Parallel universe possible found by NASA

[Damien99]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532770-400-we-may-have-spotted-a-parallel-universe-going-backwards-in-time/

Saw this article but not sure of the source and validity.  Can’t find the paper or news brief on NASA, anyone have info

Edited May 18, 2020 by Saru
Replaced link with a more reputable source

[zep73]

This is the original article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532770-400-we-may-have-spotted-a-parallel-universe-going-backwards-in-time/ (first part free - pay to read more)

They've detected a single particle that could derive from a mirror universe. Not sure if it's NASA.

[Damien99]

Ah i see but would that not mean if the particles from another universe are coming from earth the other universe is in a merger with ours?

[Damien99]

8 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

This is the original article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532770-400-we-may-have-spotted-a-parallel-universe-going-backwards-in-time/ (first part free - pay to read more)

They've detected a single particle that could derive from a mirror universe. Not sure if it's NASA.

Sorry title of article is 

NASA scientists detect parallel universe 'next to ours' where time runs backwards

[zep73]

5 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Ah i see but would that not mean if the particles from another universe are coming from earth the other universe is in a merger with ours?

It's an idea to explain, where matter that should exist, is. It does not mean it exists. One single tiny piece of evidence is not enough to accept it as real.

[Damien99]

5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

It's an idea to explain, where matter that should exist, is. It does not mean it exists. One single tiny piece of evidence is not enough to accept it as real.

But it’s a possibility then? How would will tell if the universes are merging and what would be the outcome?

also this seems to be from 2016 and not 2020 so why the articles now?

Edited May 17, 2020 by Damien99

[bison]

The existence of the New Scientist article suggests this story is probably something more than tabloid sensationalism. Unfortunately, the bulk of the article is behind a paywall. Assuming this is  legitimate story, it should soon appear in a reputable, accessible form.

I believe these elementary particle observations that are supposed to hint a parallel universe have been going on for several years. The delay in interpreting the results in this unconventional manner is not surprising.

Edited May 17, 2020 by bison

[Damien99]

2 minutes ago, bison said:

The existence of the New Scientist article suggests this story is probably something more than tabloid sensationalism. Un- fortunately, the bulk of the article is behind a paywall. Assuming this is  legitimate story, it should soon appear in a reputable, accessible form.

I posted a link with a full article 

[bison]

I saw the information about a link to google, which you posted. It is not a clickable link. I also visited Google, and searched, using the search terms indicated-- 'nasa scientists detect parallel universe'.  I found no current, accessible article there in any source other than an unreliable, tabloid paper.

Edited May 17, 2020 by bison

[Golden Duck]

It's just the focus in hyperbolic space-time.

[Damien99]

Here is a full article from tech times 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.techtimes.com/amp/articles/249697/20200518/nasa-scientists-might-have-found-a-parallel-universe-next-to-ours-after-an-antarctica-experiment.htm

[Duke Wellington]

13 hours ago, Damien99 said:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532770-400-we-may-have-spotted-a-parallel-universe-going-backwards-in-time/

Saw this article but not sure of the source and validity.  Can’t find the paper or news brief on NASA, anyone have info

You know, a lot of people cannot question what they read when it has a scientists name attached to it.

We have no evidence that time only flows in one direction. As space exploration happens there are limitless possibilities from there being areas of the universe where time runs backwards, to maybe even planets that rotate in the opposite direction having time that runs backwards. We dont know much about the universe, we have only scratched the surface and we need to be more open minded until things can be tested.

We even have psychology experiments which could be showing our understanding of time is wrong. From time running in slow motion during car crashes, to temporal sequencing paradoxes. A good example of a temporal sequencing paradox is when we are absorbed in thought, look up at a ticking clock, and notice the seconds hand tick back once before continuing to tick forward.

There is a mountain of experiences we ignore right now with time simply because they dont fit in with our worldviews. Experiences that are dismissed as being tricks of the mind that haven't been scientifically tested to ascertain if they actually are or not. If we look at Einsteins Relativity then that has a number of problems, but look at the way Einstein is hyped up by the media, and those who cannot even entertain questioning it.

Einstein`s equations do not explain how gravity works at a microscopic or galactic scale. Unable to even entertain the idea of questioning his relativity the scientists have spent their time looking for dark matter instead. Whose to say that gravity doesnt have two poles? With the net difference between the two being mistaken for what we see as gravity? One where the repulsive gravity dies off slightly faster than attractive gravity the further one goes from an object. That would certainly remove the need for any dark matter needing to exist as at the galactic scale net gravity would be far stronger than it is for inter system gravity.

[Duke Wellington]

Gravity Arbitration Experiments:

Infinite Speed Gravity: The Earth would appear to orbit around where the sun will be in the sky in 8 minutes and 20 seconds time.

Light Speed Gravity: The Earth would appear to orbit around where the sun appears to be in our sky.

Sub Light Speed Gravity: The Earth would appear to orbit around where the sun was at some point in the past.

For those that dont know the Earth appears to orbit around where the sun will appear to be in the sky in 8 minutes and 20 seconds. But in Einstein`s General Relativity the equations side-step this using angular momentum to prevent the theory being inconsistent with what is observed.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Cookie Monster

[Damien99]

16 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

You know, a lot of people cannot question what they read when it has a scientists name attached to it.

We have no evidence that time only flows in one direction. As space exploration happens there are limitless possibilities from there being areas of the universe where time runs backwards, to maybe even planets that rotate in the opposite direction having time that runs backwards. We dont know much about the universe, we have only scratched the surface and we need to be more open minded until things can be tested.

We even have psychology experiments which could be showing our understanding of time is wrong. From time running in slow motion during car crashes, to temporal sequencing paradoxes. A good example of a temporal sequencing paradox is when we are absorbed in thought, look up at a ticking clock, and notice the seconds hand tick back once before continuing to tick forward.

There is a mountain of experiences we ignore right now with time simply because they dont fit in with our worldviews. Experiences that are dismissed as being tricks of the mind that haven't been scientifically tested to ascertain if they actually are or not. If we look at Einsteins Relativity then that has a number of problems, but look at the way Einstein is hyped up by the media, and those who cannot even entertain questioning it.

Einstein`s equations do not explain how gravity works at a microscopic or galactic scale. Unable to even entertain the idea of questioning his relativity the scientists have spent their time looking for dark matter instead. Whose to say that gravity doesnt have two poles? With the net difference between the two being mistaken for what we see as gravity? One where the repulsive gravity dies off slightly faster than attractive gravity the further one goes from an object. That would certainly remove the need for any dark matter needing to exist as at the galactic scale net gravity would be far stronger than it is for inter system gravity.

And you lost me 

[Rlyeh]

4 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

We have no evidence that time only flows in one direction. As space exploration happens there are limitless possibilities from there being areas of the universe where time runs backwards, to maybe even planets that rotate in the opposite direction having time that runs backwards. We dont know much about the universe, we have only scratched the surface and we need to be more open minded until things can be tested.

The fact that light even reaches the Earth makes this very unlikely.

Also if retrograde orbits cause time to run backwards we'd notice it in satellites. 

 

4 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

We even have psychology experiments which could be showing our understanding of time is wrong. From time running in slow motion during car crashes, to temporal sequencing paradoxes. A good example of a temporal sequencing paradox is when we are absorbed in thought, look up at a ticking clock, and notice the seconds hand tick back once before continuing to tick forward.

That's called perception.  Your argument is equivalent to saying the universe ceases to exist when I'm asleep or unconscious.  An argument for solipsism perhaps.

 

[Duke Wellington]

2 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

And you lost me 

Gravity at microscopic distances is weaker than predicted by General Relativity. Gravity at the scale of the solar system closely matches what is predicted by General Relativity. Gravity at the scale of a galaxy doesnt match what is predicted by General Relativity.

So General Relativity seems consistent at a limited scale of range, and is show by GR in my attached diagram. If there are actually two gravity forces, or one gravity force that has two poles, the across that limited range net gravity would be the difference between the red and blue lines. But at smaller scales, and large scales, that net difference changes matching what is actually observed at the microscopic and galatocopic scales. Its not hard to grasp.

[Rlyeh]

5 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Gravity Arbitration Experiments:

Infinite Speed Gravity: The Earth would appear to orbit around where the sun will be in the sky in 8 minutes and 20 seconds time.

Light Speed Gravity: The Earth would appear to orbit around where the sun appears to be in our sky.

Sub Light Speed Gravity: The Earth would appear to orbit around where the sun was at some point in the past.

For those that dont know the Earth appears to orbit around where the sun will appear to be in the sky in 8 minutes and 20 seconds. But in Einstein`s General Relativity the equations side-step this using angular momentum to prevent the theory being inconsistent with what is observed.

The Sun's position in the sky determined by the Earth's rotation.  Anyway the Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycenter.

[Damien99]

7 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Gravity at microscopic distances is weaker than predicted by General Relativity. Gravity at the scale of the solar system closely matches what is predicted by General Relativity. Gravity at the scale of a galaxy doesnt match what is predicted by General Relativity.

So General Relativity seems consistent at a limited scale of range, and is show by GR in my attached diagram. If there are actually two gravity forces, or one gravity force that has two poles, the across that limited range net gravity would be the difference between the red and blue lines. But at smaller scales, and large scales, that net difference changes matching what is actually observed at the microscopic and galatocopic scales. Its not hard to grasp.

Why does this have to do with my post though?

[Duke Wellington]

25 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Why does this have to do with my post though?

Ah, I see.

So the understanding of time we currently use comes from General Relativity. If gravity has a repulsive pole (which is an explanation for the observed difference in what GR predicts and gravity at the microscopic or galactocopic scale) then a repulsive pole might also be a source of anti-time. Time running backwards.

[Damien99]

6 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Ah, I see.

So the understanding of time we currently use comes from General Relativity. If gravity has a repulsive pole (which is an explanation for the observed difference in what GR predicts and gravity at the microscopic or galactocopic scale) then a repulsive pole might also be a source of anti-time. Time running backwards.

So your saying another universe may be in the process of merging with ours?

[Duke Wellington]

1 minute ago, Damien99 said:

So your saying another universe may be in the process of merging with ours?

I dont see why more than one universe needs to exist.

I`m just saying that there is more to our one universe than people from bygone eras have realised. That there are more space and time dimensions in our universe than the classic 4 known to exist. So there will be places and situations in our universe where time runs backwards.

[Damien99]

5 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I dont see why more than one universe needs to exist.

I`m just saying that there is more to our one universe than people from bygone eras have realised. That there are more space and time dimensions in our universe than the classic 4 known to exist. So there will be places and situations in our universe where time runs backwards.

I am talking about the article claims 

[Duke Wellington]

1 minute ago, Damien99 said:

I am talking about the article claims 

In Quantum Mechanics there is one set of science, but different explanations as to what it means.

Some think it means parallel universes, some extra dimensions, some a multi-verse, but what is crucial is they all mean the same thing. They all amount to the same, and that can cause some confusion in those that dont know. Especially when talking about an article.

If you would prefer to talk about it in terms of parallel universes then there is no reason why time can not be running backwards. But instead of separating out reality into neatly conceptualised instances, I go for it all being one whole thing. So from my perspective I talk about our universe as the multi-verse.

 

[Ell]

Couldn't those particles not have come down and bounced back again?

[Damien99]

12 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

In Quantum Mechanics there is one set of science, but different explanations as to what it means.

Some think it means parallel universes, some extra dimensions, some a multi-verse, but what is crucial is they all mean the same thing. They all amount to the same, and that can cause some confusion in those that dont know. Especially when talking about an article.

If you would prefer to talk about it in terms of parallel universes then there is no reason why time can not be running backwards. But instead of separating out reality into neatly conceptualised instances, I go for it all being one whole thing. So from my perspective I talk about our universe as the multi-verse.

 

So regardless another universe is in the process of merging into ours then?