Comments on: Ep. 166: Multiverses http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/cosmology/ep-166-multiverses/ Take a weekly facts-based journey through the cosmos with Astronomy Cast. Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:05:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Matthew C http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/cosmology/ep-166-multiverses/comment-page-1/#comment-5421 Matthew C Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:13:10 +0000 http://www.astronomycast.com/?p=1068#comment-5421 Wow David, I really think that the pronuciation of Uranus matters. People still get the point. Wow David, I really think that the pronuciation of Uranus matters. People still get the point.

]]> By: David http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/cosmology/ep-166-multiverses/comment-page-1/#comment-5417 David Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:24:29 +0000 http://www.astronomycast.com/?p=1068#comment-5417 Regarding the pronunciation of Uranus. Sorry, but it's wrong. How do you pronounce "Uranium or Ouranos?" There is an A in there for crying out loud, not an I! And is it better to be saying urine-us than your-anus? And that's only for English speaking people anyway. Maybe a short a as in "Ur-an-us" would have been a good compromise. But NOT Urinis, and that's how you two are saying it. The now common mispronunciation started back in 1986 when the Voyager 2 was in the news, so newscasters didn't have a hard time. But newscasters are notorious for mispronouncing words, such as pronouncing the silent L in words like "palm". I can see TV catering to the lowest common denominator, but when science has to follow suit, well that's just sad. As far as the show, not bad, but if you are going to try and dodge the whole where did the universe come from in the first place, it's going to cramp your style trying to figure out how and why there might by more than one. And I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about all we don't know, which is far greater than what we do know. We can't just assume the laws of physics would be different in another universe ... that's based on our current understanding of reality, which is pretty minimal. Regarding the pronunciation of Uranus. Sorry, but it's wrong. How do you pronounce "Uranium or Ouranos?" There is an A in there for crying out loud, not an I! And is it better to be saying urine-us than your-anus? And that's only for English speaking people anyway. Maybe a short a as in "Ur-an-us" would have been a good compromise. But NOT Urinis, and that's how you two are saying it.

The now common mispronunciation started back in 1986 when the Voyager 2 was in the news, so newscasters didn't have a hard time. But newscasters are notorious for mispronouncing words, such as pronouncing the silent L in words like "palm".

I can see TV catering to the lowest common denominator, but when science has to follow suit, well that's just sad.

As far as the show, not bad, but if you are going to try and dodge the whole where did the universe come from in the first place, it's going to cramp your style trying to figure out how and why there might by more than one. And I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about all we don't know, which is far greater than what we do know. We can't just assume the laws of physics would be different in another universe … that's based on our current understanding of reality, which is pretty minimal.

]]> By: Steven Athearn http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/cosmology/ep-166-multiverses/comment-page-1/#comment-5412 Steven Athearn Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:17:13 +0000 http://www.astronomycast.com/?p=1068#comment-5412 What if there are exactly two sectors of the universe of universes, instead of infinitely many - with the other sector predominantly made up of matter of the "anti" or "inverse" type? We observe anti-particles, though they are comparatively infrequent, so the suggestion has at least some realistic foundation. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a similar tie-in to reality for the "multiverse" theories. What if there are exactly two sectors of the universe of universes, instead of infinitely many – with the other sector predominantly made up of matter of the "anti" or "inverse" type? We observe anti-particles, though they are comparatively infrequent, so the suggestion has at least some realistic foundation. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a similar tie-in to reality for the "multiverse" theories.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/cosmology/ep-166-multiverses/comment-page-1/#comment-5400 Andrew Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:11:58 +0000 http://www.astronomycast.com/?p=1068#comment-5400 I think our universe is one of the appendages of the flying spaghetti monster. Unfortunately the different appendages can't interact, so this can't be proven scientifically. But trust me. Its true. I think our universe is one of the appendages of the flying spaghetti monster. Unfortunately the different appendages can't interact, so this can't be proven scientifically. But trust me. Its true.

]]> By: Adrian Morgan http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/cosmology/ep-166-multiverses/comment-page-1/#comment-5399 Adrian Morgan Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:49:40 +0000 http://www.astronomycast.com/?p=1068#comment-5399 Checking, I see that the reference in Wikipedia's Uranus article was originally added on 20 April 2009, so you're clear. :-) (From the podcast I got the impression it was a recent edit.) Checking, I see that the reference in Wikipedia's Uranus article was originally added on 20 April 2009, so you're clear. :-) (From the podcast I got the impression it was a recent edit.)

]]>