# Has first evidence of another universe been seen?



## Harpo (Nov 26, 2007)

iTWire - Has first evidence of another universe been seen?

"Astronomers announced in August 2007 the discovery of a large hole at the edge of our universe. Since then, theoretical physicist and cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton and colleagues have claimed it is an “unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own.”
The article entitled “Astronomers Find Enormous Hole in the Universe” discusses the August 2007 discovery of the hole. It is located at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory website.     
Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill).  

  The hole is estimated to be almost one billion light-years across, where one light-year is about 9.5 trillion kilometers (5.9 trillion miles) and is located within the constellation Eridanus. 
  The Mersini-Houghton team states that the hole is another universe at the edge of our own universe. Such an explanation, if true, would be the first experimental evidence of such an exo-universe, or a universe outside of our own universe. 
  Several teams of astronomers have used data from the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to make examinations of this large hole. The hole first showed up in images of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the radiation left over from the formation of the universe (what we call the big bang). 
  In images made by WMAP back in 2004, the volume of the hole showed up as being of a colder temperature than surrounding volumes of space because of less energy being ejected from the region."


----------



## Rohan (Nov 26, 2007)

WOW. What a fascinating and intriguing discovery. What I want to know is, if this information is correct, why have I not heard of it already?

Thanks for sharing - I'm going to go read some links now.


----------



## JDP (Nov 27, 2007)

What does the edge of a universe look like?


----------



## Briareus Delta (Nov 27, 2007)

JDP said:


> What does the edge of a universe look like?


 
Sort of warm and fuzzy.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 27, 2007)

I'm a bit worried about the word "unmistakable" in any comment about something in cosmology. (Apart from anything else, it's a hostage to fortune.)

And it doesn't help that I haven't yet spotted the further link in the various links of how they have come up with this conclusion. (These things have to be flashing and with sirens for me sometimes, so it'll be my fault, I guess.)



In the absence of the idea, the hypothesis, the theory and the peer-reviewed proof of Laura Mersini-Houghton's statement, all _*I*_ can offer: "it has to be a hole new universe". Sorry.


----------



## Fake Vencar (Nov 27, 2007)

So a light year is 5.9 trillion miles. And our universe is billions of light years diameter. If it is round then the matter in it must be huge (5.9 trillion * at least 3 billion) Pi for the area. And they worry about another universe! How big is... existence!


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 27, 2007)

Fake Vencar said:


> So a light year is 5.9 trillion miles. And our universe is billions of light years diameter. If it is round then the matter in it must be huge (5.9 trillion * at least 3 billion) Pi for the area. And they worry about another universe! How big is... existence!


 
It's even bigger then you might think eek; what we can ever see (which is limited by the speed of light and the time allowed for its travel) is only the observable universe. How large or small a portion of the actual universe you think this *might* be depends on which theory of cosmology you follow. But it's b****y huge, to use a technical term.


----------



## Delvo (Nov 28, 2007)

I get how an apparent void could be near the edge of the universe, but I don't see any reason to assume that the edge must have another universe pushing on it from the other side like bubbles in foam...


----------



## Sephiroth (Nov 28, 2007)

Well, I've never believed our universe was all there was. 



Their reasons are mathematical, though, so........_way _over my head............


----------



## Nik (Nov 28, 2007)

Um, didn't they suggest that there *must* be another 'hole' diametrically opposite ??

Like sailors' vain hunt for a missing continent in middle of Pacific Ocean ??


----------



## Pravuil (Dec 5, 2007)

This is one of those things that will pass all too soon, if it was an "unmistakable" hole to a parallel universe (I like the word parallel, not saying the opposite universe couldn't be diametrically opposed, perpendicular, etc.) then it would be a scientific discovery of unfathomable proportions. This subject also depends on how you view the term "Universe", we could still be a cohesive universe, albeit connected to a much larger infrastructure by holes such as these. As humans if this were true our perception of reality and our cosmic surroundings are much more narrow than we think and there is an endless fount of knowledge to observe and record.


----------



## KateWalker (Dec 23, 2007)

Could it be that our universe just hasn't filled in certain gaps? There must be "holes" all over the place that we haven't filled in yet, if the universe is supposedly still expanding...it's just empty space that still needs to be expanded into, possibly? 

Although, the possibility of another separate universe outside of our own, is also quite intriguing. 

Either way, this is just a darn cool story.


----------



## Carithiron (Dec 23, 2007)

I heard of that


----------



## Carithiron (Dec 23, 2007)

I've also heard of the Andromada Galaxy


----------



## Carithiron (Dec 23, 2007)

I've also heard of the way the scientists have seen secret extra-terrestrial activity on pluto....


----------



## Deathpool (Dec 23, 2007)

I read somewhere that the farthest they can see with telescopes is something like 150,000,000 light years, not billions and I agree that if the universe is still expanding it hasn't filled all the gaps yet. If the universe is infinite than how can there be another universe?


----------



## sarakoth (Jan 11, 2008)

Are you trying to be funny or are you just spamming?


----------



## Deathpool (Jan 13, 2008)

I'm not trying to be funny or spamming. I know for a fact that there is a limit too how far telescopes can see. Light doesn't get here instantly, but takes years to reach us. In reality we're looking years into the past when we look at stars. Light travels approximately 186,000 miles per Second. We can only see the light that has reached us. If you knew anything about light you would know that we only perceive the light that bounces off objects not the objects themselves. I agree that the universe is still expanding and hasn't filled in all the gaps. Remember that light takes a huge amount of time to reach us. Telescopes can't see the entire universe because the millions of billions of years light takes to reach us. You be careful who you accuse Sarakoth. If you continue to doubt me consult books on Physics and study the nature of light. You obviously need some education on the subject. Also, I suggest reading about Astronomy and Cosmology to get distances in your head. We're talking about distance far exceeding quadrillions. Do have any idea of the size of the number were talking about? Obviously you don't. To give you an idea it would take a person 36,000 years to count to a trillion let alone more than a billion times that.


----------



## sarakoth (Jan 16, 2008)

Deathpool said:


> I'm not trying to be funny or spamming. I know for a fact that there is a limit too how far telescopes can see. Light doesn't get here instantly, but takes years to reach us. In reality we're looking years into the past when we look at stars. Light travels approximately 186,000 miles per Second. We can only see the light that has reached us. If you knew anything about light you would know that we only perceive the light that bounces off objects not the objects themselves. I agree that the universe is still expanding and hasn't filled in all the gaps. Remember that light takes a huge amount of time to reach us. Telescopes can't see the entire universe because the millions of billions of years light takes to reach us. You be careful who you accuse Sarakoth. If you continue to doubt me consult books on Physics and study the nature of light. You obviously need some education on the subject. Also, I suggest reading about Astronomy and Cosmology to get distances in your head. We're talking about distance far exceeding quadrillions. Do have any idea of the size of the number were talking about? Obviously you don't. To give you an idea it would take a person 36,000 years to count to a trillion let alone more than a billion times that.


 
Dude, light travels at the obvious rate of one lightyear per year. Since the universe is 13 billion years old, we should be able to see things 13 billions lightyears away. In fact, the farthest recorded objects according to the Guiness book of world records IS 13 billion lightyears away. Also, there are no "gaps" when a universe expands. It just doesn't work like that.


----------



## Lith (Jan 17, 2008)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was more out there than our "universe".  However, I think we need a new name for "universe", since "universe" means ALL, and if our concept of ALL expands, then it isn't really a different universe...


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 17, 2008)

Lith said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if there was more out there than our "universe".  However, I think we need a new name for "universe", since "universe" means ALL, and if our concept of ALL expands, then it isn't really a different universe...



Leaps up and down, shaking Lith by the hand.
Yes, exactly; and the fact we can't yet detect something doesn't push it out of our universe.  If we have multiple parallel, divergent or whatever continua across a couple of extra dimensions – then the universe has a couple of hitherto unexpected dimensions. The word "multiverse" is an abomination (and has trickled down to the sunday supplements.



> If you knew anything about light you would know that we only perceive the light that bounces off objects not the objects themselves.


 Most of the objects we can see at great distances are emitting light, rather than reflecting it.



> it's just empty space that still needs to be expanded into, possibly?


Where universe isn't, spacetime isn't either.
If there were "empty space" for the universe to expand into, it would already be there.
I Know this is difficult to visualise, but outside the universe isn't empty, it just isn't. Just as there is no "leading edge" of the universe, with universe an light behind, and nothing in front, Any point can be considered as the edge, or the centre, or both at the same time.


----------



## Deathpool (Jan 17, 2008)

Do they really see that far though? There's no evidence of another universe that I've heard of. Scientists now twist the evidence. I've seen plenty of that. What about pitdown man. Everybody knows he's fake. Also, if there were empty space it would not have expanded into the space yet. Nothing can exceed the speed of light. In fact, matter can't even hit the speed of light. Stars emit light, but planets don't lasers don't, and many other objects don't. The only reason we can see the moon is because the sunlight bounces off it. Same thing with many other objects, but what I actually met was that we see the light the object itself. I realise empty space isn't possible.


----------



## sarakoth (Jan 17, 2008)

Deathpool said:


> Do they really see that far though? There's no evidence of another universe that I've heard of. Scientists now twist the evidence. I've seen plenty of that. What about pitdown man. Everybody knows he's fake. Also, if there were empty space it would not have expanded into the space yet. Nothing can exceed the speed of light. In fact, matter can't even hit the speed of light. Stars emit light, but planets don't lasers don't, and many other objects don't. The only reason we can see the moon is because the sunlight bounces off it. Same thing with many other objects, but what I actually met was that we see the light the object itself. I realise empty space isn't possible.


 
Laser _is _light.

Like I've stated before, the expansion of the universe doesn't work like that, leaving empty spaces that is.

Actually the expansion of the universe is faster than the speed of light. It's a phenomenon explained by General Relativity so don't ask me. Lots of things don't make much sense, but I just accept it.


----------



## Lith (Jan 18, 2008)

Tachyons move faster than light, don't they? But being as they do, it's rather difficult to detect or measure them in any capacity. (In fact, I don't think they've been _proven_ yet.) There are some parts of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics that are up in the air right now. If light=mass=energy, that doesn't quite explain quantum leaps, which would seem to defy space/time, as particles seem to teleport instantly between places within the atom. And if it's happening subatomically, then there's a good chance that similar, larger phenomena exist somehow within the universe. (But as I'm not a scientist, and it's been years since I took any, I can't vouch for total accuracy in the above.)

The light bounces off the moon, but it still comes from the sun, which emits it's own light. And what we see in space is largely the light of stars rather than planets, which are way too small.  In fact, they've only in just recent years been able to see any planetary bodies outside our own solar system.

crispenycate- as cool as the sound of the word "multiverse" is, it does make the vein in the middle of my forehead stick out. *twitch, twitch*


----------



## sarakoth (Jan 18, 2008)

Lith said:


> Tachyons move faster than light, don't they? But being as they do, it's rather difficult to detect or measure them in any capacity. (In fact, I don't think they've been _proven_ yet.) There are some parts of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics that are up in the air right now. If light=mass=energy, that doesn't quite explain quantum leaps, which would seem to defy space/time, as particles seem to teleport instantly between places within the atom. And if it's happening subatomically, then there's a good chance that similar, larger phenomena exist somehow within the universe. (But as I'm not a scientist, and it's been years since I took any, I can't vouch for total accuracy in the above.)
> 
> The light bounces off the moon, but it still comes from the sun, which emits it's own light. And what we see in space is largely the light of stars rather than planets, which are way too small. In fact, they've only in just recent years been able to see any planetary bodies outside our own solar system.
> 
> crispenycate- as cool as the sound of the word "multiverse" is, it does make the vein in the middle of my forehead stick out. *twitch, twitch*


 
Tachyons are hypothetical particles with negative masses. So far, nothing has been discovered with negative masses.


----------



## Deathpool (Jan 18, 2008)

Lith said:


> Tachyons move faster than light, don't they? But being as they do, it's rather difficult to detect or measure them in any capacity. (In fact, I don't think they've been _proven_ yet.) There are some parts of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics that are up in the air right now. If light=mass=energy, that doesn't quite explain quantum leaps, which would seem to defy space/time, as particles seem to teleport instantly between places within the atom. And if it's happening subatomically, then there's a good chance that similar, larger phenomena exist somehow within the universe. (But as I'm not a scientist, and it's been years since I took any, I can't vouch for total accuracy in the above.)
> 
> The light bounces off the moon, but it still comes from the sun, which emits it's own light. And what we see in space is largely the light of stars rather than planets, which are way too small. In fact, they've only in just recent years been able to see any planetary bodies outside our own solar system.
> crispenycate- as cool as the sound of the word "multiverse" is, it does make the vein in the middle of my forehead stick out. *twitch, twitch*


 
How come the speed of light is still a universal constant than? If any theory is wrong it's Quantum Theory. I'm not believing something that tells about the world being probability waves. Another is that a laser is invisible in space. The only reason people see a laser on earth is because it heats the air around it so that it glows. By the way, I said something about Sun light bouncing off the moon. A laser is light that has been pushed into one wave length. Normally light has many different wave lengths of light mixed together. I don't the possibility of other universes.


----------



## sarakoth (Jan 18, 2008)

Deathpool said:


> How come the speed of light is still a universal constant than? If any theory is wrong it's Quantum Theory. I'm not believing something that tells about the world being probability waves. Another is that a laser is invisible in space. The only reason people see a laser on earth is because it heats the air around it so that it glows. By the way, I said something about Sun light bouncing off the moon. A laser is light that has been pushed into one wave length. Normally light has many different wave lengths of light mixed together. I don't the possibility of other universes.


 
The speed of light is a universal constant simply because it has zero mass. Not negative mass, not positive mass, but zero mass. No offense, but what does "I don't the possibility of other universes" mean? You claim you are a Californian but your English skills say otherwise.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 18, 2008)

A Laser generates light. Promise, I've worked with them adjusted them,  repaired them when necessary and even cuddled one for a couple of hundred miles when the air-ride trailer broke down. I can tell you how they work at a physical level, and a pretty good  description at an atomic level.
The reason that a laser beam is invisible in outer space is the same as any other beam of light – it's plane wave and highly directional, and there's no dust in space to diffuse it. You can only detect it if it goes straight in your eye (and with a fairly powerful laser this is a bad idea. The iris doesn't close down far enough to protect you)
Smokey gigs always give better laser shows (unless you're projecting onto a screen, or clouds, or a mountain side, when you don't want to see the primary beam. If you used a dust cloud in space, you could get the three dimensional effects – might be quite spectacular, actually.
But believe me, a laser produces light – and very concentrated light, at that.


----------



## sarakoth (Jan 18, 2008)

chrispenycate said:


> A Laser generates light. Promise, I've worked with them adjusted them, repaired them when necessary and even cuddled one for a couple of hundred miles when the air-ride trailer broke down. I can tell you how they work at a physical level, and a pretty good description at an atomic level.
> The reason that a laser beam is invisible in outer space is the same as any other beam of light – it's plane wave and highly directional, and there's no dust in space to diffuse it. You can only detect it if it goes straight in your eye (and with a fairly powerful laser this is a bad idea. The iris doesn't close down far enough to protect you)
> Smokey gigs always give better laser shows (unless you're projecting onto a screen, or clouds, or a mountain side, when you don't want to see the primary beam. If you used a dust cloud in space, you could get the three dimensional effects – might be quite spectacular, actually.
> But believe me, a laser produces light – and very concentrated light, at that.


 
I think you're trying to say this but a laser _is _light.


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 21, 2008)

Harpo said:


> "Astronomers announced in August 2007 the discovery of a large hole at the edge of our universe. Since then, theoretical physicist and cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton and colleagues have claimed it is an “unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own.”
> The article entitled “” discusses the August 2007 discovery of the hole. It is located at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory website.
> is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill).
> 
> ...




It's funny how we can look through a telescope and say that a hole is a universe; "*theoretical* physicist... have *claimed* it is an “*unmistakable* *imprint* of another universe beyond the edge of our own.""

Uh-huh.

PS: I just removed the links quickly because of how little posts i've made on this forum.


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 21, 2008)

Deathpool said:


> I agree that the universe is still expanding and hasn't filled in all the gaps.



Gaps? To say there's _gaps_ implies boundaries. For example, to have a balloon inflating inside a room. The balloon obviously being the universe. And as the balloon expands, there's still _gaps_ of the room to be filled. But what's beyond the walls of the room?

Or maybe the universe has no room.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Jan 21, 2008)

*Head explodes*


----------



## Lith (Jan 21, 2008)

Whoa, infinity.  

(And brains.  Yuck!)


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 21, 2008)

LJonesy said:


> Gaps? To say there's _gaps_ implies boundaries. For example, to have a balloon inflating inside a room. The balloon obviously being the universe. And as the balloon expands, there's still _gaps_ of the room to be filled. But what's beyond the walls of the room?
> 
> Or maybe the universe has no room.


 
This really isn't all that complex a thought. Basically, what's being said is that if the universe is supposed to go on forever, how could there be "gaps"?

I agree with it, really, because gaps are empty SECTIONS of space, not empty infinite space.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Jan 21, 2008)

Infinity is quite complex, I find.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 21, 2008)

Hilarious Joke said:


> Infinity is quite complex, I find.



No. If the universe were infinite, (in a mathematical sense, meaning there are no boundary conditions at all) it would actually simplify the problem – um no end?
But present theories hold it as something between very big indeed and ruddy enormous, but non-infinite.
Which implies limits.
And defining these limits is quite an umusing part of generating the theories.


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 22, 2008)

chrispenycate said:


> No. If the universe were infinite, (in a mathematical sense, meaning there are no boundary conditions at all) it would actually simplify the problem – um no end?
> But present theories hold it as something between very big indeed and ruddy enormous, but non-infinite.
> Which implies limits.
> And defining these limits is quite an umusing part of generating the theories.




Ah, i'm grateful for this response.

I'd like to see where future theories head though, what amazes me about science is one theory can be accepted as unmistakeable truth only to be erased and replaced by another, more valid theory.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 22, 2008)

LJonesy said:


> Ah, i'm grateful for this response.
> 
> I'd like to see where future theories head though, what amazes me about science is one theory can be accepted as unmistakeable truth only to be erased and replaced by another, more valid theory.


That is the very basis of the scientific method. To transfer something from "theory" to "Absolute Truth" would require knowing everything about something – an unlikekly occurence – or religious conversion, and handing the problem over to higher authority.
Any so-called scientist who claims that his theory is the only one possibly describing reality has gone over to the dark side, the "Truth" with a capital "T".
We are not yet capable of acquiring or analysing enough data to prove any theory, and only rarely enough to demonstrate conclusively that a theory is incorrect (much easier, generally. There must always be flexibility in viewpoint, and this has a tendency to crystallise after twenty or thirty  years in one speciality.
So when the Creationists claim absolute truth, while evolutionists have only a theory which has, furthermore, modified considerably in the last century, they have an argument. But not enough of one that you'll find me speaking up for them in a debate.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 22, 2008)

sarakoth said:


> I think you're trying to say this but a laser _is _light.


LASER – Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
What we generally call the laser is the physical matrix with the stimulable atoms/molecules (I believe the shortest wavelength achieved with molecules is infra-red, with carbon dioxide) being either solid (chromium atoms in an aluminium oxide crystal matrix for a ruby laser and certain semiconductor lasers), gaseous (normally noble gasses such as neon, argon or krypton in a helium support) or, in all probability liquid, although I've never met one) and the parallel, optically flat mirror system (generally one solid, one half silvered, athough you'd be surprised what becomes transparent with a couple of hundred thousand footcandles.
The beam of coherent, plane-wave light is generally called just that – a laser beam. Not the laser.


----------



## sarakoth (Jan 22, 2008)

chrispenycate said:


> LASER – Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
> What we generally call the laser is the physical matrix with the stimulable atoms/molecules (I believe the shortest wavelength achieved with molecules is infra-red, with carbon dioxide) being either solid (chromium atoms in an aluminium oxide crystal matrix for a ruby laser and certain semiconductor lasers), gaseous (normally noble gasses such as neon, argon or krypton in a helium support) or, in all probability liquid, although I've never met one) and the parallel, optically flat mirror system (generally one solid, one half silvered, athough you'd be surprised what becomes transparent with a couple of hundred thousand footcandles.
> The beam of coherent, plane-wave light is generally called just that – a laser beam. Not the laser.


 
So laser is NOT a synonym of laser beam.

I think I got it.


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 23, 2008)

chrispenycate said:


> We are not yet capable of acquiring or analysing enough data to prove any theory, and only rarely enough to demonstrate conclusively that a theory is incorrect (much easier, generally. There must always be flexibility in viewpoint, and this has a tendency to crystallise after twenty or thirty  years in one speciality.
> 
> So when the Creationists claim absolute truth, while evolutionists have only a theory which has, furthermore, modified considerably in the last century, they have an argument. But not enough of one that you'll find me speaking up for them in a debate.



I guess you could call me a Creationist, and in saying that, many, many people i know, and myself, don't force to argue against the general thrust of the scientific world. Honestly, it's those few christian nutcases against those few scientific nutcases. And yet it looks like the whole majority against the other, doesn't it?

In any case i agree wholly the first paragraph. And on that note, many Christian Scientists use that very premise to gain some insight into events or things claimed out of the Bible. And really that's not so different to other scientists, only they research for other reasons.

Like you, i won't stand to defend or support anyone in a debate, if one should arise. No matter how real or factual either side presents it's evidence, it's rare to find participants of a debate there solely to learn and gain knowledge. More often than not, people debate to push their point of view across and not listen to the other side. So really, nobody wins.

Hm, just incase anyone thinks i'm referring to formal debates, i'm not. I'm referring more to the spontaneous arguments or discussions that tend to happen.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 23, 2008)

LJonesy said:


> Ah, i'm grateful for this response.
> 
> I'd like to see where future theories head though, what amazes me about science is one theory can be accepted as unmistakeable truth only to be erased and replaced by another, more valid theory.


 
As our knowledge and understanding of things grows, theories and so-called truths once thought to be set in stone turn out that they aren't really as infallible as they seemed. Before the Wright brothers came along, it was widely known that man would never fly, that it was impossible. Back just a few centuries ago, it was widely known that the sun revolved around the Earth.


Imagine what will be widely known tomorrow.



(I know, that sounded a lot like Men in Black, but what's art without plagiarism?  Besides, I have some respect for Steven Spielburg's intellect, even if Hollywood DOES get most things wrong.)


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Jan 23, 2008)

I also want to add this tidbit of wisdom:

Here come the men in black. The galaxy defenders.


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 24, 2008)

Manarion said:


> As our knowledge and understanding of things grows, theories and so-called truths once thought to be set in stone turn out that they aren't really as infallible as they seemed. Before the Wright brothers came along, it was widely known that man would never fly, that it was impossible. Back just a few centuries ago, it was widely known that the sun revolved around the Earth.



Our achievement of flight is interpreted in many ways. Really, it was thought the _concept_ of man flying was impossible. In many ways it is.

But the _only_ way we have achieved flight is by building a machine that can fly itself. So really man has not achieved flight, man has simply invented a machine which can fly, and in effect carry people.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 24, 2008)

LJonesy said:


> Our achievement of flight is interpreted in many ways. Really, it was thought the _concept_ of man flying was impossible. In many ways it is.
> 
> But the _only_ way we have achieved flight is by building a machine that can fly itself. So really man has not achieved flight, man has simply invented a machine which can fly, and in effect carry people.


 
Technically, I suppose you're correct, but the example was to show how something that everybody knew to be impossible came to be anyway. Humans are, too often in my opinion, so sure of the way nature and space work, even with us being proved wrong time after time. We're a stubborn species, setting our hearts and minds in stone, on the general whole. Yes, just about every generation has the odd black sheep or two willing to question this theory or that, and such people have made great and fantastic discoveries and inventions, but such people are generally few in number, as composed to the entire human race, and that's a rather depressing concept.


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 24, 2008)

Manarion said:


> Technically, I suppose you're correct, but the example was to show how something that everybody knew to be impossible came to be anyway. Humans are, too often in my opinion, so sure of the way nature and space work, even with us being proved wrong time after time. We're a stubborn species, setting our hearts and minds in stone, on the general whole. Yes, just about every generation has the odd black sheep or two willing to question this theory or that, and such people have made great and fantastic discoveries and inventions, but such people are generally few in number, as composed to the entire human race, and that's a rather depressing concept.



It is rather depressing. 

Although, the simple life is a happy one. The desire to explore and discover, invent and create, often creates complications many people feel they'd be better off without.

But then again, more people may take a leap, we're yet to see the number of thinkers and innovaters increase or decrease in the future.


----------



## Mad Tam McC (Jan 24, 2008)

Off on a totally different tack, here's my "proof" of parrallel universes. Dark matter!

Dark matter! I hear you say how does that prove parrallel universes? Well dark matter is just ordinary matter in neighbouring universes whose gravitational forces are leaking into ours. So why doesn't gravity leak out of ours? Well it does and that's why it's weaker than the other three forces.

Why does gravity leak and everything else doesn't - because the strings (and we're going into string theory here) are either closed or open strings and all other types of string are the other type (I can't remember which way round). Closed strings are where the string forms a loop, open ones are where it doesn't.

There I've proved it and none of you can say otherwise!


----------



## Lith (Jan 24, 2008)

And on that note, maybe the entire universe is actually a product of a hole in a theoretical anti-verse, and when the universe snaps backward like a rubberband, it's actually the anti-verse reasserting its natural shape...


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 28, 2008)

Mad Tam McC said:


> Off on a totally different tack, here's my "proof" of parrallel universes. Dark matter!
> 
> Dark matter! I hear you say how does that prove parrallel universes? Well dark matter is just ordinary matter in neighbouring universes whose gravitational forces are leaking into ours. So why doesn't gravity leak out of ours? Well it does and that's why it's weaker than the other three forces.
> 
> ...



Supplying links and stating the major facets of your evidence gives your claim credibility. Until then, what you're saying is highly questionable without some backup.


----------



## Mad Tam McC (Jan 28, 2008)

LJonesy said:


> Supplying links and stating the major facets of your evidence gives your claim credibility. Until then, what you're saying is highly questionable without some backup.


 
I never claimed it to be true. It's entirely questionable, I made it up, (though I did see something on the telly on string theory once).


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 28, 2008)

Mad Tam McC said:


> I never claimed it to be true. It's entirely questionable, I made it up, (though I did see something on the telly on string theory once).



Ah, touche.


----------

