It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Multiverses do exsist

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Multiverses are a theory of more than one universe. Different universes inside a multiverse are called parallel universes. Some people believe that multiverses can't exist because they have proof that our universe is expanding. So that means that there can't be more. But we will never know. But if there is, that's probably where black holes lead. Multiple black holes might just connect the universes together




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
The title of your thread is a little misleading....



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GeniusLogan15
 




I thought with a title such as yours, you'd have at least presented an argument or have some links backing up your statement.


Perhaps rename the thread.


Do you think a multiverse exists??



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The multiverse is right under our noses. It's sort of like a change in frequency. People who are practicing astral projection, are going to another dimension. Or, a whole other universe, or would that be the same universe, just different levels of it.....(looks like I debunked my own theory
move along, nothing to see here) which still leaves black holes. I remeber watching some video a while ago, where the clever bloke in a white coat, said that lots of scientist types, are putting bets on wether or not, when they look back with this new telescope, to the dawn of time, they'll see our universe spurting out of the ass end of a black hole. They reckon there could be like a daisy chain effect, of universes giving birth to universes. Fractal like, truly endless.

i like to ramble on.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Multiverse, I filled up a ballon today with oxygen. Doesn't mean theres only one baloon on the earth.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
the multi-verse is a very interesting topic, there are a few vids and threads on here about it, do a search on 10th dimension, you'll find them.

If you can get your head round it and link time-lines to infinite universes you start to think of your place in it all as very insignificant.

by adding this post I could be creating a brand new universe, the timeline where I thought, i cant be bothered to type this, needs its own universe to exist, as for black holes, you may be right, if a black hole is sucking in everything around it then there needs to be something somewhere blowing stuff out, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

This is a long video but the guy is brilliant,

Nassim Haramein

edit: I really can't spell sometimes

[edit on 19/5/2009 by whoswatchinwho]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I was thinking the same thing today,how odd?I was reading in another tread and the OP asked where do black holes lead to.Well I saw a guy on UFO hunters try and say that if one black hole was on one side and another was on the other side you could short cut through them,didn't seem logical to me,if for no other reason than how could you ever get away from the "exit" hole?seems more likely that there would have to be something in between(another dimension a parallel universe)so my theory is black holes cannot empty back into this universe unless they discover a white hole.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Nothing comes out of black holes because all of the matter sucked into the hole is crushed down into a singularity by the tremendous gravity of the black hole.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Wouldn't the collection of the multiverses be called a 'universe' if they were all linked?

That aside, I think there are more than one universe, only I don't think tey exist in s different space, they exist in our space. I see it as, at the moment, we see our universe as an expanding cube. It starts off as a point, then as it grows it comes into view as a cube, this cube expands until we can longer see it. This is how we percieve our universe at the moment, finite and expanding.

I see it as a tesseract, many cubes, existing within the same space, innumerable cubes, infinte cubes going into the cube and infinite cubes going out. It is not one expanding cube, it is many cubes, infinitely existing.

Im still pondering this one. I'm thinking, when 'decisions' are made, then new universes must be created, this would suggest that they cannot be infinite, yet what if they always existed? they just weren't used?

Who knows, its a hard concept to get your head around.

EMM



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by GeniusLogan15
 




I thought with a title such as yours, you'd have at least presented an argument or have some links backing up your statement.


Perhaps rename the thread.




Do you think a multiverse exists??



Yes I do for your information. To me, multiple universes is a theory that is good to arguue about. To get back on topic, some people believe that more than one universe is nonsense but then again its fascinating. I have read that as early as 1957, Princeton’s Hugh Everett III proposed the “many-worlds” theory. “Many-worlds” starts with a controversial interpretation of quantum theory in which sub-atomic particles are thought to continuously split into separate quantum states. Everett imagined that each split created a parallel universe in which particles exist as mirror images of themselves. As a result, every possible state of a particle is realized, somewhere! So that means that if thats true, there could be two of me and you. But the question is that if thats true are they doing the same exact thing that we are doing. If you made a sandwich, do they make a sandwich as well? Because I know for sure im not controlling another one of me 1000 trillion miles away.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


Black holes are nonsense. Here are some of the reasons why.

1) On the one hand it is claimed by the astrophysical scientists that black holes have an escape velocity >= c (speed of light in vacuo). On the other hand they also claim that nothing, including light, can even leave a black hole. If the escape velocity of a black hole is c, then light can escape and all observers could see it; and massive bodies could leave it, but not escape. If the escape velocity is > c then light and massive bodies could both leave the black hole, but not escape, and so there is always a class of observers that could see it. The claims of the astrophysical scientists are contradictory.
2) All black hole ‘solutions’ relate to a universe that contains only one mass. But escape velocity involves two masses by definition – one mass escapes from another mass. Furthermore, the black holers use Newton’s expression for the escape velocity and ‘Schwarzschild’ radius of their black hole. But one cannot use a Newtonian two-body relation in what is alleged to be a non-Newtonian one-body configuration, and one cannot use a Euclidean geometry (Newton’s) to determine radii in a non-Euclidean geometry. The black holers have erroneously blended Newtonian theory into Einstein’s non-Newtonian theory, and therefore their arguments are nonsense.
3) The black hole is alleged to contain an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now Special Relativity and General Relativity must be consistent, and according to Einstein and his followers, the laws of Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field, and these regions can be anywhere in his gravitational field. But Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that material bodies can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (which would require an input of infinite energy), which is impossible according to SR. So for GR to be consistent with SR, GR must also forbid infinite density, and therefore the Theory of Relativity forbids the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the alleged black hole and so forbids black holes.
4) According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to confirm the presence of an event horizon. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. And so black holes can never be confirmed (making them metaphysics, not physics).



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


5) Since all black hole ‘solutions’ relate to a universe that contains only ONE mass, the notion of black hole interactions is nonsense. By way of example; a ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole is alleged from a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains NO MATTER, but which is alleged by the astrophysical scientists to nevertheless contain one mass (causing the alleged gravitational field). Since the Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity, one cannot therefore arbitrarily insert into the spacetime of a ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole another ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole (independently from Ric = 0) so that the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! Furthermore, there are NO KNOWN SOLUTIONS to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. Upon what solution to Einstein’s field equations do the black holers rely for black holes in multitudes or for a single black hole interacting with other matter generally? The simple answer is, none! They have no such solution. Once again they merely invoke Newton’s theory and blend it into Einstein’s non-Newtonian theory in order to justify the notion of black hole interactions and multiple bodies. Their arguments are complete and utter nonsense.
6) The black hole was originally conjured from “Schwarzschild’s solution”. However, ‘Schwarzschild’s solution’ is NOT even Schwarzschild’s solution, and Schwarzschild’s actual solution FORBIDS black holes. These facts are easily confirmed by Schwarzschild’s original paper, here: www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf
7) Non-technical discussion of the foregoing, in more detail, is here:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/article-1-1.pdf



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I don't know but the idea of a multiverse an ensemble of universes has received increasing attention in cosmology, both as the outcome of the originating process that generated our own universe, and as an explanation for why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life. Here, we carefully consider how multiverses should be defined, stressing the distinction between the collection of all possible universes, and ensembles of really existing universes that are essential for an anthropic argument. We show that such realised multiverses are by no means unique. A proper measure on the space of all really existing universes or universe domains is needed, so that probabilities can be calculated, and major problems arise in terms of realised infinities. As an illustration we examine these issues in the case of the set of universes. Then we briefly summarise scenarios like chaotic inflation, which suggest how ensembles of universe domains may be generated, and point out that the regularities which must underlie any systematic description of truly disjoint multiverses must imply some kind of common generating mechanism. Finally, we discuss the issue of testability, which underlies the question of whether multiverse proposals are really scientific propositions.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join