Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362185 > unrolled thread

Re: parallel universe

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: parallel universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-29 00:55 -0700
    Re: parallel universe je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-29 01:13 -0700
      Re: parallel universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-29 09:17 -0700
        Re: parallel universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-29 09:30 -0700
          Re: parallel universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-29 19:23 +0200
            Re: parallel universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-31 07:06 +0200
          Re: parallel universe gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 19:58 -0500
            Re: parallel universe je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-29 18:40 -0700
              Re: parallel universe gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 22:33 -0500
                Re: parallel universe je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-29 21:03 -0700
                Re: parallel universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-29 23:43 -0700
                  Re: parallel universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-30 13:01 -0700
            Re: parallel universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-02 01:05 +0200
    Re: parallel universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-30 05:16 -0700
      Re: parallel universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-30 05:35 -0700
      Re: parallel universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-30 07:07 -0700
      Re: parallel universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-30 10:17 -0700

#362185 — Re: parallel universe

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> tony wrote:
> >
> > What are some of the earliest parallel universe stories?
> 
> if you're talking about books there is: The Lathe of Heaven
> 
> if you're talking about other stuff stories:
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782


But what most people don't know is that..
parallel universe is an invention by 
the science fiction community, not the 
scientific community.


So, when I see members
of the 'scientific community' talking
about parallel universe...they are talking about
a subject invented by the 
science fiction community.

when I see members
of the 'science fiction community' talking
about parallel universe...they are talking about
a subject invented by the 
'science fiction community'...but
they believe it was invented by
the 'scientific community'.



You people got this whole world mixed up.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#362186

In article <55E16581.51D4@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > tony wrote:
> > >
> > > What are some of the earliest parallel universe stories?
> > 
> > if you're talking about books there is: The Lathe of Heaven
> > 
> > if you're talking about other stuff stories:
> > http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782
> 
> 
> But what most people don't know is that..
> parallel universe is an invention by 
> the science fiction community, not the 
> scientific community.

To be fair spacecraft also showed up first in the science fiction of Johannes 
Kepler.

> So, when I see members
> of the 'scientific community' talking
> about parallel universe...they are talking about
> a subject invented by the 
> science fiction community.

It depends whether they are just speculating or if they think actually think 
there is evidence for anything outside this universe. Speculation is the 
precursor to hypothesis which begets theory.

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362248

je suis charly wrote:
> 
> In article <55E16581.51D4@ix.netcom.com>,
>  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > tony wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What are some of the earliest parallel universe stories?
> > >
> > > if you're talking about books there is: The Lathe of Heaven
> > >
> > > if you're talking about other stuff stories:
> > > http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782
> >
> >
> > But what most people don't know is that..
> > parallel universe is an invention by
> > the science fiction community, not the
> > scientific community.
> 
> To be fair spacecraft also showed up first in the science fiction of Johannes
> Kepler.
> 
> > So, when I see members
> > of the 'scientific community' talking
> > about parallel universe...they are talking about
> > a subject invented by the
> > science fiction community.
> 
> It depends whether they are just speculating or if they think actually think
> there is evidence for anything outside this universe. Speculation is the
> precursor to hypothesis which begets theory.


It is a speculation that first came from science fiction community, not the 'scientific community'.

I understand it's unobservable, not tested...but doesn't even come from the 'scientific community' as a theory.

Cause it is an invention of 'the science fiction community'.

Parallel Universe is a science fiction theory, not a science non-fiction theory.


It comes from science fiction. It is borne from science fiction. 



There is no Science theory like this:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362250

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> je suis charly wrote:
> >
> > In article <55E16581.51D4@ix.netcom.com>,
> >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > tony wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What are some of the earliest parallel universe stories?
> > > >
> > > > if you're talking about books there is: The Lathe of Heaven
> > > >
> > > > if you're talking about other stuff stories:
> > > > http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782
> > >
> > >
> > > But what most people don't know is that..
> > > parallel universe is an invention by
> > > the science fiction community, not the
> > > scientific community.
> >
> > To be fair spacecraft also showed up first in the science fiction of Johannes
> > Kepler.
> >
> > > So, when I see members
> > > of the 'scientific community' talking
> > > about parallel universe...they are talking about
> > > a subject invented by the
> > > science fiction community.
> >
> > It depends whether they are just speculating or if they think actually think
> > there is evidence for anything outside this universe. Speculation is the
> > precursor to hypothesis which begets theory.
> 
> It is a speculation that first came from science fiction community, not the 'scientific community'.
> 
> I understand it's unobservable, not tested...but doesn't even come from the 'scientific community' as a theory.
> 
> Cause it is an invention of 'the science fiction community'.
> 
> Parallel Universe is a science fiction theory, not a science non-fiction theory.
> 
> It comes from science fiction. It is borne from science fiction.
> 
> There is no Science theory like this:
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782


To put it simply...
Parallel Universe is a speculation that first came from 'the science fiction community', not the 'scientific community'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362253

Am 29.08.2015 18:30, schrieb The Starmaker:

>>>> So, when I see members
>>>> of the 'scientific community' talking
>>>> about parallel universe...they are talking about
>>>> a subject invented by the
>>>> science fiction community.
>>>
>>> It depends whether they are just speculating or if they think actually think
>>> there is evidence for anything outside this universe. Speculation is the
>>> precursor to hypothesis which begets theory.
>>
>> It is a speculation that first came from science fiction community, not the 'scientific community'.
>>
>> I understand it's unobservable, not tested...but doesn't even come from the 'scientific community' as a theory.
>>
>> Cause it is an invention of 'the science fiction community'.
>>
>> Parallel Universe is a science fiction theory, not a science non-fiction theory.
>>
>> It comes from science fiction. It is borne from science fiction.
>>
>> There is no Science theory like this:
>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782
>
>
> To put it simply...
> Parallel Universe is a speculation that first came from 'the science fiction community', not the 'scientific community'.

I had an idea about an 'universe around the corner'.

I assume, that time behaves like an axis and we (together with our 
universe) perform some kind of movement along this imaginary axis.

This we can't see, since we regard this movement as time, while the 
remote events are separated in space.

It we take the line towards such a remote event as new axis of time, we 
would see a different universe. And this is not parallel, but has an 
angle, since its axis of time is in our world the path of light.

In that other universe we (on this planet) are invisible, since we 
belong to the past of an observer moving along such a path.

This effect is actually, what relativity is dealing with. If you think 
about velocity as angle in spacetime, the velocity c is the angle of 
45°. If you turn to this angle, you are actually moving with c in 
respect to some other object (say: planet Earth).

This will make the Earth drop behind the event horizon, while another 
universe opens.

But the object moving along such a tilted axis does not regard its own 
movement as movement in space. The object regards itself as at rest and 
centres the universe around itself.

This is at least what we humans do with our universe. We see ourselves 
as at the centre and measure distance in respect to us.

Most likely all other possible observers would do the same, but would 
see a different universe. And these universes are not parallel, since 
they have a different axis of time, standing in an angle to each other.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362427

Am 29.08.2015 19:23, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 29.08.2015 18:30, schrieb The Starmaker:
>
>>>>> So, when I see members
>>>>> of the 'scientific community' talking
>>>>> about parallel universe...they are talking about
>>>>> a subject invented by the
>>>>> science fiction community.
>>>>
>>>> It depends whether they are just speculating or if they think
>>>> actually think
>>>> there is evidence for anything outside this universe. Speculation is
>>>> the
>>>> precursor to hypothesis which begets theory.
>>>
>>> It is a speculation that first came from science fiction community,
>>> not the 'scientific community'.
>>>
>>> I understand it's unobservable, not tested...but doesn't even come
>>> from the 'scientific community' as a theory.
>>>
>>> Cause it is an invention of 'the science fiction community'.
>>>
>>> Parallel Universe is a science fiction theory, not a science
>>> non-fiction theory.
>>>
>>> It comes from science fiction. It is borne from science fiction.
>>>
>>> There is no Science theory like this:
>>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782
>>
>>
>> To put it simply...
>> Parallel Universe is a speculation that first came from 'the science
>> fiction community', not the 'scientific community'.
>
> I had an idea about an 'universe around the corner'.
>
> I assume, that time behaves like an axis and we (together with our
> universe) perform some kind of movement along this imaginary axis.
>
> This we can't see, since we regard this movement as time, while the
> remote events are separated in space.
>
> It we take the line towards such a remote event as new axis of time, we
> would see a different universe. And this is not parallel, but has an
> angle, since its axis of time is in our world the path of light.
>
> In that other universe we (on this planet) are invisible, since we
> belong to the past of an observer moving along such a path.
>
> This effect is actually, what relativity is dealing with. If you think
> about velocity as angle in spacetime, the velocity c is the angle of
> 45°. If you turn to this angle, you are actually moving with c in
> respect to some other object (say: planet Earth).
>
> This will make the Earth drop behind the event horizon, while another
> universe opens.
>
> But the object moving along such a tilted axis does not regard its own
> movement as movement in space. The object regards itself as at rest and
> centres the universe around itself.
>
> This is at least what we humans do with our universe. We see ourselves
> as at the centre and measure distance in respect to us.
>
> Most likely all other possible observers would do the same, but would
> see a different universe. And these universes are not parallel, since
> they have a different axis of time, standing in an angle to each other.
>
This idea (presented above) stems from my own concept I call 'structured 
spacetime'.

This was my attempt to connect GR and QM. My method was, that it could 
be possible to make matter 'relative'.

Than matter is depending on the FoR and what is matter in one FoR is 
radiation in another FoR.

The transit from one FoR to the other is a rotation of the axis of time. 
This is similar to a Lorentz transform, but actually a little tricky.

But I made quite nice drawings and you may look at them in my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

Now I assume, that to any such axis belongs a 'time domain', where this 
time is a valid measure and all clocks run the same.

This is associated with a 'universe', but this is not THE universe, but 
it is actually the image of the universe as seen in this time domain.

The other domains have other images and would see another 'universe'.

And this is not parallel, but in an angle, since the transformation is a 
rotation of the axis of time.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362282

On 8/29/2015 11:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> je suis charly wrote:
>>>

>> Parallel Universe is a science fiction theory, not a science
>> non-fiction theory.
>>
>> It comes from science fiction. It is borne from science fiction.
>>
>> There is no Science theory like this:
>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782
>
>
> To put it simply... Parallel Universe is a speculation that first
> came from 'the science fiction community', not the 'scientific
> community'.
>

How can a universe tell if it is parallel to something outside it ?

It cannot.

Therefore, there cannot be "parallel universes".

Therefore, all parallel universes intersect, and form a continuum a 
super universe.

and therefore, there is only one universe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362283

In article <mrtkg8$vg9$1@speranza.aioe.org>, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> 
wrote:

> How can a universe tell if it is parallel to something outside it ?
> 
> It cannot.
> 
> Therefore, there cannot be "parallel universes".

No. Lack of evidence does not prove anything. At this time we have no evidence 
of other universes, so it is speculation. 

> Therefore, all parallel universes intersect, and form a continuum a 
> super universe.

Parallel objects never intersect. Intersecting objects do not have to be 
positionned on top of each other.

> and therefore, there is only one universe.

Non sequitur. There is evidence of one universe, and no evidence for or against 
other universes. Therefore this universe exists and other universes are 
currently speculative.

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362289

On 8/29/2015 8:40 PM, je suis charly wrote:
> In article <mrtkg8$vg9$1@speranza.aioe.org>, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How can a universe tell if it is parallel to something outside it ?
>>
>> It cannot.
>>
>> Therefore, there cannot be "parallel universes".

> No. Lack of evidence does not prove anything. At this time we have no evidence
> of other universes, so it is speculation.
>
>> Therefore, all parallel universes intersect, and form a continuum a
>> super universe.

> Parallel objects never intersect. Intersecting objects do not have to be
> positionned on top of each other.
>
>> and therefore, there is only one universe.

> Non sequitur. There is evidence of one universe, and no evidence for or against
> other universes. Therefore this universe exists and other universes are
> currently speculative.
>

Or they intersect with this one, therefore are part of it, so there is 
only one universe.

The main point is that a universe cannot "know" it is parallel to 
something outside it.  As a universe consists of all known to it, to be 
contained inside it, and nothing is known, and cannot be known, outside 
of it.  True ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362293

In article <mrttis$g7i$1@speranza.aioe.org>, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> 
wrote:

> The main point is that a universe cannot "know" it is parallel to 
> something outside it.  As a universe consists of all known to it, to be 
> contained inside it, and nothing is known, and cannot be known, outside 
> of it.  True ?

There is or was a hypothesis that gravitons can shine between universes. To date 
gravitons from other universes have not been observed nor even gravitons from 
this universe.

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362304

gilber34 wrote:
> 
> On 8/29/2015 8:40 PM, je suis charly wrote:
> > In article <mrtkg8$vg9$1@speranza.aioe.org>, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> How can a universe tell if it is parallel to something outside it ?
> >>
> >> It cannot.
> >>
> >> Therefore, there cannot be "parallel universes".
> 
> > No. Lack of evidence does not prove anything. At this time we have no evidence
> > of other universes, so it is speculation.
> >
> >> Therefore, all parallel universes intersect, and form a continuum a
> >> super universe.
> 
> > Parallel objects never intersect. Intersecting objects do not have to be
> > positionned on top of each other.
> >
> >> and therefore, there is only one universe.
> 
> > Non sequitur. There is evidence of one universe, and no evidence for or against
> > other universes. Therefore this universe exists and other universes are
> > currently speculative.
> >
> 
> Or they intersect with this one, therefore are part of it, so there is
> only one universe.
> 
> The main point is that a universe cannot "know" it is parallel to
> something outside it.  As a universe consists of all known to it, to be
> contained inside it, and nothing is known, and cannot be known, outside
> of it.  True ?


Whether or not parallel universe exist, certaintly the universe "knows"
of it's self..the universe is..'aware'.

The universe has it's own...consciousness.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362402

Kevrob wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 2:42:30 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Whether or not parallel universe exist, certaintly the universe "knows"
> > of it's self..the universe is..'aware'.
> >
> > The universe has it's own...consciousness.
> 
> Sorry, SM. That's fantasy, not SF.  


You're forgeting, your consciouness is a product of the universe.



The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362720

Am 30.08.2015 02:58, schrieb gilber34:
> On 8/29/2015 11:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> je suis charly wrote:
>>>>
>
>>> Parallel Universe is a science fiction theory, not a science
>>> non-fiction theory.
>>>
>>> It comes from science fiction. It is borne from science fiction.
>>>
>>> There is no Science theory like this:
>>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/440782
>>
>>
>> To put it simply... Parallel Universe is a speculation that first
>> came from 'the science fiction community', not the 'scientific
>> community'.
>>
>
> How can a universe tell if it is parallel to something outside it ?
>
> It cannot.
>
> Therefore, there cannot be "parallel universes".
>
> Therefore, all parallel universes intersect, and form a continuum a
> super universe.
>
> and therefore, there is only one universe.

The term 'universe' is commonly used for what we see in the remoteness 
of the night-sky.

But this is NOT the 'real thing'. It is more or less an image. This 
image stems from the delay caused by the speed of light.

This delay brings more remote events later into vision than closer. 
Since we see an image as a whole, we see things together, that to not 
belong together.

So, our view on the universe is not 'real', but real only to us. This 
'universe' is in fact special to us, since any observer anywhere would 
see things in a different way, hence would regard his view upon the 
universe as unique and therefore would see a different one.

This is, of course, an optical illusion, but inevitable, since light is 
not that fast (in comparison to the wast extensions of space).

Now there are other changes possible, and that is a change of the 'axis 
of time'.

If you regard the cosmic timeline (from big-bang to us now) as an 
'axis', this axis is also special to us.

E.g. we could think about an opposite direction and what is our past is 
the future there.

This would bring also VERY different stars into the sky and the world 
from such a view would look extremely different.

But even stranger would be, if this axis has an angle and what is a day 
to us is a second there (or a year).

So, if we would rotate the timeline, the 'universe' would also change.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362323

Radial parallel meeting in the center
180 degrees - 144 Dihedral angle = 36 degrees radially 
Sqrt 36 = 6 degrees. 

10 dimensional: 6 * 10 = 60 degrees 



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steradian


100/(sqrt(3282.80635 * 4pi) / 2) = 0.984696584

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhombic_triacontahedron

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icosidodecahedron


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Dodecahedron_t1_H3.png/640px-Dodecahedron_t1_H3.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362325

http://i57.tinypic.com/ergxzb.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362335

Surface area 30 * (1/((sqrt 5 + 1)/2))

30 * (1/((sqrt 5 + 1)/2)) = 18.5410197 
4pi / 18.5410197 = 0.677760491 = 1.47544747

299792458/185410197 

(299792458/185410197)/((sqrt 5 + 1)/2) = 0.999308191

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362374

Curvature = edge * ( 1 + (1/sqrt 5)) = 1.44721 = 0.6909830

(1 + 4pi/30) = 1.418879020478639 = 0.704781722449222


0.6909830 / 0.70478172 = 0.980421282

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web