http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/1 ... Qw6FfnF_vp
Parallel Universes are real And Will Soon Be Testable, Researchers Say
Is there an additional you reading this article at this precise moment in a parallel universe? Dr. Brian Greene, writer ofThe Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of theCosmos has faith that this freakish side of nature may exist; and he debates its amazing prospects in this 3-minute TV interview. A rising number of cosmologists agree with Greene that we are but one of many universes and nonetheless one of these other worlds lies close to ours, maybe only a Millimeter away. We cannot perceive this world, as it subsists in a type of space different from the four dimensions of our normal realism. MIT’s Max Tegmark trusts this multiverse model of ‘many universes’ is grounded in modern physics and will ultimately be testable, predictive and disprovable.
“This is not sci-fi,” he says, “its real science.”
Does R/S theory allow for Parallel Universes?
Orthogonal Universes
No, the Reciprocal System does not have parallel universes, just an orthogonal one (the realm of 3D time, the Cosmic Sector). Larson does not consider it to be a separate universe, as it is bridged by life connecting the two.
Though the article does mention they "might be antimatter"... in other words, they have stumbled upon evidence of 3D time and don't know what to make of it. When they apply coordinate time to a 1-dimensional clock time, that is giving the "hall of mirrors" illusion of parallel universes.
Though the article does mention they "might be antimatter"... in other words, they have stumbled upon evidence of 3D time and don't know what to make of it. When they apply coordinate time to a 1-dimensional clock time, that is giving the "hall of mirrors" illusion of parallel universes.
Considering they have astronomy backwards...“This is not sci-fi,” he says, “its real science.”
Every dogma has its day...
Parallel Universe
Pure speculation. Why would a parallel universe exist. We know of no other space-time. There are no parallel lines becuase then there would have to be a distance between the lines. Distance requires space and time. Lines are one dimensional and contain neither space nor time. "Lines" are merely ideas.
A parallel universe to our own reequires that there be distance between our respective universes. Perhaps as concentic circles appear to be parallel but are actually orthogonal to each other. Distance requires that we share the same space-time. And if one were to say that the other universe has a diffferent dimensionality to ours then the concept of distance and that of "parallel" is nonsensical. Every thing in the Universe, including another universe must be related by orlthogonality, as is space is related to time orthogoanlly.
Remember, S/t is an orthogonality. The little slash is a division sign and one can only divide by chopping at right angles.
Perhaps Brian is trying out his hand at fiction writing.
A parallel universe to our own reequires that there be distance between our respective universes. Perhaps as concentic circles appear to be parallel but are actually orthogonal to each other. Distance requires that we share the same space-time. And if one were to say that the other universe has a diffferent dimensionality to ours then the concept of distance and that of "parallel" is nonsensical. Every thing in the Universe, including another universe must be related by orlthogonality, as is space is related to time orthogoanlly.
Remember, S/t is an orthogonality. The little slash is a division sign and one can only divide by chopping at right angles.
Perhaps Brian is trying out his hand at fiction writing.
Hi Bruce, I agree that time
Hi Bruce, I agree that time must be 3 dimensional and it also is circular.
Space must then be 4 dimensional and hyprebolic. Therefore, we have a 7-dimentional space-time.
Recal from the conic sections that circles can only be orthogonal to hyperbolas. This is the reality of space-time.
Did Larson ever mention 4-D hyperbolic space and 3-D circular time (periodicity)? In this realtionship time is periodic but always prceeds forward whereas space is in cyclic expansion and contraction. This is spiral motion. I seem to remember an imaginary component inserted to space expansion and not the prossibility of space contracting as in a cyclic, respiring universe. Is this the case with RS?
Space must then be 4 dimensional and hyprebolic. Therefore, we have a 7-dimentional space-time.
Recal from the conic sections that circles can only be orthogonal to hyperbolas. This is the reality of space-time.
Did Larson ever mention 4-D hyperbolic space and 3-D circular time (periodicity)? In this realtionship time is periodic but always prceeds forward whereas space is in cyclic expansion and contraction. This is spiral motion. I seem to remember an imaginary component inserted to space expansion and not the prossibility of space contracting as in a cyclic, respiring universe. Is this the case with RS?
Scalar motion has no geometry
No, the RS is based on scalar motion, which has only magnitude, no geometry, so it cannot be hyperbolic, circular, straight or anything else. Geometry is a consequence of the projection of scalar motion into a coordinate reference system that requires an observer (camera) and something to be observed (look-at). The resulting geometry depends on the type of camera (lens), where it is located, s/t or t/s, and which region the point of observation is in time-space, space-time time, or space. Your assumptions appear to be based on a single observer and point of observation, with a conic, vanishing-point perspective lens. (There are many other geometric possibilities.)Did Larson ever mention 4-D hyperbolic space and 3-D circular time (periodicity)? In this realtionship time is periodic but always prceeds forward whereas space is in cyclic expansion and contraction. This is spiral motion. I seem to remember an imaginary component inserted to space expansion and not the prossibility of space contracting as in a cyclic, respiring universe. Is this the case with RS?
Every dogma has its day...
spiral motion
Spiral motion is motion in no particular direction because it is in infinite directions simultaneously. Hyperbolic space is an expanding cubic. 3-D circular time remains orthogonal to expanding space. Magnitude is expanding volume of the cubic over time. Time is circular in order that space can contract as well. This would be consistent with a cyclic universe model.
Projections from infinite planes must also be orthogonal. Space is a system of associated points. Time is succesion of instants. Space must be the focus of these points because moving space must have a nonmoving reference at every point in space. So, space is a projection from these points that are outside of space-time.
Observe that all motion is spiral in nature.
Miles Mathis discovered that the logarithmic function is not part of the calculus. He failed to discover the significance of this. All motion is logartithmic spirals.
The calculus is all bogus because is uses an absolute space as its background. Space moves, therefore, the calculus and al of its derivatives are false. Motion cannot be calculated.
There cannot be any other realtionship between time and space other than orthogonality. Geometry can illustrate that only circles and hyperbolas can remain orthogoanl throughout the the cycles of expanding and contracting spheres and cubes. No one can prove otherwise, and that is a challenge.
Projections from infinite planes must also be orthogonal. Space is a system of associated points. Time is succesion of instants. Space must be the focus of these points because moving space must have a nonmoving reference at every point in space. So, space is a projection from these points that are outside of space-time.
Observe that all motion is spiral in nature.
Miles Mathis discovered that the logarithmic function is not part of the calculus. He failed to discover the significance of this. All motion is logartithmic spirals.
The calculus is all bogus because is uses an absolute space as its background. Space moves, therefore, the calculus and al of its derivatives are false. Motion cannot be calculated.
There cannot be any other realtionship between time and space other than orthogonality. Geometry can illustrate that only circles and hyperbolas can remain orthogoanl throughout the the cycles of expanding and contracting spheres and cubes. No one can prove otherwise, and that is a challenge.
meanwhile at the other end of the spectrum
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-mini-black ... allel.html
Detection of mini black holes at the LHC could indicate parallel universes in extra dimensions
In a new paper published in Physics Letters B, Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Mohammed M. Khalil explain that the key to finding parallel universes may come from detecting miniature black holes at a certain energy level. The detection of the mini black holes would indicate the existence of extra dimensions, which would support string theory and related models that predict the existence of extra dimensions as well as parallel universes.
mini black holes
parrallel universes
extra dimensions
string theory
hey, this isn't sci-fy, this is real science........
Detection of mini black holes at the LHC could indicate parallel universes in extra dimensions
In a new paper published in Physics Letters B, Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Mohammed M. Khalil explain that the key to finding parallel universes may come from detecting miniature black holes at a certain energy level. The detection of the mini black holes would indicate the existence of extra dimensions, which would support string theory and related models that predict the existence of extra dimensions as well as parallel universes.
mini black holes
parrallel universes
extra dimensions
string theory
hey, this isn't sci-fy, this is real science........
Real science refuses to talk
Real science refuses to talk of specualtion until a sound theory has been established and can be falsifiable. Speculation is for forums.
Space is not well understood. Space is a system of associted points. Each point is the same point in the sense that it is outside space-time. Every point is the focus of space and can be misunderstood as a black hole. At the very center of any particle of matter must exist a nonmoving center. That center (point) is the ultimate vacuum. Being spaceless and timeless, space is pervaded by black holes. Matter without space is of infinite density. Centers of matter, electronic particles, must be of infinite density and the source of the matter in space-time.
Space must have a focus because it is in motion. Space spirals in the smallest particle, in the largest galaxy, and in the Universe as a whole.
In this sense black holes are pervasive and exist at the center of the ultimate particles. To talk of dimensions is silly because we are talking about infinite dimensions.
Srting theory is incablable of deaing with infinite dimensions.
The conclusions drawn by some are baseless yet, ironically, the truth is even more fantastical.
Space is not well understood. Space is a system of associted points. Each point is the same point in the sense that it is outside space-time. Every point is the focus of space and can be misunderstood as a black hole. At the very center of any particle of matter must exist a nonmoving center. That center (point) is the ultimate vacuum. Being spaceless and timeless, space is pervaded by black holes. Matter without space is of infinite density. Centers of matter, electronic particles, must be of infinite density and the source of the matter in space-time.
Space must have a focus because it is in motion. Space spirals in the smallest particle, in the largest galaxy, and in the Universe as a whole.
In this sense black holes are pervasive and exist at the center of the ultimate particles. To talk of dimensions is silly because we are talking about infinite dimensions.
Srting theory is incablable of deaing with infinite dimensions.
The conclusions drawn by some are baseless yet, ironically, the truth is even more fantastical.