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.

 

Once you've read this...you can't unread it!!! [An odd thread]

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   


"Another theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin, has developed a tantalizingly Darwinian variant on the multiverse theory, Including both serial and parallel elements. Smolin's idea, expounded in The Life of the Cosmos, hinges on the theory that daughter universes are born of parent universes, not in a fully fledged big crunch but more locally in black holes. Smolin adds a form of heredity: the fundamental constants of a daughter universe are slightly 'mutated' versions of the constants of its parent. Heredity is the essential ingredient of Darwinian natural selection, and the rest of Smolin's theory follows naturally. Those universes that have what it takes to 'survive' and 'reproduce' come to predominate in the multiverse. 'What it takes' includes lasting long enough to 'reproduce'. Because the act of reproduction takes place in black holes, successful universes must have what it takes to make black holes. This ability entails various other properties. For example, the tendency for matter to condense into clouds and then stars is a prerequisite to making black holes. Stars also, as we have seen, are the precursors to the development of interesting chemistry, and hence life. So, Smolin suggests, there has been a Darwinian natural selection of universes in the multiverse, directly favoring the evolution of black hole fecundity and indirectly favoring the production of life. Not all physicists are enthusiastic about Smolin's idea, although the Nobel Prize-Winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann is quoted as saying: 'Smolin? Is he that young guy with those crazy ideas? He may not be wrong.' A mischievous biologist might wonder whether some other physicists are in need of Darwinian Consciousness-raising."


-The GOD Delusion by Richard Dawkins

______________________________________________________________


I find that theory absolutely intriguing. It raises lots of questions.

First, lets understand that this is all theory and what I get from that excerpt is basically that universes reproduce. Would this be via sex? Perhaps.

I have heard, it slips my mind exactly where I heard it, that sex (or maybe more specifically the pleasure from it) was a gift to us from higher dimensions.
It makes sense to me that universes would reproduce via something-similar-to-sex...if we imagine them as being higher dimensional.
I wonder if there is pleasure involved when they reproduce?
Would universes just do it for pleasure with each other?
Do they have gender?

Now, here's the disturbing part of this thread.
When I think of this theory of universes "getting it on", I wonder exactly what am I looking at when I am looking at some pictures from the Hubble Telescope...







...could it be that I am looking into the 'naughty bits' of the universe?



(BTW, I am not trying to be disgusting or 'funny'. I hope this thread isn't deleted for suggestive content and dealt with on a mature level.)

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Before2017Victor]




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
mmm... you should grab a book called hyperspace.. very good reading, im in the middle of it now




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Before2017Victor
 




I have heard, it slips my mind exactly where I heard it, that sex (or maybe more specifically the pleasure from it) was a gift to us from higher dimensions.






Why did you have to throw that in there..?

It was going so well...



I wonder exactly what am I looking at when I am looking at some pictures from the Hubble Telescope...



You're looking at exactly what you want to see...



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by happygolucky
reply to post by Before2017Victor
 




I have heard, it slips my mind exactly where I heard it, that sex (or maybe more specifically the pleasure from it) was a gift to us from higher dimensions.






Why did you have to throw that in there..?

It was going so well...



I wonder exactly what am I looking at when I am looking at some pictures from the Hubble Telescope...



You're looking at exactly what you want to see...




LOL ...it was going so well he says.
Sorry, I ruined it for you.


I was thinking perhaps I am seeing what I want to see, and in that case the universe is kind of disturbing.

The universe should've heard of a little something called clothes.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
But, sex itself has positive and negative elements, for each high derived from sex, there is an equal low. So these 'gods' have given out happiness and misery in equal proportions.

The positives from sex are there to ensure it happens and the continuation of the species, like nectar and bees.

If you can't see it, feel it, smell it taste it or hear it, then it ain't there.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join