Beyond the Void: The Evidence of Multiverse is Mounting

reply to post by graysquirrel


thats been my assertion, except the void in the center of the shell would not be interactive to us, its another dimension.
i think the void is actually not that at ,its just the part of space so far away its light will never reach us

The universe is an electric klein bottle.

Originally posted by Lecter
Big bang was the result of a parallel universes crashing with another one. Could this be the location of where it originated? Very interesting....

I thought the same thing, perhaps it could be one acceptable explanation of the big bang theory?

The numbers that everyone is seeing or noting on ATS 11:11

Perhaps that could signify parallel universe?

cheers

oh Interesting thread! Kudos to the OP

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Andre Neves

 

They take a guess. Though it's a really good guess.
Then others run with it to try to prove or disprove it based on evidence.
I always find it funny that most things are still theory in the realm of science. You would think they would figure out most theories by now.

Remember Theory = Guess.
Take your theory with a grain of salt.

Seems it's always presented as Fact though?

reply to post by Kruel

Or is it another Universe all together?completely seperate from ours? or the same but with different possible lives of the same people? like a stack of paper could each sheet be a possible alternate dimension of ourselves? true'lly mind bending!

Originally posted by paperplanes
You and Nola, and ostensibly the individuals starring your comments re:

HM…..
Three stars and I cannot give myself a star…
I guess your “Theory” on this matter is incorrect.

Originally posted by paperplanes
As far as String Theory is concerned, this is absolutely a highly speculative area of science. Within the scientific community, String Theory has numerous detractors--it is not at all comparable to the theories of evolution, gravity, or the like. This is one very famous example of the term "theory" being used loosely.

Well that cannot be... After all scientists only call things theories when they can back them up with incontrovertible observations according to your quotes above:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Its either one way or the other, you cannot have both. Either scientists never add the term “Theory” unless it is almost “incontrovertible” or they do. Thousands of theories have been proven incorrect down the road.

Originally posted by paperplanes
I am only pointing out the severe error in a previous comment to the effect of "a theory is just a guess...take it with a grain of salt".

Where did I say that? I believe that I said:

Originally posted by defcon5
The fact is that a Theory is exactly that, it’s a theory, though some have more evidence and support behind them then others:

Basically the idea that we should accept anything that has "Theory" attached to it as though it is a fact is completely incorrect, many theories are yet to have any proof or testing to back them up in the slightest.

Which is a 100% correct statement.
String THEORY being a prime candidate for one with very little proof.
Please show me where I used the term “guess”?

Originally posted by paperplanes
This was absolutely indicative of the kind of willful ignorance that the scientific community has been fighting.

Maybe they should be more careful with their nomenclature then. If they want to call theories facts, then call them facts, or don’t include things like "String Theory". After all who named it "String Theory”, was it us civilians, or these guy in the scientific community? The truth is that they like to play these naming games to champion certain ideas, but not quite 100% just in case they end up being wrong. After all these highly intelligent folks have their egos to think about.

Originally posted by paperplanes
Theories in science are ALWAYS susceptible to being disproven.

Say it isn’t so…
You mean like the “Flat Earth Theory”, so did they have a lot of testing to back that one up? A lot of folks got burned at the stake over disputing it after all.

Anyway to sum this all up:

What your basically saying here:

Originally posted by paperplanes
Theories in science are ALWAYS susceptible to being disproven. This is the very nature of science--you can never, never entirely "close the book" on a subject. The idea of science is that things are testable, that information is always coming in, and that one day something may very well appear to turn an official theory, an accepted fact of science, on its head. We may have mountains of evidence to support a theory as being true, but it would be unscientific to say "All right then, it's done. We've solved it. Don't touch it again." This doesn't mean that the idea is certifiably false or that we shouldn't believe it.

Is…

Originally posted by defcon5
The fact is that a Theory is exactly that, it’s a theory, though some have more evidence and support behind them then others.
Basically the idea that we should accept anything that has "Theory" attached to it as though it is a fact is completely incorrect, many theories are yet to have any proof or testing to back them up in the slightest.

Well Done!


[edit on 11/21/2008 by defcon5]

Defcon, it would be a great favor to me and every other thinking person here if you would kindly read my posts in their entirety, as you seem to be terribly confused. I quite clearly explain the use of the word "theory" in science. I have stated repeatedly that there is quite a big difference between colloquial use of the word (this includes conversational use by scientists) and PEDAGOGICAL USE by scientific organizations advancing OFFICIAL theories. This is explained in depth in my post, so I will not repeat the details here.

My referencing of "take it with a grain of salt" is not attributed to you--again, you would understand this if you had taken the time to patiently read my post. The same can be said for so-called String Theory, which I argued (accurately) is not accepted as a legitimate theory in the collective scientific community, remaining a very speculative area. I realize that this may mean readers must do a bare amount of Googling to figure this out, but I am confident that any serious person wouldn't be incapable of exerting that minuscule amount of energy.

Surely you know that you shouldn't take everything at face value, right? That seems to be what's gotten you into so much trouble.

Dark Matter was here before Matter was introduced. It is apparent that Dark Matter basic nature conforms to the laws of Gravitational Attraction. It is this attraction between Dark Matter and Matter that caused the introduction of Matter in to our Universe.
In a theoretical Universe a Black Holes Gravitational field becomes massive. It starts attracting Dark Matter from out side its own dimensional plain. The attraction between this dimensional Dark Matter and the Gravitational field becomes so intense a hole is opened between the two. Matter is expelled through this opening causing a violent burst of energy! (Big Bang)
The Smoking Gun


Scientists are observing Gamma Bursts happening frequently on the outer edges of our known Universe. It is my hypothesis that the Gamma Bursts that are being viewed is bleeding over from another dimension out side of our own. The cause of this bleed over effect is Big Bangs accruing in surrounding dimensions.
Once we realize that Dark Matter is dimensional. Dark Matter conforms to the laws of Gravitational Attraction. It all makes perfect sense.

Sorry to post and leave but I'm pressed for time and I've got to go. I find this thread simply amazing.

Just last week I read an article in Sky and Telescope about an unseen force tugging at our seen universe. This force is so immense that thousands of galaxies are being affected by it.

This is the closest thing I found on the net.Unseen forces.

I'll be back. Recent discoveries about the universe is nothing short of mind-boggling.

Originally posted by gimpy911
Lisa randall's book warped passages describes this subject in great detail.
"A MUST READ" for any1 interested in learing more on multiverse's and the connection between shifting universes. Great post S&F

I tried to read this book, i still have it sitting on my bookshelf but it made my brain blow up. I'm starting with Hawkings 'A Brief History...' and Singh's 'Big Bang' first because the idea of multiuniverse and multiple dimensions makes me confused.

More evidence.

Here.

reply to post by constantwonder


Cool post.

fascinating stuff: can one of you explain exactly how a large hole/gap is evidence of another universe please ? To the layman it is just a space where there is no matter.