I think it's entirely possible that somewhere in our own universe, silicon-based life forms either exist or have existed at some point. They may even be able to alter their anatomical structure for different purposes. However, they probably aren't humanoid and I doubt they turn into semi trucks or ambulances or cassette players.

 

Your not crazy. Anything is possible. Why cant there be a bunch of robots that transform out there? Who says they cant exist? The I cant except that I live in a universe with other life forms police nazi's? Just because we have them as a show,toys and etc doesn't mean they don't exist. We may just have encountered them before, you never know. Go away nay sayers.

 

Not to be confrontational, if you don't post a link to this study, your statement of string theory being proven doesn't hold a lot of water with me, as everything I've heard about string theory, including the studies I think you're remembering, hold that while it has not been disproven, it is still only functional on paper and no real world proof has been gathered.

The experiment the way you describe it sounds a little fantastical, and I very much doubt it would stand up to academic scrutiny. There's a lot of theories out there about how string theory could be observed at the quantum level, but nothing has really been completed yet (as experimentation in this field is extremely difficult, even with the LHC in operation now).

There is no evidence on the existence of parallel dimensions, and thus no evidence on how the laws of physics function within them. Therefore, any statement in regards to those functions is little more than an uneducated guess. Your gravity analogy falls flat because numerous physicists in even the classical era were aware of gravity and did experimentation on it, though Newton was arguably the first to codify it in modern terminology. There is no evidence that parallel universes would be like an alternate timeline, either, so saying that because an egghead from the era of the Plague wrote a paper that really took off, that parallel universes must all follow the same rules is inaccurate. Furthermore, gravity is a poor example of the permanence of the laws of physics in string theory, as it is theorized that one of the ways string theory may be proven is through the warping of gravity effects at the quantum level. Lastly, your analogy regarding magnetism and gravity is flawed because A) Magnetism is a form of attraction, just as gravity is a more universal form of attraction and B) because we're talking about the actual functioning of physical phenomenae, not their terminology.

 

I think think so...however I would love to be proven wrong in this case.

 

How about looking it up yourself. I read about it on Yahoo news a year ago. I think I've given you enough information for you to do your own research on it and not expect everything to be handed to you.

Let me explain this a different way. The only place where the laws of physics do no apply is in our dreams. So if an alternate dimension were a place where the laws of physics didn't apply then that would mean our dream world was actually a real place. That would also mean that all this business of proving or disproving something would be a waist of time.

Take something like Santa Claws for example. A fat man who flys around in a sly pulled by reindeer and travels all around the world delivering toys to kids in a single night. By knowing an understand the laws of physics we know that non of this is possible but if we're also claiming that there's no reason for the laws of physics to even exist then there's no reason that Santa Claws isn't capable of doing all that stuff. The proof of his existence would be as easy as saying that Santa Claws is from another Dimension.

Now do you understand how crazy that sounds? There's no way the laws of physics could ever be any different than they are for us right now because then anything would be possible by physics defying life forms who we all know do no exist.

Simply put, science is not magic.

Actually there doesn't need to be evidence of that because that's actually what it means to be a parallel universe, that's what string theory is about. Alternate universes with different time lines, some which could be vary similar to our own and others that could be vastly different.

For some reason people got this idea into their heads that vastly different could mean something as silly as the laws of physics not existing. Actually how different each universe would be from out own would depend on how far back the history had changed and how much that change had an effect on the rest of the following history.

Basically a similar Earth could be one where the only difference is what shirt you put on this morning which wouldn't really have any other effects about how that Earth would be different from this one. But then a vastly different Earth could be one where the original British Colonies that became the United States never won their independence from England and the United States today is still run by the English government. (Yes that was a plot to one of the episodes of "Sliders" but the show's writers actually had a fairly good understanding of the science behind it, at least till it was moved to another network and they suddenly stopped trying to explain everything that was happening on the show.)

This part of my post wasn't even an analogy, it was a hypothetical situation.

A) I know what the words mean, I don't need an explanation.

B) I wasn't talking about their terminology.

I don't know what you thought the analogy was suppose to be when there wasn't even one there but the hypothetical situation is just that it is highly possible that people on another Earth could have different definitions for some of the words on our own Earth. It is not however possible that just because the word does not exist that it's definition is not still in effect.

This simply means that if you traveled to another universe and asked one of the locals about Gravity they may not know what the hell you're talking about. This could be either because their word for Gravity is different than our own or they have not yet thought to make a name for it. Either way it would not be because it does not exist.

 

When you make a claim, PREPARE TO DEFEND IT. It is very poor of you to say "Go look for yourself." It's up to you to defend your argument. That's how argumentation works...if you can't provide sources or proof when asked, how can anyone actually take you seriously? I cannot stress how important it is from an argument standpoint to actually...well...make an argument and be in a position to defend it. If you already did the footwork to research the topic, how much longer would it have been to post a link to the source? Providing sources when ask isn't rocket science nor is it a sign of confrontation.

Anyways, onto the topic...I can't rule out the possibility. Forget other dimensions. What about our own? Let's put things into perspective: The Kepler satellite has discovered 1235 possible planets, orbiting 997 target stars from May to September of 2009. How many of these from this SMALL sampling of our GALAXY(And there's over 30 in the Local Group, in which the Milky Way is part of, as well as M31 Andromeda) do you think COULD have robotic life? The chance is that robotic life may not be naturally occurring, but artificially developed lifeforms that have gained sentience and have thrived.

I won't rule it out. We've only discovered barely a fraction of the universe that we reside in. Who needs an alternate one to consider the possibility of robotic life?

 

It isn't infinite.

It's very, very large; so large it is difficult for a human to comprehend.

See, each alternate universe would be based on events, quantum events. As the universe, insofar as we are aware, has a finite age, there is a limited number of potential quantum events that can have happened and a limited number of permutations of those events.

Big, but not infinite, so certain things will not have happened in any possible version of any universe.

- Coeloptera

 

You're making some pretty bold claims for a user who can't even back them up with a Yahoo news post, a source well renowned for its academic rigor.

Let's think about it this way. I'm not saying that the laws of physics WOULDN'T function the same way in a parallel universe. Simply put, science is not wild gut-instinct guesses, the same way it's not magic. And since there's no conclusive evidence to prove the existence of parallel universes, timelines, or reality-divergences, there is no evidence available for you to base your assumptions on, and from a scientific standpoint you're really on no better footing than the people in this thread using children's cartoons as a basis for their arguments.

Wanna prove otherwise? Post some evidence, because I'm not going to do your research for you in order to put some strength behind your claims. You're the one stating something is true, so the burden of proof is on you to support it with concrete facts. THAT'S how science works. Similarly, saying that there doesn't need to be evidence to prove something, especially the existence of an entire universe, is ridiculous.

Also, the rest of your post is fallacious because it's based on Science Fiction, not Science Fact.

Edit: TFW Science Ninjas, represent yo.

 

there's a chance they excist in this universe. we have explored such a tiny portion of the universe we dont know whats out there. might be aliens made of cake...mmm

 

"Their monuments stood for thousands of years. Their literature was poignant beyond words, their music stirred the soul of all who heard it. Their science touched the very fabric of reality itself. But in the end, it was all for naught compared to their one, greatest flaw: They were too delicious for their own good."

 

This is one of your major problems buddy.

You make claims you cant back up, citing information that is either in error, or you remember incorrectly from something you read years ago.

I have told you many times in the past, before you post check your facts.

And whats funny is that all this talk about String Theory is coiming from a guy that once argued that Dinosaur remains didnt contribute to fossil fuels in any way.

I'm sorry but I cant take anything you say seriously or at face value.

 

Yes of course the toys do. And I be leave they exist science say there is a dimension for everything rather in our dreams or another universe, so yes they do that's why the supercolider in Switzerland is trying to do, they know there are hidden dimensions and some day it will be proven.... If we don't get swallowed by the black hole they create first.

 

The latest theory about fossil fuels says that most oil was formed in the slurry of biomatter left after the old seas dried and disappeared. That would make most known oil primarily made of vegetables.

While I do agree it is highly unlikely that dinosaurs contributed to the vast majority of oil, I am prone to believe a small amount of oil could be from dinosaurs. However the fact remains that oil was mostly formed about 250 million years ago, which would definitely put most oil formation firmly in the Permian Age, a time when most animal life was under water.

There is also speculation that a good quantity of North American oil was formed after then Second Great Extinction, and could be formed from conifer forests that could no longer sustain themselves in the very long drought that succeeded the event.

So it is readily accepted that most oil is the product of plants, and not animals. I am prone to agree as plants have much different fats than animals, which break down slower in the presence of oxygen and ultra violet radiation. Simply put animals rot way faster than plants, and thusly are much more likely to become the composting slurry that becomes oil.

 

Also String Theory is just that, theory. It is entirely speculation at this point.

 

All science is "theory".

 

It's funny because I was watching a show on the History Channel today where they were talking about a mythical planet destroyer that's supposed to tear Earth a new disposal unit in 2012. It's apparently been foreseen by the ancients, feared by the impressionable, and of course shunned by science.

In other words, I'm pretty sure they're talking about Unicron.

 

You crazy, fool!

But seriously, anything's possible right? I have actually looked into the multiverse theory, and I still don't have a really strong opinion either way on the subject.

 

Well that's the thing. Until somebody can legitimately prove beyond a Cybertronian doubt that Transformers (and by extension Unicron) can't or otherwise don't exist, then we've got a forum to entertain ourselves.

Also, +rep to Saberprime for the Bumblee comment, and I doubt he was alone.

 

While you're correct, the sources of current fossil fuels are overwhelmingly from plant sources (due to factors such as the sheer mass of plant material vs. animal material, historical distributions of the two forms of life, and carbon density of each form, etc.), animal life such as dinosaurs still participated in the carbon cycle, and thus it is inaccurate to say they have absolutely no effect on the formation of fossil fuels.

True, but "theory" in the context of science means something a little bit different than it does in the common vernacular, and most accepted theories have concrete, real-world evidence to back them, which string theory lacks at this point.

 

Its an old debate from an other site.

And it didnt involve what created the vast majority of our oil.Its started because he disagreed with a statement made in a TF cartoon that oil came from Dino's.

His reply was to comment that there was no bio-matter what so ever in fossil fuels.

Thanks for the info thou