Multi-Universe *POSSIBLY* Confirm: New Proof Unknown "Structures" Tug at Our Universe

reply to post by unmode


Interesting.

If our solar system, and all the other systems are basically macro-atomic analogues to what we think of as an actual atom...then wouldn't what cosmologists call 'Dark matter' and 'Dark energy' be the macro analogues of both the strong and weak nuclear forces holding it all together?

It's possible.

They don't know what they are either, that's why they're 'dark'. It would tend to fit in with an ever increasing macroscopic atomic analogy, leading to multi, mega and gigaverses (and beyond) wouldn't it?

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by unmode

 

Interesting.

If our solar system, and all the other systems are basically macro-atomic analogues to what we think of as an actual atom...then wouldn't what cosmologists call 'Dark matter' and 'Dark energy' be the macro analogues of both the strong and weak nuclear forces holding it all together?

It's possible.

They don't know what they are either, that's why they're 'dark'. It would tend to fit in with an ever increasing macroscopic atomic analogy, leading to multi, mega and gigaverses (and beyond) wouldn't it?

Potentially. But there's a more interesting possibility which could hugely change our understanding of the universe, both matter inside and outside.

reply to post by unmode


Do you mean dark matter and dark energy is the actual fundamental force of both the micro (atomic) and macro (multiversal) scale we think of as strong and weak nuclear force? The 'glue' of the multiverse(s) for literally everything. Because that's pretty much what i meant.

Or something else?



[edit on 28/3/2010 by spikey]

This idea of tugging is silly...a neighboring universe? How could the mass exert the "gravitons" to accelerate another universe/structure to 2.2 million miles an hour "through" the space in between them(a lack of time)? That is assuming there is an edge to our universe and the big bang is correct...I don't believe it for a second myself.

At what point does the multiverse simply become the Universe again due to the fact that we understand it to be larger than once thought?

It is like someone living in ancient times thinking the planet Earth was all there was to "reality" when the fact of the matter is that reality is larger than he could conceive and observe.

Truly, the universe is a wondrous place and has many more surprises in store for the human race.

reply to post by Ainu Basque


You're right!

We'd have to come up with a new term for the "entire universe" because there are now mulitple universes and surely the term "universe" does contain them all.

Quick everybody think of the new term and get a patent for it!



[edit on 28-3-2010 by tooo many pills]

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
This idea of tugging is silly...a neighboring universe? How could the mass exert the "gravitons" to accelerate another universe/structure to 2.2 million miles an hour "through" the space in between them(a lack of time)? That is assuming there is an edge to our universe and the big bang is correct...I don't believe it for a second myself.

I don't see a single problem with the things you're describing. Are you assuming that the acceleration was instantaneous? Because -- so far as we know --w e just hadn't seen it yet; hadn't identified the motion of these objects. Or am i misidentifying your objection?

Originally posted by tooo many pills
reply to post by Ainu Basque

 

You're right!

We'd have to come up with a new term for the "entire universe" because there are now mulitple universes and surely the term "universe" does contain them all.

Quick everybody think of the new term and get a patent for it!

Omniverse.

reply to post by Solasis


Haha, I like it.

Although, I think it should be something totally different and original than Universe/Mulitverse/Omniverse. Not like I am an Astrophysicist, or what I think matters, but Solar Systems make up Galaxies, Galaxies make up Universes, and Universes make up ______ ?

Something almost Godlike, BUT NOT GOD! An entity if you will. Something people can barely comprehend let alone say.

Entitiplex© Because the Entitiplex© is HUGE!

Or,

Infinitentity© Because the Infinitentity© never ends.

I am going to make so much money! Nobody think about copyrighting any my ideas before I wake up tomorrow, go to school, and come back. See I already copyrighted it! Unless you guys can come up with something better and more original!!! Please do.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by tooo many pills]

reply to post by tooo many pills


I like "Infinitentity" -- but it kind of has odd implications of Tentacles! This might worry some. Others it will excite madly. There are two camps in the "excited" group, and one of them lives exclusively in Hentai.

Entitiplex sounds more like a supervilliain, or a creature with lots of different identities. A cosmic schizoid, if you will. Which I won't.

Howzabout.... Superyottafractal? No... The Gigaplace? Deication? All-that-is-was-or-ever-will-be? "over there"? "What the expletive am I looking at?!"

Ooh! I got it! The Full Scale Shining Trapezohedron.

wow, so yea... my dream i had a few days ago confirmed this!

i know its just a dream, just a great synchronicity!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

was posted on the same day too!

S&F OP, we will eventually find out the secrets of the universe, and reality.

reply to post by Solasis


hahaha!

Some scientist out there is probably stealing our ideas as we type.

I have nothing more to say. I am going to sleep.

although finding multiple universes is fun, i'd much rather find extra dimensions...

big bangs could go off all the time, making the multiverses look like popcorn in a box..

but to step back into a higher dimension and see it all, now thats woot !!

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by unmode

 

Do you mean dark matter and dark energy is the actual fundamental force of both the micro (atomic) and macro (multiversal) scale we think of as strong and weak nuclear force? The 'glue' of the multiverse(s) for literally everything. Because that's pretty much what i meant.

Or something else?



[edit on 28/3/2010 by spikey]

Something else. There's good research going on at the moment which suggests there may be an even more all encompassing "material" which is the basis for all that exists.

When mankind finally comes to the realization that we are nothing more than a computer and anything in a computer has to be either programmed or wired to behave in a certain way, we will continue to pounder over what is, who made it, where we are going, and what is beyond. The reality is that we are what we want to be. There isn't even a way to confirm that our interpretation of what others think is really what they are thinking as our brain will feeds us what it has been programmed or wired to feed us. So is the color red really red? When someone says yes, is that person really saying yes, or is that what our brains wants to interpret the response as? The bottom line is that we make reality as we want it to be.

Our knowledge, and therefore progress, as humans have been shaped by two very important questions: Mainly what is nothing vs something and what is large vs. small and I think we as humans have gotten both wrong.

On the question of something vs nothing we shoud ask ourselves what is really something? We think of the universe as this very expansive empty space, but have we considered that in fact is totally reversed? We pounder over dark matter and the possibility the universe is made up of over 90% of this matter but we rarely consider the possibility that the universe at one point might have been all dark matter. The implication of course is that something has always being the norm and nothing is the exception. Why is it that is so difficult for humans to understand that "something" does not have to have an origin? That is simply how it was from day one, and the creation of nothing is what was created since then rather than the opposite (kind of link entering a room full of people and pushing yourself in until you have created space - but have you really created anything?) If all you had was something, and nothing really existed, then no one would even consider asking the question to begin with of where things came from. That was simply the way it was. So thinking of the vast amounts of energy that exist, it did not come from anywhere. That is simply how it was from day one. Everything was energy and the conversion from energy to something else (heat, or whatever, should be the real question and not the reverse)

On the question of small vs big, we should ask ourselves what big really is? We keep discovering smaller and smaller particles and the existence of worlds and environments we never imagined. Smallness has no end. You can always drill down and you would never reach infinity, and if you out that process in reverse you have just being transferred to a "big" world just as the universe is. Consider a real scenario where a super microscope drills down on a mass to close to infinity but not at the speed of light but rather at a speed our brain can perceive everything in between. You will end up contemplating infinite amounts of landscapes just as we do when we explore the universe and because of the slow speed we would never reach the end. So does that mean that we just traveled billions and billions of miles? The answer is Yes. It is yes, because speed and distance are relative terms made up by our brain to compensate for its limitations in being able to interpret everything that is in between. If our brains were infinitely powerful, the concept of speed and distance would not exist, and for that matter the universe either since we would be able to transfer ourselves to any place in the universe instantaneously .

So when you look at the vast universe again, ask yourselves two questions:

1) Am I really looking at something or am I really looking at nothing?
1) Am I really looking at bigness or am I really looking smallness?

reply to post by poorker


Which has to do with what exactly...?

This is nice to see indeed A.T.S produces! All I can say is this is a very tiny universe and its GUARDIANS ARE HUGE (unlike rulling evil space bugs that didnt even know they were being observed FROM ABOVE) snacks. Nice thread S&F

[edit on 3/29/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

Why not take the conclusion farther and instead of concluding a soul controls us why not just say we are nothing more than a dream machine? To take it a step further, we could also be nothing more than a receptor for the thoughts of others whatever "others" mean.

Yes, indeed, out of all the capabilities of mankind, dreaming is the most intriguing. It says either of two things and they both lead to the same conclusion: Either our brain has the capability to fake everything we do, or we are nothing more than a receptor and we continue to capture signals even during our sleep. In both cases, it leads to the conclusion our world as we perceive it is fake. It also has one big implication and an explanation of why other people are more successful than others. What it implies is that whoever can control the dream, or for that matter adjust the signal reception. can potentially shape the outcome or that dream or perception. It means you could potentially make of yourselves whatever you want, and although unconsciously, some people might already know how to do that.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by poorker]

Dear Readers,

I am providing a diagram showing the very thing that is controlling space, its mechanisms for the entire universe. The diagram is a horizontal cross section of space showing its density and the sheath that surrounds time and space. Above that sheath is another envelope which is a circulatory mechanism transferring space that has content back into space without content for revivification.




For the reader’s edification I am providing a philosophical statement to go along with the diagram.

There has to be a fundamental change in how science approaches the universe if it is going to understand it. The universe is limited, but so vast it appears nearly infinite to our way of thinking.

Within our universe are different kinds of particles but not all particles are matter. I mean to say that: not all particles are matter. Background radiation such as Hawking radiation is emergent matter– pre-matter if the reader prefers that better description. It comes from outside of space.

Extreme cold (absolute zero), and extreme heat (plasma) are the catalysts to reveal radiation that seems to have been ADDED to space. I would be glad to discuss this aspect with anyone who is interested and has some questions.

Space is a substance regardless how such a statement appears to contradict our material senses. Time is an additive as well, but one is not required to have the other to exist. There are places where time is not existent. There is only one place that space does not exist. Our space area contains both endowments. The “wall of galaxies” seen from our planet is a view of the face of new space areas forming going further out to space limits that will not have the endowment of time.

Space and its various levels are indeed formed on the basic pattern of an atom, but it is not an atom, but a unique system called the universe and operates in original ways not typical of atomic behavior.

First cause, that which science searches for, lies outside of space and within the designs of a huge central core which space approaches but does not touch. I have indicated the presence of this mechanism in the diagram in the three colors coded to show origins of space and other phenomena associated with secondary causes - that which we see as space laws such as gravity, matter, and light. These things operate as laws, but those laws only apply when both space and time are operating at the same time.

The information I disclose here is from outside the normal conduits of evolving scientific theory. It does come from those who have direct experience with the entire space mechanism and represents a disclosure perhaps 100 years before science knows enough to see it as basic to universe cosmology. The diagram I have provided is very rough as it shows only the basics and does not indicate those other mechanisms which would only serve to cause confusion for the moment if disclosed.

I am not a physicist, but I am interested in understanding how the universe is put together and its operations from space design and manipulation to energy origination. The information provided here represents years of input.

I would be happy to discuss various elements of this narrative with anyone who would like to question further.

Thank you
Aronolac