What's new

Our Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Discovery Suggests

If you consider String Theory, then there are 26 dimensions, and there are so small that it is implied that they are imperfections in the space-time continuum.
26 ? LOL there are 11 dimensions not 26 ! U are mis interpreting the word small here .. it just means u have to go to miscroscopic levels to fully realize the extra dimensions !
 
Multiverse is a bogus "belief" of those who could NOT prove spontaneous origin of universe & laws of physics & life all the way to humans. Just like they kept increasing life of universe\earth bcoz previous length of time didn't seen long enough for undirected-random processes to bring about all out there. Now they are increasing number of universes because all evidence goes against spontaneous origin of universe & of life all the way to humans. Like step-wise & sudden appearance of species goes against Darwinian-style "gradualism". That's why Richard Dawkins was pissed off at the idea of "punctuated equilibrium". "Punctuated equilibrium" is simply impossible with slow-undirected Darwinian-style mutation-selection crap.

Keep trying b!tches. Keep increasing the numbers & length of time only to get proved wrong at the end.

.
.
.

Here's my "hypothesis" similar to hypothesis of multiverse >>> The only universes that exist are layers of our universe. Layers that are like concentric spheres=layers=skies. Concentric spheres one outside the other.(.).

Inner most layer out of concentric sphere is what we know as our universe. Outside the ball of our universe, we have 6 more spheres. Inner-most sphere is the ONLY sphere that has planets\stars etc. Outer 6 spheres are probably empty spaces with a solid boundary separating it from next sphere.


105824d1187976735-earth.jpg


.
.
.

.a Sky = a Layer.​
.

105825d1187976735-skies.jpg


.
.
.

105826d1187976735-skies..jpg

.
.
.
that makes som sense....

but what if there is a possibility of the presence of oxygen and water on other worlds? you never know now do you?:tongue:
 
that makes som sense....

but what if there is a possibility of the presence of oxygen and water on other worlds? you never know now do you?:tongue:

its about different dimensions LOL .. not some faraway place which we dont know of :D
 
@ Skull and Bones

not sure if u have come across this before...but very interesting video.


According to this, events that took in the past are not fully gone and events that will take in the future are already decided.(have happended somewhere in a different place) watched about 3 times...haven't fully grasp the concept. I wish i was smart enough to become philosopher and physicist. :(
 
@ Skull and Bones

not sure if u have come across this before...but very interesting video.


According to this, events that took in the past are not fully gone and events that will take in the future are already decided.(have happended somewhere in a different place) watched about 3 times...haven't fully grasp the concept. I wish i was smart enough to become philosopher and physicist. :(

I'm into nano and quantum electronics, and to be honest, sometimes i feels like 'i don't know the **** i'm studying?'. And if you consider 'time' as 4th dimension, then it is logical to split the time into different slice of frame of reference like we do with coordinate on the X-Y-Z plane. And past and future frames should be accessible.
 
The Big Bang theory is plain speculation!

One main reason why most cosmologists accept the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is that it fits so well into the theory of total evolution.

The most compelling reason for commitment to the Big Bang theory is that this is essentially the only cosmology which funding agencies are willing to support financially.

There are, in fact, a goodly number of competent physicists and astronomers who reject the Big Bang theory in favor of some form of the Steady-State theory or the Plasma theory of origins. These theories can explain all the so-called "proofs" of the Big Bang without incurring its many problems. But—they complain—cosmic research requires much money, and they can't get any.

It's a conspiracy of sorts. But the question is: Why aren't the alternative theorists too being funded by the governments/Agencies?

This universe consisting of trillions of galaxies each having billions of star systems with small to massive planets orbiting most of them were a point in space - a singularity according to the Big Bang THEORISTS!! Really?

If that's not dumb, what is?
 
I'm into nano and quantum electronics, and to be honest, sometimes i feels like 'i don't know the **** i'm studying?'. And if you consider 'time' as 4th dimension, then it is logical to split the time into different slice of frame of reference like we do with coordinate on the X-Y-Z plane. And past and future frames should be accessible.

i know its fucking weird stuff...but i try to learn as much as i can but understanding is whole different story. About your last sentence, that's actually true until it leads to another issue..."grandfather paradox" where you kill your grandpa and your were never born.
Some say maybe past just cannot be changed or maybe it happens in different dimension.

The Big Bang theory is plain speculation!

One main reason why most cosmologists accept the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is that it fits so well into the theory of total evolution.

The most compelling reason for commitment to the Big Bang theory is that this is essentially the only cosmology which funding agencies are willing to support financially.

There are, in fact, a goodly number of competent physicists and astronomers who reject the Big Bang theory in favor of some form of the Steady-State theory or the Plasma theory of origins. These theories can explain all the so-called "proofs" of the Big Bang without incurring its many problems. But—they complain—cosmic research requires much money, and they can't get any.

It's a conspiracy of sorts. But the question is: Why aren't the alternative theorists too being funded by the governments/Agencies?

This universe consisting of trillions of galaxies each having billions of star systems with small to massive planets orbiting most of them were a point in space - a singularity according to the Big Bang THEORISTS!! Really?

If that's not dumb, what is?

the theory makes sense when you consider universe has been expanding (also accelerating) when observed by telescope. So it makes sense to say that at one point, it started from a small point.
 
The Big Bang theory is plain speculation!

One main reason why most cosmologists accept the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is that it fits so well into the theory of total evolution.

The most compelling reason for commitment to the Big Bang theory is that this is essentially the only cosmology which funding agencies are willing to support financially.

There are, in fact, a goodly number of competent physicists and astronomers who reject the Big Bang theory in favor of some form of the Steady-State theory or the Plasma theory of origins. These theories can explain all the so-called "proofs" of the Big Bang without incurring its many problems. But—they complain—cosmic research requires much money, and they can't get any.

It's a conspiracy of sorts. But the question is: Why aren't the alternative theorists too being funded by the governments/Agencies?

This universe consisting of trillions of galaxies each having billions of star systems with small to massive planets orbiting most of them were a point in space - a singularity according to the Big Bang THEORISTS!! Really?

If that's not dumb, what is?

I am a proponent of Steady State Universe, with periodic expansion and contraction. But the evidence there is isn't substantial enough to fund it by the government. To get government funding, the scientist has to present a credible research proposal to the government, so far, they failed to make a strong case for it. Where the Big Bang theorists have succeeded so far.

So is the case with string theory, there hasn't been strong government interest in it. But the theoretical physicists like Michio Kaku has kept the interest alive through their untiring effort.

i know its fucking weird stuff...but i try to learn as much as i can but understanding is whole different story. About your last sentence, that's actually true until it leads to another issue..."grandfather paradox" where you kill your grandpa and your were never born.
Some say maybe past just cannot be changed or maybe it happens in different dimension.

I remember a perfect explanation by a physicist few years back, it states that when you go back in time and change any event, you create a ripple of disturbance strong enough to change the path of the time. Or in other word, the time you came from will continue to flow in the same way as it was before, but a second chain of event starts happening when you introduce the disturbance in the past, hence an altered reality starts from that time onward. Hence the concept of Parallel Universe arises.

the theory makes sense when you consider universe has been expanding (also accelerating) when observed by telescope. So it makes sense to say that at one point, it started from a small point.

Or, Universe is in an order of periodic expansion and retraction, as it is thought, the expansion of universe if because of dark energy. So until that is discovered, we should hold our horses.
 
Last edited:
I remember a perfect explanation by a physicist few years back, it states that when you go back in time and change any event, you create a ripple of disturbance strong enough to change the path of the time. Or in other word, the time you came from will continue to flow in the same way as it was before, but a second chain of event starts happening when you introduce the disturbance in the past, hence an altered reality starts from that time onward. Hence the concept of Parallel Universe arises.


Or, Universe is in an order of periodic expansion and retraction, as it is thought, the expansion of universe if because of dark energy. So until that is discovered, we should hold our horses.

yeah...Parallel Universe concept makes sense...for now at least. However referring to theory of "periodic expansion and retraction"...I doubt it would gain attention now when we have evidence that some "mysterious stuff" is speeding up the expansion of universe.
So with this new evidence of universe expansion speeding up, retraction seems unlikely. Maybe our universe fate would be "Cold Death"...unless it bumps into another...too many ifs and buts... : P
 
yeah...Parallel Universe concept makes sense...for now at least. However referring to theory of "periodic expansion and retraction"...I doubt it would gain attention now when we have evidence that some "mysterious stuff" is speeding up the expansion of universe.
So with this new evidence of universe expansion speeding up, retraction seems unlikely. Maybe our universe fate would be "Cold Death"...unless it bumps into another...too many ifs and buts... : P

The mysterious stuff is supposed to be 'Dark Energy', and given that the expansion is going to accelerate over time until it the protons and neutrons decays into pure energy. Given the net positive energy of the matter is balanced by the net negative energy of gravity. Hence, from zero we come, to zero we return.
 
The mysterious stuff is supposed to be 'Dark Energy', and given that the expansion is going to accelerate over time until it the protons and neutrons decays into pure energy. Given the net positive energy of the matter is balanced by the net negative energy of gravity. Hence, from zero we come, to zero we return.

is it fair to say that universe contraction might happen in case dark matter takes over? because if i get this right, dark matter is what's holding galaxies together.

edit: I will check you response tomm's mrng...gotta sleep now.
 
Back
Top Bottom