[Jerry]

Hey, please excuse those weird codes. They tend to show up almost every time! If I knew how to prevent or stop them, I would. Sorry to those individuals who try to decipher what I wrote there!

[Jerry]

If the idea of parallel universes (aka the many worlds theory) is accurate, wouldn’t the workings of physical reality have to take only one specific course, governed by cause and effect, until or unless interfered with by a conscious being with free will? It seems only a living being could possibly have available an infinite possible number of courses of action that may be taken. That only lifeforms with free will could possibly interrupt the determined path that reality will take into the future. If this is accurate, that would seem that, if there were infinite numbers of parallel universes, then all of them were exactly the same right up until the very first form(s) of life were somehow brought into existence and made the very first “choices”.

If parallel universes actually exist, and if there’s an infinite amount of them, and that we have infinite possibilities every second, somehow, somewhere within reality, then most certainly there could be more than countless trillions which could lead us to success at creating various positive changes, specifically with our world.

Is there a possibility there is more than one universe? If so, how could we ever find out? If all multiple universes exist separately from each other, they would inevitably have to stay finite. The idea of the multiverse that contains an infinite number of universes has been a somewhat popular idea within the scientific mainstream these days.

If there actually is more than one universe, how and where could any sort of boundary line possibly exist between them? What would keep the finite universes into their own separate “framework”, and prevent them from interfering with surrounding universes? Could we actually see other universes through our highly powered telescopes? If we could, how to know once we’ve found one? How would it look different from <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>our universe?

What does the word “reality” mean? What does “universe” mean? Don’t they seem to have similar definitions? If there were even somehow different rules of physics that other universes experience, why couldn’t all the multiple universes continue to comprise a “one and only” universe? What would a “multi-reality” consist of? Wouldn’t each of the “realities” exist with all the others to compose a “one and only” reality?

Is every universe expanding? If so, does that mean they have to, or at least, eventually will, expand into each other? What keeps any two of them from joining up with each other, if what composes them is actually expanding and rushing outwards?

Could we ever observe other universes within the multiverse? How nearby does our universe exist relative to any of the others? If our universe is expanding, is it expanding into other universes? and that those also expand into other universes, including ours? What is the difference between the multiverse and parallel universes? They were presented separately when they were originally thought of. There have been said to exist infinite amounts of each of them.

The multiverse was once presented as infinite separate universes, which exist independently, yet within the same reality as the countless other universes. However, parallel universes were expressed as some type of alternate reality, disconnected from our universal surroundings. Is there any possible way that someday, we could view or join with a separate universe, whether parallel or of the multiverse variety?

What type of boundary separates each galaxy from the others? What if every galaxy is another universe? What evidence is there that each isn’t? The further we look into distant outer space, how to know if we’re ever starting to actually see other universes? How to distinguish between the possible edge or boundary line between our universe, to the edge of another universe?

What if we could observe “other universes”? If we observe other galaxies through telescopes, why couldn’t we possibly observe other universes? Is every universe within the alleged multiverse finite? Isn’t every galaxy finite? What if there were more universes to spring into existence after “our beginning”? Were any of the universes which compose today’s multiverse, around before “our” Big Bang?

What exactly “contains” a galaxy? Where to possibly find the boundary lines that separate galaxies? How to know where a given star is found within a galaxy? Is there any area at all within the universe that doesn’t exist within a galaxy? What could possibly exist within that area? objects? mass and energy? only space?

Does every galaxy exist “right next to” other galaxies? What about how our universe is today? What if “our” universe expands into any of the other universes? What if other universes also expand? What if there exist constant collisions between some of the universes, when they expand into each other’s vicinity?

How to know for sure exactly how nearby other universes exist? What if every solar system exists in a different universe? Is there a theory of how far away the next universe is?

What if there is at least one parallel universe where literally nothing exists? or perhaps an infinite amount of them? of only empty space and time? or what if there exist a few universes where physical reality exists, except without any living beings?

The Milky Way galaxy, presented through books and videos, has often been pointed out to exist as gigantic clusters of stars that appear only when we look in one specific direction, at one specific position in the universe. However, our solar system is included, or said to exist within the Milky Way. If this is the truth, that our solar system is somehow a part of it, why wouldn’t we instead appear encompassed by the Milky Way, where it is visible from <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>all directions? Why isn’t the Milky Way instead shown to literally <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>surround our solar system, of our earthly position here in the universe?

Also, how could we supposedly see the “beginning of the universe” if we could look possibly to that highest distance into outer space? If we could somehow find and observe another universe, how could we possibly know that’s what it is? Would its appearance somehow look indescribable, compared to the countless galaxies we’re familiar with? Why would we see the galaxy we exist within, only when looking in one specific direction, yet the beginning of the universe would somehow appear in all directions?

If we took away simply one finite universe out of the allegedly infinite multiverse, does the multiverse after that stay infinite? Of course, “infinity plus one” seems meaningless, or impossible to know. However, is “infinity minus one” possibly a finite number?

Anything that is said to have “zero-length or size” couldn’t physically exist in reality. There is also said to exist <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>higher dimensions, after the first four that allegedly compose “space-time”. Where and how could you possibly <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>find them? What is today’s most scientifically accurate definition of “dimension”? How similar is it compared to the original definition?

[Jerry]

For anyone who is interested, I printed this again, and there aren’t as many of those weird codes. 🙂

[Jerry]

We could consider first, the length contraction and mass growing at a high velocity. FitzGerald and Lorentz had arrived at them, almost two decades before Einstein’s Special Relativity.

That they had, instead, theorized these two ideas in response to what seemed to them (and many others) the null experiment results that Michelson and Morley had with the interferometer.

If the aether actually does exist, how different is the concept in our day, compared to the universe that Michelson and Morley thought they were dealing with?

[Jerry]

Hi Jan Olof. Thanks for the response!

There was written on one of the first links, “They focus on describing how the Lorentz transformation might be applicable for particles exhibiting velocities greater than the speed of light c.”

If this is so, that the Lorentz Transformation doesn’t apply to objects below the velocity of light, wouldn’t the velocity of an object that is above c (linearly), turn out to completely “match up”, or equal in velocity, to another object that actually is lower than c? How to distinguish between one and the other? That is, if one is “linearly” a given velocity, while the other has been “tweaked” by the Lorentz Transformation?

Also, a crucial question is, “what is the velocity of either one relative to”? What does “velocity” even mean unless it travels or exists within a direct reference to another object or frame to compare it to?

[Jerry]

I feel that I was somewhat at fault, with being too vocal about the “impending” aether debate. Plus, I might have appeared somewhat over-confident with the way I’ve expressed a variety of my viewpoints of a few ideas and theories throughout different groups here.

I want to add, that it often seems somewhat unavoidable, that with expressing our views, including our biases, that a given degree of emotion is sometimes present. David had mentioned lately (at least through the dissident science Saturday morning discussions) that we shouldn’t “fall in love” with our ideas. That, of course, anyone could have mistaken views.

We’re all most certainly mistaken about countless “trivial facts and ideas”. However, we’re much more careful when dealing with what we consider our “specialty”. We may tend to have a high degree of confidence in our views, since we’ve spent much thought, time, and effort, and that we trust the reasoning process we’ve used to develop what we may consider crucial and relevant theories and ideas.

We might even inadvertantly convey too much energy or even charisma, to other interested individuals who have other ideas, which from their perspective, might resemble arrogance, even though that wasn’t the speaker’s intention at all. Anyway, just a thought.

[Jerry]

Sorry again about the “codes”, I can’t seem to prevent them! lol

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

If what you say here is the truth, “<b style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Ether is ether particles that are neutrino-like particles moving in all direction penetrating all material.”

Then how does the “falling ether” create gravity?

If the “falling ether” does exist, does it accelerate towards the earth or other massive celestial objects?

Also, is the “falling ether” precisely equal to the escape velocity, every step of the way? The same way that a falling object would equal the escape velocity? How would the “falling ether” factor in the acceleration within its free-fall?

[Jerry]

How many people will actually debate the aether? Is it “one on one”? or more than one for each side?

[Jerry]

What would seem fair in this regard? Couldn’t we plan and agree in advance what specific topics involving the aether to discuss? I think that 3 Eastern is 2 Central. That sounds cool to me, even if I don’t actually join the debate. I could at least type in a few questions and comments, if the forum is set up that way.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hey, that one worked! Btw, I haven’t ever cut and paste from the internet on here. Only one time did I provide a link to Einstein’s paper of “special relativity” in a way different post quite a while ago. Anyway, thanks! 🙂

[Jerry]

Here. I’ll try to post the original statement without the “codes”.

What if the physical course that planets seem to follow into a “2-D plate” type formation (or the “ecliptic” pattern) around the sun, is caused by electromagnetism? That is, instead of solely gravity or inertia? This is also similar to Saturn’s rings which somehow stay in “orbit” (around the sphere that’s composition is allegedly more lightweight than water).

Does every planet (or most of them) within our solar system, actually follow the “ecliptic” plate type sequence, or is it simply easier to present them that way in books, videos, and such? Is it possible that the planets circle the sun in a similar way that the possibly outdated version of the atom, that is, where electrons orbit the nucleus without the ecliptic patterns?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

I guess I didn’t try to explain this clearly. Whenever I post almost anything in groups, the “codes” appear automatically. I’ve tried to post them over again and again, and they won’t go away. Of course, I realize how annoying that is to try to read! Wish I knew how to fix that problem.

[Jerry]

Central here. What day and time would seem good?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

I tried to print this again, and I can’t delete either one of these. lol

Anyway, thanks for understanding.