It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Universe or Multiverse ?

page: 2
1
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 08:47 PM
the universe is like a diamond, we see only one facet yet there are hundreds of other facets that we dont see but all are connected.

posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 12:14 AM
Can't you see the facets in a diamond? Last time I went to a jeweler, the diamonds were pretty easy to see straight through. If the universe is like a diamond, then where can I see the other facets?

posted on Jul, 10 2003 @ 04:05 PM
We are probably unable to see all the "facets" because we are three dimensionnal beings...

posted on Jul, 10 2003 @ 06:29 PM
Actually, we are 4th dimensional beings (we go through time). Therefore, we have higher qualities than just those of 3 dimensions, even if not all 4th dimensional qualities (turning insideout, looking at yourself, blinking to the end of the universe, watching the sun set inside of yourself). The 4th dimension is a world of fun
. Assuming facets are the next step in the universe is as good a guess as any, I suppose. I perfer to think of the the universe existing as a network in a larger universe is more likely... but that's just me.

posted on Jul, 10 2003 @ 07:01 PM
I'd like to give an analogy as to why Protector is right about us being 4th dimensional (which is probably what seperates us from a lot if not ALL animals).

A 1st dimensional being can only percieve points. Because as two lines intersect, they only exist together at one point.

A 2nd dimensional being can only percieve lines, because as two planes intersect, they only share a line.

3rd dimensional beings percieve only 2dimensional objects, for obvious reasons.

Therefore we're 4th dimensional beings, because we can't see our own dimension, just like the 2nd can't see squares, but we can "feel" it, just as the 2nd percieves the line...and would theoretically be able to "calculate" that there is more than a line outside their dimension...

As for Multiverses? No.

Blackholes do NOT go to alternate universes.

They are gravity wells, where mass condenses into an "infinitely small point" called singularities.

There is nothing there but math. As nothing that "exists" can survive there as we know it.

And there is certainly no life...and no escape until the black hole evaporates.

Which won't be for trillion's of years for super-massive black holes.

posted on Jul, 10 2003 @ 07:12 PM
I hold that time is 4th dimensional and sets the "bounds" of our universe.

While we may travel upon it linearly that's for sure, I doubt there's any way to "go back in time" though so don't get your hopes up

posted on Jul, 11 2003 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by FreeMason
I hold that time is 4th dimensional and sets the "bounds" of our universe.

While we may travel upon it linearly that's for sure, I doubt there's any way to "go back in time" though so don't get your hopes up

*growl*

I happen to think time travel could be possible given enough time and research (even if that be hundreds of years). The idea is that time is not linear, but only defined in the present. This is outlined by Stephen Hawking in "A Brief History of Time" and I have come to similar conclusions myself. For now, you are right. One day, however, *evil grin* you may be wrong
.

posted on Jul, 12 2003 @ 01:46 PM
we don't know sh*te. let's face it. i surmise these other dimensions(universes) aren't "out there". that is a 3D concept. they share the same "space" as ours. it's all a matter of perpective, as protector described.
i've heard a curve appears as a straight line in 4D and you see an object from all sides at once. this is from "experiencers". i also heard that what you think is what you get, as in, you create your own reality in a hurry (as opposed to the delay effect of creating your own reality in the dense 3D realm).

posted on Jul, 12 2003 @ 06:56 PM
um yeah when i said the universe was a diamond wih many facets, we are one facet, the other dimensions are each there own facett, and untill w get to the last dimension we wont see all the facets.

posted on Jul, 13 2003 @ 12:36 AM
think.
we see three dimensions, yet it's only an effect of the difference in space/time between our eyes. the 3D perpective is a construct of our bipolar brains.
really, all this three dimensional reality could be an illusion. a two dimensional world extrapolated. don't we commonly except that reality is on different "planes"? plane suggests a two dimensional surface. now imagine a stack of paper, each page containing a whole seperate reality. now another stack, perpindicular to the first. ad infinitum.
personally, i don't trust my eyes as much as my imagination/consciousness.
the possibilities are endless.

posted on Jul, 13 2003 @ 12:45 AM

a fibonacci sequence requires three numbers to define the sequence. as the sequence gets qualitatively higher, the ratio between adjacent numbers gets closer and closer to the phi ratio. the phi ratio sequence is the only sequence that can be defined with only two numbers. it has no beginning and no end. all other sequences require (at least) three, and have a beginning.

i do not believe in particles. particles are an imaginary way to understand waves.

now, all these definitions of light use our linear time understanding. i do not believe in linear time. i believe in energy soup, time being another form of energy. i have a theory that there are levels(densities and dimensions) of energy, and we only percieve a certain bandwidth/azimuth. the human brain operates between 0 and 20 some hertz(some yogis have been measured at 40 and higher). our perception and measurement of time is based on certain cycles. the sun, the moon and spin of the earth, mostly. yet, we all notice that time changes for us, under certain conditions, ie., extreme boredom or stress(like a car accident).
our vision has a frame rate. if we could slo-mo or fast forward reality, we might be able to see other shapes which are hidden from our perception. like the way a single row of led's can cause the impression of words in our minds(i think you know what i'm talking about), by side scrolling text.
also, this theory of ninety degree electro magnetic waves leaves 359.99999 degrees of free space on the axis.
didn't they tell us in school that we're mostly space?

N.S.A. wanted john nash. didn't work out well, i heard. they don't want me, i'm just a fringe lunatic. my house is full of butterflies flapping their wings. i'm so ignorant, i don't even know what time it is.

i was going to try and explain my wild ranting more, but i'm tired and have a long drive ahead of me.
protector, you have a good mind. don't believe everything the teacher says, though. science is the new dogma.

Right. Light can be bent. And, how does one explain psychic behaivor scientifically without multi -dimensions for this to emminate from?

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by Tyriffic]

posted on Jul, 13 2003 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Tyriffic

a fibonacci sequence requires three numbers to define the sequence. as the sequence gets qualitatively higher, the ratio between adjacent numbers gets closer and closer to the phi ratio. the phi ratio sequence is the only sequence that can be defined with only two numbers. it has no beginning and no end. all other sequences require (at least) three, and have a beginning.

Right. Light can be bent. And, how does one explain psychic behaivor scientifically without multi -dimensions for this to emminate from?

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by Tyriffic]

bent, and/or split via prizms into different frequencies a la pink floyd. and then there's communication. how do the different frequencies of e-motion, sound, thought, light, time, space(yes, that's it! frequencies of space!) language(FREQUENCIES OF LANGUAGE?!!), frequencies of microwaves, macrowaves, wave interference patterns. form geometric graphs of these patterns and vibrations. nest them via platonic, sacred geometric zero point concepts.
oh yeah. and then anti every label in your unvocabulary. no think.

posted on Jul, 13 2003 @ 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Protector

Protector : You are probably right. I'm not a mathematician. I'm a physicist, so I'll take your word for it... unless I find proof otherwise
.

i'm old school.

"i do not believe in particles. particles are an imaginary way to understand waves."

Protector : Particles are an imaginary way to understand any form using a dot or sphere. The problem is, people actually believe particles are dots or spheres and not just a way to represent what the "particle or wave" actually look like. A true particle could look like a figure 8, but the public would still think its a dot. Oh well... I suppose ignorance is bliss for some people.

yeah, man. a spinning helical structure as seen through time. like, DNA.

"now, all these definitions of light use our linear time understanding. i do not believe in linear time."

Protector : Linear time is real, but Hawking and another scientist are working on imaginary time as being a 2d quality to that linear (1d) timeline. Time is linear, but it may be more.

see previous post.

"i believe in energy soup, time being another form of energy."

Protector : Time is a part of space, what we call spacetime.

or is it? a MATTER of perpective.

Protector : Energy is a property of spacetime.

MASSIVE.

Protector : I believe time is just a quantitative way to understand 3 dimensional movement... as we would normally define time. Energy is more of a quality that forces motion and transformation. There is probably a link, but I doubt it is direct, such as energy-->time (energy implies time). Time probably shows that energy does exist, but I don't think we should go as far as to say that time is a result of energy... although it could be with a whole lot of physics, math, and philosophy. I prefer to stick to relationships that are more direct and much less abstract in connection to one another.

i was with you 'til the end. i like the abstract.

Protector : We could argue that all things are related, but putting a rhinosaurous and a bottle of beer on the same plane is a waste of time.

i actually tried this. it was funny.

Protector : I fear that arguing that energy and time are closely related leaves out too many other factors and are thus not directly related. Maybe you see it otherwise.

excacly. der een lize de dali lama. die lama. ach-hem, ...dill e=ma squared.

"i have a theory that there are levels(densities and dimensions) of energy, and we only percieve a certain bandwidth/azimuth."

"the human brain operates between 0 and 20 some hertz(some yogis have been measured at 40 and higher)."

Protector : I have no idea. I hate biology, so I stick to physics.

me either. i'm just putting some memeing into the conversation. biology can be good with the right music, a bottle of wine and a few well placed compliments. physics is good to know while driving in rush hour traffic.

"our perception and measurement of time is based on certain cycles. the sun, the moon and spin of the earth, mostly."

Protector : I believe science has started to move beyond that and dealt with quantum time, as well as relating time to the "beginning" of our particular universe. Perception is important, but mathematics and physics have helped to get rid of many false perceptions and have a good foundation for study of the fourth dimension.

well, that's just it. the uncertainty factor of quantum reality. is it it?

"yet, we all notice that time changes for us, under certain conditions, ie., extreme boredom or stress(like a car accident)."

Protector : That's because your brain speeds up when flooded by chemicals and the body flooded by adrenaline. Those highs cannot be biologically sustained for long. The perception of time changes, but time itself is not actually changing.

or is it?

"our vision has a frame rate."

18 frames per second... give or take a couple.

i'll take a fill up, please. overclock the machine(the true enemy).

"if we could slo-mo or fast forward reality, we might be able to see other shapes which are hidden from our perception."

Protector : Shape is not hidden from perception, but higher dimensional figures are. This is a matter of us not having the sensory organs to detect anything above standard time. If you would like to know what higher dimensions do, then math has already does the work.

yeah, man.

Protector : Welcome to your first glimpse of the 2 interacting objects in the 4th dimension

"like the way a single row of led's can cause the impression of words in our minds(i think you know what i'm talking about), by side scrolling text."

Protector : Yes, but again those are "optical" illusions for the ways our eyes work and the way our brains interpret symbols. That touches on psychology and performance magic.

see previous post.

"also, this theory of ninety degree electro magnetic waves leaves 359.99999 degrees of free space on the axis."

Protector : Well, the 90 degree EM wave is just a matter of orientation of the waves. The strength of the fields vary throughout the rest of the orientation. Basically, the 90 degree angle keeps balance between the forces and gives light its particular properties.

hmmmm? i wonder?

"didn't they tell us in school that we're mostly space?"

Protector : Yes... which should be appended to say mostly spacetime and energy waves in what you might call a "soup."

mmmmm, energy soup, ...(insert homer drooling sound).

Protector : Still, the science is much more realistic about how to view that logically. Philosophy adds that, "we are not atoms, but shadows of atoms. Less than one percent material and the rest is the motion of electrons that you see.

nice.

"N.S.A. wanted john nash. didn't work out well, i heard. they don't want me, i'm just a fringe lunatic. my house is full of butterflies flapping their wings. i'm so ignorant, i don't even know what time it is."

Protector : You are smart enough to use your brain to come up with possible solutions... one day the NSA may be interested in your application.

huh? you talkin' to me? i wasn't paying attention. sorry, ....i'm listening....

"protector, you have a good mind. don't believe everything the teacher says, though. science is the new dogma."

Protector : Actually, most of my research was done outside of the classroom.

me too.

Protector : I found that the library is just as smart as a good professor.

books good. no indoctrination process associated.

Protector : Late fees are far less than the tuition to take all of the class required to be as learned as I am. I perfer to see myself as self-taught, but regulated and reinforced by formal class.

i don't like most teachers. so preachy!

Protector : Science is not a dogma, but idiots who claim to be using science make us look like we are full of doggie-do.

exactly. so. we must admit that "science" is pretty primitive in light of the neato tricks you can do with math and karma.
please sir, can i have some more? ....MOOORE SOoooUP???!!!!

Protector : Good thing many scientists are guys like me (and maybe smarter... maybe
).

some can make money. some can add and subtract. some can fix cars(very handy skill). some kill(ouch!). there are many kinds of smart. i often lose things.

and a big shout out to thebandit795 for FORCING me to edit my post for clarity.

(just kidding, bandit, although your choice of words was rather direct.)

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by billybob]

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by billybob]

posted on Jul, 13 2003 @ 02:33 PM
oh yeah.

Protector: Densities can relate to dimensions and consciousness levels. However, density is a word used for having 3 dimensions. You should say that you believe in multiple dimensional levels of energy and believe those to be in waveform. Seeing only single bandwidth means that there is only one wave, which is probably way too elementary for you to base a high level theory on. The idea of vibrational energy has flaws. The reason for this is that vibrations are seen as linear and cannot form complex objects. Once you start to add more dimension to vibrations you start to use different terms to describe the effects. Basically, thinking of vibrations is a good start, but you have to get much more detailed if you want to have a good base theory... such as vibrating strings throughout 3 dimensional space (string theory). Don't confuse the methods in which your eyes see with how physics and matter/energy actually interact with the universe. You would be shot down very quickly in a room full of smart people (and smarta\$\$es.

sounds like your on the brink of understanding my model of reality. just add standing wave patterns to your roster of concepts. then you can form complex objects with vibrations. yes, ...string theory. exactly. with a twist of lemming.

[Edited on 13-7-2003 by billybob]

posted on Jul, 13 2003 @ 08:45 PM
"yeah, man. a spinning helical structure as seen through time. like, DNA."

That is an interesting thought. So are you suggesting the particle aspect is a fragmenting of the DNA-like structure? The problem remains that DNA is twisted, but light is concerned with field strength. We can determine (with 99.999999999% certainty) what the field strength will be with our current knowledge. If it is like a DNA structure in your hypothesis, then your results would have subtle breaks in the fields, thus the bumpy nature of a DNA strand (double helix). The truth is that the fields are perpendicular waves of electricity and magnetism. I believe our current model of the wave structure is quite accurate.

"i believe in energy soup, time being another form of energy."

Protector : Time is a part of space, what we call spacetime.

or is it? a MATTER of perpective.

Yes it is. The point is that perspective is based off of this being a basic tenant of the universe. Spacetime is a single unit and thus we can mathematically define the fourth dimension and all lower dimensions with mathematics and gain accurate results through scientific experiments.

"Protector : Energy is a property of spacetime.

MASSIVE. "

Right. Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing. If you know what that is, you win a Nobel Prize.

Protector : I believe time is just a quantitative way to understand 3 dimensional movement... as we would normally define time. Energy is more of a quality that forces motion and transformation. There is probably a link, but I doubt it is direct, such as energy-->time (energy implies time). Time probably shows that energy does exist, but I don't think we should go as far as to say that time is a result of energy... although it could be with a whole lot of physics, math, and philosophy. I prefer to stick to relationships that are more direct and much less abstract in connection to one another.

i was with you 'til the end. i like the abstract.

Time is a part of space (literally). When space moves, we see it. When we break up the natural movement into set increments, we call it time. Energy may exist separately. There is a theory that "time energy" exists. Energy forms matter. Energy comes in different forms, EM waves, gravity (if this is energy), strong nuclear forces, and weak nuclear forces. Throwing time energy in there is a long shot, but maybe useful. The main focus is that energy is a motivational force.

Let's define energy from Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: en·er·gy
Pronunciation: 'e-n&r-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Late Latin energia, from Greek energeia activity, from energos active, from en in + ergon work -- more at WORK
Date: 1599
1 a : dynamic quality b : the capacity of acting or being active
2 : vigorous exertion of power : EFFORT
3 : the capacity for doing work
4 : usable power (as heat or electricity); also : the resources for producing such power
synonym see POWER

Basically, energy and time do not necessarily have a relationship, but may in some abstract way. It is also believed that energy is information (putting form onto the "stuff" of the universe).

You know, it's funny to think of E=mc^2 if Einstein believed that you can't go over the speed of light (impossible). If you can't, how can you put the speed of light squared in an equation? That would be impossible.

posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 04:33 PM
protector-You know, it's funny to think of E=mc^2 if Einstein believed that you can't go over the speed of light (impossible). If you can't, how can you put the speed of light squared in an equation? That would be impossible.

hmmmmm. what WAS he thinking?

posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 05:58 AM
www.bbc.co.uk...

Inflation points to the existence of a multiverse as being a totally possible occurence.

"We may be just one of many multiverses, in an evolution without beginning or end."

One thing that I have always feared is the eventual destruction of mankind when our Universe ends in billions of years. With multiverses, maybe that fear is unfounded.
I like this theory. It means we have a chance to survive even longer. Who knows? If mankind can survive without destroying himself maybe one day he will be able to travel from Universe to Universe.

posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 10:15 AM
a great debateabout the nature of the quantum multiverse.

posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 04:51 PM
"protector-You know, it's funny to think of E=mc^2 if Einstein believed that you can't go over the speed of light (impossible). If you can't, how can you put the speed of light squared in an equation? That would be impossible.

hmmmmm. what WAS he thinking? "

Of course, Mass cannot go over the speed of light, so if it turns into energy, maybe the problem would not exist. However, what would occur between the speed of light and the speed of light squared (c and c^2)? If it becomes energy at c^2 and is mass below c^2, but can't go over c for fear of infinite expansion, what is between c and c^2? Maybe there is a middle form of matter-energy that has yet to be discovered.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:59 PM

People can remote view, for example, farther and faster than the speed of light. The questions you posit demonstrate how most of us are stuck in perceiving solely in the material realm. Where an essence, energy perhaps, can move faster than the speed of light -- if it is true, and forever true pervasively that matter can go only to the speed of light, at most -- then an answer as to how anything may go faster than the speed of light, or in discovering what can or does go faster than the speed of light would have to do with energy or mind, or things in between and inclusive of each.

I don't subscribe to the idea that light has a finite speed wall faster than which white-smocked wizards will not allow it to go, or discuss with the ignorant masses the subtler realms of physics and/or metaphysics.

I does seem we have another threshold of travel and speed subtler than light, which may be the speed of gravity. While many may think solely of hard matter in relation to gravity and what it has an effect upon within our daily sensual purvue, gravity may be a subtle realm, just electricity, light, and such, beyond just kinetics for gravity, gravitational fields and the speed of gravity.

This speed of gravity would explain how, supposedly, ships, either from other dimensions and/or from far away places lightyears away, are able to move, seemingly exceedingly faster than contemporary humans can perceive, perhaps faster than light, perhaps transcending both time and space, for it may be that being in a moving vehicle that can move nearly as fast or faster than the speed of light may have something to do with time travel as well, a shared experienced with unified anchorage in a shared constancy among fellow travelers contained within the vehicle's containment and journeys.

But how do they move and control their directionality and destination? The answer to this resembles the explanation of how and why an electron, or an electron's vitality travels along a wire. Before a piece of matter or bundle of energy [bala in Sanskrit] can travel anywhere, its movement is predicated upon a precursory wave, a wave of vaccuity generating the receptivity through which the electron or electron vitality travels. This principle is also operative in spiritual practices, including raising one's kundalini. The shushumna canal is actually not a material spatial displacement that is measurable through rulers and such -- the shushumna is a precorsory wave and is manageable through Tantrika intuitional science.

Any beings that may arrive to Earth via ships of some sort, especially when they share the journey within such a ship, get to their destination by first determining where they want to go, then plotting a course to it. In a nonkinetic environment, the shortest distance between to points is a straight line. In a kinetic environment, the shortest distance between two objects, whether only one or both objects are moving, involves one or more curves. Whether such beings have to consciously create such a pathway, I am not yet sure, though I am sure that they lay down a precursory wave, which to most contemporary Earthlings may be understood as a wormhole. The destination is determined, a precorsory wave is laid, and that precursory wave sucks the extant vehicle, contained within a prescribed field, such as a gravity field, then is sucked into its new location far faster than the speed of light.

1