Both of 'em. All of them?
Someone asked me if there were an infinite number of infinities within infinity.
Galaxies Underestimated
- Thread starter MolaKule
- Start date
Someone asked me if there were an infinite number of infinities within infinity.
Why not, who said there is no another bubble outside the one we are in.
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
How did you decide we're in a bubble?
Define the edge the start and stop
What is in between?
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Discussing the potential for multiple dimensions using terms that are limited by the physical boundaries of human senses and our limited technology. I don't think you can actually get there from here.
All this stuff boggles my mind........ I was not aware that dark matter particles moved through human bodies without harm.
Though I'm not sure what dark matter actually is? I know it can be bad like black holes etc.
Mind blown
Though I'm not sure what dark matter actually is? I know it can be bad like black holes etc.
Mind blown
We are told universe is expanding, so it's expanding into something outside it, no? How do we know this universe is the only thing?
Everything is actually everything.
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Which may be uncountable because counting implies a limit or end and infinite does not have any. You can't get to the end because there isn't one.
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Nothing is the absence of matter and energy we can sense and detect. So no, it doesn't need to be expanding into something else. It can be the matter and energy we can sense and detect expanding into the place there is no matter and energy we can sense and detect. It doesn't need a defined edge like a balloon.
If we're discussing the Standard Model of particle physics, it is simply incorrect to characterize its central components as merely inferred. Virtually every particle predicted by the model has been observed experimentally, including the W and Z bosons, gluons, top quark, and Higgs boson. The model's predictions have been tested repeatedly through collider experiments and precision measurements, often matching observations to extraordinary accuracy.
The existence of quarks, for example, is not based on speculation. Deep inelastic scattering experiments revealed the internal structure of protons exactly as predicted by quark theory. Likewise, gluons were confirmed through characteristic jet patterns in high-energy collisions. The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 completed the particle content predicted by the Standard Model and provided direct evidence for the Higgs mechanism responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking.
Critics sometimes point out that the Standard Model does not explain everything, such as dark matter, dark energy, or gravity. This is true, but it does not diminish the overwhelming experimental success of the theory within its domain. A theory can be incomplete and still be extraordinarily well supported by evidence.
If the discussion instead concerns the standard cosmological model, then a distinction must be made between observations and interpretations. The expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, and large-scale structure formation are all directly observed phenomena. What remains debated is whether dark matter and dark energy are the correct explanations for these observations or whether alternative theories could account for the data.
Even here, however, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the model lacks observational support. The model was developed precisely because it successfully explains a wide range of independent observations using a single framework. The real scientific debate concerns the nature of certain components of the model, not whether the underlying observations exist.
Science rarely "proves" theories in an absolute sense. Instead, theories earn credibility by making successful predictions and surviving attempts at falsification. By that standard, both the Standard Model of particle physics and many aspects of the standard cosmological model have accumulated substantial empirical support. The unanswered questions are important, but they should not be confused with a lack of evidence for the models themselves.
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but your comment suggests a misunderstanding of what the Standard Model actually is and the evidence supporting it.
The Standard Model is not a speculative idea that physicists simply assume to be true. It is one of the most extensively tested scientific theories ever developed. Its predictions have been confirmed repeatedly through particle accelerator experiments, scattering experiments, precision measurements, and the direct discovery of particles that the theory predicted long before they were observed.
To argue that the Standard Model lacks experimental support is a bit like arguing that multiplication has never been demonstrated because you haven't personally worked through the mathematics. Honest question, what attempt have you made in earnest to understand the Standard Model? The question is not whether every aspect of modern physics is fully understood. The question is whether the theory's core predictions have been tested against reality. In the case of the Standard Model, they have, and with remarkable success.
Of course, the Standard Model is incomplete. It does not explain gravity, dark matter, or dark energy. Physicists openly acknowledge these limitations. But recognizing that a theory is incomplete is very different from claiming it lacks observational or experimental support.
Before dismissing the Standard Model, it's worth spending some time with the actual literature and experimental history behind it. You may still disagree with aspects of modern physics, but the claim that its central predictions have not been demonstrated simply isn't consistent with the evidence.
Here is my real question - you clearly have not done any homework to justify your position and you clearly don't understand the evidence for the standard model, yet, here you are confidently opining and giving us your theory on something you know nothing about. How does this jive in your head?
Last edited:
Similar threads
