Mind Blown

Your name reminded me of this.

fucking
mcnuggies.
holy shit my sides

Dis gonna be guuuuud.

somebody help me out...what's the name of that classical song playing in my head when i watch this?

Requiem for a Dream?

no, it's like the one where there's a canon firing in it for the percussion

1812 Overture.

ahhhh yes, beautiful

There must be at least one universe that discovers all others....but there must also be a universe that is never discovered....

+ wookies

what?

sauce ?

you know.. for science

www.xvideos.com/video384255/angry_busty_camho

Best I can do. Was pretty easy.

Everyone shut up and pay attention - Bear is speaking.

I thought the Multiverse theory was based on the notion that "anything that can happen will happen".

Therefore, if there cannot possibly be a universe where there is no multiverse, or if there cannot be an undiscovered universe as well as a universe that has discovered all universes, these things cannot happen, by law of the multiverse.

Did anyone happen to understand any of that?

joe chill the fuck out

You guys don't understand. "If multiverse theory is true" doesn't mean there is a universe where physic laws are different than in an other. So that mean from none universe, you can travel between universes. That's just it.

Just because YOU can't travel to another universe doesn't mean it's impossible accoarding to the physics : )

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Just read this, I don't feel like explaining :D. Travelling between universes is impossible by physic laws. Physic laws are multiversal, implies that therecan't be no switch between universes.

You could do anything with microwave

maybe they don´t have to be different, just more developed
if the theory is true there must be a civilisation that is x year further than we are

+ don´t want to talk about fictional shit, this is the reason I don´t go to church
have a nice day

um sauce?

Refer to my comment up there.

To think, that there is a universe where I am stupid

Yeah, this one.

On what basis are you saying that? lol

Hardly anyone really believes in the multiverse theory.

I'm an atheist, but i don't believe in the multiverse theory

And don't debate me, please

Apparently minecraft.net blows my computer's mind. Whenever I go to the 'play in browser' page, it BSOD's.

I doubt that. If you did a paper on the multiverse theory you'd know that the multiverse theory cannot affect things external to the multiverse theory i.e. the existence of other universes.

If I'm wrong, your paper must be filled with holes.

external to the specific universe*

but maybe in one universe that rule is broken...

. . . no.

No.

that means your parents are dead

if the multiverse theory is true, then it means that there are an universe were batman have parents.

worth it

k.

That also means that there is another universe where you're getting brutally raped by a big black guy, and you're liking it ...

DAMMIT I WANTED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO FLY AND REPLACE WHAT AIR LOOKED LIKE WITH THE WAY FIRE LOOKS! THIS RUINS EVERYTHING!

But what if multiverses precede the big bang, leading to an alternate system of physics, in universes where the big bang happened differently, or not at all? Or if there was another reality prior to the big bang that then collapsed in a big crunch, which also followed a different set of physical laws?

the big bang didn't create physics

For all we know, any circumstances surrounding the big bang could have affected the way in which the laws of physics manifested themselves. Nobody has any way of proving that either right or wrong.

I'm trying my absolute best to not be offensive, but you are clearly a child with a very small understanding of physics, don't try to come up with wild random hypothesis and claim that "Nobody has any way of proving that either right or wrong"

I was being a bit flippant with my first comment, and I obviously couldn't know whether or not the big bang influenced the way the laws of physics manifested themselves. I don't claim to be an expert in physics, but I am also not a child. What I am saying is that nobody could possibly know the way in which the laws of physics manifested. I did not come up with a hypothesis, I was posing a question. I usually do hate the "can't prove me wrong" argument as well, but the point is I'm not posing an argument.

Additionally, just because one theory says something doesn't mean there aren't different equally valid theories opposing that idea, especially in theories regarding multiverses and the big bang. If you're willing to acknowledge that you were a tad rude in your presumptuousness I will yield. But the universe is a much larger and complex place than we could possibly imagine, especially at this point in our scientific history, and assuming that you know details of matters beyond anyone's grasp at this time shows great disrespect for the scientific process.

You saved the day. And this means I can create fire in one universe.
Sounds great.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDD!

Here you go, good sir.

<Me trying to figure out what you just said.

It seems as if there is interest in the topic, so I'll write a bit more:

The multiverse theory is not simply the product of an active imagination wondering "what if?". It is based on advancements in quantum physics, and may actually hold credence.

The multiverse theory is one of the many children of the double-slit experiment. This experiment sought to quantify the behavior of electrons as either a wave-form or a particle. No one was to expect what the experiment actually found.

If one were to shoot paintballs a piece of plywood with two slots in it, the wall behind the plywood would be painted with two stripes of paint. However, if this same piece of plywood were submerged in water so that the top half of the slots were above the water level, and a single wave was directed at it, something different would happen. The wave would hit the two slots and create two waveforms propagating in a half-circle from the slots on the opposite side. These two waves would interfere with one another, tops canceling bottoms, tops magnifying tops, and bottoms magnifying bottoms. If the wall were to be "painted" where the waves hit the back wall the highest, multiple stripes would be visible, which is known as the interference pattern.

If single electrons were fired at two slots, and the 'wall' behind the slots observed, scientists could this difference between wave behavior and particle behavior to determine the true nature of electrons. Well, upon doing this, the pattern on the back wall proved to be an interference pattern. Wait what? So a single piece of matter interfered with itself, and hit the wall as if it were a waveform. It gets better. When scientists used observing technology to map the path of the electron and ran the test again, the electrons began showing a two-slot pattern on the back wall! The mere act of observing the electron changed its behavior.

Continued-->

So to summarize, the electron behaved as a "wave of probability" when it was not being observed. Upon introducing an observer, the probability wave collapsed into a single "value". This is to say that everything we see around us is made up of collapsed probability waves. This is also to say that the minute no one is looking, the "matter" ceases to exist in the form we know. Instead, it exists in all mathematically possible positions simultaneously. Now, imagine our brains and our instruments are processors capable of compiling the data in our universe into a "readable" 3-dimensional form along a straight line in the 4th dimension (time). If this is true, and we are merely compiling the information that we come across, then it is a logical consequence that this 'information' exists outside of ourselves in its uncompiled form. This 'reservoir' of uncompiled data is what is known as the multiverse.

I personally agree with the theory, but it is by no means infallible.

While I can't claim this makes any sense to me, it's highly interesting.
Thank you for sharing the insight.

This might help with the "jumping" analogy:

Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o&feature=relmfu

My science hurts.

http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=94TAFSMdkvk&feature=related

listne to that and read the thing with his voice
<--

Of course, and I'm sure that the clever Anon was aware of that too. But it made a wonderful thread and a food for thought anyway.

I read that in Homers voice. Suddenly learning just became more fun.

i'm listening to black masks and gasoline by rise against, and that picture fits perfectly with the song

I'm proud of you

**AcornShouter rolled a random image posted in comment #153 at Fangirls ** im proud of you for being proud of him

you're a dissapointment....

This gif and promises by Nero is one of the greatest things i've ever seen

www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4148395/Denny/

That should explain it.

That means there's a universe where the eagles flew the hobbits to Mt Doom

Which means that in another universe, this guy isn't dead yet.

In another universe he never existed

Then multiverse theory would be false, which it very well could be.

but what if the multiverse theorie is true in all other universe?

There wouldn't be any other universes if multiverse theory was false. It's a self-resolving paradox.

What if there is no truth?

Then everything would be a lie, and the scientists telling you multiverse theory is true would just be fucking with you.

then you are telling me the truth by telling me that everything is a lie?

I could be lying...

If there was an infinite numbers of universes then there would be one universe which is capable of destroying every universe that exists and then we die. (yes it can exist a universe capable of stopping it but the one which destrys other universes will always win because if he is stop it doesn't matters but if he isn't stop every universe dissapears)

False
You'd need an equal amount of energy of a universe to destroy another universe
So it'd have to destroy itself

You can use the energy of the universe which you want to destroy, it doesn't have to be from yours.

P.S: It took you long to answer :o

Well damn, you got me there. I still think there's a fallacy. you'd have to encapture and transfer that energy, but it makes sense.

P.S. I was just looking through old comments

hahahah, actually I think you can be right in both ways, but that's because logical thinking can explain nothing :DDD

It's called Earth-616 ASM issues #666-673