Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: Multiversity and space holes!

  1. #1 Multiversity and space holes! 
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    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.


    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    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


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    huh?

    are you communicating about repealing/removing space-time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    GERMANY
    Posts
    12
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,696
    Quote Originally Posted by BharatArjun View Post
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    GERMANY
    Posts
    12
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by BharatArjun View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,696
    Quote Originally Posted by BharatArjun View Post
    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".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    GERMANY
    Posts
    12
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BharatArjun View Post
    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".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,696
    Quote Originally Posted by BharatArjun View Post
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    GERMANY
    Posts
    12
    You appear now to be trying to prove that you are insane Mr. Strange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BharatArjun View Post
    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.
    UNLEARN TO LEARN..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,696
    If you have nothing better than that I suggest you join a different forum.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    GERMANY
    Posts
    12
    Why r u hitler or stalin to stop a democratic style of freedom on expression
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    If you have nothing better than that I suggest you join a different forum.
    UNLEARN TO LEARN..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    GERMANY
    Posts
    12
    And i don't take orders from Duck .. :P
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    If you have nothing better than that I suggest you join a different forum.
    UNLEARN TO LEARN..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,696
    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.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    GERMANY
    Posts
    12
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    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.
    UNLEARN TO LEARN..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,696
    Quote Originally Posted by BharatArjun View Post
    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.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    I went to Multiversity: my MSc was split across two different universities hundreds of miles apart.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. May Black Holes be considered as ripped of space-time?
    By dapifo in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 12th, 2012, 02:56 PM
  2. If Black Holes are rips in space..
    By Black hole geek in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: September 10th, 2012, 12:25 PM
  3. Can Black holes create space time?
    By kevinmorais in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2010, 04:35 AM
  4. Quasar jet stream data can Black holes create space time?
    By kevinmorais in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 20th, 2009, 08:59 PM
  5. White holes are the opposit of black holes in the univers.
    By Victor2009 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 21st, 2009, 07:12 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •