LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIf we somehow manage to get out of space what would be outside of it how would it be.
This image represents our universe or space what do you think is outside.
February 14th, 2010, 01:01 AM
If we somehow manage to get out of space what would be outside of it how would it be.
This image represents our universe or space what do you think is outside.
We don't know, since the concept of "outside of space" is meaningless based on our current understanding. There is no "there" there.
You know the current theory is just that it all starts over again when you reach the "edge". There's no edge of the universe anymore than there's an edge of planet Earth. It's like a globe, except if you could imagine a 4 dimensional globe, where the 3 dimensions we're familiar with are the globe's outer surface. If you travel in a straight line in any direction for long enough, you will end up right back where you started.
Now..... I'm not saying I believe this, but it's what Big Bang cosmology predicts.
The curvature of the universe is almost incredibly flat, so you would not be able to go in one direction and then return to where you were. WMAP has shown this:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
The universe is everything, so you cannot go somewhere “outside”.
Well if we are too spacy, then we explode, so I suppose outside space is where the suicide bombers go... Does that make sence?
<scratching head>
As you can see from the picture, what is outside, it's WMAP :P
Seriously, if we can think about the Universe as a whole, it's inside our mind. So, we are outside
I agree with inow. However, if we could discuss things philosophically instead of purely scientifically we could probe what may lie outside the universe. Even some science theories tell us that there are many universes (but I don't agree) so that may be something you are interested in. In philosophy there are valid cosmological arguments and ontological arguments that use logic reason and science to make a case for things unknown to science including an intelligence (or accidental) origin to the universe. At least one was created by a scientist on par with Einstein who developed an ontological argument for the existence of God. So I have always claimed its rational and even logical to believe in the existence of God and things that exist outside of time and the universe.
IS
By your same reasoning then, one could claim it's rational and even logical to believe in the existence of the Easter Bunny.
There could be no space out there.
If there was no space, matter couldn't exist outside, and therefore we have zero chance of seeing it.
But what if you move ana or kata (the fourth dimension)? Then where would you be?If you travel in a straight line in any direction for long enough, you will end up right back where you started.
If there was any space out there, it would be incredibly useful, as we'd be able to hold an infinite amount of matter there (even if it was only one centimetre: an infinite amount of cubes fit into a tesseract).
You aren't making any sense.Originally Posted by ParadoxJuice
If there was space out there, it would belong to the universe by definition. It's a paradox.
If you take space as literally nothing defined only by what occupies it (it does not curve. That is the effect of gravity travelling through space), then you could in theory travel to the edge of the physical universe and beyond that would only be photons (as they travel faster than matter), and beyond those, literally nothing.
Well you could claim that but your claim would be neither rational or reasonable. It would not use logic or science like all of the cosmological and ontological arguments do. Additionally the cosmological argument I am fond of (the KCA) is a logical syllogism. So if you could come up with an Easter bunny cosmological argument (for the existence of God etc) that formed a logical syllogism and was a valid cosmological argument you may get famous. If you cant you would only be regarded as a buffoon (If you insisted the Easter bunny was real).
After I wrote the above response it occurred to me that you may not know what a valid cosmological argument consists of. It consists of premises, usually at least three, these premises should be axioms. Ideally these axioms should form a logical syllogism, in the case of the KCA those conditions are met. In claiming the Easter bunny exists none of the conditions are met so your statement/reply is unreservedly false.
IS
Someone mentioned the fourth dimension, that would be time. In classical phyics time is the fourth dimension! Also you all' may be interested in knowing that space is filled with fields, energies, and virtual particles etc. Unless you want to entertain philosophical metaphysical concepts, there is no such thing as empty space, at least as far as pure science is concerned.
IS
Oh to answer the question as to what is outside space, I think that is Gods realm, and the spirit realm. It would have to be atemporal and boundless so if we could exist there it would be in mind only. This isn't to be confused with a cosmological argument, its simply a guess and maybe my belief.
IS
A valid cosmological argument consists of the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Apply this to generous portions of what we like to call proof.
I did not see where in the link you provided that a cosmological argument uses the scientific method, the link simply defined the scientific method. So while a cosmological argument does use some science like observation etc science ie physics break down at the singularity (of the Big Bang) for example. So we must use philosophical tools as well as those of science in an argument like the KCA. Thanks for your reply.
IS
Hi,
I am glad that you mentioned that theory,,,this is the general consensus but IMO I do not believe this at all. If that were so then the boundry of the universe would have to be made of something, just as the earth is made of something that helps u go round - solid matter.
Personally I believe that you will create your own space as you go.
There is a famous story i happened to hear when i was a kid:
Two friends rob and bob, residents of our universe, somewhere deep in the future where inter-galatic travelling was part of day-to-day lives decide to take a round-the-universe trip after their graduation. They travel in their space-cars for a while.
After what seems like quite a few light-years, they see something that catches their attention a few spaces ahead. They approach what now seems like a signboard held against an apparently infinite stretch of wall on either side. Thw wall has a hole in it. The sign board said: End of Universe. Rob And Bob look perplexed and thrilled. They had accidently, in their travels reached the boundary of the universe. They would now know what lies beyond. Finally, Bob alights from his space-car and proceeds towards the apparent-boundary.Cautiously he puts his head through the hole to observe what lies beyond. he re-emerges from the hole-like-window. Rob asks him, "so what did you see?" To which Bob answers, " Nothing! "
This story, although technically faulty, always gave me goose-bumps. To imagine the idea of "nothing" is rather freaky. Nothing..not even empty space..not even darkness as we imagine it in our mind..or an empty room..just nothing!
Hi, don't think about it.....you will literally go mad trying because to thing about "nothing" in that sense is impossible. Because once it becomes a conscious thought it becomes "something". Thus is can no longer be nothing.
I agree, merely thinking about the concept of nothing makes it something.
But does it not make sense..that nothing lies beyond the universe
Yes. I would agree. But it cannot be thought about. :-DI agree, merely thinking about the concept of nothing makes it something.
But does it not make sense..that nothing lies beyond the universe
April 5th, 2010, 11:30 AM
I agree with earlier comments that you cannot explain this without touching into philosophy, you can't. secondly, you cannot prove a negative, you can't prove that something doesn't exsist, or isn't possible.
one theory is that if something isn't observed, it isn't really there, "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?"
if space isn't observed by something than it isn't "real", some one earlier said that you would create space as you went. you have to think about that in the broadest terms. space is there but it's not real, as you observe it it becomes "real". ]
I know this is creating thousands of more questions than answers but that's all I got.
Food for thought.
If molecules are just electrons orbiting around a nucleus, and different colored nucleus's are just consisting of different materials, what about our universe. now have in mind this is mostly just a off the wall Idea to play around with. what if our planets are just electrons around the nucleus, what if are solar system is a kind of giant molecule inside the toenail of an alien, and that creatures solar system is just a molecule too.
completely unrealistic but a fun though to toy around with.
No it does not make sense to me because surely that would mean at the beginning of time there would be nothing, meaning there would be nothing to create the universe.
I agree, merely thinking about the concept of nothing makes it something.
But does it not make sense..that nothing lies beyond the universe
If by "space" you mean the universe then there are multiple theories debating this. One is that our universe is one in an omniverse of multiple universe, each with different laws of physics and time. You can look though the internet to find other theories like this, if that answers your question.
Best answer!
Outside space is also outside time so the observer could not use any temporal process to observe. You would have literally no time in which to make observations. Niether our minds nor our language is equiped to deal with the environment.
| « Astronomy Magazine | dark energy, obviously » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
