Comments on: Parallel Universes

By: mahonhouse

mahonhouse — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:08:00 +0000

wow you must be really important.

By: mahonhouse

mahonhouse — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:58:00 +0000

why can it be both. Is not everything made of subatomic particles,

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:17:00 +0000

in another universe there s no BBC, no TV networks at all.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:48:00 +0000

in another parallel universe i didnt even watch this doc or post this comment.. but I did..FACT!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:33:00 +0000

Paralle universes. Why not? Running side by side just on a different friquency. Could this explain life after death? Maybe reincarnation, a place to hang when we dream an things seem oh so surreal for days after we awaken.
Our soul needs rest after the life we experence here. So why not rest some where close to home.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:42:00 +0000

Buddhists believe that everything happens because of the happening itself. For example, I don’t walk along the road towards the shop, intending to buy some meat because of the meat or anything, but I walk because of walking. I like that view, and share it.

You say the history still exists in our past and we might be able to experience it again if we traveled back in time, and altering the past would make parallel dimensions? I find the other parts credible, but if you claim there already are parallel dimensions, then someone in some, probably the original dimension if you like, has discovered how to travel back in time. But that theory itself has a… problem. What if someone from the future travels back in order to undo the events that led to inventing the time machine? What would happen to the possible parallel universes that were created due to previous time travels?

So, the events of history stay despite of moving forwards, and those events that are floating in time in a manner of speaking, shift over time. Like sand moving on a windy hill, over time. It’s like a fifth dimension in itself, a dimension related to time, but like another dimension in same manner as horizontal dimension is another dimension of space to vertical, and depth is the third. Well, if you’re correct in that the events of time stay there, which they might since they’ve already existed although I don’t know any way to confirm it, then I see you’d have a very good case here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:11:00 +0000

internet arguments, you gotta love them… i can t believe i spent the last 45 minutes reading all the arguments in this page as i would have anything to do with them… i need a healty hobby

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:23:00 +0000

no evidence in Darwin’s case?????

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:06:00 +0000

nice idea but the concept of twins is a biological one, not an astro-physical one

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:05:00 +0000

xsc

By: mahonhouse

mahonhouse — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:30:00 +0000

I wonder if twins are a multiple universe glitch and I wonder if experiments that I have seen on them to guage actual long distant co-existing a feelings,could be somehow performed on the sub-atomic level?
I am just a regular guy but It seems as though something may be there.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:47:00 +0000

Fantasy, perhaps, is it just a hypothesis, not science until it is proven! Interesting never the less. We seem to grasp at scientific theories with little evidence or in Darwin’s case, no evidence at all. Some things sound good on the surface, but as we all know, once we crack the surface, we come away with in entirely different matter of fact.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:34:00 +0000

haha

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:16:00 +0000

Yes, probably is no such thing as nothing/oblivion.
“Null Physics” states that the universe began from the number zero. Physicists hypothesize that the state of “nothing” is actually “something”.

Because if there is nothing, there would have to be something that has become nothing. Nothing is filling something, this goes as far as to say, that the universe is nothing, and it does not exist. The reason for this is, if everything is to the value of zero, which is the “something” of “nothing”, then you would have nothing.

Almost like multiplying a negative times a positive. Physicists call the zero’s that make up the universe geometric points, which are similar to singularities, but do not condense matter.
Geometric points only represent what is not there. And this is how the universe exists.

How can a person define “nothingness” it is logically inconceivable, you would have to be conscious in “nothingness” to define it.

By: ???? ?????

???? ????? — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:07:00 +0000

But, if you say something was needed to create the membranes, why wouldn’t there be anything else to create that?
As you’ve said “A search for “the beginning” is a never-ending task.” That is simply because there is no real beginning. Anything that has a beginning requires ‘something’ before that beginning.
The only solution is infinity, because only infinity negates ‘nothing’ (not empty space, not vacuum, but essential nothingness, something we call ‘nonbeing’), because ‘nothing’ cannot exist, therefore, the existence stretches into infinity, be it that one thing is always contained inside another or some sort of ‘space’ stretches ‘ad infinitum’…. Ehh… I hope I was at least partly comprehensible.