From: Gregg N 

Rich Gauszka wrote:
> There's the multiverse theory
>
> http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html
>
> The Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory
> that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of
> giant stars and the formation of black holes.  With each of these black
> holes there is a new point of singularity and a new possible universe.  As
> Rees describes it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it
> were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago.  Each universe starts
> with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual
> physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle.  The big
> bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an
> infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the
> range of any telescopes."  (Rees 3)  This puts our place in the Multiverse
> into a small spectrum.  While the size of the earth in relation to the sun
> is minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even
> the universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse.  It
> would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory and
> possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes.
>
>

I would rather that the word "universe" continued to be used to
refer to the totality of all that is, and that they invented a new term for
whatever they are using the term "universe" for above.

Gregg

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5