Scientist Claims He Has Found Evidence Of Other Universes

Of course, I’m still unconvinced. I’d have found this more convincing if someone had predicted that there might be such areas in the CMB prior to finding them.

Still though, it’s very interesting.

Let’s see if he can form this into a scientific and falsifiable hypothesis. Then we can see if it pans out.

Scientist Claims He Has Found Evidence Of Other Universes

Advertisements

24 Responses to Scientist Claims He Has Found Evidence Of Other Universes

  1. I agree, that this topic should be watched for further future developments!

  2. ECA says:

    I wont be around long enough to see them take advantage of it.

  3. ECA, assuming they prove that this indicates the existence of other universes, do you have any thoughts on what the technological advances might be? Or, are you just (probably correctly) assuming that the advances from such knowledge would be unimaginable to us today?

  4. ECA says:

    2 parts to this…
    1..Im 56 and not getting younger..

    2.. the odds are that the Other side, is mostly a harmonic change in position… It could be anything. A mirror reflection of our own, it will probably be an Equal comparison to our own, or even a full alternative to our own..
    Anything from an Off position of our OWN worlds, to something that Physics are either 1 off to a full reversal of our own nature.

    The idea is we have to get to the Conjunction and see whats happening, and find a way to enter it/observe it…and find out if we can survive it after entering..

    The idea is we have to get to the Conjunction and see whats happening, and find a way to enter it/observe it…and find out if we can survive it after entering..

    The other problem is the IF’ this is happening. it would take Centuries to get there…and YEARS to figure out things happening, IF’ they are, then Years more to find out if we can do anything with it..

  5. That’s probably a pretty fair assessment. At 52, I’m not getting any younger either. And, I don’t think we’re close to the time when we can port our brains into computers or robots.

  6. ECA says:

    The idea that something is happening, and its Very interesting…
    2 choices.
    Go there..
    try to figure out HOW to make it happen, HERE..

    but this is like Long distance tech support..talking to a Nub, over a phone that has little if any idea of what to do..and you cant get remote access to the computer.
    A pain in the Posterior..at the very best of times.
    We know something COULD be happening, and beyond that, nothing May be happening that we can do anything about..

  7. ECA says:

    pOLITICS: is like 300 people, debating the price of a Large hog, to give to their Constituents, Getting the money from the Constituents to buy the HOG, Sticking the extra cash in their pockets, deciding to bar-b-que it to make it taste better, then finding out there wasnt enough to go around, after it was all eaten by them.. IT WAS 1 HOG..

    • That’s about right.

      How about if we put politicians on commission?

      1. Publicly funded campaigns. Make it illegal for anyone to pay for any portion of their own campaign.

      2. Make lobbying what it was intended to be: a visit to the politician and discussion. No money or other gifts can change hands, not even contributions to “honoraria” funds.

      3. Here’s where the commission comes in: Make their salary the median income of their constituency. (This would work even if we think politicians should make more, which I don’t. Tie the salary to the median income of their constituency.) Make it so that the only way a politician can profit from office is to increase the median income of their constituents.

  8. ECA says:

    There are many problems happening at the top..
    1. What Life learning skills do they have?
    2. how many REAL jobs have they ever had??(most, went to school to be lawyers, graduated with a D’ and went into politics)
    3. in the past this was an Honor position, and paid for transport and Living expense while in washington…in the 70’s, they MADE a vote to Match the Wages of a Median CEO…
    Being an honor position, there were allot of older, retired Businessmen and Farmers..

    Someone asked me Why other groups have a hard time getting TV TIME.. The Demos and reps, did something…Insted of paying the BASIC cost of an advert(not a political advert) they PAID MORE…about 10 times more…which got the TV corps to adjust the Costs of the Adverts.. The only way to get into the market is to run a PSA…but it is very stringent..

    4. ITS NOT just those elected. There are positions AROUND them that are just BS..those that give information to the people. A person that used to work for the RIAA has a job in government..what do you think they do? There are Tons of people who work there and when they Quit/retire, get Jobs in Major industry..in top positions.

    I would LOVE to move our capital.
    1. its to close to the Coast, which can make it a target.
    2. it to close to OTHER major cities, which makes it a target..
    3. defending Washington, with any type of weapon that could destroy a plane, would DROP a burning wreck into a populated area..
    4. Washington was setup to be, almost central, 200 years ago…Made things abit easy to get to..NOW it ISNT.. It was built in a swamp area, because it was CHEAP LAND..

    Would love to place NEW buildings out in the middle of a corn field.. With restricted access only to those who NEED TO BE THERE….Lets lock them away for the 3months+3months that they are in office..(yes their hours aint changed, since it was all farmers..) Lets turn it into a Camp, and they cant leave..

  9. ECA says:

    PS…It would take 20 years to rebuild…they have so many tunnels and access points, built over the last 200 years, Im amazed it hasnt SUNK..

  10. I can’t agree with you on moving the capital. I think we already have people with unequal representation in our country. I don’t think a city dweller’s life has less value than that of a farmer.

    The president should be elected by popular vote.

    What state you live in should not affect your voting power. It’s ridiculous. I know we disagree on this topic.

    But, in my opinion, as the country becomes increasingly cosmopolitan, as more and more people move to cities, the politicians are representing fewer and fewer people in the country.

    States with fewer people wield a power that is completely disproportional to the number of people in those states. If someone kills a human being in Wyoming, are they charged with 3 counts of murder compared to only 1 count of murder for killing someone in California? No.

    So, why does a person in Wyoming get to vote 3 times while a Californian only gets to vote once?

  11. ECA says:

    Part of the problem in farming states is Comparing Populations. If you go by numbers then only 8-13 states in the USA could vote, leaving out ALL the rest of the states. Even now, if you look at the numbers, you STILL only need 13 states to be president..
    Yes, its the MOST populated states. also the ones with Less farming.
    Not getting into Middlemen in the farming industry..
    Trying to create a Balance between states willing to GROW FOOD and those that just GROW people…is a hard choice. Farms are using less and less people to Manage them, its getting automated HEAVILY..(back to the idea of Middlemen and corps)
    Balancing state Votes to give them a SMALL impact on an election is a minor thing. You would have to have, ALL those other states Vote against 1 person, to have the same impact as the biggest 13..

  12. ECA,

    You didn’t read what I wrote. Ditch the electoral college. Elect the president by the popular vote. Then every vote counts. It won’t be the 13 most populous states. It will be the majority of the people of the country.

    As soon as we hypothetically do this, states do not vote, period. No states.

    What exactly is a state? What does it mean for a state to vote?

    People. People. People.

    States don’t vote. People vote.

    Let’s count every single vote. Let’s imagine a nation. Let’s imagine a nation with a national election. Let’s imagine a nation with a national election where human beings actually elect the president.

    States don’t vote.

    States don’t grow food.

    People do those things.

    Also, I reject your claim that people who grow food count more and are inherently better and privileged. Why? What’s so special about growing food? What about people who catch fish? What about people who enforce the rules for clean water and air?

    Voting is a right, not a privilege to be earned by growing food.

  13. ECA says:

    I suggest then, you look up the populations of the Major states compared to the central USA..
    A few Major population centers Rival the WHOLE populations of a State..
    When those First 13 states encompass over 1/2 of the USA population…

    REALLY want to scare the demo/reps?? Force them to SPREAD the population out?? Give every state 1 vote.
    Considering only 30% vote in each state, they would have to get 26 states…not 13.. And they wouldnt know WHICH ones to get the vote from..Wouldnt even need the Electoral..

    PART of the problem you are seeing with the Electoral, is it was created to show Separation in a STATE, but the States changed it so that if 1 person gets the major part they get ALL of it..
    Only 2-3 states Separate the electoral vote..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

  14. ECA, states do not vote. States are not people.

    All votes are equal just as all people have equal value. As long as you think you count for more than I do because I live in a city, I have nothing more to say to you on this issue.

    You and I are are equal.

    I will not accept any statement of yours that says that I am less of a human being than you.

    And, yes. You are saying that.

  15. OK ECA. I’m sorry. It seems I lied. I have more to say on the subject.

    What do you think happens in cities and rural states? We have only a two party system. Do you think that all of New York City votes the same way? Do you think everyone in your home state votes the same way?

    What does it mean for a state to have representation in a two party system?

    When your home state, presumably a red state, votes Republican, do you think that means that they have voted against the liberal elite New Yorkers?

    Let me tell you a bit about New York.

    Wall Street traders are more staunchly Republican than any red state. Go out on a trading floor in any brokerage house, whether it’s Shittygroup (the former Solomon Smith Barney), Goldman Sucks, J. P. Gorgon Chase, or any other, stand in the middle of the trading floor and say, “Let’s hear it for the Democrats!”

    You’ll be buried in electronics as people throw their phones and Bloomberg terminals at your head.

    And, New York as a state also includes vast expanses of farmland and other rural areas in upstate New York who are also staunchly Republican. That’s why New York State had 12 years of Republican Governor Pataki in recent years.

    New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the country. And, we have Bridge Bridgie as our goombah governor and Republican presidential candidate.

    Further, the Republican party that seems to be in favor in most of the rural middle states of the union supports the total destruction of the midwest by pipelines and oil trains and strip mining. They support the destruction of family farms by big ag like Archer Daniel Midland and Monsanto. And still, the farming states vote overwhelmingly to support the Koch brothers and big agriculture at their own expense.

    So, what exactly do you think it means to have extra representation for the rural states?

  16. ECA says:

    can I get back to you when Im not druck??? and after you consider that HIGH AMNY live in city bs how many live in country…

    • Sure. Take your time.

      But, when you sober up, consider that city folk and country folk are not at war with each other. Many on either side vote along with the other side.

      The real war is a class war of income redistribution between the uber-wealthy 0.01% and the rest of us. The income is being redistributed from the middle class to the uber-wealthy.

      The 0.01% are winning.

      And, the 0.01% are winning with the help of people who think they’re voting against cities by voting Repugnican but are actually voting in lock step with uber-wealthy industrialists in the Wall Street banks, the fossil fuel industries, and big agriculture, to name a few.

  17. ECA says:

    oK, brain in something OTHER then neutral..
    MUCH of the problem about elections..2 things happening.
    1. in the past, older folks have WATCHED as elections and votes have been changed/modifies/and just FAKED… They got tired of it, and quit voting.
    2. The electoral vote is corrupted. It was designed to represent an equal number of people. It was designed that it could be SPLIT to represent the BALANCE of a state vote. At this time, 48(?) of the state give ALL votes to the winner of 51% or more..

    Over the years, we have NOT taught our kids HOW we control this country. After we QUIT voting. WHO is voting. Looking at the numbers 30%..that number works very well with the SAME number of people in BOTH republican and democrat registry.
    30% of the people Elect a person to represent them..be it senator, Congress, or president.. Being a 2 party system, its 15% that get THEIR PERSON elected.
    Once the net was up, I challenged a few people to a idea…LOOK UP this people in your local gov..See where they were born and raised.
    2/3 were NOT from our area…MOST were raised closer to the EAST COAST. From judges, Lawyers, Mayors, Governors…

    Then I asked friends to look up REASONS for people to first come to the USA.. it was to leave because of conditions in EU..between the Banks, companies, traders, and religions.. ALL the poor and middle class…went someplace to get away from it, and have a chance..Once we developed the USA, GUESS WHO FOLLOWED…

    Where can I start this..
    About lincolns time, THINGS really started happening. WHAT GOOD reason would a person get rid of Slavery..There were many at the time, but 1 hits all of it…JOBS..
    After his time, corps found that they could give money to people to Run for office, then get them INTO office and control them.. It wasnt easy in those days, but the money was worth it..
    TV made things easier…Placing a FACE infront of millions of people, is easy. They only get to SEE what you place infront of them, they dont see the OTHER 1000 running for office.
    tHE net CAN BE A GOOD THING, but we are ALL still idiots, and worked Harder then most slaves…we dont get TIME to see whats happening. we BELIEVE what is on TV..

  18. Certainly the most important thing is that people vote. Our two party system often leaves people with no candidate they feel they can vote for. But, it is still important to realize that there may be a candidate to vote against.

    Things get further mucked up when a candidate people think is ideologically better but who has no chance of winning is in the election. Candidates such as Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and others have had a history of causing the most despicable candidate to get in.

    What we really need is direct popular election of the president.

    And, to get rid of the wasting one’s vote problem, we need to switch to approval voting.

    Neither of these things is going to happen any time soon.

    One thing that could happen, and is actually 61% of the way to happening, is that if states with a total of 270 electoral votes sign on to the National Popular Vote agreement, the electoral college will still exist but be instantly rendered impotent.

    What the agreement says is that as soon as 270 electoral votes worth of states sign the agreement, the states that sign on will award all of their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote in the election, regardless of how their own state’s residents voted.

    This is much easier than the constitutional amendment that would be required to ditch the unconscionable mistake made by the founders of our country in setting us up with no national vote and disproportionate representation in elections.

    I know you disagree ECA, but my worth is the same as yours, no more, no less. And, I for one, find it despicable that our laws do not recognize this.

    All people are created equal.

    We may not all have equal abilities. But, every adult human has the same value as every other and should be afforded the same rights and the same representation in elections.

  19. ECA says:

    I was talking to a person about Who they wished elected, and he said the name of the person, but he added he would vote for 1 of the people That he thought had a chance of winning rather then WHO he wanted..
    The problem, I see, is the advertising of 2 people from Only 2 groups… When there are 1000 people signed up to run for president..
    SHARED TIME, is a wonderful thing, EXCEPT…that these 2 groups dont use it, and dont want it, because it forces the TV corps to give equal time to All of the others..so these 2 groups BUY advertising time..and Pay, on purpose, HIGH rates for it..so others are REQUIRED to pay for advertising, rather then SHARED TIME..
    Why do Only 30% vote? Easy answer, is because we DONT see anyone we want to Vote for…
    AND a good reason to REQUIRE at least 50% of the people to vote..or the election is NULL and VOID..

    • I like the idea of declaring an election void for low turnout. But, then, who takes office during the interim period?

      As for the wasted vote issue, I really am convinced that approval voting is the best way. Consider the Nader effect. So, you really want Nader (who is really so stupid he couldn’t tell the difference between Bush and Gore, so not my prime candidate) and give a vote to Nader, but perhaps you also think Gore is OK. So, you also give a vote to Gore. Your vote for Nader in that case doesn’t end up actually counting as a vote for Bush.

      And, consider the current Repugnican primary. So many awful candidates, so few less awful ones. If someone is a moderate Republican, they’d be able to say well, Bridge Bridgie isn’t too bad and Pataki is pretty decent. So, I’ll vote for both of them and express my disapproval with the even more radical right-wing nutjobs.

      That’s not to say I like Pataki or Christie. In fact, I think it’s a pretty sad statement that Chris “Do I look like a bully?” Christie is a relative moderate by today’s Repugnican standards despite being a thug and an embarrassment to the state of New Jersey. (Yes, Bridge Bridgie, you do look like a bully … and a goomba. And, it ain’t just looks. You act like a bully and a goomba.)

  20. ECA says:

    Answer..
    DONT fill the job, until we can get a PERSON/GOAT that can take the job..
    WHICH means…
    No president to pass bills..think they will like that? NOPE..will they HELP find a better person? I HOPE..
    Senators and congress…WOW,,,that could be interesting..FEWER reps/demos to follow like sheep…Means 1 side is DOWN a vote..Loose control of the gov?? That could be good also..
    HOW many people would get their jobs back if only 30% voted??
    0’….WOW, no one to SPEND OUR MONEY…CORPS cant push their agenda’s onward…
    WHO controls the STATE?>? This could be interesting…PEOPLE could SEE who is running their states…Every corp would have to DEAL with EACH STATE…not the gov..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: