cyd Pais ]]>

“The scope of the Theory of Something is not narrow – it is almost Everything, including hot topics like the Higgs particle, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and universes. Starting from the smallest, the one and only fundamental charge particle – the negtrino that fills up all space in a cubic Grid and also is the building block of all other particles and matter – the ToS ends with the universes. The ToS even tries to explain how there can be Something out of Nothing – the origin of our universe – and proposes the equation for Everything.”

]]>From: Robert T. Bobar

http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=ed16380f11d628bdeac10227c45df672aa

You would certainly need extra spatial dimensions to keep the parallel universes from being part of the same universe.

I hope you took your analytical geometry very seriously.

Because it depends on what you know, how well you know it, and perhaps if you truly accept mathematical reasoning as a perfect conclusion. A conclusion; mind you, that you desperately want to know. Math is just the kind of thing that will paint you into a corner with no way out but the right way.

You would be surprised, about the calibra of the people in which questions of reality have remained as elusive as grease lightning. So it is not a test of your intelligence but instead merely the luck of the draw that life throws at you. You just need to be wise enough to know when you are hearing the ring of truth, and when you are not.

Let us go back to the simple concept of thinking about what a dimension is by examining them in Cartesian Coordinates.

This Coordinate System has the simple feature that every point of space has a unique identity (x, y, z) in three dimensions.

Also notice that a one dimensional line in the space requires two extra background dimensions; and so is not the same as a naked single dimension that requires no such extra background dimensions. Usually teachers merely confuse this subtle point by making the fallacious claim that the axes are simply lines. But you must think deeper than that if you want to know.

Since you have had some dealing with mathematical proofs this should go easy; sometimes they can be very simple. And you happen to be in luck, the proof is so very simple in fact that it virtually can be reasoned out without mathematics. So here it goes:

Draw a circle with chalk on the ground around yourself then jump over the circle without touching it. By doing this you have proven that space cannot be two dimensional. Since you could easily apply The Pythagoras Theorem (in 3-dimensional form) to show that the height of your jump was in the third dimension. Now just take this thought experiment one dimension higher, instead of a circle we will use its higher dimensional counterpart the sphere.

Now you’re set in order to prove a 4th dimensional space (using The Pythagoras Theorem in a 4-dimensional form); all you need to do, now, is to jump out of the sphere without touching the surface of the sphere.

Um, Can’t Do That ??? ——-> BECAUSE SPACE IS ONLY 3-DIMENSIONAL.

This conclusion is not depended on our senses to perceive small sizes (curled up), since it can be made into any size you would like.

This means M-Theory is not true, but most people for whatever reason will not accept this; so here are two pieces presented for mass appeal their way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1N5pCAgUzU&feature=g-hist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FGgkfsMpCs&feature=g-hist

Brian Greene has become such an entertainer lately but I prefer mathematics rather than entertainment.

]]>First, she states that in eternal inflation multiple universes “can” arise. Does this mean that universes other than our own do not necessarily have to arise? If so, what are the conditions necessary to make a universe arise? (Or not arise, as the case may be.) I suppose that question could be rephrased as, “What makes inflation stop in any particular place in the eternal inflation?”

Second, there may be proof that inflation did or is occurring, but such proof only supports the theory, it does not make it undeniable fact. A more encompassing theory may still come along that doesn’t support multiple universes.

String theory, on the other hand, is from what I’ve heard untestable. And I’ve heard there are four of five different versions each of which could equally explain the universe as science finds it. So is it really “good science” to support the predictions of one theory that has some proof, with another that has no proof, especially when the result is a state of affairs (i.e., multiple universes) that can’t be proven at all? (If indications of two universes bumping into each other is found in the cosmic background radiation it will be interesting, but not definitive proof the multiple universe concept is true.)

Third, the impression I’m getting from the theory of multiple universes is that every possible situation that ever could exist or will exist is found made manifest in these universes. Isn’t this like saying that physicists can measure both momentum and position precisely at the same time? Something we’re told can’t happen?

Saying every possibility “happens” may work as a way to remove the observer from physics, but it also means that ultimately absolutely nothing happens. For when you add every possible negative value to every possible positive one, you get zero. Nada. Nothing.

Finally, and this is just a bit on the side, when Delia was drawing the first universe in inflation did anyone else think of the Taoist Yin Yang Symbol? Specifically, the white dot in the black teardrop?

]]>In a universe created by a ‘Big Tear’ there would be very little stretching near the center because the gravitational force of the inflationary universe pulling from all directions would cancel out. However, as you moved closer to the edge of the universe the stretching would become more pronounced. Until at the very periphery the gravitational gradient would become so great that you would be ‘spaghettified’ as you crossed an Event Horizon into the Eternally Inflating Universe.

A ‘Torn Universe’ then is kind of like an anti-Black Hole, literally tearing you into oblivion instead of crushing you into a singularity.

]]>