There was that theory that our universe as we see it today was created through the clashing of two parallel 'universe'.
This created the big bang etc... I think they were called membranes?
Whilst its quite hard to comprehend I think a lot of scientists do agree with it.

Further reading:

The new idea is that there are parallel universes, perhaps separated from each other by a distance no larger than the size of a proton. (protons are really, really, small) These universes are imagined to be like membranes (branes for short), illustrated in the article as square or rectangular sheets hung from a clothesline, moving as by a gentle wind, with bumps or indentations on their surfaces. The membranes, or parallel universes, are essentially eternal—thus no need for a God.

How it is that the membranes or parallel universes are to be thought of as eternal, not created, is rather like a magicians slight of hand. Here is the explanation from the article: ‘In this new cyclic model, the universe starts essentially empty each time. That means virtually no matter gets recycled. So entropy doesn’t increase, and there is no beginning or end to time.’ (page 41)

These branes may, the theory goes, interact with each other, crash into each other actually, maybe once every trillion years, and the contacts produce a kind of Big Bang, and, a new universe is created. The new universe then grows and develops, expands enormously, almost to the point of zero density, and then, due to unexplained astrophysics, crash into another one and boom, another Big Bang and a new universe is created--ad naseum. Michael Lemonick therefore concludes, ‘The cycle of such collisions would be eternal.’ (page 40)

That's called M-theory, and I don't think it actually involves other universes.. rather the collision of each extra-dimensional membrane causes a new universe to form, and those membranes are basically the same thing as strings from string theory, except 2 dimensional instead of 1. But it's far from widely accepted.

The whole idea of the multiverse is sketchy because that means different timelines would branch off from ours. If there was multiverses, who's to say that this universe isn't just a branch off the original?

Oh that's a trippy thought.

Like a tree, but trippy. Don't smoke weed while reading this, it'lll tripp you the fuck out.

Quote from Exilement

If you're going to speak as if you know what you're talking about, then at least use some sources of information other than your own ass. You're completely, blatantly wrong.

And yeah, gravity is a theory. So is evolution. That doesn't make them any less true -- laws are reserved purely for analytical statements, the concept of gravity isn't something that can be reduced to analytical statements. But a theory is about as valid as something can get, the scientific definition of "theory" is vastly different from the everyday definition.

Just saying "You are wrong and this is why", will suffice.
Also, you mentioned evolution alongside gravity, and I object to that. Gravity is observable and there have been no observed exceptions in the universe, but it remains a theory because we will never know if exceptions do not exist (at least not in our lifetime). By your definition of a theory though, evolution would not be a theory. Some of the bases of evolution have been found to be impossible by observable science. In geology, trees have been fossilized upright, extending through multiple layers said to be laid down over millions of years. Also, coal deposits would be thoroughly mixed with clay and other soils had they been deposited over millions of years, but they are in fairly solid depsits. In biology, biologists have come to the conclusion that mutations in DNA that create new structures and information just don't exist (I will present names if you don't believe me). Even things like bacteria that reproduce at incredible speeds have never had a mutation that added something new. Resistance to antibacterials came about due to losing a gene that made the bacteria susceptible to the antibacterial, or picking up some DNA from another source. In Chemistry, Carbon 14 dating methods are currently used to date the age of fossils, and is thought to be accurate for fossils less than 80,000 years old. This method is only accurate if you assume that Carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere have been constant for at least that long. The founder of carbon 14 dating calculated that it would take just 30,000 years from the beginning of earth for the Carbon 14 levels to stabilize. They have not yet stabilized. So, the earth must be fairly young.
If a theory is found to be contradictory, shouldn't it be discarded? Why do we think we need to always have an explanation of our origins on hand despite anything?
Oh, and as for the multiverse, we don't know, so whether you believe it or not is not science, its philosophy.
Exilement, I want our debates to be a learning experience for the both of us and whoever reads them. I know I probably can't change your mind, and you know you probably can't change my mind, so lets just present whatever facts we can find that support our sides in the best way we can in a completely scientific and emotionally detached manner. I know your not stupid, so don't think others are stupid just because you think or know that what their saying is incorrect. I hope we can act like adults from now on. If one of us fails to, what we say cannot be taken seriously and will be seen as nothing more than the mocking tantrums of a child.
Thank you for reading this if you have.

Quote from iRakodai

Oh, and as for the multiverse, we don't know, so whether you believe it or not is not science, its philosophy.

You say that as though philosophy is for things we can't know and science is for things we can. If anything, the opposite is true. Philosophy is about finding incontrovertible facts based on pure reason whereas science is empirical and therefore uncertain.

And we can know about the multiverse. I think I said it already in this thread. It is not a "thing," it is a way of explaining stuff which gets frequently misunderstood. A statement is necessarily true if it is true in all possible worlds, and contingently true if it is true in some possible worlds but not others. That doesn't mean that to work out if a statement is necessarily true we have to visit a load of different worlds. It's about hypothetical scenarios.

Quote from iRakodai

Just saying "You are wrong and this is why", will suffice.
Also, you mentioned evolution alongside gravity, and I object to that. Gravity is observable and there have been no observed exceptions in the universe, but it remains a theory because we will never know if exceptions do not exist (at least not in our lifetime).

We know that gravity exists, we know it's observable, but the explanation for why it exists is a theory. An extremely valid one. It doesn't really have anything to do with exceptions existing or not

Quote from iRakodai

By your definition of a theory though, evolution would not be a theory.

It's not my definition. And by the definition that exists, yes, it is a theory. I don't really know how to respond to the rest of your post when most of it it disagrees with what we know to be true about genetic mutations. And I don't really know what fossilized trees or coal deposits have to do with evolution.

Quote from iRakodai

I know your not stupid, so don't think others are stupid just because you think or know that what their saying is incorrect.

Uh, please don't underhandedly insult my demeanor as immature. If I tell someone they're wrong and explain why, in a civil manner, it pisses me off when they tell me they're right, they know what they're talking about, and they use further untrue statements to back that up.

I actually agree on the theory on the thought of multiverse, we don't know if there is more than one universe. The multiverse could be a real thing, I mean, why would there be only one universe, I mean, that would be retarded, we may need more studying of the universe to find out, and we don't have the resources and tech to find out. So, we can't say that there is no multiverse, when we don't know if there isn't any multiverse at all.

This thread does not need to be revived.:rolleyes:

Quote from VToon2886

This is a interesting theory. I guess you can say this is what gave those space shows(star treek, star wars, etc) the idea of thinking up new universes.

Like in BF5 stop liying that there is one

Quote from Javelin

This thread does not need to be revived.:rolleyes:

Ventoinmaru you should really take javelin's advice

The multiverse is possible although saying that it is infinite has more reasonable doubt than a finite multiverse. Think about time travel, if it will exist in the future how come no one has come to the past? Are we to say that human curiousity has been contained and no one went back in time for even a second? Over the infinite amount of years ahead we are to say no one even thought about travelling back in time. (This is of course if maybe there is some pure alien that has discovered how to travel in time :P) Anyway I don't have the credentials nor the evidence to say it doesn't exist. Sounds entertaining though I don't think we'll discover it within our lifetime.

First of all you don't know that nobody traveled back in time. Modern history makes up an extremely small amount of time relative to the age of the universe, localized entirely in a very small area of the universe. You're assuming humans survive to the end of the universe, which is pretty unrealistic.

Second of all the universe will die at some point in the very distant future, it doesn't have to be a multiverse or infinite.

I don't see how time travel pertains to the topic though, it violates the second law of thermodynamics along with plenty of other physical laws. The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't prove or disprove any position.

Quote from Minesa

if it will exist in the future how come no one has come to the past?

Because so far, people have only thoerized it being possible going to the future, so far from what I last heard on this subject, going to the past is thoerised to be alot harder if possible than going to the future. If time travel to the past is created, it would be illegal to use because of the choas theory, potential paradoxes and of course, changing history.

Actually if you go to the past it is possible that you could because what happened in the past happened and anything you do can not change the future because you already did it in the past so then there would be a loop that has to exist for time to exist