Thread: Multiversity and space holes!

Well as we know black holes suck pretty much everything, not even light can escape nor anything.. So I have a couple of questions about black holes, white holes and multi-verse theory

Q1: Can the parallel universe be connected? As in, in the far away future (3000 years maybe) we can go to other universe.

Q2: Can black holes or white holes be connected as portals between the universes?

Q2: And if there are actually other universes, would there be a universe where nothing exists? Wouldn't that somewhat contradict the multi-universe theory? By existing and not existing at the same time? As if it didn't exist in the first place because the physical laws inside that universe prevented it from existing.

Q1 : I'll give an example,for "parallel world" due to the infinite gravity,in the smallest part of the distance, and because they get zero space, they are replicated back in time and space dimension axis gets together for the three dimensions and tree "paralle worlds "in our space

huh?

are you communicating about repealing/removing space-time?

Parallel universe means A same universe in diffrent Time, which may or may not be same as of ours.

Ans 1. yes parallel universe can be conected. time is a factor, if u travel faster than light your time get slower than the once who is traveling in relatively normal speed. this way you spent 10 min would be 10 hrs 10 yrs or 10 lakh years depends on the speed you are. ( the faster the speed the slower would be your time with repect with earth time) example if u some how manage a suite which will protect you from mass gravity heat radiations of black hole and u enters in to the black hole. the nearer u get to black hole your speed will go high and some one sitting on eath watching you falling in black hole with gient teliscope will see u moving very slow or actualy nearly stationary (non-moving). u spending 1 min in falling situation would here in earth changes lakhs of years or civilisation.

Ans 2. actualy the answer again is Yes. as mentoned above its the massive gravity of Black Hole which can help u to get into parallel univeres. white holes are the those black holes which have absorb so much that they start throwing radiation.

Ans 3. See the answer is simple its many parallel universe are existing at same time. which are based on probability for example there r two parallel univers say X and Y event in X univers r diffrent and even in Y universe are diffrent hence there r lease chances of exact similarities in both the universe.

Originally Posted by BharatArjun

Parallel universe means A same universe in diffrent Time

Does it?
Reference please.

Ans 1. yes parallel universe can be conected.

Supposition.

Ans 2. actualy the answer again is Yes.

Also supposition.

Ans 3. See the answer is simple its many parallel universe are existing at same time.

And again.

yes its supposition. falling of apple from a tree and gravity was also a supposition initially. and yor reaction is exactly same when newton said that law of garvity.. any ways its my assumption or u can call it hypothesis based on observation and study of physics

Originally Posted by BharatArjun

yes its supposition. falling of apple from a tree and gravity was also a supposition initially. and yor reaction is exactly same when newton said that law of garvity.. any ways its my assumption or u can call it hypothesis based on observation and study of physics

Replace "Newton" with "Tesla" and try that sentence again.

Originally Posted by BharatArjun

yes its supposition. falling of apple from a tree and gravity was also a supposition initially

Wrong.
Apples falling was an observed fact.

and yor reaction is exactly same when newton said that law of garvity.. any ways its my assumption or u can call it hypothesis based on observation and study of physics

Your "hypothesis" isn't a hypothesis.
There are no observations to support your contentions.

And ps, if you're going to present "assumption or ... hypothesis" do NOT present them as factual - "can be conected" "actualy the answer" "are existing".

Obliged with ur so called passimist view some what realistic, but my friend assumption convert into hypothesis and hypothesis to theaory and there are many things which is not obsereved but yet being proved by scientist. example Nicolaus Copernicus, he said that sun is the centre of solar system which was later know as heliocentric model, this cant be observd that time but later proved right bye science. which doesnot mean that previously he was wrong and later became right. supossitions are made first than scientificaly we proceed to check wether we r right or not.. and i have mentioned my view and if you think i does not have right to put my ideas than u r in wrong place ..SIR.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by BharatArjun

yes its supposition. falling of apple from a tree and gravity was also a supposition initially

Wrong.
Apples falling was an observed fact.

and yor reaction is exactly same when newton said that law of garvity.. any ways its my assumption or u can call it hypothesis based on observation and study of physics

Your "hypothesis" isn't a hypothesis.
There are no observations to support your contentions.

And ps, if you're going to present "assumption or ... hypothesis" do NOT present them as factual - "can be conected" "actualy the answer" "are existing".

Originally Posted by BharatArjun

Blah blablabla blah

Not one word of that supports, or even justifies your claims.
What you are proposing has zero evidence.

he said that sun is the centre of solar system which was later know as heliocentric model, this cant be observd that time but later proved right bye science

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
He proposed the heliocentric model BECAUSE he had observations to support that conclusion.

supossitions are made first than scientificaly

Also WRONG.
Science works from observation of phenomena to a hypothesis.

if you think i does not have right to put my ideas than u r in wrong place ..SIR.

And wrong again.
This is the Physics sub-forum. Not the Wild Unsupported Speculation sub-forum.

You appear now to be trying to prove that you are insane Mr. Strange.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by BharatArjun

Blah blablabla blah

Not one word of that supports, or even justifies your claims.
What you are proposing has zero evidence.

he said that sun is the centre of solar system which was later know as heliocentric model, this cant be observd that time but later proved right bye science

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
He proposed the heliocentric model BECAUSE he had observations to support that conclusion.

supossitions are made first than scientificaly

Also WRONG.
Science works from observation of phenomena to a hypothesis.

if you think i does not have right to put my ideas than u r in wrong place ..SIR.

And wrong again.
This is the Physics sub-forum. Not the Wild Unsupported Speculation sub-forum.

If you have nothing better than that I suggest you join a different forum.

Why r u hitler or stalin to stop a democratic style of freedom on expression

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

If you have nothing better than that I suggest you join a different forum.

And i don't take orders from Duck .. :P

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

If you have nothing better than that I suggest you join a different forum.

Physics (and the rest of science) is neither democratic NOR a place for "freedom of expression".
Find a finger-painting group.
Or get an education.

U r in ur foolparadice man wake up.. Science is the most democratic in nature. science believe in first proving laws which is also know as generalisation not blindly believe on what science say.. If science was not democratic than u would be blindly following and not alow to raise questions and many theories and laws are recheckd and are improvised like john delton atomic theory...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Physics (and the rest of science) is neither democratic NOR a place for "freedom of expression".
Find a finger-painting group.
Or get an education.

Originally Posted by BharatArjun

Science is the most democratic in nature. science believe in first proving laws which is also know as generalisation not blindly believe on what science say.. If science was not democratic than u would be blindly following and not alow to raise questions and many theories and laws are recheckd and are improvised like john delton atomic theory...

Completely wrong.
Science works on observable facts.
It doesn't work on opinion, votes or nice feelings.
(And it doesn't prove laws or anything else).

UNLESS you can show that your ideas have some validity then they will not be considered. Nor do they "deserve" to be.

Originally Posted by Hassnhadi

Well as we know black holes suck pretty much everything, not even light can escape nor anything.. So I have a couple of questions about black holes, white holes and multi-verse theory

Q1: Can the parallel universe be connected? As in, in the far away future (3000 years maybe) we can go to other universe.

Q2: Can black holes or white holes be connected as portals between the universes?

Possibly, in theory: Kerr black hole

But in practice? Nah.

Originally Posted by Hassnhadi

Well as we know black holes suck pretty much everything, not even light can escape nor anything.. So I have a couple of questions about black holes, white holes and multi-verse theory

Q1: Can the parallel universe be connected? As in, in the far away future (3000 years maybe) we can go to other universe.

Q2: Can black holes or white holes be connected as portals between the universes?

Q2: And if there are actually other universes, would there be a universe where nothing exists? Wouldn't that somewhat contradict the multi-universe theory? By existing and not existing at the same time? As if it didn't exist in the first place because the physical laws inside that universe prevented it from existing.

As per present knowledge there is nothing like Multiversity
Yet many other basics are not clear
Multiversity is much next
Even logically how it can exist ?
Would not it be against reality ?
Many fundamental thing yet not clear
Upto than what we can think about Multiversity

I went to Multiversity: my MSc was split across two different universities hundreds of miles apart.