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.

 

Parallel Worlds Exist And Will Soon Be Testable, Expert Says

page: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

ObservingTheWorld
So could these alternate universes have existed since the big bang? Could have the amount of energy from the big bang created the same physical creations only residing at a different quantum resonance and frequency than ours? Could there be multiple 'Earths' that have followed different evolutionary paths? Could Nibiru actually be an 'Alternate Earth'? And what about these large stone 'gateways', would it not make more sense that with the right frequency, resonance and energy, a doorway to another dimension would open rather than a 'wormhole' stretching across light years? And the extreme feats of UFO's. If they did not exist fully within our dimension they would not be constrained by our physics.

Multiple dimensions do make more sense when looking at the history of aliens and UFOs. It would take far less energy to make a simple dimensional shift as opposed to traveling at light speed. If alternate earths did exist, would their makeup be similar to ours (i.e. Nitrogen/Oxygen based atmosphere, Carbon based life, etc). This would explain how aliens can breathe and survive on our Earth. And if there were different evolutionary paths for different Earths, then could there be different alien species (i.e. Reptilian, Greys, etc)?

Anyways, just some thoughts.


Well just Maybe TPTB ( The powers That Be ) aka The Handful of Men that run the Stage of Earth

Now more then most Could Be Especially all this is Coming out in the open NOW! of what has been HERE ON!! ATS lately as in my Previous POST ! as Most of you Dont.. as I do Have a Strong Feeling about TPTB giving US Hints in the Past and Present About Future Events or what is or going to Happen in the Next Few Decades ... The Things you are Hearing Now as for Example Sciens is saying we ((( MAY ))) live in a Simulated Universe !! We Have Real Stargate ( Portals ) from Earth to Our Sun !! ?? WTF!! and a Natural Collider !! in Space like CERN!!! ?? When you think of those Lines!! and then you think about Literature in Books Magazines to even DAMM!!! Comics !! to Movies!! ( Portals Wormholes) Like Carl Sagan's CONTACT.. STAR GATE.. Event Horizon to Angels and Demons of Anti Matter .. Remake Star Trek ( Dark Matter ) (Simulated Universe) Matrix, 13th Floor, Tron, Tron Legacy, ETC... On and On... ( Parallel Worlds ) Movies Like Another Earth , The One (Jet Lee) Mirror Steven Kings Mist, Philadelphia Experiment and NOW Scientist are Saying Just May be truth it ?? doesn't ADD UP Does it !!!

As you have Said about Stone Gateways
yet there is Legends of Parallel Dimensions though Myths n Legends like
Valhalla to Tír na nÓg ("Land of the Young")



Celtic Otherworld
en.wikipedia.org...

and dont forget the Witching Hour ! when a Point in time these places are at it weakest Point ...




would it not make more sense that with the right frequency, resonance and energy, a doorway to another dimension would open rather than a 'wormhole' stretching across light years? And the extreme feats of UFO's. If they did not exist fully within our dimension they would not be constrained by our physics.


Exactly... When Scientist are starting think its Possible but then Again NASA is Revealing a Possible Warp Drive.. that May Work .. just need a Major Power Source .. for it to Work and that May be ANTI MATTER.. Controlled Of Course..


Antimatter and Fusion Drives Could Power Future Spaceships
by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer | September 11, 2012 12:32pm ET
www.space.com...

if this can Work ..

and found a way to Open a Wormhole of Our Own destination we would reach Civ type 1


if we have Parallel Worlds ... it either they are just like Us or just the Opposite of Us say a Reverse effect..


like your a woman if your Man you have a cat instead of a Dog or you Alter Ego is real there

just saying






posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

GargIndia
Science has discovered conservation of mass and energy. It is time to discover the same for soul also.

But, science discovered mass and energy.

Wouldn't it be prudent for them to first discover the existence of a "soul" prior to formulating some theory of conservation concerning same?

Harte



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


You define "science" in a very narrow sense. You define science as limited to what can be observed with your senses in your material body.

This is because of lack of spiritual development of people.

The "truths" or "reality" that exist at spiritual level are not discovered as those abilities are not developed.

There are people who have developed their spiritual abilities and can see beyond mortal senses.

Your definition of science is arbitrary and political.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Even if the author is pure woowoo hogwash, this thread is still brain candy. I'm not sold on the idea of other universes being observable yet, because I doubt we're even a fraction of the way there yet in our sciences (we can't even figure out how to get to Mars safely & without muscle/bone degradation yet) I think observing other universes is quite a ways off for us. That said, I think it's still possible we'll achieve it. Eventually.

Count me in the Dream Club in this thread, I've had dreams where I'd swear I was in a real place, not just dreaming it up. There are some places where I revisit frequently in my dreams, places I'm quite fond of or feel a strong bond to. Or at least the me in my dreams does. These places mean something to Dream Me, much more than "representations" or such of myself. They're tangible places, real places, that much I'm certain of in the dreams, that they're not figments of my sleeping mind. I could get much more wordy about this, but I'd end up sounding like a total nutter if I did.
I've entertained the idea that some dreams are "universe hoppers", meaning that some could be my own conjurings, while others, I might actually be somewhere real. Maybe in an alternate me, maybe "borrowing" someone for a brief visit. IDK, either is plausible when you think about it.

Ever been somewhere new that has a strong sense of familiarity to it despite never having been there before? Not quite deja vu, but that "I know this place" feeling. Well, maybe you have, in a "hopper" dream you can't consciously recall. I've also wondered if those moments of spacing out or even blacking out (presuming no medical issues) might be brief co-habitations with someone from another universe. Maybe that's evidence that neither are a good fit. Maybe those feelings we get of feeling "funny" or "off" for no apparent reason are indicative of a good "dream hop" match from elsewhere. And like someone mentioned, maybe deja vu is a key indicator, too. Maybe if we swap with our alternate selves within a certain timeframe, it leaves a sort of faint connection that lasts past one or the other waking and you're getting something akin to a time delayed memory imprint.

The universe is supposedly infinite. So to, logically, should be all possibilities.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by Harte
 


You define "science" in a very narrow sense. You define science as limited to what can be observed with your senses in your material body.

This is because of lack of spiritual development of people.

The "truths" or "reality" that exist at spiritual level are not discovered as those abilities are not developed.

There are people who have developed their spiritual abilities and can see beyond mortal senses.

Your definition of science is arbitrary and political.

No, actually it is the definition of science.

Science can only create scientific theories about measurable phenomena. IOW, data must be observed and recorded.

The fact that you believe that my definition of science is "arbitrary and political" indicates that you really don't know what science is at all.

It might possibly be true, what you claim about these "people," who can see these things. However, it is neither testable nor falsifiable so science is not equipped at all to address such a thing.

Harte



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Nyiah
The universe is supposedly infinite. So to, logically, should be all possibilities.

This "all possibilities" thing does not logically follow from the universe being infinite.

Harte



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Harte

Nyiah
The universe is supposedly infinite. So to, logically, should be all possibilities.

This "all possibilities" thing does not logically follow from the universe being infinite.

Harte

My bad, I was thinking "multiverse", and out came "universe" instead. I'm half-on track, though, as bungled as my comment came out, as the multiverse would be infinite also.
Any Trekkie knows the Vulcan IDIC acronym, "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations." Let's just say I think that might hold a lot more truth to it than as mere sci-fi speak.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Nyiah

Harte

Nyiah
The universe is supposedly infinite. So to, logically, should be all possibilities.

This "all possibilities" thing does not logically follow from the universe being infinite.

Harte

My bad, I was thinking "multiverse", and out came "universe" instead. I'm half-on track, though, as bungled as my comment came out, as the multiverse would be infinite also.
Any Trekkie knows the Vulcan IDIC acronym, "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations." Let's just say I think that might hold a lot more truth to it than as mere sci-fi speak.


Fine, as long as you don't hold that an infinite multiverse (or whatever) must necessarily contain a planet full of aliens that look like Yosemite Sam.

Harte
edit on 1/11/2014 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Alundra
 


A circle living in a 2 dimensional world thinks it is no more then a line, we, living in a three dimensional world think we are no more then the physical beings we see before us ... There lies our mistake.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
My apologies if anything i'm about to say has already been said, I read/skimmed the entire thread but might have missed something. Just wanted to chime in with what I understand about M-theory (multiverse theory.) I wanna try to make this as short as possible..

From what I understand, there are countless parallel universes existing alongside ours. The 'veil' that separates these worlds from our own as well as each other is paper-thin, but as of now unobservable. Almost like an invisible wall. In these universes, there are constants but many many more variables. In our world we take a left, in another world, we take a right. In another world we go backwards. In another world we stand completely still, etc. And based on those types of variables, the world can radically change. Not just for ourselves, but for the entire parallel universe itself. However, there ARE constants that exist across many MANY dimensions - not ALL of them, but countless amounts. As an example, i'll use Hitler. Using this theory you could assume that in a countless number of dimensions, Hitler survived and move forward with his Nazi dictatorship. Hitler died in our dimension, so his death is just a variable. The constant wouldn't be his death, but some other occurrence, like his birth or perhaps his decision to become a dictator and not an artist or something. So hypothetically in order to rid all dimensions of Hitler, you'd need to go back to that moment before all the different time lines skewed off and eliminate him all together. I made this really crude graphic to show what I mean..



How many variable and constants there are is impossible to even fathom. Especially when you consider how many times we narrowly avoid death on the day-to-day basis. How many times have you narrowly avoided a car accident because you were just a few seconds too late to the 'party.' On one dimension, you could have been in the accident. In one, you survive. In another, you sustain injuries, in another, you die. In how many dimensions are these things that 'could have happened' actually happening, and how many possible outcomes could there be? Too many to even begin to fathom. But, can we reach or even observe these realities? The argument that when we sleep our brain function soups up because there's no more distractions (i.e. thinking, senses, etc) is an intriguing one. Could slipping into R.E.M. sleep and/or kicking in our pineal gland make it so that we can see beyond the veil and into the possibilities that are out there, existing alongside our own? I think it could be possible, but I don't know for sure and I'm not even confident that I know enough to form an opinion, either.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by peaceblaster
 


You made a good effort to explain. The only issue is the "multiverse" theory is unproven and thus imagination.

The souls are bound to "cause and effect". Each action of a human has a resulting reaction (a reward or punishment). Due to this reason alone, multiple parallel universes are not possible.

Also such thinking brings no benefit at all and is a waste of time.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


There are at least 3 different areas of science that support a multiverse theory: string theory, dark matter, and internal inflation. We can't readily prove a multiverse theory because we could never reach beyond our own universe to know one way or another, but there's an alarming amount of math that suggests it could be true. I realize that the science-minded tend to deal in cold hard facts, but if we only focus on established fact then we never discover probabilities. Several decades ago black holes were just math that couldn't be proven, until the technology caught up and we could readily observe and prove their existence. In a few decades perhaps our technology will catch up and we'll be able to prove the existence or nonexistance of a multiverse, but until then neither you nor myself can say one way or another. All established science started out as imagination, developed into theory, developed into math, and was eventually proven to be true or false.
edit on 1-14-2014 by peaceblaster because: mispelling



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by peaceblaster
 


Unfortunately science is becoming a cult, as science is increasingly used for postulations without proof.

I am very worried at this development.

Science has given a great reward to humanity in improving the living standards, and removing many superstitions. We are thankful for that. It is important to have an objective mind. But the basic tenets of science have been ignored in certain areas and these are being posed as truth by showing some mathematical equations.

I am ready to engage with you or some other expert and show you the incorrect methods used in postulations. Bring it on and bring the expert.

ATS is the correct forum to prove many theories wrong, as official channels are deeply politicized.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by golden23
 


Righto or we could have higher selves that organize our lower selves, spirit guiding our souls. Really the truth of the mystery is too abstract to contemplate with language.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by peaceblaster
 


Unfortunately science is becoming a cult, as science is increasingly used for postulations without proof.

I am very worried at this development.

Science has given a great reward to humanity in improving the living standards, and removing many superstitions. We are thankful for that. It is important to have an objective mind. But the basic tenets of science have been ignored in certain areas and these are being posed as truth by showing some mathematical equations.

I am ready to engage with you or some other expert and show you the incorrect methods used in postulations. Bring it on and bring the expert.

ATS is the correct forum to prove many theories wrong, as official channels are deeply politicized.


Huh, it is interesting that you raise the term "postulate" in this thread.

First though, I dispute your cult-ist apportionment of science. To suggest that to undertake science with a postulate in mind makes objectivity difficult or impossible is naïve, or awkward in the least. I would attest that almost all scientists or researchers (whom I know) do hold beliefs and opinions, especially about their scientific areas of interest. They hold Normative views about the world we live in. As a result those subjective things deeply impact upon their undertakings - but they do not necessarily undermine their findings. Rather, the mere existence of a postulate (just as in Hegelian Theory) influences the testing of hypothesis and provides the direct impetus toward further science. A good paper on normative science can be found at oregonstate.edu... FISHERIES-ESSAY-REPRINT-2004.pdf.

On the issue of postulates, this is extremely intriguing. There are suggestions - none proven as yet - that the multi-verses in existence now and forever into the future are real effects of decisions and postulates that are made and will be made in our own universe, and in each and every other of the multiverses.

So, for example, if I postulate that my house is burning down and the flames are too hot to re-enter the house, and therefore my child will die, may make this a real and existential reality in one or more of all the multiverses (including my own). Alternatively there could be an extremely small probability that rather than fearing the flames, I do not. Thus in one of the infinite universe's I rescue my child.

Almost all theories of Multiverses, postulates can and do both effect a universe and can and do force the creation of multiverses. As for your claim "science is increasingly used for postulations without proof", well, I leave that alone. Needless to say, science without postulates would be like going into a bar, without any idea why you've gone there.

Plus, it is interesting that in Scientology (a religion that believes in postulates and which was founded by a student of nuclear physics) has high regard for postulates:




("Postulate" in Dianetics and Scientology has the meaning of "a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself; to conclude, decide or resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past"[

Source: L. Ron Hubbard, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, page 446.

In simple terms, Scientologists believe that if you postulate something, it becomes reality.

Finally, whilst I do not doubt that there are some scientists and researchers who do force their conclusions to match their postulates, I feel such people are unethical and in a small minority. I won't enter into a tit-for-tat debate with you, as this is neither the time or place for such a debate, and such an effort is a pure waste of my time. I simply suggest you cease to see things in black and white, and like much of modern science see others and science in a multi-hued tone.

Regards, Blister.

Additional sources used:

en.wikipedia.org...
arxiv.org...
st7peter.angelfire.com...
edit on 2-4-2014 by Blister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
"They hold Normative views about the world we live in. As a result those subjective things deeply impact upon their undertakings - but they do not necessarily undermine their findings."

I have seen that religious and political beliefs do interfere with 'scientific' work.

A great example is 'big bang theory'. There is no scientific proof of it. It is still widely accepted and taught in schools.

The fact is so little of space is explored by humans that any generalization of any observation by an earth based device is not possible (and actually unscientific).

I can give you many other examples.

A huge amount of money is wasted in working on lines of thoughts which ultimately prove to be useless, mostly on hunches of a few powerful scientists.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
There is no parallel world.

Looking for parallel worlds is a futile exercise.

However there is a limit to what our eyes (based on light) can see. There may be objects that light can simply not able to resolve. However this is not a situation of parallel world existing.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
If someone says parallel worlds or a parallel universe does not exist, prove it does not exist. The existence of dark matter suggests most of universe is missing. I believe parallel worlds or several parallel universes might explain where all the missing matter is. It could be slightly shifted dimensionally so that these parallel universes are not seen but the overall gravity of all the parallel galaxies still exists and still has an effect.

The last time I checked, I had a lot less than 2 million stars in the alternate reality I come from, lol. I do not know how that happened.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I have what I call teaching dreams. They are ones where I have asked for something to be explained and it is explained. They are not lucid in that I can change things but they are lucid in that I am fully conscious.

One of these was about a parallel world. I saw myself in it. I looked similar (much thinner dammit!) and had on clothes I would NEVER wear here. My hair was to my waist but blond (it's the same length here but red). The world I was in seemed different, it was the little things that were different.
edit on 5-4-2014 by ufochick because: typos



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ufochick
 


Anytime we imagine we create parallel realities. But it's important not to confuse, conflate, or make equivalent, things that happen in our head (imagination) and the actual objective, external world we experience.

This concept, fundamentally, can never be tested, because it is outside the system. Wittgenstein was one of the first philosophers to stress the limits of reason. And the biggest limit he came up with is that an organism (or thinker) within a system is fundamentally limited to the constraints that the system creates.

"Proving" multiverses requires actually demonstrating - in a scientific way i.e. through observation - that other universes exist. This simply cannot be done. Despite this, we have physicists playing around with math games which technically speaking aren't real science since they are unfalsifiable, and in addition, make assumption after assumption after assumption. The biggest assumption is assuming that the universe adheres to mathematical laws - as if the universe were a computer displaying numbers behind the veneer of space and time. This is wrong. Numbers are a human convention.

This is a big controversy within the math-physics world. What is mathematical modelling? And how much can we really know about the universe. Some thinker are more giddy and believe that humans can understand the fundamental basis - in all it's nitty gritty details - while others resign themselves to a more humble position of "we simply don't know". I believe the latter position is more accurate, given how liable we are - as emotional creatures - to being hoodwinked by our own hubris.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join