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.

 

Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes

page: 8
64
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by predator0187

If they found another independent universe then that is what it should be called.

Uni means one so it would be part of the multiverse, but people associate that with science fiction.

If they were talking about the place where all the multiverses exist then that would be the universe, but whose to say that's the only universe?



Wouldn't the place where all the mutiverses exist be a "superverse"?



I also think if somewhere has different laws of physics it would be a different universe than our own.



Me too. I'm thinkng that in a place that alien, where NOTHING is as it is here even down to the lowest level, the atomic forces, that would be a good place to draw the line and say it's an entirely different universe.
edit on 2010/12/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy



These guys start with a different model of the universe called eternal inflation. In this way of thinking, the universe we see is merely a bubble in a much larger cosmos. This cosmos is filled with other bubbles, all of which are other universes where the laws of physics may be dramatically different to ours.


The above quote is littered with what appears to be confusion by the author and or astronomers. I understand their context and all.. however... there is no such thing as "other universes". That is like saying "other everythings" by definition.


Your just going to have to live with being wrong or thinking everyone else is wrong.... lol

All universes can make up a superuniverse, even a superuniverse can be imagined as an bubble. Just say there is other universes, if this one is destroyed at least their is another universe. Right!




Wouldn't the place where all the mutiverses exist be a "superverse"?


Just saw your post.... your on the same wave length.

edit on 15-12-2010 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
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.
edit on 15-12-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Gift,

Forgive us, but we are seeing what you are showing us.

What we are trying to show you is that our historical perception of Universe, and thus it's official definition, was created by our egocentric nature in believing there was one thing that everything was a part of. We knew of it as Our Universe, The Universe. A Limited Universe with a knowable age, etc.

We understand well what you are saying.

But now we may be finding that all of the Universe we knew and didn't know of, is a very limited sphere surrounded by many others. Which makes Our UNiverse not The Universe anymore, but one of many in a Multiverse.

Hence our perception of what denotes Universe, and the official Definition of it, needs to be changed to reflect the changes in our knowledge and perception.

I hope that came out right mate



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I don't think this comes as a massive shock; the idea that there are multiple "universes" is not completley unheard of but to find proof it is would be great. A discovery like this however challenges our notions as to what a true "universe" is; since the definition is simply "everything" that exists. If there are multiple universes, who is to say that the "whole" of things that are is not infinite? I don't think that's a question we'll have answered anytime soon (if ever), but given the preponderance of evidence so far, I think it's going to be exceedingly difficult to find an "end", or a wall that represents that end. Good find.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


I do understand! I just think that in relation to this model and if it were ever proven true, the definition of universe needs to be altered to reflect this truth, or a new term needs to be defined to mean what most people refer to as the universe. Just because the root word definition means one thing, doesn't mean the word hasn't over time come to denote many meanings. Our randomly invented language is not the end all be all. There is no final word. A word is defined in whatever way we understand it, a definition no matter how many times you write it is still relative to ones understanding. Either our understanding of universe must change, or the definition must be added to or modified and a new word must be added to replace what we used to perceive as THE universe. Otherwise, people will just continue to misuse the word from its proper definition.

In this sense, the people who are proposing this eternal chaotic inflation theory, are redefining the word relative to their work.
edit on 12/15/2010 by SpaceJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
It is all just semantics, as I said pages back. Who cares what it is called, it is what it is regardless. Unless you can reach every persons mind and alter the way they perceive the word Universe, we would be here forever.

S: (n) semantics (the study of language meaning) S: (n) semantics (the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text) "a petty argument about semantics"


The study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development.*


within linguistics refers to the study of how language conveys meaning. [7] For example, English speakers typically realise that Chomsky's famous sentence Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is well-formed in terms of word order, but incomprehensible in terms of meaning. ...


semantic - Of or relating to semantics or the meanings of words; Reflecting intended structure and meaning; Petty or trivial; (of a person or statement) quibbling, niggling

And I'd agree, we are definitely quibbling and niggling here.
wordnetweb Princeton



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Nothing new here...
Heres a quote from the Billy Meier hronicles:



Asket told Meier that her origin was in what she called the DAL Universe, incredibly a counterpart Universe to this of our reality. She said that our universe existed because of hers and hers because of ours. We were related in some way because the two separate Universes had a common origin, and that each existed because of the other and if one ceased to exist, the other would likewise cease to be. There were other universes involved also which further complicated the situation. An oversimplification would be to consider one an anti-matter counterpart of the other.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
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.


Originally posted by Tayesin

Gift,
Forgive us, but we are seeing what you are showing us.


No, you are not. Which is proven by your following quotes.


Originally posted by Tayesin
What we are trying to show you is that our historical perception of Universe, and thus it's official definition, was created by our egocentric nature in believing there was one thing that everything was a part of. We knew of it as Our Universe, The Universe. A Limited Universe with a knowable age, etc.


Your supposed belief about the origins of the word "universe" is not correct. "Universe" has always refereed to EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING by definition is ONE THING OF MANY PARTS. It has nothing to do with someone being egocentric. It is a philosophical name for ALL THAT IS. There is nothing "limited" about it like you claim. The word "universe" is infinite by definition because it includes EVERYTHING.

Don't you understand that??


Originally posted by Tayesin
We understand well what you are saying.


It appears that you don't fully understand.


Originally posted by Tayesin
But now we may be finding that all of the Universe we knew and didn't know of, is a very limited sphere surrounded by many others. Which makes Our UNiverse not The Universe anymore, but one of many in a Multiverse.


What you say is not correct by any means. There is nothing limited about the word "universe". Again it means EVERYTHING. Honestly, what part of EVERYTHING do you not understand?

Let me explain more clearly again....

Imagine a house with many rooms. We are in one room. In the past, humans were only able to see what is inside this one room, and they thought everything that existed was in this one room. The definition of the word "universe" was created to describe ALL OF EVERYTHING. Humans thought the room they were in was all of everything, so by definition it was called the universe. Now, we may have discovered more rooms, but that doesn't mean we discovered more universes. THE HOUSE IS THE UNIVERSE. The rooms are NOT the universe.




Originally posted by Tayesin
Hence our perception of what denotes Universe, and the official Definition of it, needs to be changed to reflect the changes in our knowledge and perception.


I am trying to tell you from the start that the definition of the world universe does not need to be changed. By definition, the "bubbles" they may have discovered are still a part of the "universe".

They may have discovered more rooms inside of the house. They will never discover more houses, only more rooms. There is only ONE house. Everything humans find from here on out will be a part of the ONE house. If they think they found other houses, they are wrong. Those are just other rooms inside the one house.


edit on 15-12-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
The more you learn about the universe, the less it seems you know.

This is cool stuff and all, but shouldn't we be using our intellectual resources in ways that solve the huge problems we need to deal with here on this stupid rock?

Let's get our affairs in order, then contemplate what is going on out there. Seriously, what difference does it make if there are 7.3 universes, or an infinite number? That doesn't change anything here.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Of course there is.

Who doubted otherwise?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
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.
edit on 15-12-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


We can argue all day about words and definitions. At the end of the day, they're just words. You're putting the universe in a box and keeping the lid closed. Keep an open mind and speculate, or don't. You're wasting your time arguing about the definition of the word universe. We have so much more to learn about this mysterious existence. There's no sense in keeping your mind closed to potential new leads and discoveries and getting frustrated because things might get more complicated.
edit on 15-12-2010 by ShnogTrip because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ShnogTrip
 


I agree and concur a universe is a universe a multiverse is a multiverse,they are totally different anyone who can`t see that is colour blind.A Atom is a Atom A nuclues is a Nuclues,Anyone who can`t see that is denying theres a rainbow,which has colours



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Why stop at superverse? We could have super, mega, supermega, well we could go on forever.


What do we call each individual bubble of the universe? Just a verse?


Pred...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ShnogTrip
 


No, you are wrong too. What is wrong with you people? I am not just arguing about definitions. I am also arguing about the nature of the universe a.k.a. existence.

I am not putting the universe in a box. The definition of the word "universe" means everything, which is it's own box filled with everything. Every "bubble" these so called astronomers find is still inside of the universe box of everything.

I am arguing that they did NOT find "other universes". They just found more parts of the one universe.

The fact that many of you can't grasp this simple concept really astounds me. I can easily go around and say all of you are stuck in a box too, and to "open your mind" to what I am saying.



edit on 15-12-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: excuse my frustrations talking with people that don't understand me



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Also, a previous poster was talking about all scales being the same, as in the atom, the solar system, the galaxy etc. this is the wrong way to look at it.

Although we have all seen the model of the atom in textbooks, you know, the one that looks like the sun and planets orbiting around it. That is not what an actual atom looks like. There are not electrons orbiting around as if they were planets, there are electron clouds. And these clouds vary in size according to probability.

An actual atom behaves nothing like a solar system, nor like a galaxy.

And the way our solar system works is completely different than the galaxy. If we just use gravity to explain the galaxy, the outer edge star would be flying off as the gravity is so weak at that distance. In essence with our model of gravity We are completely left in the dark regarding these mysteries. So, physicists made us something called dark matter, and that is what we use to explain why the galaxies stay together.

We really have no idea why gravity works the way it does, it's almost strange how something so prevalent in our lives can be so mysterious and unexplainable at this point.


Pred...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


I get you. But what our definition of what the universe was encompassed our universe. While they are technically finding parts of our universe, they are calling it another universe.

In wiki, the universe might have had a slight variation in the laws that govern it. What we are talking about is other universe having completely different laws that govern them. As in our universe is part of a multiverse, and the real universe is what governs over all the mulitverses.

It is sort of like countries, continents and Earth. We should not worry about our countries and just call ourselves earthlings.

So we are kind of having a semantical argument rather than having an intellectual one here.


Pred...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
"Atoms" are not atomically indivisible, "universes" are not universally unique. Both macro and micro, there's always further to go and definitions will have to change as we make progress.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


I hope you were not talking to me, because I never claimed all scales were the same. I claimed they are all parts of the universe.

reply to post by predator0187
 



Originally posted by predator0187
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


I get you. But what our definition of what the universe was encompassed our universe. While they are technically finding parts of our universe, they are calling it another universe.


I am saying that calling it "another universe" is wrong, because it is wrong. They are not "other universes", they are extensions of the known Universe. What they found was more of the universe, not more universes.


Originally posted by predator0187
In wiki, the universe might have had a slight variation in the laws that govern it. What we are talking about is other universe having completely different laws that govern them. As in our universe is part of a multiverse, and the real universe is what governs over all the mulitverses.


It doesn't matter what laws exist or don't exist. The "universe" includes ALL LAWS and ALL PHENOMENA and ALL THINGS.

Our universe is not a part of anything. Universe means EVERYTHING. It is the WHOLE that includes all PARTS.


Originally posted by predator0187
So we are kind of having a semantical argument rather than having an intellectual one here.


Pred...


No. I am trying to have a intellectual one, but because many of you don't understand the basis of my argument, I have been stuck trying to explain the semantics.

Whatever "bubbles" they find is still a part of the one universe. The DID NOT find "more universes", period.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join