Thales

I can't tell if you are taking the piss or not. If not then I think you need to be commited to a looney bin....soon.

But the oxygen they generate can easily be re-converted by us, if we turn it into water, with the aid of a plant then we solve the water shortage problem and the pollution problem somewhat.

Pressure usually makes things contract not expand.

Ok my intial examples were poor to say the least (my mind was struggling to generate appropriate examples). Whats to say, however that Leonardo didn't subconsciously observe a falling leaf that gave him the idea for a 'helicopter'. As a collective we accumulate knowledge about the world around us in a rather methodical fashion. True innovation usually stems from the merging of too seemingly unrelated concepts. But the foundations of those concepts have to exist in the mind before a link can be made. So the link is more of an abstract take on the initial information, no new information has really been generated has it? If so then we really are interconnected, in the sense that all our knowledge is based on the accumulation of previous great minds, abstractions. Maybe not profound but interesting no less. Perhaps it is why we cannot think about four dimensional space or as alt put it think of new colours.

Cyclical Universe. Then, of course, you have to talk about where it came from and so forth. Such a discussion however I believe is best left for another day/thread.

Neither do I. At least this means we agree on something...

Well if the multiverse is closed then I think you know the answer...

Ok well firstly you can edit the quotes by deleteing the irrelevant text from between the tags ([]....[/]), it will help in pointing out what it is you object to. If things collide, then they are touching, there is no gap. And last time I checked universes can't just create themselves. Oh and Sayo, the existance of other universes does seem to smack of science fiction, but, just as we did in the wormhole thread, it still provides good intellectual fodder none the less...

Ok. I agree with your last statement, but the introduction of observers and individual universes, being considered seperately goes against the general grain of the thread. I was talking about the 'multiverse' all along, I think a quick re-read would hopefully reinforce that for you. I must say, a most interesting discussion none the less, at some point though we ended up on the same side of different coins. Lets hope some of the youngens reading this will learn a thing or two about the definition of open and closed systems...

This is a completely different point from what you where making before Mr Batty, first the universes were created in the gap, now they are created by the collision between boundaries. As for these new universes robbing the existing ones of matter/energy I think this is unlikely, see the wormhole thread. It seems in the last post you are suggesting a wormhole is temporarily created and then collapses trapping energy in it. While this process is plausible I don't see how it ties into your inital statement. Nor do I think it is entirely likely as if there is a method to create this bridge what would be the process that destroy's it? Does it happen instantly or does it stay open for a while? What processes dictate the time the hole is open, etc. Also this would mean the new universes are either much much much less massive than their parent universes or, the parent universes are robbed of a large proportion of their mass/energy. Our universe is pretty massive so I assume we are not born from a larger one(quite an assumption I agree but I do not prescribe to the universe in a universe in a universe with infinite regression theory (mainly because I don't believe infinity has any place in physics)), and we don't appear to be losing any mass to baby universes (nor have we any cosmological evidence that we ever have) so again, I remain starkly unconvinced.

Background radiation is too uniform to be a result of matter/antimatter collisions. It is also too cold (a mere 2.7K) and at the wrong wavelength (microwaves) to be explained via this process. The source of the background radiation is the afterglow of the big bang. We can say this with a fair degree of confidence because its temperature/distribution/wavelength match well with other estimations of the age/size of the universe.

I understand hyperdimmesional geometry quite well, I think that your reasoning is a bit too convoluted though. Are you saying that the space for the new universes is created on the 'surface' of the existing universes boundary or that the space is createed in the 'gap' between the universes? Oh and a minor correction yourdadonapogos, in brane theory 'new' space is created by a collison between two branes collide, not when two universes collide.

I don't understand the logic behind this arguement. If the universes were to remain at a constant distance(which there would be no reason for, but I have adopted that assumption to point out the following) and they expand, the space between them would shrink, not grow. As I assume the space 'between' universes is where you plan on inserting these new universes, you would need more space not less...

You can't have information travelling faster than the speed of light. It would provide a means to violate causality by being able to 'see' things before they occur in your frame of reference. See SR: Invariance or Minkowski Diagrams

Originally you stated that the laws of conservation wouldn't hold accross universes but this is the crux of your previous arguement. You effectively are saying what I have been saying all along; Thus on the grandest scale that includes both universes (even if they are closed off from one another they can still be considered to be part of a greater closed system) you have done little more than a reshuffle of existing energy. You can move energy from universe A to universe B and vice-versa but you are not technically creating or destroying anything...

No offense KH but your theory and your reasoning leaves alot to be desired. When people have an urge to be different and unique they often prescibe to theories based purely on this fact(that they are different(just like everyone else!)). You have provided no suggestion as to the mechanism behind the 'suction' you refer to and have ignored almost all cosmological evidence in regards to the standard big bang model. You are vaguley on the right track, in thinking abstractly about geometry and its application in the creation/evolution of the universe, however I fear you have misinterpreted brane theory and GR, resulting in a convoluted and rather unconvincing 'theory' about Black Holes. Black holes are formed by collapsing stars. Sure they may not contain a singularity, sure beyond the event horizon, current theories have holes in them, but this does not dispprove either their existance or the method by which they were created. Please feel free to convince me otherwise...

yourdadonapogos, the void between galaxies still has matter in it, not much but some. If there were antimatter zones in the universe then there would be boundaries where the zones 'met' normal matter and thus, annilated the matter generating lots of energy. While the idea is not impossible it is highly improbable, as in our extensive surveying of the universe we have not found any of areas generating this energy seemingly from no where. There is also the notion that the universe was once much much smaller and an abundance of antimatter wouldn't have left much for us to observe today(or enough to create us to observe this fact).

Can the mind actually generate anything genuinely new? In my opinion the mind does not so much generate original material, as it does reshuffle existing images and concepts in new ways. Perhaps this explains why it takes so long to 'grow up' and why genuinely innovative ideas are few and far between? Just a thought...

No, they wouldn't, because space-time is independent for each universe, as in each universe has its own space-time and one cannot 'insert a new universe into existing space-time, because it wouldn't be a new universe it would be a subspace of an existing one... I know we've had a similar discussion in the wormhole thread (that went a bit off topic in the end) but if anything then the creation of new universes would detract from space-times ability to expand(IMO) as this expansion requires energy as does the creation of a new universe.

Really? Have you got a link or any idea where I can find some info on this? Regardless, I see no reason why this provides a problem for the conservation of matter/energy? I repeat on the largest possible scale, the universe is a closed system, IMO.

Not if the plant was created for the specific purpose of cleaning the C02 out of the air.

Absolutely, it has to go somewhere. My point is that if it goes somewhere, then that place is part of the greater universe/multiverse and thus still inside the system, thus the system remains closed. I will be more than happy to continue this conversation later, but it is unfortunately well past midnight down here in Oz, so I'm off to visit the sandman, maybe he's got some answers. Oh and Sayo, I appreciate the antagonism, I really do. I've gone too long without someone to bounce idea's off (as I'm sure many of this forums visitors have), its good to discuss such things with someone who can see holes in my reasoning, not just blindly accept via a lack of giving a s**t.

Quark is you user rating based on your total number of posts. In order to learn the maths to descibe what your thinking about, i'd say 5 maybe 6 years...depending on your ability. To be honest seeing as this is more of a hobby for you, you'd be better off starting with general/special relativity. The maths is relatively simple(compared to Quantum Mechanics) and the idea's brought up are interesting to say the least.

That and if it is an open system where does the energy/matter go once it crosses the boundary? (I am aware we are now approaching philosophy but it is a valid point no less). Are you of the opinion it is simply destroyed?

Lol, Just read through this thread. ES are you taking the piss? You can't seriously believe these vague resemblences of terrestial cretins actually signify life on mars? Someone said it earlier but you really need to get yourself a book that explains scientific method, and read it... Or is your extra sense a lack of logic?