It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:43 AM
Natures own giant hadron collider only on a much bigger scale.

I suspect when science does catch up, scientists will realise to produce life, you would need to create your own big bang.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:04 AM
reply to post by RUSSO

We are kidding ourselves if we thought this was a surprise, I and probably many others could have guessed this. I know they find data to support it but you would have to be pretty closed minded to ignore that this could be true. We are not significant on any level, we are just part of the magical natural instances this wholeness creates. I think they also knew this a long time ago but probably refrained from saying due to the religious pathetic mess our world is in. It's just getting ridiculous that amount we are denied in this world due to religion, it's meant to provide prosperity and forgiveness but non of this applies to any of it. Considering our governments are controlled by religions, I don't think it takes a scientist to say something is up. I don't blame other life not coming here to make itself known because the first thing that would happen, is we would cry out ''help'' for anything and everything due to our messed up governments, I don't think any civilization wants that kind of pressure in there utopias.

Let's just hope any real scientists out there make sure they spill the info they have, despite what the government bullies them into.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:08 AM
reply to post by Clisen33

It's because the bible is a load of bullsh*t and that information isnt written in because they knew nothing back then. It you've noticed the bible is updated every time something questions it. ''What! You didn't know that there was other universes and worlds beyond ours Mr Jesus?''..... ''oh I did know, but didnt think to mention, im too clever and your too idiotic, just believe that I knew about this'' (goes rewrites the stupid book to make it fit in, yet again )

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:09 AM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by RUSSO

Apart from parallel or different dimensions, I thought the universe was everything..
If there's more doesn't that just mean THE universe is bigger than they thought, not another one?????

Definitions of universe on the Web:

* everything that exists anywhere;
edit on 14-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

Good Point.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by sdrawkcabII

I understand what you mean, and agree that by the main definition of universe, that the word is being used somewhat incorrectly.

But there are two hang ups here, one is that if these theories are right, it means that what we used to think of as the "edge" so to speak, of the universe, is no longer the edge. If you go by that thought, than we would need a new localized word to replace what we USED to refer to as the universe. As I was saying yesterday, when speaking on a scale of local to not, we used to say planet, solar system, galaxy, universe. But if this theory is right, then we would need to add a term between "galaxy" and "universe". Going by that logic, the word universe can remain as it is without being butchered, but we would still need a new word, whether it be bubble or world or whatever, to replace our previous concept of our localized "universe".

Then the other hang up, is that obviously these scientists and astronomers are using a model of a theory where their definition of the word universe is a slightly altered definition. You cannot say that they can't do this, because it is just language, and any word can be altered or have another meaning added relative to something.

Definition as connected space-time

In the eternal chaotic inflation theory, they literally say there is more than one universe, because they begin to define universe not by the main definition.

The fact that the other universe is completely cut off from our own, no possible way of contact or communication, and they may function based of completely different laws of physics from our own. In that sense, they call it a separate universe. Our universe then would still be called The universe, and everything else other universes, within the multiverse. ACCORDING to that theory.

It would then be planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, multiverse. It is just semantics, even though it is important, it's still semantics because we are arguing over a group of people who have decided to apply a possible alternate meaning of the word universe. Who is anyone to say that someone cannot do that? Language can change meaning over time, or gain meaning.

I agree it seems ridiculous to see someone saying "other universes", I agree it just doesn't make sense, but it all depends on how you define it. As you can see here in the thread, many people cannot fathom referring to the universe as an extended thing, they want to keep calling our local bubble "the universe". Their thought would be somewhat in line with the thought of the eternal chaotic inflation scientists.

I just personally think universe needs to remain last on the line and we need a new word in between. But if you define universe as everything we see and don't see within our laws of physics, then it comes to mean something else entirely, and would need the added term multiverse.

The bubble universe model proposes that different regions of this inflationary universe (termed a multiverse) decayed to a true vacuum state at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to “sub”- universes not in causal contact with each other and resulting in different physical laws in different regions which are then subject to “selection” which determine each region’s components based upon (dependent on) the survivability of the quantum components within that region. The end result will be a finite number of universes with physical laws consistent within each region of spacetime.

Within the framework of established knowledge of physics and cosmology, our universe could be one of many in a super-universe or multiverse. Linde (1990, 1994) has proposed that a background space-time "foam" empty of matter and radiation will experience local quantum fluctuations in curvature, forming many bubbles of false vacuum that individually inflate into mini-universes with random characteristics. Each universe within the multiverse can have a different set of constants and physical laws. Some might have life of a form different from ours; others might have no life at all or something even more complex or so different that we cannot even imagine it. Obviously we are in one of those universes with life.

Semantics, because we are arguing with an alternate way that scientists are choosing to define universe.
edit on 12/16/2010 by SpaceJ because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:41 AM
i don't remember the guys name, but he had a theory that our universe came into "existence" when two universe's collided with one another, like two sheets touching each other in the wind. Which I'm inclined to buy into more then "well, it just sorta happened" big bang theory. Could this possibly be evidence to that theory?

Lets face it and be honest, WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. As much as we like to think we do. When it comes to the cosmos, sure, we may know some things, but on the overall scale, we don't know s*it. Why is that such a bad thing to admit? OMG, we don't know everything right off the bat. That's why it's called LEARNING.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:06 AM
I have to agree that this only adds to our 'one' infinite Universe....and I think that the basic laws within one bubble would also be in the other bubbles.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Mate, I feel your frustration. Some people just don't get it I guess.
- as simple as it is.

Just because people like Michio Kaku and his science buddies are finally beginning to realise how big the Universe actually is, it doesn't mean they can change the definition of the word Universe. It just means they need a new word to describe what they used to consider a universe - a very small, one of many, collection of Galaxy clusters I suppose. Make a new word for that and everybody's happy. Universe is infinite - it's as simple as that.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by HexagonSun

I totally agree with that too. I was just trying to point out what the scientists basis of reasoning is to using the term universe as they please. I mean they must have reasons for why they chose to say universes and multiverse, and it's rooted in their theory, and based on an alternate definition of universe, just like there can be multiple definitions of anything else. I agree though, it is just wrong to say that there is more than one everything, makes no sense.

I'd like them to come up with one decided upon word for as you say, what we used to consider the universe. Gift said the word world would work, but yes any word would work, I just wish we could pick a word here and then use it from that point on, so all this universe definition confusion ends and the conversation can be about the actual science, not words.

The problem is going to be in people accepting that the universe is MUCH more than we thought previously, and the old idea of the universe will have to be called something else for it to make sense to people, especially people who don't know that much about science in the first place.
edit on 12/16/2010 by SpaceJ because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:04 AM
There's something about this theory of Multiverses that has never sat right with me.

I'm happy to believe there are other Universes, but the idea that these parallel Universes all have different laws of physics to ours just seems, almost conceited. Like the pre-Copernican geocentric view of the Solar system, it seems borne out of a need to fit everything together neatly without having all the pieces of the puzzle, AND having ourselves at the centre of attention.

We know our laws of physics work because we experience and measure them. We know they allow life because we and other species on Earth are it. To imagine that infinite Universes exist outside ours where our laws of physics are perverted, for seemingly no reason other than to differentiate them from our own as the "real" and "working" Universe, it seems like a theory that is just sitting there waiting to be smashed to pieces by a modern day Gallileo.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by SpaceJ

It doesn't matter if they have the same laws or not. They are all part of ONE WHOLE. All part of EVERYTHING. It's the UNIVERSE. THE ALL. Everything we will ever see or witness, and not see or witness, are a part of THE ALL, THE UNIVERSE. There is no such thing as "other universes", those "others" are a part of the whole. The whole is the universe, and the parts are not universes.

Nothing is greater than "the universe". There is nothing outside of "the universe". The "universe" includes everything inside and everything outside, EVERYTHING, ALL, THE WHOLE.

You can't name the parts of the whole "universes", the whole is the only universe.

It is ridiculous that you and others don't understand this.

I understand that is YOUR definition of "universe", and that you would like for the rest of us to subscribe to it. Many of us aren't going to, however, because if the inherent limitations it imposes, and because of the potential realities it fails to account for.

The prefix "uni-" means "one". You take it to mean "all is One", I take it to mean "one of many". A simple difference of opinion, in which I find your to be too limited.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:14 PM

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Tayesin

I am trying to tell you that you are WRONG. YOU can not teach ME because you are wrong. As harsh as that sounds it has to be said, it's the only way to get my point across. I am trying to teach you a concept that obviously is beyond what you are able to visualize.

Condescention is unbecoming of One so enlightened. we get it. In your little corner of the universe, we MUST be "wrong", and you MUST be "right". You are correct in your assessment that we "can not teach YOU", because with your limited grasp, you are incapable of learning beyond it.

Also, your comparison of a "universe" to a house fails, because it presupposes that no other houses exist. I can look out my window, in one room of my house, and see at least two others.

I can't however , actually get TO those other houses without first exiting my own.

If I never bother to look out the window, or if I paint the entire window black so that I can't see, I will of course remain blissfully unaware that there are any others out there.

Which seems to be where you are.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:18 PM

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by SpaceJ

I said it was semantics a long time ago, but it is important semantics.

I don't see why they are jumping to conclusions and claiming they found "other universes" as if they were not connected or a part of one object. What they found is other rooms inside of the house, and the house itself is the universe.

Ah, see, there's the thing - your assumption of a "conncetion". The alleged "bubbles" are NOT "connected". That is why they are "bubbles".

Are all the rooms in your house disconnected each from the other as well?

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:04 PM
Can`t wait until scientists discover how to focus along a parallel dimensional string and see the andromeda galaxy in real time instead of in past tense through conventional telescope.So much that could be discovered,and another civilization out there might already have.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by toxsick
i don't remember the guys name, but he had a theory that our universe came into "existence" when two universe's collided with one another, like two sheets touching each other in the wind. Which I'm inclined to buy into more then "well, it just sorta happened" big bang theory. Could this possibly be evidence to that theory?

That was me... kind of a theory based on observation. Story in my first post.

Line 2

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:54 PM

Originally posted by old_god
Natures own giant hadron collider only on a much bigger scale.

I suspect when science does catch up, scientists will realize to produce life, you would need to create your own big bang.

very interesting comment... does this then hint at Intelligent Design ?

in some strange and ironic way I still believe science and man for that matter has a long way to go before they think they can become a Creator themselves...

so strange science and evolutionist always seem to be denouncing I.D. just by the very nature of their pursuit in the scientific field.

this is Hypocrisy in other words, and old school folks would call it Blasphemous

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by DenyStupidity

The problem is he continues to be a scientist after that. You know, or you play their game or not play any game at all.

edit on 29-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:40 PM
So the universe is the gigantic pool containing the bubbles, and our universe is actually a subverse (1 of the bubbles)??

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in