Is an Alternate Universe self possible?

[etcetcetc00]

Thank you swansont. I didn't start this thread to argue over the size of the universe with someone who understands nothing about physics. Space is not infinite. It started as one point and is expanding at a constant rate. By definition then it cannot be infinite. Hopefully I can now get some responses that address the question I originally posted within the parameters I specified by people who understand the material.

[Duration]

Thank you swansont. I didn't start this thread to argue over the size of the universe with someone who understands nothing about physics. Space is not infinite. It started as one point and is expanding at a constant rate. By definition then it cannot be infinite. Hopefully I can now get some responses that address the question I originally posted within the parameters I specified by people who understand the material.

 

 

Volume has no velocity, moron!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Could you try to maintain a bit more civility in future responses? I don't think hostility is required here.

[Duration]

Could you try to maintain a bit more civility in future responses? I don't think hostility is required here.

 

Sorry. I felt the need to respond to his demeaning comments.

[etcetcetc00]

Duration. Once more. Big Bang Theory. Have you ever heard of it? Or do you subscribe to a religious understanding of the nature of the universe? Real scientists have used WMAP satellite imagery to gain the image of the entirety of all the matter and energy (Which are the same thing, if you didn't know that) contained in our universe. They have measured the motions of other galaxies over time and discovered they all are expanding outward from the same location. If you don't believe this, I can offer you evidence that, if it's possible to achieve such a thing, help you to understand the reality of something you do not currently understand. The Universe originated from one point. Since the speed of light is an absolute speed limit that cannot be exceeded, the radius of the universe can be calculated by multiplying the calculated speed of light by the amount of time the universe has been expanding and THAT has been determined by cosmologists smarter and more reasonable than you who dedicated careers to measuring the movements of stars and galaxies so we could come to this understanding. No real scientists debate this fact. This is what the scientific method has led us to discover. If you do not subscribe to the scientific method, you should not discuss science in a scientific forum.

Even more than that, the question I posed, which has not had the opportunity to be discussed due to this childish back and forth you've instigated is a hypothetical question based on pre-assumed conditions that you clearly do not understand. You are ill equipped to address my question and therefore I ask that you leave me alone so that real experts might have the chance to shed some light on what I'd like clarified.

[Duration]

Duration. Once more. Big Bang Theory. Have you ever heard of it? Or do you subscribe to a religious understanding of the nature of the universe? Real scientists have used WMAP satellite imagery to gain the image of the entirety of all the matter and energy (Which are the same thing, if you didn't know that) contained in our universe. They have measured the motions of other galaxies over time and discovered they all are expanding outward from the same location. If you don't believe this, I can offer you evidence that, if it's possible to achieve such a thing, help you to understand the reality of something you do not currently understand. The Universe originated from one point. Since the speed of light is an absolute speed limit that cannot be exceeded, the radius of the universe can be calculated by multiplying the calculated speed of light by the amount of time the universe has been expanding and THAT has been determined by cosmologists smarter and more reasonable than you who dedicated careers to measuring the movements of stars and galaxies so we could come to this understanding. No real scientists debate this fact. This is what the scientific method has led us to discover. If you do not subscribe to the scientific method, you should not discuss science in a scientific forum.

Even more than that, the question I posed, which has not had the opportunity to be discussed due to this childish back and forth you've instigated is a hypothetical question based on pre-assumed conditions that you clearly do not understand. You are ill equipped to address my question and therefore I ask that you leave me alone so that real experts might have the chance to shed some light on what I'd like clarified.

 

You can't continue with your assumption until you clarify the volume of this new found universe you claim is real. I'm not asking too much, am I? I mean, I'm not asking for the mass of your new found universe you've discovered, just the volume (space), it seems to me you should have a rough idea, since you've already assumed the reality of it. Furthermore, you have no business placing borders within an infinite volume, and calling them new universes.

 

What's it like in the other universe you claim is real? Is there gravity there? How much distance separates the two universes, or are they touching? Is there a fence between them? Who built the fence?

 

Why did you decide to divide the universe into sub universes, and who authorized the change from one all encompassing universe to a bunch of smaller less dominate universes? The math doesn't work the other way, so if the math doesn't work for the universe, change the universe? Is that the way it works?

 

I asked you before, what percent of the pie do you have if I cut a pie into four pieces and give you one piece?

Edited March 21, 2009 by Duration

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Real scientists have used WMAP satellite imagery to gain the image of the entirety of all the matter and energy (Which are the same thing, if you didn't know that) contained in our universe.

WMAP merely looks at the cosmic microwave background. It has not generated an image of all matter and energy.

 

They have measured the motions of other galaxies over time and discovered they all are expanding outward from the same location. If you don't believe this, I can offer you evidence that, if it's possible to achieve such a thing, help you to understand the reality of something you do not currently understand. The Universe originated from one point.

This is not true. The galaxies have not been measured to all be moving away from a central point. The distance between them has merely been observed to increase.

 

What this means is this: The galaxies are not all "moving" per se. The universe is expanding and the galaxies move apart with it. It's like drawing dots on a balloon and then inflating it -- the dots stretch apart, but they're not moving on the balloon.

 

So we can't say "over there, at that point, is the center of the universe." Everything used to be the center, since the entire universe is involved in the expansion.

 

This is what the scientific method has led us to discover. If you do not subscribe to the scientific method, you should not discuss science in a scientific forum.

Even more than that, the question I posed, which has not had the opportunity to be discussed due to this childish back and forth you've instigated is a hypothetical question based on pre-assumed conditions that you clearly do not understand. You are ill equipped to address my question and therefore I ask that you leave me alone so that real experts might have the chance to shed some light on what I'd like clarified.

There is no need to be so condescending and rude. The point of this forum is to allow people to learn, not to allow you to tell those you think are less intelligent than you to bugger off.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[Ophiolite]

Wrong place

[swansont]

I am not a professional physicist, and I do not understand physics as well as most of you would, and I understand this is a very conditional idea. My question is:

- If the Multiple Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true, and

- M theory or any other theory involving creations of other universes is true

 

I am a possible outcome of the universe we live in, and have been realized here. Is it possible that I might also be a possible outcome of another universe, and therefore am, will be, or have been realized in another universe as well?

 

This may be too far into the realm of pseudoscience or metaphysics. I'm not asking if it has been proven, only if it is possible based on those prior conditions.

 

I'm not all that conversant in M-theory, but hypothetically there would be an exact replica of you out there. Probably more than one, possibly an infinite number. However, it matters what you mean by "I am realized in another universe" — it would not be you, it would be a duplicate of you. And there would be no connection; all of these "worlds" are orthogonal to each other.