NASA's Fermi Telescope Finds Giant Structure in our Galaxy, page 7

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 110 times

reply posted on 12-11-2010 @ 01:30 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by TristanTrouble

No..he is correct....its theorized there are multiple universes that are sheets of membranes touching very close form one another and when they collide after trillions of years they touch with enough force to start a new bigbang creating another and seperate universe...

I have read about the postulate (not theory) you describe above, but you, too, are getting galaxies mixed up with universes.

reply posted on 12-11-2010 @ 02:41 AM by TristanTrouble

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by TristanTrouble

No..he is correct....its theorized there are multiple universes that are sheets of membranes touching very close form one another and when they collide after trillions of years they touch with enough force to start a new bigbang creating another and seperate universe...

I have read about the postulate (not theory) you describe above, but you, too, are getting galaxies mixed up with universes.

dude...a galaxy is miniscule to a universe.....we are talking about MULTIPLE universes....

reply posted on 12-11-2010 @ 03:05 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by TristanTrouble

A galaxy is not a universe. The two bear no resemblance to one another, physical or otherwise.

reply posted on 12-11-2010 @ 03:45 AM by Thill

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by TristanTrouble

A galaxy is not a universe. The two bear no resemblance to one another, physical or otherwise.

The poster above knows his wording well , they are talking about multiple universes not galaxies . As in multiple places where galaxies might exist

edit on 12/11/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-11-2010 @ 03:13 PM by TristanTrouble

Originally posted by Thill

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by TristanTrouble

A galaxy is not a universe. The two bear no resemblance to one another, physical or otherwise.

Earth and our sun resides in ONE galaxy (milky way) out of billions in our UNIVERSE....What dont you understand about MULTIPLE UNIVERSES???...how are you mixing the two up???? its basic knowledge....

The poster above knows his wording well , they are talking about multiple universes not galaxies . As in multiple places where galaxies might exist
edit on 12/11/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)

this^

We are In one UNIVERSE there could be an inifinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of possibilities with an infinite amount of different laws of physics...

edit on 12-11-2010 by TristanTrouble because: i dun goofed

reply posted on 12-11-2010 @ 10:43 PM by Astyanax

reply to post by TristanTrouble

We are In one UNIVERSE there could be an inifinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of possibilities with an infinite amount of different laws of physics...

And, quite possibly, with an infinite number of galaxies in them. But galaxies and universes are still different.

Now, shouldn't you be getting along with your homework?

reply posted on 12-11-2010 @ 11:46 PM by nite owl

The fermi telescope looks at gamma rays. The sun has been giving off gamma rays for billions of years. So, ever since you have been born, you have been effected by gamma rays. I'm sure NASA can exsplain it better than i can so, go to youtube and punch in,( the fermi gamma ray space telescope). www.youtube.com... they will exsplain all this in detail. please watch.

edit on 12-11-2010 by nite owl because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 13-11-2010 @ 06:01 AM by DangerDeath

Word Universe already consists of all "multiple" universes. Those who talk about "multiverse" simply don't know this simple fact and should have tried better when picking words for their "explanations".

The way humans perceive "reality" is totally inadequate to explain whatever is going on in the Universe. Most of the time we deal with our own interpretations, and those interpretations are hardly what is really "outside" of our perception (which is simply our - interpretation - a loop). We have been conditioned to believe that "what we don't see - doesn't exist", or in Niels Bohr words: "If it's not measured, it doesn't exist." That is really foolish, but people keep creating theories ignoring the fact that what we don't know, our ignorance, is not a "fact" which we can use as a foundation.

Because of this, we are led to believe that we are actually "conquering" or "discovering" the Universe, while in fact we are "constructing" it with our own interpretation; we apply our logic, our structures, our systems, etc. and at the same time we destroy what doesn't fit.

reply posted on 13-11-2010 @ 06:18 AM by DangerDeath

The probable reason they used word "structures" is the fact that radiation emitted is somehow directed, it doesn't spread in all directions. Gravity spreads in all directions (or does it spread at all?) and cannot be directed. And if radiation is directed, and is not affected by gravity, there has to be some kind of a at leas a "wild" system which creates this structure or, possibly a network, of directed energy.

We tend to believe that whatever cannot be structurally explained is chaos, but at the center of Galaxy we only see big numbers, and we are unable to deal with them by definition. There are millions of stars thickly packed around the Sagittarius A (Galactic black hole) and they appear to be both created and destroyed by the effects of this monstrous "singularity".

There is a good analogy with our own "subconscious" which definitely affects us and makes decisions for us which we cannot belay. The fact that we don't understand this metaphysical mechanics doesn't mean it doesn't exist and produces no effects. This is a very tricky territory for scientists, because this analogy also implies that singularity is actually God, and word "God" is historically heavily polluted by all kinds of ideological nonsense.

The question, of course, is: if it is a "structure" then what or who is creating it? Is there an "intent" contained within a black hole or what? They don't have an adequate "law" formulated yet. And I think they will not have it in near future.

reply posted on 14-11-2010 @ 10:00 AM by TWILITE22

Originally posted by MinorityReporter
This gamma wave was brought to my attention a few months ago in a thread here called "2012 equation solved"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
This is the link containing the thesis www.box.net...

There is quite a bit of speculation in this presentation and my BS senses tingled more than once. Regardless I read it all the way through. This new post reminded me of his dire predictions of the challenges beholden us in these next few years.

He claims that the Chandra X-ray sat found this in 1999!
edit on 11-11-2010 by MinorityReporter because: Add links

I think you might be on to something here.I read though the links you provided and really believe there is a connection,good catch!The more I read the pane astralwalker paper the more I think this could also be what is referred to as "Project Blue Beam"I don't have any proof, but to me it sounds more logical than hologram projections,I don't know what do you think?..........thanks

reply posted on 14-11-2010 @ 01:41 PM by xharlie