1
   

Other universes?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:57 pm
And would the void or nothingness ever end? If not who needs them; why not just consider the posts to go on without end? Doesn't the concept of the endless void beg the question of the endless posts?.
0 Replies
 
Gold Barz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 06:52 pm
yeah, the posts without end sounds much better
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 08:19 am
Gold Barz wrote:
nothingness?, void?


why?

[it is, to me, much more likely that the populating of the Ultiverse with a relatively homogenious continuity of universes makes more sense than arbitrarily switching to a void.]
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 08:30 am
there is, however, another possibility, that appeals to my sense of the continuity of iterations of scale; that is that the universe contains our galaxie, as a solid contains a molecule; and on a 'macro' scale this analogy proceeds into an infinite progression of 'solids' (other universes) beyond our ability to observe to other actual superscale worlds, leading to their galaxies, universes, and so on, as the infinite makeup of the 'Ultiverse'!

[an infinite mobious strip of endless scale!]
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 11:41 am
BOGOWO, how is this eternal pattern of embeddedness any different from an infinity of posts?

Also, you say: " [it is, to me, much more likely that the populating of the Ultiverse with a relatively homogenious continuity of universes makes more sense than arbitrarily switching to a void.]" What about the possibility of both at the same time? The Buddhist Heart Sutra insists that ultimately form is emptiness and emptiness is form, that each is EXACTLY what they other is. Could this be translated somehow to a continuity or identity of form/posts and emptiness/voids?
I'm assuming that the sutra is referring to the ultimate character of anything, as small, I suppose, as a quark or as big, I suppose, as the ultiverse.
0 Replies
 
Gold Barz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 12:10 pm
i dont think its an endless scale at all, more like our POST is just one bubble in an infinite sea of other bubble
0 Replies
 
Gold Barz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Sep, 2004 11:47 pm
i like the bubble universe theory better, its more convincing to me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_universe_theory
0 Replies
 
nipok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:08 pm
Gold Barz wrote:
i like the bubble universe theory better, its more convincing to me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_universe_theory


I am not going to double post but just say that this was replied to in the other thread in this forum related to an infinite universe that I think we are all following :

http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post894423.html#894423

To summarize however it is OK to think about an infinite number of POST's similar to our known universe but they can not all sit around stationary. It is also unlikely that they are all moving in a straight line. I think that the gravitational attraction based on the center of masses of separate POSTS would cause a chain of less dense POST's orbiting more dense POST's until you hit a certain ratio or constant where the densities equal out and they stop orbiting and start bouncing. My other reply said it better.
0 Replies
 
Gold Barz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 03:10 pm
yeah i dont think it would be all organized too, i think there would be like clusters of bubble universes then super clusters
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 09:08 am
JLNobody wrote:
BOGOWO, how is this eternal pattern of embeddedness any different from an infinity of posts?

Also, you say: " [it is, to me, much more likely that the populating of the Ultiverse with a relatively homogenious continuity of universes makes more sense than arbitrarily switching to a void.]" What about the possibility of both at the same time? The Buddhist Heart Sutra insists that ultimately form is emptiness and emptiness is form, that each is EXACTLY what they other is. Could this be translated somehow to a continuity or identity of form/posts and emptiness/voids?
I'm assuming that the sutra is referring to the ultimate character of anything, as small, I suppose, as a quark or as big, I suppose, as the ultiverse.


In keeping with my preoccupation with polarity, could this 'bivalence' represent the void of mental 'nothingness' inherently partnering the 'Ultiverse' of physical 'everythingness'?

[perhaps 'nothingness' is a mental state (or 'place'), from within which we can 'think' the thought - 'everythingness'!]
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 03:00 pm
BoGoWo, you stated"

"In keeping with my preoccupation with polarity, could this 'bivalence' represent the void of mental 'nothingness' inherently partnering the 'Ultiverse' of physical 'everythingness'?"

Yes, INHERENTLY PARTNERING. In this way, your polarities are reflections of UNITY, a monistic principle.

Also:
"[perhaps 'nothingness' is a mental state (or 'place'), from within which we can 'think' the thought - 'everythingness'!]"

Exactly, form would not be possible without emptiness. But does this mean that form (thought) comes FROM emptiness (a mental state of nothingness)? I wonder if this connects somehow to the Japanese zen notion of no-mind (mushin). Someday the answer will come; or the question will be hilarious.





_
0 Replies
 
Gold Barz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2004 04:04 pm
i really think that there are other Pockets Of Space/Time separate from ours
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2004 07:17 pm
Who knows?
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2004 09:23 pm
we all do; and we don't...............
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2004 09:37 pm
Is that INTENDED to be a zen commentary?
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Oct, 2004 02:50 pm
For those of you interested in alternate universes, may I suggest reading up on string thoery? It's the cutting edge of physics right now and it breaksdown modern physics into a plane of vibrating strings which make up all matter. To put it simply, all matter can be broken down into fundamental particles much smaller then the atom. In fact they are two levels down from the atom.

Anyway, part of the theory is the advent of higher level dimensions which allow particles to appear in our universe and dissapear our of our universe using powers of higher dimensions. This is analgous to trying to explain something that lived in 2-d space what the third dimension would be like. It would not be a reality to imagine it for a 2-d man or a flatlander (I believe that's the name physiscs use for the analogy).

Two books to read are "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene and "Hyperspace" by Micho Kaku. Both of these modern day Einsteins use analogies to relate complex problems to laymen and they are able to break the complex theories into simple explinations. THis isn't to say they are right, but this is where modern day Physics is turning to in search of the unification theory.

A NOVA special on the Green theory and a website with several links describing the theory

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Oct, 2004 07:14 pm
Joe Republican, welcome aboard.
By the way, there has been discussion of string theory in one of the past threads.
0 Replies
 
nipok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Oct, 2004 09:21 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
For those of you interested in alternate universes, may I suggest reading up on string thoery? It's the cutting edge of physics right now and it breaksdown modern physics into a plane of vibrating strings which make up all matter. To put it simply, all matter can be broken down into fundamental particles much smaller then the atom. In fact they are two levels down from the atom.

Anyway, part of the theory is the advent of higher level dimensions which allow particles to appear in our universe and dissapear our of our universe using powers of higher dimensions. This is analgous to trying to explain something that lived in 2-d space what the third dimension would be like. It would not be a reality to imagine it for a 2-d man or a flatlander (I believe that's the name physiscs use for the analogy).

Two books to read are "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene and "Hyperspace" by Micho Kaku. Both of these modern day Einsteins use analogies to relate complex problems to laymen and they are able to break the complex theories into simple explinations. THis isn't to say they are right, but this is where modern day Physics is turning to in search of the unification theory.

A NOVA special on the Green theory and a website with several links describing the theory

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/



Welcome aboard as well. String theory as I see it is another misguided attempt to add band aids on top of band aids for a wounded paradigm. Once we recognize that there are particles of matter smaller than the currently known "point particles" it becomes quite evident that much of the current paradigms flaws can be more easily explained with real concepts and formulas. The existing paradigm has included such oddities as vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, self-annihilating virtual particles, multidimensional vibrations, and wraps it around an uncertainty principle. I say the whole crock is uncertain. Deductions and analysis marked by skewed observations not of the real world. Observations of man induced high-energy particles flung at each other then impacted upon a detection grid, cloud chamber, or electrophotropic plate.

When one steps back for a moment and considers the true nature of infinity then one becomes a point. People don't like to be so insignificant so we hold onto the false concept that our planet actually means something in the grand scheme of things so we avoid including the natural infinity in either end of our current paradigm to describe the universe and all it contains.

One of Einstein's early works included the belief in the Aether to unify the forces and explain the true nature of the universe. Ideas went one way and his work and others on the subject were left uncompleted and unverified. If we one day recognize the inclusion of sub-point particles in our universe (that are as of yet undetectable but someday may be measurable) we may find that the density of these particles is the Aether that binds our universe together. Aetheric Density is the variable that can tie the four basic forces together into a grand unified theory proving the universe is truly infinite and many of the conclusions drawn over the last quarter to half a century were but child's folly. Afraid of the big bad infinite boogeyman we held onto the shreds of archaic self-importance trying to find value or meaning to our place in the grand scheme of the universe.

The Emperor has no clothes. The current paradigm is a farce. To many holes being patched with silly putty.
0 Replies
 
nipok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Oct, 2004 09:35 pm
nipok wrote:
Aetheric Density is the variable that can tie the four basic forces together into a grand unified theory proving the universe is truly infinite and many of the conclusions drawn over the last quarter to half a century were but child's folly.


I have a simple method to help understand the concept better. Imagine a closed sphere around our sun with a radius equal to that of Mar's orbit. Lets say we have an unlimited supply of oxygen to add into this sphere. I submit what I think most will agree is common sense that as you fill this sphere with more and more oxygen the density of the oxygen will eventually become great enough to collapse the orbit of our Mercury, Venus, and Earth. It is just like throwing a baseball up in the air on our planet or throwing a baseball up in the air on the moon. On the moon with no atmosphere the gravity has less of an effect. On the Earth there is more of an effect.

In an environment where the atmosphere is even denser than here on Earth gravity and thus acceleration due to gravity would be different. I think this is a well accepted concept and if so one would also understand how the increase in the density of the oxygen or any gas would cause the planetary orbits to disintegrate. This is the same as the Aetheric Density that varies under different circumstances and is directly related to the single driving force that all other forces in the universe stem from. That being the electromagnetic force. Gravity, Weak, and Strong forces are all different formulas for electromagnetic force as soon as we understand that the Aetheric Density is the missing variable in the equations.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:41 pm
nipok wrote:
Joe Republican wrote:
For those of you interested in alternate universes, may I suggest reading up on string thoery? It's the cutting edge of physics right now and it breaksdown modern physics into a plane of vibrating strings which make up all matter. To put it simply, all matter can be broken down into fundamental particles much smaller then the atom. In fact they are two levels down from the atom.

Anyway, part of the theory is the advent of higher level dimensions which allow particles to appear in our universe and dissapear our of our universe using powers of higher dimensions. This is analgous to trying to explain something that lived in 2-d space what the third dimension would be like. It would not be a reality to imagine it for a 2-d man or a flatlander (I believe that's the name physiscs use for the analogy).

Two books to read are "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene and "Hyperspace" by Micho Kaku. Both of these modern day Einsteins use analogies to relate complex problems to laymen and they are able to break the complex theories into simple explinations. THis isn't to say they are right, but this is where modern day Physics is turning to in search of the unification theory.

A NOVA special on the Green theory and a website with several links describing the theory

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/



Welcome aboard as well. String theory as I see it is another misguided attempt to add band aids on top of band aids for a wounded paradigm. Once we recognize that there are particles of matter smaller than the currently known "point particles" it becomes quite evident that much of the current paradigms flaws can be more easily explained with real concepts and formulas. The existing paradigm has included such oddities as vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, self-annihilating virtual particles, multidimensional vibrations, and wraps it around an uncertainty principle. I say the whole crock is uncertain. Deductions and analysis marked by skewed observations not of the real world. Observations of man induced high-energy particles flung at each other then impacted upon a detection grid, cloud chamber, or electrophotropic plate.


I don't know enough about it myself, but I am open to the idea that it is a possibility. I also understand that the sub-atomic particles may in fact be made up of sub-sub atomic particles, for lack of a better definition. Why are you saying we are heading in the wrong direction with string theory?

Quote:

When one steps back for a moment and considers the true nature of infinity then one becomes a point. People don't like to be so insignificant so we hold onto the false concept that our planet actually means something in the grand scheme of things so we avoid including the natural infinity in either end of our current paradigm to describe the universe and all it contains.

One of Einstein's early works included the belief in the Aether to unify the forces and explain the true nature of the universe. Ideas went one way and his work and others on the subject were left uncompleted and unverified. If we one day recognize the inclusion of sub-point particles in our universe (that are as of yet undetectable but someday may be measurable) we may find that the density of these particles is the Aether that binds our universe together. Aetheric Density is the variable that can tie the four basic forces together into a grand unified theory proving the universe is truly infinite and many of the conclusions drawn over the last quarter to half a century were but child's folly. Afraid of the big bad infinite boogeyman we held onto the shreds of archaic self-importance trying to find value or meaning to our place in the grand scheme of the universe.


You are asserting that the Aether is what physics calls "dark energy", a once Einstein foible which has been since revived. (acceleration of universes' tends to warp human minds)

This is part of string theory as well with the gravitron, being the non detectable particle (as of right now).

Quote:

The Emperor has no clothes. The current paradigm is a farce. To many holes being patched with silly putty.


Well, if you think you know better, then explain, I'm all ears. . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Other universes?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 10:53:14