's surroundings. So the young experiment seeks to measure something which technically does not --can not-- exist. And yet it can be demonstrated. Somehow we have to take it on faith that this will all make sense at some future point in our evolution when we can all think ten-dimensionally.

      Anyway... IF I have a problem with anything, it is the attempt to prove the solid particle. I believe it has been effectively shown not to exist. And I think that the push NOT to accept that reality is because we would then have to define matter as a mere manifestation of energy. And manifestation implies God.

    8. I actually agree with you on the term Black Hole, because it leaks radiation. I also see what you're saying with particle and solid particle stuff.

      You know, you've got some interesting points. I'm still trying to learn so this has me thinking. I'll take it to a friend and see what he has to say. The only thing I can say is that there are different theories of physics that don't necessarily involve multiple dimensions. Perhaps you feel that those are more probable.

      Honestly, thank you for this interesting tidbit

      (though I will say that you and DonDon1 didn't really have much in common. He believed to have found a new ToE, whereas you just felt that our current explanation of physics [or this specific one] takes too much on faith)

    9. Well.. I also have my "Theory of Everything", but it doesn't hinge on mathematical explanation. Maths, as I see it, is just a tool of the observer. It is the observer who matters. It is the observer which is real; and not merely the processes which define him/her, in physical space. In other words: We are the WHY.

      If you study biology and physics -especially Quantum Physics- long enough, then eventually you will have to choose whether to define yourself as: A) "A machine, which, by it's own complexity, creates for you an illusion of life"; or B) "A living being with a machine (body) at it's disposal". For multiple reasons not mentioned here, I chose B.

    10. Sounds like a mix of Descartes and other French philosophies

      I like it as it sounds very interesting. I've read maybe five or six ToE's, but it's always the ones that are based on math with faulty explanations that bother me. Ones that are mostly philosophical do not, but, in fact, they intrigue me. Hopefully when I have enough knowledge in all those fields you mentioned, I can draw my own conclusions

      Thank you for exposing me to some new ideas to think about :P

  32. Hilarious and thought provoking going through the comments. I haven't even watched the doco yet, i think this is more entertaining and educational. I would just like to share something i have come to realize recently. I am fascinated with physics, however i am not very gifted in the mathematics department, I have struggled with string/M/complicated multi-dimensional theories, i do think these theories have relevance in some form, but as far as a unified theory of everything goes, i feel they are missing the mark. Mathematics should be simple, elegant and above all, beautiful! I am a musician/artist and i consistently find that beautiful music/art/architecture etc.. is inextricably linked with mathematics. Why then should a unified field theory have to be so complicated, inelegant and quite frankly, ugly? Its staring us all right in the face, i think a lot of physicists need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and stop being so specialized in their field. Interconnectedness is what we are all searching for no? why not try to connect with others in different professions and get a different perspective instead of tearing shreds of each other in a some type of quest for intellectual domination. That will not unify anything.....

    1. Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned the interconnectedness you said. But he was saying that we just need to be more aware of the interconnectedness, and wasn't saying that it's not interconnected.

      But String Theory is actually quite elegant in terms of mathematics and physics. Have you watched The Elegant Universe by any chance? If not, I recommend watching it (it relates music to math! :D? :D? :D?)

      You and I are actually in the same boat. I'm also a musician who struggles with math to an extent. String theory and M-theory are not easy for me to understand, but I'm still trying. Perhaps I need to learn some linear algebra first, since that deals with dimensions. Some topics are just harder than others for certain peoples, but perhaps it's because we just don't know enough of a certain field to begin connecting

    2. Nicely put Clancy. And I agree!

    3. Clancy, I'm curious to know actually; what do you think of the music of the Contemporary period? Initially I disliked it because of its abstractness, but I find some composers from the period to be amazing.

      Rachmaninov for example. Stravinsky had some amazing works as well. And the best things were that their dissonance actually added to music as a whole and created something more beautiful in the process. Perhaps the same could be said with M-Theory? The makings of the universe weren't exactly meant for humans to understand because the universe is itself an abstract concept (blackholes, pulsars, quantum mechanics, who would've known?)

      We have to search and wrap our minds around what the Universe throws at us. And because of our creativity and non-linearity, we can find the solutions that >appear< to be abstract due to our unfamiliarity but in principle are not.

  33. @achems_razor

    Hmm again another rude comment without any specifics or relevance.

    you said:
    "ÿou are right on not leaving your day job, and don't cry the blues about being bullied, you still do not have a clue, everything you are talking about is concerning the universe we are currently residing in, this doc is about parallel universes and all the events that may or may not transpire.

    You should try to read more carefully. And stop being rude. And lose the bruised ego. I only commented on the first presenter "Max". Who by the way was clearly shown that he believes in an infinite universe( as in singular). At no time does he talk about parallel universes. I don't think any of the substance of my argument on his theory(s) had anything to do with parallel universes. Nor did his. May I suggest you rewatch the portion of the Doc with him in it. Tell me where he talks about parallel universes.

    And may I also suggest you discontinue being rude...Thanks

    P.S. I thought you were all ears....I take it from your generic barb at me meant you didn't have anything you could actually disprove or refute with my reply to Lewion. I'll still welcome constructive critique because I do respect you acedemic knowledge in your field. However I won't accept your disrespect no matter who you are. I did have comments on parallel universes that I hypothysized years ago and how they relate to this doc but I didnt quite get there yet. Perhaps I'll save them for a more objective and mature forum.

    1. Does it really matter what someone with an assumed name and a downloaded avatar thinks of your interpretation of reality? You don't really think it's Stephen Hawking behind that mask, do you?

      Don't go looking for too much respect on this here internet, or you'll be sorely disappointed!

    2. If all else fails with you religee's, reply with your ad hominem attacks right? You make me laugh!

      Where is your respect HMMM?

    3. Thank you sir :)

    4. Same could be said of DonDon1 though

      In fact, we are reacting at DonDon1's desire of being respected

    5. @Achem.. I have no reason to respect someone whose I identity I do not know.. who hides behind a mask, throwing stones at people, because he thinks he knows better than they! You are not worthy of my respect!

    6. Just because you are on facebook, and letting everyone know your life is an open book, does not mean that the rest of us should not want privacy. It is our constitutional right, even though I am Canadian.

      So to put into prospective what you are saying by your words, you do not respect the majority of TDF commentors, I am sure that is something they would all like to know.

    7. Achem is behind as much of a mask as DonDon1 is. You should try to be more specific when you're going to make personal attacks. Otherwise it's wasted effort.

      The reality is... DonDon1 is indeed wrong about many things. Again, please hold on for that post

    8. I respect people if they respect me, and I don't if they don't. Your calling me a "religie" shows that you haven't the least bit of respect for me, or what I believe in. So why in the F*** should I respect you?

    9. And, no, I do NOT feel any obligation to offer my respect to someone who hides behind a mask. So, YES, that probably applies to 99% of the known internet.

      I see MUCH incivility here, as I do in most places; which I know would not occur, were we all in the same room, and within striking distance. Your "privacy" translates to nothing more than your ability to sit here an throw insults at people, without getting your ass kicked!

    10. Striking distance... quite barbaric if you ask me.

      To be honest, I would be the same had he kept the arrogant manner around me. Think about it... really. Someone comes up to you and starts bashing your idol or something and starts acting like he's better than them. How would you react? I think you're ignoring that much of the incivility came from DonDon1's attempt at trolling (which succeeded very well).

      Read over these lines and tell me that these are not bombastic and arrogant. Tell me that they're not condescending. And tell me that can't possibly be taken offensively:

      "My apologies to all the mainstream physics/math patrons who regularly post on all these science docs and seem to get a little inflamed whenever I challenge a lot of the accepted poppycock."
      "You know all those that quote all the proven math and supposed observed fact etc. like it's the gospel. Bahh. "
      "I guess that's how most get jobs in these fields. By towing the line and playing the patronage game."
      "Otherwise, more people than I would have the theory of everything already ;)"
      "Otherwise inevitably some will call me out and I'll have to have all the fun myself :)"

      Oh wait. That's nearly half of what he said.

    11. Well now, you are posting physical threats to me? Shame on you, but better still, in case you did not know, your IP address is your signature, and since you are an open book...

    12. Show some respect for the top scientists first, then maybe you can garner some also. Crybaby!!

    13. Lol. read my posts A.R. I think you'll eventually get it.

  34. Dr. Tegmark... YOU SO CRAZY!

  35. @ DonDon1

    You are badly confused as to what science really is. You are talking about interpretations, philosophies based on scientific facts, not scientific fact itself. When science tells you something is fact you can observe it, you can measure it, you can prove it wrong or right with repeatable controlled experiments and find out for yourself. Things like multiple universes are just interpretations of what the data could mean, so how could they possibly be deemed incorrect? They have just as much chance of being correct as anything you put forth that doesn't violate the known laws of physics, which is also unproven philosophy. You can't possibly know whether or not perfect copies of local matter repeat themselves light years away from here, you haven't been there. The only reality you know is the local reality you live in, i.e. our solar system or maybe galaxy. You can say that perfect copies do not exist within that space, but not that they do not exist anywhere in the universe. The opinion of many well educated scientists is that perfect copies do exist, opinions can not be wrong by there very nature.

    No law of physics says that perfect copies can not exist, if there is a set number of particles then there is set number of ways to combine them, if the universe is infinitely large it makes perfect logical sense that eventually it would run out of new configurations and have to make a perfect copy, its a mathematical certainty. Now, this doesn't prove the theory right or wrong, but it is logical and does not violate any known laws of physics, therefore it is plausible.

    1. thanks for you comment Waldo. I don't believe im confused at all. I don't believe i was talking about philosophies. I don't believe i said anywhere there werent parallel universe(s). I said I disagree (with aspects ) of each of the people in the documentary . I was only specific about aspects of the first gentleman's interpretation. And I don't believe max discussed paralell universe's either.
      Just because a law doesn't exist in theory doesn't mean it's not a law in nature. And math may seem plausible but it isn't gospel until it proven in nature. However logical it may seem.

      But I like your style.

      Please read my last post in response to Lewion and I'd be happy to hear your comments :)

    2. @ DonDon1

      "I don't believe i was talking about philosophies."

      Yes you were, specifically about Max's philosophy which you asserted was full of "holes and or inconsistencies" . Anyway, I can't possibly debate with someone that throws all of logic and knowledge out the window, how would I ever prove you wrong. You will simply say that the laws or knowledge we have gained through out these hundreds of years, that has provided us with all of the unbelievable technologies that we have that work daily for us, that has made one accurate prediction after the other, is wrong. For people to have a meaningful debate they have to agree on certain standards. Once someone has called physical observation and mathematics "poppycock", I am at a loss as to how you would even reason with them. Any way, nice talking with you best of luck.

    3. I admire how you phrased that so much more eloquently and correctly than I did.

      So greatly admire :O

  36. Well done doc and thanks to Vlatko as usual.

    Another entertaining Doc. though (as usual) without giving away the theory of everything I'll have to disagree with aspects of the conclusions and interpretation presented. My apologies to all the mainstream physics/math patrons who regularly post on all these science docs and seem to get a little inflamed whenever I challenge a lot of the accepted poppycock. You know all those that quote all the proven math and supposed observed fact etc. like it's the gospel. Bahh.

    I guess that's how most get jobs in these fields. By towing the line and playing the patronage game. Unfortunatly not by questioning popular established theory, hypothesis and opinion by the heavyweights in their respective fields and coming up with more viable and more comprehensive alternatives. Because clearly much of the fundamental theory and interpretation is incorrect. Otherwise, more people than I would have the theory of everything already ;)

    In any case I can find holes and or inconsistancies with aspects presented by everyone in this Doc. Look closely and see if you can find them too. They are there.

    I'm hoping some others will have the fortitude to find some of these possibly incorrect interpretations. Otherwise inevitably some will call me out and I'll have to have all the fun myself :)

    1. Well, since you brought it up, you have to prove "all the holes and or inconsistancies" (SIC). Am all ears.

    2. How did I know someone would call me out without so much as an attempt to find something wrong with any of the information presented. Was it laziness or patronage or just a desire to watch my cockyness flame :)

      Alright, whatever it is, so be it. Ill give you one example tonight since It's way past my bedtime.

      Let's take the first Fellow Max. He uses the rock pile example/analogy to justify his statistics thing that doppelgangers exist. Showing us the orange rock, the white and the black. Then he moves along the pile to find another orange, white and black in the same sequence. Then states that no matter how complexed the pattern in an infinite universe, the pattern will repeat. Including atomic configuration in a person ie a perfect copy of each of us. OMG! LoL!

      ok let's first look at his rock pattern. the only pattern here is the color. The size, shape, mass, position in relation to one another etc. are all different. This is true of everything in the universe no matter how similar. There are no "exact" copies of anything. There can be "very close" or similar like things. But not exact. Something or things will inevitably be different however slight in some cases.Whether it be size, shape, mass, volume, density, direction of motion, position in relation to the things it interacts with and is compared to. And I could go on and on.

      Why is this then? Fundamentally its because no two or more things are ever produced/born in the same space at the same time.

      Let's take the example of something coming off an assembly line of some sort. Let's take a pen for example. To look at two of the pens coming off the assembly line at a glance some may say "look they are both identical". Hmm. not so.

      At first glance they may seem identical but they are only similar. If we analyze the two more accurately we will find that they may weigh slightly different amounts, there may be a slight discoloration in one compared to the other due to impurities in the plastic or the temperature of the press that produced them. Due to there uneven cooling they may end up being slightly diffent shapes and or lengths etc. Definitely you arent going to find two of them with there atoms identically configured and perfectly aligned in the exact same configuration as the other.

      And a human!!! Poppycock! Not even in identical twins my friend!

      If you are produced/born in a different space and or time you will inevitably be exposed to a diffent environment(however slight). Which means you can't be an exact copy.

      I could elaborate further but I'm falling asleep tonight.

      Now let's see if you can try a little harder with the next presenter in the documentary. Maybe we will see the exact same holes/

      P.S. You know I'm playing A.R. :)

      Look forward to your responce tomorrow


    3. Can't seem to reply to DonDon's comment below, so I'll reply here...

      I don't agree with DonDon's argument on the Rock Pile analogy, in particular:

      "the only pattern here is the color. The size, shape, mass, position in relation to one another etc. are all different."

      I think perhaps you're missing the point, by focusing on the actual rock object and all its attributes, rather than just the simple concept of patterns.
      Perhaps it would have made it clearer to you if instead of rock patterns he had use atom patterns; like: a hydrogen atom + a helium atom + a carbon atom. You couldn't say that one carbon atom is, in any meaningful way for our purposes, different to another carbon atom in the way you are arguing about two rocks of the same color having other different attributes.

      So considering it from the point of view of these fundamental particles [don't start giving me sh*t about sub-atomic particles please, it's of no consequence here], you might argue theoretically that the exact same combination or pattern of atoms could reoccur as in your makeup at one time or another.

      Now I don't agree with that theory at all, just not on the same grounds as DonDon. I think the processes involved in establishing the pattern would need to be considered [I doubt such probabilities were included in his calculations!]. If these are not considered, we are saying that I could be created in some way other than a long and very specific sequence of reproduction and genetic transference. So with processes out the window, theoretically I could die and then entropy could reverse direction and create a pattern that is me again.

      If you are taking the processes, or sequence of events, into consideration i would argue the probability of the same human pattern reoccurring elsewhere is incalculable.

    4. @The Buachaill
      Is this entropy thing part of this doc? I haven't actually watched it yet, but maybe I should now! Sounds very interesting.

      My argument was originally from other theoretical physicists from other documentaries concerning parallel universes and other dimensions. Since infinity is so vastly large, their argument was that, by extension, there are also an infinite number of universes just like ours. Since I was learning about different types of infinities (Hilbert's Hotel) while watching the doc from a friend, it made a lot of sense to me. Sequences of events wouldn't really matter, as they would just refine that infinity down more (countable infinity). If you haven't heard of Hilbert's Hotel, I recommend that you read about it! It's quite interesting

    5. Ooooooh, too bad you're so sleepy, with baited breath, I look forward to more enlightnment .......until tomorrow. I'll try to find the fortitude to be as brave as you.

    6. Lol .not sure it's brave Tom. But I did get your attention :)

      And I bet you do have the fortitude. I too wait with baiting breath.

    7. "Because clearly much of the fundamental theory and interpretation is incorrect."

      Clearly. I'm sure you're one of those who'd think that .999999999etc. is not equal to 1. Really, if you're so smart, explain to me why that's not equal to one. Also explain why we should care to distinguish infinity/2 from infinity/3 in calculus and why that's an incorrect fundamental part of math.

      "If you are produced/born in a different space and or time you will inevitably be exposed to a diffent environment(however slight). Which means you can't be an exact copy."

      Your argument is instantly invalid because in your analogy you used something that exists in our space-time universe for another. Are you really that oblivious to the fact that different universes can have their own space-time? Even different laws of physics? Also you try to give yourself authority by looking at things macroscopically but then trying to extend that to the microscopic scale. Are you ignorant to the fact that trying to build small things from big things just doesn't work out? In other words YOUR "fundamental theory of everything" is, itself, fundamentally flawed? Tell me, how would you build a foundation of a house? Would you take an already existing one and tear off everything but the foundation? Is that really your sense of logic?

      Are you really willing to extend that argument to a conclusion saying that "atoms of an element cannot possibly be the same as another of the same element?" How about burning hydrogen in the air on our planet to create water and then saying that it cannot possibly be the same as water found in another part of the universe? Last I checked, anything with two hydrogens and an oxygen bonded together is H2O, which is water if you didn't know.

      My point is, things work from small to big. When you scale up, the >likelihood< of finding an amount of water in this universe to be completely the same as another amount from matter to purity decreases but will ALWAYS be possible because things work from small to big. Likewise, it is the same for a possible, parallel universe. For you to say that it's impossible because the likelihood is so small is ironic given the fact that that's the exception you made to your own analogy. Not only that, you are also treating time and space as a determinant for whether something is identical or not. It's not. Otherwise we'd have a whole list of hydrogen atoms that span longer than the universe is wide detailing every single difference in space and time that they were created under. Is one hydrogen atom different from another because it was created some place far away from Earth? How about if it was created a couple hundred million years before Earth was formed? It can be, yes, but does it HAVE to be? Nope.

      You are being subjective about differences, and science is an objective topic. Your ignorance has no place here, and your arrogance especially.

      DonDon1 DUMB

    8. @DonDon1
      Ugh, the more I read your comments, the more I feel inclined to pull out my hair in frustration.

      No, you are not "playing A.R. :)" Do you even know what Occam's Razor is?
      Occam's Razor looks for a unifying theory that >simplifies< things in a reasonable and sound manner. You are doing the exact opposite. With your assembly line analogy, what you are actually doing is categorizing everything DIFFERENTLY from something that would for all sakes and purposes be identical (or, in other words, you are instilling chaos or disorder, not to mention your analogy was conceptually flawed). Mind you, it is not even close to being flawed in only one way.

      You are so keen and intent on trying to make yourself seem smart that you are forgetting some very basic things here. You're trying too hard; spend more of that effort into thinking about what you're posting and scrutinizing it from every possible angle instead.

    9. Hmm. sounds like I've upset some of the science patrons( smacks of religious zealotry). "Off with his head! Blasphemer!!", Huh Guys? Wow. You just proved some of my points.

      I was arrogant purposely in my original post. I guess you didn't get why. Was to invoke a response. And to show you how you react. Looks like you took it personal and then became personal. I wasn't being personally disrespectfull to anyone.

      I wasn't playing you either Achem's_Razor. Or Lewion or anyone in particular. Sorry some of you took it personal. But to say I was Boeotian and arrogantly suggesting I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't agree with some theory before I make all my arguments is very similar to religious persecussion. It's almost like I'm being bullied :(

      In any case theres way too many comments to address in this forum which is simply for commenting on a documentary.

      While I respect your right to your opinion(s), I'll have to disagree with many and tell youof a few specifically.

      Let me respond to some of what you guys said and not the venomous way you said it.

      I said :
      "If you are produced/born in a different space and or time you will inevitably be exposed to a different environment(s)(however slight). Which means you can't be an exact copy."
      You said
      "Your argument is instantly invalid because in your analogy you used something that exists in our space-time universe for another. Are you really that oblivious to the fact that different universes can have their own space-time? Even different laws of physics?"
      SO. I knew I was going to have to elaborate some on this one. I knew some would misinterpret what I said here. Forgive me. I was tired. Let me elaborate.
      I said nothing about comparing objects in different space-time universes. I said "different space and or different time".By different space I mean different position in space. By different time I mean different time like sooner or later. But since you brought it up even if you were born/produced in a different "space-time universe" I believe my statement will still apply. And By environments I mean environmental variables.
      So here's an example:
      Two people CAN'T occupy the exact same position in space at the exact same time. Regardless whether they are identical or not. They can occupy the same point in space at different times or different points in space at the same time, but not the same space at the same time. The same is true of anything . Whether you are talking about people, pens atoms, electrons, photons. Whatever. If you can't get beyond that there's nothing I can do for you. Read no further. If you disagree show me where in nature this is true.
      So I believe given virtually infinite environmental variables, there is no possibility of an exact duplicate?
      So Let's take the two pens analogy again. One pen is produced from a mold. We'll say another pen is produced one second later.
      For arguments sake we can say that since they are produced from the same mold they are produced from the same space just at a different time. (Even though the mold is moving through space with the earth,the sun, the solar system, the galaxy etc. so technically its really not being produced in the same space.
      Some variables could include the mold or injected plastic could be of different temperatures.The air temperature could be different. There could be a breeze cooling the unit differently when its pulled out of the mold. Different pressures can be exerted on the object as it being molded or being ejected from the mold to alter thedimensions. There will be impurities in the plastic from one unit to another. There could be slightly different amounts of plastic injected from one to the other. Air pockets. Etc.
      Now lets say I could produce an exact duplicate of the mold(which again would be impossible ) and brought this mold to another parallel universe and started production at the same time or different times. It matters not. Given the infinite variables there's no possibility of an exact copy.
      You may be able to produce some math that shows a probability or possibility, but this simply isn't observed in nature. And I'm not a mathematician by trade but show me where in your probability calculation that take infinite variables into account. In fact what's observed is they aren't identical.
      You said
      "Also you try to give yourself authority by looking at things macroscopically but then trying to extend that to the microscopic scale. Are you ignorant to the fact that trying to build small things from big things just doesn't work out?"
      Now if you want to talk microscopically I think its difficult to prove one electron or photon etc is identical to another, however there is clear evidence in nature that the charge can vary from one to another. This may seem insignificantly small on a macroscopic level but its probably extremely significant and indicative of difference on a microscopic level. And would show that they at least aren't all identical in nature.
      You then said
      "My point is, things work from small to big. When you scale up, the >likelihood< of finding an amount of water in this universe to be completely the same as another amount from matter to purity decreases but will ALWAYS be possible because things work from small to big. Likewise, it is the same for a possible, parallel universe. "
      Mathematically you say its always possible to find an amount of water identical to another.Possibly. But what amounts are we talking about? It's mass, volume, temperature? Let's factor in different environmental variables again. Is the water the same temperature? Is the volume the same, Is it the same distribution shape or dimensions? Water is a solvent. What impurities are within these amounts? Does your math take into acount these variables and others?
      And the Presenter wasn't even talking about water. He was talking about a doppelganger. Can we assume they are even more complexed patterns. And atleast just as sensitive to environmental variables as an amount of water? Even an exact amount of human cells in two separate people doesn't make them identical. And I was trying to explain why it is Impossible to get an exact duplicate of a human given the virtually infinite variables.
      You said:
      In other words YOUR "fundamental theory of everything" is, itself, fundamentally flawed? "
      Hmm. Well i don't remember giving my fundamental theory of everything at anytime.I remember saying I believe much of the accepted fundamental theory and interpretation is incorrect.
      And i think ill add that some math overlooks key variables or attributes in it's calculations. Drawing incorrect conclusions.
      In some cases it creates things in nature that cant be observed and or dont exist at all.
      When it comes to science the more accurate we are, generally the more accurate our answers. This is important. After reading your argument obviously you don't agree. Variables are especially important when formulating an accurate result.

      I'm not sure what variables the first presenter Max ( seems like a nice fellow) used to come to his astonomical number( one with a million trillion trillion zeroes light years) before an exact copy of him was found. I'm willing to bet he missed a few.

      If all the math you guys wave around like a bible is perfectly correct how come its constantly much of it is constantly being modified. I've studied enough math to know this. It seems ironic that mcuh of the stuff you are attacking me with are works in progress.
      I would also express my concern that I was misquoted and was personally disrespected. Hope it doesn't occur again. I promise to try not open with provocative comments or observations in the future. If you promise to respect me.
      May I request that if you have a legitimate question or disagreement with anything i've said you address it one specific item at a time and show me where I'm wrong with proven definitive observations in nature.
      It seems i got a lot of argument with little substance or natural truth.
      And seriously, there's no way I can post responses like this again. I have a Job. Don't have the time.
      And I don't want to piss off Vlatko :)

      Thanks for the Forum Bro ;)

    10. @DonDon1:

      You are right on not leaving your day job, and don't cry the blues about being bullied, you still do not have a clue, everything you are talking about is concerning the universe we are currently residing in, this doc is about parallel universes and all the events that may or may not transpire.

    11. @DonDon1
      No, it was not just your idea that upset me, but mostly your attitude that you were smarter than some of the brightest minds out there. Indeed, I wanted to watch your cockiness not just flame but burn out; your arrogance annoyed me to no end. Instead of posting about how smart you are here, why don't you go out and prove it to the world. Be sure to challenge Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking along the way; I have my popcorn ready for that.

      I am well aware of different theories concerning quantum mechanics and the way the Universe works; I also keep an open mind to all of them. However, your post was not even close to being scientifically correct and it was also centered on philosophy (which, in this case, science has proved wrong). That's why I am not going to give your idea the same privilege as I do to say string theory. Don't worry though, I'm sure that aside from you, someone on our planet of 7 billion will be convinced by your argument. I know I probably would have if I were nine years old.

      To me, your entire post just looks like a wall of words. I haven't bothered reading it yet, but if it'll make you feel a little better I'll get around to it when I get around to it. Don't give me any of that "purposely acted" "poppycock" either. I find it even more detestable when people choose not to be straightforward and unbiased about their ideas when they are well aware that they aren't. It's one thing being dogmatic, but it's something else trying to gain attention through manipulating emotions as you so kindly put it for me.

    12. Looking at the last paragraph, I will assure you that next time I will not be so harsh as long as YOU show the proper respect for scientists of high esteem and readers/students such as us.

      You say that you meant no offense, but your condescending and arrogant attitude was actually quite off-putting. You showed a lack of sincerity which not only challenged the intelligence of scientists, but we who did not agree with you as a whole. That being said, I was perfectly willing to throw it all back at you.

    13. Playing me are you? You have presented absolutely nothing in your ramblings to even suggest you have a clue as to what you are trying to prove with your boeotian assertions.

      In an perturbative approach to parallel/many worlds theory you have to take coupling constants and duality into consideration on type1...type11a...type11b...heterotic-o...and heteratic-e. That morph into one called M-theory.
      As in "hovering universes in nearby dimensions."

      If you do not know what I am talking about, then start studying.

    14. @Don Don... I read all of what you said, and I agree. But don't expect to get 'respect' here, or anywhere else for that matter, unless you are willing to echo the accepted truth. Personally, I don't even bother looking for respect. It's not worth the compromise.

    15. Thanks David.....Very well said.
      That means alot :)

    16. knowledge and ignorance are connected
      1 being the shadow of the other
      wisdom stands in the middle
      cocooned in an pupa stage
      while behaviors convey the immaturity
      of who we are

      You approached this forum in the very way you blame others.
      Your words were written with a sword and you got the fight you were looking for!
      Got enough now?

      So what is the anticock you claim to possessssssssssss!

  37. I know this is gross but I LOOOOOVVVVVEEEEEE these Wormholes so "OMNOMNOMNOMnomnomnomnom......"
    Thank you Vlatko

  38. Good doc. enjoyed.

  39. Frank J. Tipler, the jolly Disney elf of theoretical physics, puts in an appearance in this doc, coming in at around minute 5. I wonder if any of you are familiar with his Omega-Point Theory and its implications, and if you might have anything to say about it. I would be very interested in hearing your views. There's certainly some potential for debate here, and just maybe even another full-blown war, if the theory has found its way into the hands of the faith-filled among us. To say it was controversial when it first came out in the mid '90's really is understating it... I had to read his mind-boggling book on the subject twice, just to be sure I was grasping well enough what he was getting at in laymen's terms. The appendix for scientists I had to skip, of course. But Frank says, given a universe that will contract someday, that he's sure of his math, and a few of his colleagues still say they are, as well. However...since it doesn't deal (particularly) with parallel universes, maybe this post is in the wrong dimension. It does, though, deal with our place in the universe ultimately, and so might have some relevance here, if given the benefit of the doubt.

    1. @ Pysmythe
      "...Omega-Point Theory and its implication"

      Self organization(or decrease in entropy, such as seen in biological systems?but not confined to biological systems) can only occur locally within open systems and then only when the open system in question
      is far from equilibrium. One could view such a decrease in entropy as 'increase in complexity'.

      However, when applied to the universes as a whole, the question immediately arises: Is the universe, as a whole, an open system,
      or a closed system? What does it even mean to say 'as a whole' when speaking of the universe(a concept which is itself is ill-defined)?

      And then there is the implicit presumption that the ultimate in complexity is always going to be 'consciousness'(whatever that is). Why does the ultimate in complexity have necessarily to be 'consciousness' ?

      This is not to say the math is wrong. It is to say, however, that some interpretations to the math may include implicit, and unintentional,
      and perhaps erroneous, assumptions.


    2. @ Oz

      Tipler's Anthropic Principle might answer the consciousness question, I suppose. He says in it that "intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the universe, and, once it comes into existence, will never die out." (Wikipedia quote) He doesn't per se make the distinction that it remain biologically-based consciousness, particularly since in the OPT he maintains that in the far future we will all be resurrected (sound familiar?) as computer-simulations, at a point in the collapse of the "cone" formed by a contracting universe that will form a cosmological singularity. And that, from the point of view of the simulations within this cone (but not in actual fact!), time will last forever, granting that form of consciousness immortal life... He claims that the computing power of the far future will be able to simulate all possible quantum states, and that this will be how these resurrections are able to occur, and that though the "people" of them will not have bodies, this will not make any difference in their perception of themselves as being who-they-are and who-they-were. In addition, he maintains that intelligent life (meaning us only) will have to spread throughout the universe before it collapses in order for this to be achieved, and claims not only that this will happen, but to have discovered the mathematical equations that prove it will (which he gives in the book's 150 page appendix), the only distinction being that the collapse has to occur for the equations to remain valid. Moreover, after all of this, he claims to be an atheist, though he has since changed his views, and says now he is a (big surprise) Christian, finally led to this position solely by virtue of his Physics prowess.

      If you want an example of just how complicated (probable) pseudo-science can get in the hands of someone like Tipler (who is not in the least stupid, by all accounts!), check out "The Physics of Immortality" sometime, if you haven't already. It's a challenging read, if nothing else. There are some things in it interesting in their own right, too, outside of any theological conclusions.

    3. @ Pysmythe

      I have no problem with a non-biological consciousness, nor with the idea that a 'computer'(for lack of a better term) can 'simulate' to the point that originals vs 'simulations' be rendered differences sans distinctions. But what I understood from your previous post was The Universe itself evolving to becoming The Consciousness.

      Very Zen!

      Certainly not impossible to conceive, but I doubt that such could ever be formulated, let alone tested.

      But then perhaps I misunderstood. What I hear now is not the 'Universe as Consciousness', rather immortalizations of prior
      and contemporary consciousnesses as 'beings' sequestered in
      a rendering as immutable as the universe itself.

      Now, that, as unlikely as it may now sound, does seem to me
      (in principle) within the bounds of possibility and of genuine scientific speculation.

      Remember, I have not read the book, so I am poking about in
      the dark in an attempt to piece together what the idea here is.


    4. @ Oz

      That's just the thing, though! He says he has formulated it. The best way I can put the idea is: IF we live in a universe that will one day contract, then he claims to have found the equations proving that in the far future we will "live" in a "world" (as simulations) that is to all intents and purposes the Judeo-Christian heaven, and even uses that very term... but as an atheist, which he still was at the time he published the book. He equates the Omega-Point itself, which only comes into being right at the point of the cosmological singularity, to God (and with many of the attributes of God, such as benevolence); i.e., God hasn't been created yet, but will be. Intelligence has to have spread throughout the universe in order to "control" the collapse, and bring about the conditions for entering the singularity we become immortal in, while at the same time, in the "outside universe," the collapse of course continues...and everything is finally over.

      It's pot-smoker science on a grand scale...right OR wrong. There are some websites about it you might want to check out. Just punch in Frank J. Tipler, of course, and get back to me, if you like. They'll explain these bizarre/fascinating ideas a lot better than I can.

      p.s. If you should go to Wikipedia first, gather your fortitude and just skip past those initial words about ID, in order to get to the Omega-Point idea. When Tipler first formulated the OPT idea, he wasn't involved with any of that CRAP...So it's safe enough to skip over it, for the time being.

    5. Smells of snake oil to me, don't care how smart he may be, just another religee. trying to come through the back door to spout his religion. Its still religion with another name! Judeo- Christian heaven yet? give me a break. Science and religion just do not mix!!

    6. @ Pysmythe
      "It's pot-smoker science on a grand scale..."

      Actually, think it might be something a little bit stronger than pot! (lol)

      Not to be cynical, but what does this Tipler dude do for a day job?
      Does he have a day job, or is 'Omega-Point Theory' it?

      In any case, I think I'm going to have to get stoned first.
      (Btw, when was the last time you did shrooms? ? Just asking.) (lol)


      No, I'll have a look. Promise.

    7. @ Achem

      I agree, ultimately it must be. But remember, he said "to all intents and purposes" it is, not that it IS. And if he is an honest man, then he wasn't at all religious when he started developing these ideas... On the other hand, he was born and raised in Alabama (the bible-belt, obviously), and so I feel pretty sure that, however honest he may be, that had to have influenced his initial thinking in some ways, if he had the kind of upbringing common to that area. But he goes to great lengths in his first book (about OPT), fairly swearing up and down, to explain that his conclusions are based solely on the math, and have nothing to do with pushing religion onto anyone. However, in a book by him that followed 10 years later, called "The Physics of Christianity," after his "conversion"...this is where he really lost what benefit of the doubt I was giving him up until then. That one, I couldn't even finish reading. I only bring up the subject at all as an example of how elaborate the arguments for such ideas can get in a person with the proper training. He does make it more difficult to refute logically, if you see what I mean.

    8. @ Oz

      Believe it or not, the guy is a theoretical physicist at Tulane University, or he was when he developed these ideas. He may have..."moved on." (lol)

      (Last time for shrooms was Feb. 1984, in fact. I ate a large handful, raw, and when I saw all those skeletons who'd been my friends an hour earlier laughing at me, that was it... I haven't been back since. On the other hand, "Terrapin Station" is still a bonafide spiritual experience for me.)

    9. @ Pysmythe
      Terrapin Station

      Those were indeed the days, my friend.
      We thought they'd never end.

      Didn't I read somewhere you're a professional musician?

      Tell me a little.


    10. What you said sounded a LOT like what I had read a few years ago for a math xc report. I found out it was by the same guy whom I had to write about, and he was... a Jesuit priest trying to reconcile his beliefs. Tipler was probably looking for a transition INTO religion for some who-knows-what-reason. I find religion appealing but I don't try to rationalize myself into believing it. Perhaps that's what he did - rationalized with himself into it.

      You're right to be skeptical. The origins of the theory come from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and you can find what he had to say under his teachings section in Wikipedia if you're also interested.

      I found it fascinating, but I personally think it's a load of hogswash.

    11. @ Oz

      Actually, what I said was I'm a trained composer, not a professional. I had a very good violin teacher when I was young, a concertmistress, who also gave me some instruction in composition, along with theory. From her grounding, I was able to study scores and learn orchestration on my own. Up until about 15 years ago I used to play semi-professionally, but gave it up after getting married. These days I usually just compose at my PC and don't even much bother with an instrument anymore...But I'm very happy doing that, actually. I just love seeing blank staves starting to get covered with notes, and then being able to delete most of them and start all over...

    12. @ Oz

      I sent you a link for some samples of my work, but it's awaiting approval. Not sure if it was o.k. to do that...

    13. @ Lewion

      Yeah, I've read a little about Chardin, and knew he'd influenced Tipler. I feel the same way, about some part of him wanting to find what he claims he did. Personally, I just wish I had the mathematical ability to read his appendix and find out exactly how he's wrong! And all the elaboration gets pretty immense, and does make for an interesting read. There's a long section on the implications of Alan Turing's work (as it applies to Tipler's) that's especially fascinating.

    14. I know how you feel! I am instantly jealous of all my friends who seem to have a greater understanding of math than I do. Even though I am also supposedly really good at math (learned calc in 10th, going on to linear algebra), it doesn't help having math prodigies in my class, though they are all very encouraging. I personally consider myself more of an artist or musician, so it's very nice seeing another musician being interested in the things I am too. :)

      Thanks for the reference too! I'll be sure to check it out sometime. Even though I do not agree with his theory (religion and science just don't mix well), I am not above exploring other new ideas.

      Based on what I've read from Chardin though, I feel that he could be wrong because he bases the Omega-Point theory on the assumption that more complex organisms are more conscious, which is not always the case (Portuguese Man-o-War). My guess would be that he extrapolated the data of a chart of animals detailing the relationship between complexity and consciousness, and then expanded from there mathematically.

  40. The experiment that measured the silicon paddle existing in two different states, or oscillating between them at, I think they said 6 billion times per second- that's amazing. It's closest we have ever come to proving super states really exist. I'll have to look it up and read more about it to make sure it is legit but if it is, it has a lot of implications. Why would measuring the oscillation not collapse the wave form, every other means of measurement seems to? Is there anything special about the oscillation frequency they recorded, or is it specific to the silicon paddle they were working with? Lots of questions, but so far this sounds amazing. They even did a fairly good job of separating science fact from scientific interpretation, two thumbs up!!

    1. @ wald0
      "Why would measuring the oscillation not collapse the wave form,..."

      I cannot remember the exact rate, either, but it was phenomenally fast.

      In answer to your question about 'how' without 'collapse', perhaps there is some tell-tale change in the material due to oscillation(metal fatigue, as an analogy) that can be read after experiment's completion.

      I cannot imagine what such an after-the-fact measurement might be, but conceptually such would not be out of the question.


    2. I think that the wave form was already collapsed at 6 billion oscillations per sec. otherwise if not looking/measuring, would revert to 5.4x10^-44 sec. of the 6 billion oscillating, and implicating infinite histories/manyworlds, per. Feynman.

    3. Wow, AR, that's impressive. No, really!


      Tell the truth, AR, you and Brian have something going on the side, now don't you? (LOL)

      Did you ever get around to reading that into I recommended?

    4. Thanks.

      But be careful about the Brian stuff, I will sic beautiful Neytiri on you, she is much bigger than you are (LOL)

      Didn't have a chance as yet to peruse the pdf you gave me.

    5. @ Achems_Razor
      "...I will sic beautiful Neytiri on you,..."

      AR, you may be shocked to know(I know I am! (lol)) that I have had seven women in my life, five of whom seduced me, one of whom(to the extent such a thing is even possible) 'raped' me!
      The other two women, neither of whom I ever had sex with,
      were older women who fell in, and stayed in, love with me.

      The first woman to seduce me was married with two children and happened to have been our family babysitter. The next two were both teachers at my school in London, one a French exchange student-teacher, the other, head of the art department. The next was in Lebanon and the last, in Germany(the one who 'raped' me).

      So bring on Neytiri. I can handle her real smoooth like.
      She may be much bigger than I, but, AR, is she 'bigger' than you ? (LOL)


      AR, hereby do I solemnly swear never again to mention your
      'Brian secret'. (LOL)

    6. @Oz
      you've had more women than many straight guys.
      Is it the look? Those ears? The attitude? The smarts? lol

    7. God, Azilda, didn't take you long to pick up on that! (lol)

      And, just for the record, I didn't have them, they had me! lol

    8. Are you calling me GOD? lololol

    9. Just between you and i...i had 1 woman in my life....not sure who got who actually. I ran away afterwards, she still write every now and then....i guess i left an impression!

    10. Azilda, that is so unbelievably sweet.

    11. For Azilda:

      O and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red...say yes my mountain breasts all perfume yes...
      yes I said yes I will Yes.

      Ulysses? 'Molly Bloom's soliloquy'
      ~ James Joyce

    12. If someone were to say that QM only works at the small sub-atomic level then how would physicists try to convince otherwise? Andrew Cleland and his team have taken a big step forward in showing just that with this experiment.

      QM does work for large objects as well but has anyone else been able to provide evidence for that?

    13. Yes, there is evidence. Quantum probability waves for big things usually have a very particular shape. They're extraordinarily narrow, meaning a huge probability, just shy of 100 percent, that the object is located where the wave is peaked and minuscule probability, a touch over 0 percent that it is located elsewhere.

      Quantum laws show the peaks of quantum narrow waves move as per Newtons equations, so almost 100 percent probability for big things.

    14. Thanks Achem, much appreciated.

      Could you elaborate on why there's a near 100% probability that the large object is located where the wave is peaked? How has it been observed? Is there a book or journal/paper that I can refer to as I want to know more.

      Thanks again.

    15. Yes there is a book, here I go again, hope OZ is not around, everything is explained in Brian Greenes new book "The Hidden Reality"

    16. Thanks!

      I think I need to his read his "The Elegant Universe" first in order to understand this latest book. Have seen the 3-part PBS doc on the same and it was great.

      Am in a dilemma here, in the hours after work do i watch more of the wornderful documentaries which i'm addicted to for the past year or read popular science books? Not having TV surely does help.

  41. The closest I shall ever come to faith is the suspicion our universe is not alone.

    I saw Eternity the other night,
    Like a great ring of pure and endless light,
    All calm, as it was bright;
    And round beneath it, Time in hours, days, years,
    Driv'n by the spheres
    Like a vast shadow mov'd; in which the world
    And all her train were hurl'd.

    Fragment from 'The World'
    by Welsh metaphysical poet,
    Henry Vaughan (1621-1695)