One more step to Explaining the Origin of the Universe

posted on June 10th, 2012, 4:34 pm

http://www.insidescience.org/?q=content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

posted on June 10th, 2012, 10:39 pm

Interesting

posted on June 24th, 2012, 11:46 am

That's indeed interesting. I friend of mine (who's absolutely mad because he wants to become a physicist) told me of a theory that was dealing with different universe "bubbles" that were linked together with some kind of channels. After a while of "new universes with possible infinite different dimensions babbling" I could not follow anymore... it was too great for me. But this sounds similar. What if black holes are these "channels" and inside of it there is...

It really blows my mind... how can a human being not humble before such a greatness? Every time I think about the universe and how big it is I stare at the limited physicists trying to explain it with two bottles and a liquid. That's so ridiculous! You're all mad...

posted on June 27th, 2012, 9:29 pm

It really blows my mind... how can a human being not humble before such a greatness? Every time I think about the universe and how big it is I stare at the limited physicists trying to explain it with two bottles and a liquid. That's so ridiculous! You're all mad...

That's because almost absolutely everything can be explained. Human stupidity notwithstanding.

And once you do, it's time to break out the FTL, load up the railguns and start cracking at that Terran Empire you always wanted.

And by the way, you're having dificulty following the their explanation, I'm not exactly sure you can go around calling them 'limited.'

posted on June 28th, 2012, 1:03 am

Okay,... So we need a universe to create a universe? That article explained nothing about where the space-time-matter came from, it just moved it to a different universe.

posted on June 28th, 2012, 7:27 am

Still a better explanation than "A wizard did it!"

posted on June 28th, 2012, 12:38 pm

It really blows my mind... how can a human being not humble before such a greatness? Every time I think about the universe and how big it is I stare at the limited physicists trying to explain it with two bottles and a liquid. That's so ridiculous! You're all mad...

That's because almost absolutely everything can be explained. Human stupidity notwithstanding.

And once you do, it's time to break out the FTL, load up the railguns and start cracking at that Terran Empire you always wanted.

And by the way, you're having dificulty following the their explanation, I'm not exactly sure you can go around calling them 'limited.'

Hey Nutter, no need to write in font size=50. I don't insult physicists by saying they are limited. Because that's just what they are so as everyone else. If you feel offended when I call others limited I recommend to you to watch and understand this:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/ ... &flash=off

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/ ... &flash=off

(there are a more interesting topics from that guy that pretty much explains what I think about the topic. Evaluate him yourself.)

You are right. Everything can be explained. But not from us. Explain to me what lies beyond the expanding universe border. There is absolutely no way of explaining things as we just have our limited tools to explain the universe. It's the greatest dilemma of science.

posted on June 28th, 2012, 1:26 pm

Explain to me what lies beyond the expanding universe border.

That is actually outside the realm of science, as the very definition of science can only deal with this universe. Anything outside this universe is religion.

posted on June 28th, 2012, 3:19 pm

first side note: the universe has no borders. and yet it expands. But that's offtopic.

nature science deals with everything that is observable, or, to be more precise, everything that has a causal relation to the observer.
Everything outside that bubble of causality is undefined, and science doesn't say a word on it. That makes sense. Consider a second universe somewhere far off and completely disconnected from ours. it may or may not exist, we have no chance to tell. It's reasonable to suggest that things outside causal relation do not exist, as we can make anything up out there (even the spaghetti monster). One of the best examples of Occam's Razor.

Religion is something very different, because religion existed last time i checked.

posted on June 28th, 2012, 4:48 pm

@optec: even with what science deals with in the observable universe is a particular form or way of knowing.

while religion exists, and it may seem that science will have something to say on it, it still depends on the grounds of what is being said.

there is the idea of things as they appear, and of things as they actually are. science deals easily with things as they appear. it appears this stone is green, and it was caused by this series of events that led to it being green. It can even go deeper or more superficial based on what appearance they want to take. Do they want to use a microscope? It would then make the stone appear very different. but why is there a stone at all?

But science is in desperate need of a better ontological basis for reality than materialism or what have you. Appearances are not necessarily arbitrary or useless for us to understand, but science can overstep its bounds quite easily. It might 'appear' to science, that if someone advocates a non scientific way of knowing it seems invalid. Not the case.

I am not very religious, so I'm not getting into that (in the sense of institutionalized religion, many spiritual avenues are very promising, to me what is spiritual and what is religious are very different, despite same subject matter). And while I think science certainly has it uses for helping us with HOW things are done, it is almost useless for telling us WHY. Science hasn't grounded itself in a very meaningful way for society, but has been given huge authority within society, quite an unnerving position.

but in general, i think the acknowledgement of science and its connection to observation is a key point, and I'm not really critiquing anything you said. just that even those things that exist in the universe and are to be observed can be experienced with different valid ways of knowing, and even within that categorization of the existing observable universe, science is not so easily made absolute.

as for the thread. I'm not sure if the origin of the universe is really being discussed. just the nature of the universe. universes are inside black holes? now either true or false, but let's ignore the point either way.

what is a black hole? definitions are still tricky, because they are given based on what we can observe as already suggested. but what we can observe changes with time, and so will our definition. but why is their a black hole? what created it? etc etc. From what I saw, it wasn't really talking about origins, the whats, or why's, or how's of origin. It was mostly nature of the universe, not origin. did i miss something?

posted on June 28th, 2012, 6:11 pm

Yah, you missed something. Me poking fun at the theory in the article not answering the questions it promised to answer. To me, the article seems to be more religious in nature than scientific. But it's interesting none the less.

posted on June 28th, 2012, 7:20 pm

no, you just don't have a scientific backgound./ understanding. But that has been proven over and over again by your statements alone.

Because you do know what a theoretical physicist does right? They use maths to hypothesize theories and then try to prove it through experiments. The hyggs boson is such an example. It is just one side of the coin how to do research. The other side is to use practical means to come through a theory

posted on June 28th, 2012, 7:34 pm

Okay,... So we need a universe to create a universe? That article explained nothing about where the space-time-matter came from, it just moved it to a different universe.

yes. i missed this statement.

more or less... yes.

doesn't discuss origins.

just universes within blackholes, within universes, within blackholes.

still no solid ground for scientific basis

posted on June 28th, 2012, 9:13 pm

first side note: the universe has no borders. and yet it expands. But that's offtopic.

It's not off topic. Since black wholes include a whole universe I restate my question. Where does the universe extend into inside a black hole, if the theory is assumed to be true?

Your turn.

posted on June 29th, 2012, 12:26 am

Hmm... i believe black holes are nothing more than matter spheres (i.e. planets) that posses enough gravemetric density to pull in light... no vacium... no new universe... just a fat planet. so i can't really comment on this 'mini universe' theroy.

HOWS THAT FOR A HERESAICAL UNDERSTANDING...lol =D