Tlaloc_Temporal

There’s no profit motive for large scale carbon capture anyway, so big CC plants and big nuclear plants would need the same political will.

Wow, I don’t think a single one of those people even know what a soldering iron is.

All of those platforms have sources of revenue besides ads.

Sure, I don’t disagree. The difference is I had a source to criticize. You know what info I was working with and can guage how reasonable my claim is. If you go around to people convinced of something and say “Nuh uh”, it doesn’t matter if you’re correct, you’ll be laughed out of the room.

The oceans would eventually freeze over, but the deep ocean could stay liquid for tens of millions of years. Ice is a pretty good insulator, and there is more than one moon in the solar system suspected to have liquid oceans under a layer of ice.

The messenger is getting shot for not bringing receipts. I was about to shoot them too, then I retrieved a receipt: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2024/01/05/dissecting-claims-about-monsanto-suing-farmers-for-accidentally-planting-patented-seeds/

7 Days to Die probably. They recently came out of early access in basically the same state they were in a decade ago.

Maxminning in this case.

Evolutionary pressures form new organisms, which feed biodiversity. More crabs aren’t as diverse as that sounds.

My oint is that we have a plethora of direct evidence of exoplanets, but only a small handfull of indirect evidence for other universes at best.

That’s not necessarily evidence against other universes, but when asked about exactly how much evidence for other universes we have, “The math suggests they are possible” isn’t very strong, especially when the math makes massively incorrect predictions elsewhere that we still haven’t explained.

What is the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of other universes, and the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter? There are serious theories attempting to explain the universe without dark matter right now, so jf the evidence for other universes is weaker than dark matter, people aren’t going to take it seriously.

We can see exoplanets though, and we know there are trillions in just this galaxy. This is more like Planet X in our solar system; there’s some observations that might suggest the existence of a large planet in the Kuiper belt, but we have no direct evidence whatsoever. Hardly anything we see would change one way of the other, according to our current understanding of solar system development.

Reminds me of Maxis games, like Sim City 2000 and the Streets of Sim City.

Sure, BBT doesn’t preclude other universes exsiting, and some details may even suggest other universes, but that’s outside the scope of BBT cosmology, and I’d hardly call that evidence when we still have inflation and axion theories floating around ready to radically change our idea of the early universe.

We have more evidence for Dark Matter, and we can’t even agree that that’s matter!

Ooo, look at you with your fancy infrastructure. I bet you even have commercial flights!

In all seriousness, some airstrips have only a paved runway, and it’s just dirt for everything else.

Ah, so not just every possible universe, and not just every conceivable universe, and not just every coherent idea of a universe, and not just every arbitrary state of a universe, but every collection of arbitrary notions about any form of existence no matter if those notions are compatable in any way with anything.

In that case, the vast majority of universes are not possible to understand by our laws of logic. Most of them no longer exist either, as half of them spontaneously ended in 1602 and another half fell to false vacuum decay a billion years ago, and an infinite number of other things. Yet since we’re disregarding all logic and taking every arbitrary position, there are infinite universes where they spontaneously stopped existing every second since they started existing yet continue to exist, are one dimensional yet are made of nothing but triangles, have nothing but paradoxes yet are perfectly understandable by us, and are also in a multiverse where no other universes exist.

It’s a useless concept, as you can posit that any point at all is true. It’s also self-defeating, as our continued existence proves that there are no universes that have destroyed our universe permanently, and thus not every conceivable state can exist simultaneously.

Is there some use I am missing?

What if there are more ways to not have triangles than to have triangles? If every possibility is represented equally, that would mean there are more universes without triangles. The possibility of triangles isn’t the variables that’s changing, it’s a side effect of other variables.

I just rolled two six-sided dice. If we take that action as truely random and that every possibility is represented in some universe, then there are universes were I rolled 2 and universes where I rolled 7. However, there are more universes where I rolled 7, simply because there are more ways to roll 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1).

And that’s assuming that my roll was truely random, and not significantly biased by how I threw the dice. It’s also completely impossible that I rolled a 13, and universes where triangles are impossible might not exist. Every possible universe still exists, but there are more universes where I rolled 7, and none where I can’t draw a triangle. Infinite improbability doesn’t make the impossible possible.

Does it? As far as I am aware, the Big Bang modle only describes how the early universe developed, not how it began.

That’s the airstrip.

Temporaculture

You’ve seen onion armour, now fight the pineapple boss!