Could we live in a mega-verse?

[pioneer0333]

The question is simple really. What if the known universe that we see is just a small blossom of matter which inhabits a mega-verse? This means that "big bangs" have happened in almost infinite numbers all across and around an ENORMOUS void. To simplify, think of the universe as one blossom on a tree, but the blossom we live in is all that we can see and know of aka "the universe". And just maybe, we can't see that far thru space to see neighboring blossoms aka "other clumps of galaxies". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory

 

[kmarinas86]

http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory <b></b>

 

[j_rankin]

My girlfriend's blossom is in her panties, and there's a whole different universe in there. Big bangs are frequent.

 

[tshearn]

I'm not sure but i think thats nasty^^^^...Are you guys talking about like that MIB movie where the universe was hung on a collar around the cats neck??

 

[kmarinas86]

Oh, if you can prove that a gluon is a universe then its scientific hypothesis. If you can't test that then it's not <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />It's much easier to prove the existence of smaller galaxies of a lower fractal level than of the existence of superstrings, since superstrings are over 10 orders of magnitude smaller than what I would call galaxies in a fractal universe.<br /><br />Superstring theory<br />Superstrings = 10^-35 meters<br /><br />Cyclical Multiverse theory<br />Small galaxies of the next fractal level below us (eq. to 10,000 LY wide) = 10^(-22.52) meters<br /><br />Basically, to verify the claim that there are galaxies at a smaller fractal level, you have to verify what the constitution of gluons are, the particles which mediate the strong force.<br /><br />There is a huge difference in verifiability between String theory and Cyclical Multiverse Theory<br /><br />You would say that String theory is not science. AGREED.<br /><br />So the definition of science depends on our level of technology.<br /><br />A scientific discipline cannot exist unless its invented.<br /><br />Psychology is not <b>very</b> scientific, and as an empirical science, it is hundreds of years younger, but in the future it will be an almost exact science, like mathematics and physics.<br /><br />Science is not a label you can just write on with a permanent maker, it's organized knowledge that fluxes and expands with time.<br /><br />I do not believe in parallel dimensions, now that's really unscientific. I am saying that of course from the perspective that there is no such thing as looped dimensions, nor do I believe that parallel dimensions can intersect. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[newtonian]

Pioneer0333 - Yes.<br /><br />Famous scientists, like Linde, hypothesize that the cause of our unverse also caused other universes to exist - though the models vary wildly - Linde theorized scaler fields, etc.<br /><br />Assuming our universe is the only universe is like assuming our earth is the only planet, etc.<br /><br />The Bible often uses heaven in plural, and does not contain a word for universe, with its singular prefix "uni."

 

[pioneer0333]

People like you are the ones who never explore or wonder. You only believe what is already known. But everything that is already known was at one point unknown. I like to call it "reaching out of the box and seeing what you can grab". In other words YOU need to remember that we as humans know very little on a cosmic scale. Therefore we need to explore every angle we possibly can before making any judgment of any kind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Pioneer0333 - I don't like judging others, but I do agree on the importance of reserving judgment until all the facts, the data, are in.<br /><br />Good scientists are usually humble, and strive to learn rather than being bound by traditional beliefs, models, interpretations, etc.<br /><br />And on interpretations, the following verse may be referring [depending on interpretation] to a much larger universe (heaven of the heavens) containing our universe and other universes (heavens):<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) 27 “But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you. . .