PARALLEL UNIVERSE THEORY ANT THE STRUCTURE OF TIME IN RELATION TO SPACE
Posted Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:55 PM
We inhabit a disk which is moving so fast it appears spheeical. The omni-universe is a sphere.
God is constructed of the electromagnetic energy which passes bewteen the spaces of the universe's atoms. Heaven is a construct of the blind spot of the sphere, wwhich is mae up of the spirits of dead things that have passed between the niverses. God wants us to be individuals. I have solved string theory. I am right.
Posted Sun Nov 21, 2010 01:04 PM
Posted Sun Nov 21, 2010 01:07 PM
Negative matter holds everything in place. God decided that man is one of the most aesthetically beautiful creatures in his universe. He will never allow us to die. If we die within thgis universe we will be reconstructed in anothr. The omni-universe will never collapse. Nothingness cannot physically exist. Mankind survives.
Posted Sun Nov 21, 2010 01:33 PM
This post has been edited by fuck toy: Sun Nov 21, 2010 01:36 PM
Posted Sun Nov 21, 2010 02:10 PM
Posted Sun Nov 21, 2010 03:05 PM
Posted Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:05 PM
Ok, according to what you said... Time is constructed of anti-matter.
Anti-matter exists, we can actually make it. Therefore if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Time exists. Your logic, sir, is flawed in my eyes.
However, as has been previously stated, if you happen to do the research and publish your findings, I would be more than happy to read them.
P.S. I second the spell check, I highly doubt any renowned journal will publish a paper that has such poor fundamentals of the English language.
This post has been edited by SexyCoolGuy: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:05 PM
Posted Mon Nov 22, 2010 04:46 AM
This post has been edited by MisterSexy: Mon Nov 22, 2010 05:01 AM
Posted Mon Nov 22, 2010 06:53 AM
another dimension. There's nothing extraordinary about time.
Black holes are but a solution of the stress-mass tensor
Einstein employed to describe the mechanics of the universe,
burying the former paradigm, Newton's.
Black-holes are special, because they're what we call in physics
and mathematics a singularity. You can understand them easily
if you try to divide an integer, or real number, for that matter,
by 0. How would you divide a cake in 0 parts?
There are many inconsistencies in your first post, so many, I
understand you mean this thread as a joke. So, I won't pester
anyone by correcting them.
About time travel, yes, there are tachions, strange particles (aren't
they all?) that are theoretically capable of time travel.
Now, if you migrate from Einstein's general relativity to Quantum
mechanics (Einstein could never understand/accept it, poor ignorant
thing ) you'll understand what multiple universes mean.
Quantum mechanics is brilliant, most appropriate, to describe the workings
of our world in its tiniest scale. Suppose you wanna study the porosity of
your floor. You could bump a soccer ball on it. But the scale of the ball is
very different from that of the porous. So, you won't learn anything.
You actually have to bump the floor (bombard it) with particles that share
the same scale. When you do that, BECAUSE they have the scale
in common, they'll interact. It is by interacting that we "see" (in a broad
Now, at he scale of "sub" particles, the building blocks of everything we know
(leptons, quarks, bosons), when you bump them, you interfere with them,
too. So, you never know how they were supposed to be, what they were supposed
to be doing, if you weren't watching them. You don't know how they are.
You only know how they interact with the particles you throw at them as a means of
This is a very sugar-candied way of trying to make you understand
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It actually states you won't know matter
in its intimacy, because when observing one of its properties, you're losing
information on another pairing property (think mass and speed, for instance).
It comes from the fact you're "bumping" on the particle to observe it.
Well, so, we don't talk about what the matter is doing, or, rather, its state,
but about possible states and the probability it is at a given state at a given
time. Because of the many possibilities, the many possible states we can talk
about parallel universes.
However, I'd like to point out that, though you'll never now the precise state
the electrons of your table are at, you do know the position and the speed of
your table (relatively to yourself) with pretty good accuracy. We do know where
the moon is, with pretty good accuracy. Otherwise, we'd have missed it all those
decades ago, when men called in.
About the shape of our universe. If you accept the bang, it isn't a disk. It is
spreading more like a sphere. I mean to say it is more like a 3D object than
a 2D one. Disks are 2D.
If you're looking for spicy stuff to color laymen speculation and build up
cosmological conspiracy theories upon, may I suggest black matter and
black energy. At least, their very existence is almost a consensus. Antimatter
is well understood and well explained by our current
You could also speculate on the workings of the Higgs boson.
Einstein's paradigm will fall one day, just like Newton's. There are already
phenomena it can't explain. But the new paradigm, to be accepted, has to
be built on logic, has to be testable. It's gotta explain things better than
It isn't an easy task to come up with something that good. Even string
theory folks aren't really trying to do that. They're more on the unification front,
and there's much disagreement about their 11 dimensions entities.
I believe we'll only achieve better understanding of mechanics once we
learn to think abstract. Try complex topology to train your mind in abstract
thinking. It may help. And it is very exciting. I've had a few very memorable orgasms
edit: you also said something about mankind continuing, or something like
that. We're very fragile. We need this thin layer of material that scatter light
and other electromagnetic waves on top of us, the atmosphere, to survive.
But this layer won't survive us, and we'll perish long before it is destroyed.
So, no, mankind won't continue. Enjoy the ride while you're (we're) here.
This post has been edited by alien2: Mon Nov 22, 2010 06:59 AM
Posted Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:00 AM
Posted Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:32 PM
Posted Mon Nov 22, 2010 03:45 PM
Alien: You`re amazing...
Posted Thu Nov 25, 2010 05:47 AM
There is one thing I will say, though, is that some theorists are paid massive subsidies for years in order to come up with nonsense. Here are the silliest two:
1. A man who has built a massive multi-million dollar vacuum chamber in order to study the properties of nothing, without realising that any conclusions he reaches will be invalid because the nothingness has physical properties since it is conditioned by the outside of the chamber, which is a physical shape and thus interferes with what's inside it.
2. A man who's come up with a theory I came up with years ago then refuted as impossible. He believes there is only this universe, and when it expands so far after virgintillions of years, it rebounds on itself and creates another Big Bang. How does it manage to do this? To me, it involves denying that matter besically has two directions, one more or less operational at a higher level than the other at a giving time. Chuck a pebble in a pond and the ripples spread outwards, but the centre will remain, along with the outside of the centre. And it implies that outside the universe there are no real physical properties except dark matter. Surely, within the multi-dimensional nature of space, it's more rational to suppose that outside space, invisibile matter or not, is just more infinite expansion of space.
Posted Thu Nov 25, 2010 06:06 AM
Oh & as for the scornful & somewhat hostile rebuke of your theory , don't sweat it , I'll read your book when published
Posted Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:13 AM
1. A man who has built a massive multi-million dollar vacuum chamber in order to study the properties of nothing...
If he's built a vacuum chamber, he isn't a theoretician, but an experimentalist.
Theoreticians don't build vacuum chambers. They work with paper and pen. They sometimes
wander a little in between, building computer models to test their theories.
Vacuum isn't "nothing", so, indeed, this person is/was incompetent, IF you understood
well what he/she was looking for.
Vacuum means low pressure. That's all. With that in mind, it really doesn't matter if
the chamber is a cube, a sphere, or what have you. The "vacuum" of our interstellar
space, for instance isn't a "vacuum" as laymen understand it, mainly due to the presence
of hydrogen molecules. I'm unaware of laymen vacuum anywhere.
besically has two directions, one more or less operational at a higher level than the other
at a giving time. Chuck a pebble in a pond and the ripples spread outwards... dark matter...
Surely, within the multi-dimensional nature of space...
Please, don't take badly what I'm about to write. You're obviously very curious and I find this
nice, so, I don't mean to hurt. I'm just saying the obvious, in a genuine attempt to send you in
the right direction. Who knows, your inquisitive mind will get somewhere? You should keep trying.
I just think you should keep trying harder.
When I'm trying to learn something, I start (and end) with a lot of humility. So, I study the
History of the subject I wanna explore. To you, a little History of science would go a long way.
When you say that you came up with, etc, it's so... well, you get the point.
If you've ever cared to read science History, you surely know about standing on the shoulders
of giants. Newton was an asshole, to the detriment of Hooke. I abhor Newton-like beasts.
There is only one kind worse than that: Plato-like beasts. And the reason I don't like it isn't
an emotional one. These people hamper science evolution.
You say matter has two directions. Does it, really? I've actually given you a hint about
matter on my other post. What is matter? Do you know? A Nobel prize is awaiting you. Two
directions? Higgs boson rings a bell? Read a little about it. It may send you in the right direction.
Then, you wanna explain matter and directions with an analogy with ripples on a pond.
Just for the sake of clarity, I'd like to remind you of the basics of ripples physics:
ripples on a pond got not much to do with matter, in the sense that it is energy, and only energy,
being transferred. Again, your reasoning is very inconsistent, very incoherent. I think you're
limiting yourself, letting yourself down.
Now, you say funding is not well spent. I agree with you. An old research has found
about 99% of all scientific papers were irrelevant (it is an old research). It doesn't mean
they aren't useful to someone, somewhere. It only means they aren't really going to
push science beyond. There is a reason for that. To get a grant, and keep it, you need
to publish. You need numbers. So, what is done? While publishing 4, 5, 6 papers a year,
one keeps working on the one. It is survival, and you shouldn't be angry at them.
Some scientists are good technicians. They've got, for instance, above average (for a scientist)
computer knowledge. He becomes important for a group and he'll publish by proxy. But
he can't create. When this individual moves to another university, he has to come up
with an idea. But he can't. Perhaps, it is only a lack in History awareness.
Scientific periodicals are refereed by peers. Well, it may, just may, skip proper scrutiny.
That incompetent good-with-computers guy may become a referee, because he's published
by proxy with a good network. When he's a referee, he's not able to sieve a good
paper from a bad one. Referees are anonymous, except for the editor.
May I suggest you give substance to your wings, to your imagination? You'd fly higher!
Science isn't about words we find funny, fancy. It is about understanding phenomena.
Logic, in the scientific context, shouldn't be a word loosely employed. You finish your
last paragraph with a pseudo logical conclusion that's got no real logic whatsoever.
Let me explain in laymen terms: it is raining, so, I put on my coat to go out. It doesn't
mean if I wear my coat it is going to rain. Another laymen example: that woman is my
mother. It doesn't mean her husband is my father.
The scientific method relies on proper use of logic. Logic isn't a difficult subject. One can
grasp it with only a few hours of good reading.
To push science forward, you only got two options. Either you understand the current paradigm and
you work with it. Or you don't admit it (the paradigm) and you come up with a new one.
It has been done (read my other post). In either case, you've gotta understand the current
paradigm. Because, even if you decide to go against it, you should know what you're up
against, shouldn't you?
So, I'll be so bold as to propose you an algorithm for your continuing laymen scientific
1) the main thing, you've got: curiosity;
2) understand the paradigm. Read History of science. History is there to show us what we
shouldn't be doing;
3) decide if you accept the paradigm, or not;
4) if yes, choose a yet non explained phenomenon (you won't run out of choice!) and work
5) if not, you gotta build your new paradigm. Is it going to be axiomatic? Work on the minimum
set of axioms. Once you get there (your life time work, probably), validate your paradigm by
explaining simple and not so simple phenomena better than the old paradigm could do;
6) choose a yet non explained phenomenon and work on it;
7) verify it. Don't, don't, spread it before verification. It'd expose you to peer ridicule. Science
can be reproduced. If yours isn't, it isn't science.
You may believe matter is being transported by your ripples. You may also believe in Father Xmas.
There's no difference between how absurd these two sound to my ears (and those of any other
educated in the subject person). Science can be proven wrong! Religion doesn't accept proof.
What is it you wanna do? I'll stick with science anytime.
Since you're a literary man, may I suggest you Kuhn's "origin of scientific revolutions"?
It isn't my favorite book on the subject, but its language is pretty easy, so, one can easily
follow his reasoning and get an good insight on the matter.
Disclaimer: nothing was meant to hurt. Like I said, you're curious and I think that's nice.
I'm dialoguing with you. If you don't like it, please, just say so and I won't come
back to your thread. I'm an atheist, therefore, I don't believe (though sometimes I use
the word loosely). I want solutions derived from a coherent theory resting on a set of postulates
that has been validated and verified (the theory, not the postulates, of course). Nothing else
does it for me. Not that I'm in the illusion anyone should care (for my needs).
Posted Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:02 AM
I suppose, I'd better stop writing here since I have to go back to the kitchen and start cooking lunch...
MisterSexy, have you ever had the chance to read Jorge Luis Borges? He actually came up with the idea of parallel universes in a literary work. Very interesting in fact. I think you'd love his tight style... He put limit in the number of words he needed to say something, and boy, did he ever know how to tell a story.
Posted Thu Nov 25, 2010 02:25 PM
Now, changing a bit the subject, I personally know several people
who hate physics, mathematics, etc. It is a common opinion.
Most people don't like science. Mainly the complicate stuff.
I'm easy to please. I like a bit of everything and a few things
in absurd excesses. The violin, for instance. And sex. And science.
I read mathematics as one reads poetry. Physics is very erotic, for
me. It's personal taste. I'm very particular to complex topology,
for instance, finding it very, very... orgasmic. It tastes even better
if read to me by a man. If possible, in German. I know I'm a freak.
An Alien, what did you expect?
I like to know how things are made, for instance, and can find my
fun reading a whole book on strength of materials, for instance.
Like one would read fiction. I also read recipe books, even though
I don't cook, have no talent for it whatsoever. I'm just curious.
I read about child psychology, but I'll never have a child.
I'd just would like to point out that, be it in science or in any
other field of knowledge, there are people who work only on
vulgarization. Others will only really enjoy discussing it with peers.
There are surgeons, for instance, who are great in their trade,
very skilled, but who just don't like to talk about it, who are
introvert, etc. Talking with peers is always easier, of course.
When I was a child, I know it is a cliché, I'd stare at the sky, and
I'd dream of understanding it. I remember the first time I've heard
a person talking about relativity. I found it so cool. I had to learn
it. I just had to. I remember being told that when you see a star,
you're actually seeing it as it was thousands, millions of years ago,
depending of the star, or course.
I went crazy. How come? I had to know why. Was it true? This was
one of my main worries when I was six years old. I'm still that very
lonely and awkward little girl. I don't care what: I just wanna learn.
Science is like the violin: there are no shortcuts. If you wanna do it,
you've gotta do it "right", take the time, do your reading, your
"homework". I work hundreds of hours to play a piece in an
acceptable way, one I'd dare to expose a public to. History is very
important to both crafts.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted Thu Nov 25, 2010 03:25 PM
You misunderstand Alien, I like science and math... I just hate the way people use it to put others down... That was what the idiot in the conference was doing... Something like "I'm too smart for all of you", a very deplorable arrogant attitude, I'd say.
Again, I prefer to read a paper or a book rather than listen to the "experts".
Posted Thu Nov 25, 2010 04:16 PM