Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 234

Thread: What is outside of our universe? Vacuum?

  1. #1 What is outside of our universe? Vacuum? 
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Just something which puzzles me till now.

    How does one defines the edge of our universe?
    What's considered inside and what's considered outside?
    If there is a outside, what does this outside contains? Vacuum?
    If vacuum is outside of our universe, why should it be considered not part of our universe then?
    If the vacuum outside of our universe is considered part of our universe, then what's truly outside? Nothing, not even vacuum? Or is vacuum not truly empty?

    Anyway, just some rhetorical questions that boggled my mind.
    :wink:


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Yet another part of the question.

    If space-time continuum exists only after the big bang, then what is there in the "zone" (I don't call it space to avoid confusion), before big bang?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    Yet another part of the question.

    If space-time continuum exists only after the big bang, then what is there in the "zone" (I don't call it space to avoid confusion), before big bang?
    I believe an absolute vacuum, which would than spawn a large number of anti-particles and particles, blow up not entirely balanced and form the universe.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    That points back to my first set of questions.

    Is vacuum part of our universe (or space-time continuum whatever you like to call it) or it isn't. That is, where do we set the boundary saying that from this point onwards, we shall call it outside of our universe. Whatever before that is inside.

    Another related question. How do you define the word space in space-time continuum? Does it include absolute vacuum (pure nothingness not even anti-particles)? If so, that would mean the space (defined to include also absolute vacuum) is already there before big bang.

    Guess probably its a matter of definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    15
    the newest theories suggest that the universe exists on the surface of a Brane, a surface that extends in directions that the energy held on that surface experiences as a three dimensional environment that we call the universe. This Brane exists in higher dimensions and there may be any number of other Branes, expanding in a multiverse.
    It is suggested that a collision between two of these Brane surfaces could have created a new Brane, our universe, and that the energy was created in this collision.
    Maybe energy is just the shockwaves of two Brane surfaces colliding.

    However, it is impossible to say what is outside of the universe since every mental concept and theory we put forward is based on what we experience inside this environment. What we experience does not even have to relate in any true way to what actually exists, since we are subjective systems of energy experiencing themselves and their environment through subjective measurement and human interpretation.
    WHAT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE? Maybe nothing, maybe nothing has to, and maybe that is not odd since nothing is a mental concept. The universe is a mental concept.
    If there is something outside the universe one thing is sure, unless it is made up of three spatial dimensions and one time dimension and unless it holds the same energy as our universe is made up of, we will not even be able to see it, or measure its existence.
    .. Unless it casts shadows, spacetime warping on our universe??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    AHHHHHHHHHHHHH.... so confused.....

    but the universe doesnt have an end... or does it?? and what if there's more than one universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    15
    Is vacuum part of our universe (or space-time continuum whatever you like to call it) or it isn't. That is, where do we set the boundary saying that from this point onwards, we shall call it outside of our universe. Whatever before that is inside.

    Another related question. How do you define the word space in space-time continuum? Does it include absolute vacuum (pure nothingness not even anti-particles)? If so, that would mean the space (defined to include also absolute vacuum) is already there before big bang.
    .......
    The universe is made up of space-time and energy, these two things together form the universe. Without energy the universe would still exist but you wouldn't know it, without energy passing through it you can not measure it.
    There is no boundary since the universe is constantly expanding as a result of the big bang, energy is constantly moving away from the centre, (which doesn't exist now, there's nothing there)
    the expansion of the universe and us, and everything else, is like the expansion of the surface of a balloon. We are the surface. Space-time is the directions we move in, going off to infinity, but it is us that define the distance, by the distance of space-time between two particles of energy, or planets or whatever.
    Also space-time is not empty, it is not nothing. Because it has properties that affect energy, gravity for one, exists across empty space. Time is another. And the way we are pulled into three dimensional shapes is another. You can not travel anywhere in the universe without being you, and in the present. So there is no such thing as nothing, but there might have been before the big bang. Maybe there were no dimensions, just a singularity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    what's more nothing-like, white or black? and if neither, and it couldn't be seen, then that would mean that one would fade out of existence, right? the gatekeeper at the edge of the universe's brim: oblivion. like death.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    15
    As they say in the Matrix, what's really going to bake your noodle is..

    None of this actually exists. Not the universe, not people, not space, not me or you. It's insane but if physics is right then it tells us that physics is useless and pointless.

    do you want to know why... look away now if not..

    deep breath. Right, you’re a human being. A human being is a multi-cellular organism that has evolved over about 4 thousand million years by sheer pot luck to experience the universe the way it does.
    A human being is a massive collection of fundamental particles of energy, tiny vibrations oscillating in space-time, that have collected together by electro-magnetism to form protons, neutrons, and electrons, which make up atoms, which make up cells, which make up humans.
    We, our brains, our every thought, are just charges of energy being passed through a complicated structure of atoms. And that creates what you call you. It creates everything you know, have every seen, felt, experienced in any way.
    Now, why should that energy passing through that structure have any relation to what exists outside of it?.
    You and your experience are completely subjective. They make sense only inside your head.
    A great scientist, I forget who, said that “when you observe a rock, you don’t actually see the rock, you only see its affect on you, the way it changes you.”
    Energy from the sun, photons, hits the rock, some is absorbed, which changes its wavelength, the rest is reflected, that energy hits the back of your eye, sets off a reaction in the cells, they set of a signal to the brain, the brain arranges these signals, we call it colour. We call it seeing.
    It is just subjective measurements of energy. Colour doesn’t exist outside the brain. The universe doesn’t have colour till you look at it, it doesn’t have size until you stand in it. All measurements are subjective, everything you know is subjective and the result of a brain that works is a way that evolution dictated. Einstein believed in an objective universe that exists beyond subjective measurement. Others argue that without observation the universe may not have any form or shape or properties. Now that is scary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ad . hoc
    what's more nothing-like, white or black? and if neither, and it couldn't be seen, then that would mean that one would fade out of existence, right? the gatekeeper at the edge of the universe's brim: oblivion. like death.
    White is a wavelength of energy, when you charge atoms and force the electrons into a higher orbit around the nucleus they want to return to their lower orbit, so they give off photons, waves of energy, to return to their natural state. That wave causes a reaction in our eyes. We call the signal that travels to our brain, colour.
    White is just a different wavelength of photon to other colours.
    Photons hit a surface and depending on the surface different amounts of the energy are absorbed or reflected. The amount of absorbed energy changes the wavelength, and therefore the perceived colour.
    Black is the absence of reflected photons. When we don't see light the brain puts black there.
    So when you look at space and see black, it is a mistake, of the eye, an illusion. There is not black there, there is nothing. Nothing to reflect off and send light into the eye.
    As for the rest of it, I haven't a faint clue what you're talking about..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    Others argue that without observation the universe may not have any form or shape or properties.
    but we do. shouldn't that signify for something? and that 'something' would be that which renders form, shape, and properties to the void? because the data of our knowledge would be shared by the universe and remain for as long as it might in the universe, like light. and that data is substance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    15
    but we do. shouldn't that signify for something? and that 'something' would be that which renders form, shape, and properties to the void? because the data of our knowledge would be shared by the universe and remain for as long as it might in the universe, like light. and that data is substance?[/quote]

    we can make a guess that something exists outside of our brains because something seems to set off the signals in our bodies that create reality in our brains.
    But what those things are we can't say, because we can't actually observe them without putting our own spin on them. The idea that there is no objective universe is built on the idea that all observation is subjective, every observer puts their own spin on what they see, simply by seeing it.
    We observe our surrounds relative to us. A wall is ten feet away from me and ten feet high.
    But thinking something closer to objective human thought.. the wall and I are both just fundamental particles of energy held in the same dimensions, those dimensions are relative to the observer..
    Everything may just be a sea of energy, indistinguishable, fundamental particles interacting, on a flat surface. But that energy subjectively sees trees people love hate planets, space, time etc..
    all you can say is, Nothing is knowable. But that in itself is flawed, since knowing is a human idea. And may not relate to anything outside of the brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    aah -- but the occurring data that is being triggered by an external cosmic stimuli could not be data that remains encapsulated within an observing, conscious mechanism because a conscious mechanism is held within the universe; the universe is there too -- so the universe is absorbing consciousness. hence, there's feedback. if there's feedback, then there is conscious feedback. but some people have a more developed and profound consciousness -- wouldn't the universe also be as affected at that one singular spot of consciousness as experienced by the conscious mechanism? and if that consciousness introduces a new game: to address a celestial being that lies outside itself as a vehicle for communication? wouldn't acknowledgement from a now-conscious universe develop as a result?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Space exists forever, it is the container that holds all matter and energy. It is impossible to go beyond space. It would be like leaving the glass of water that you are living in. Water by itself is pure and invisible, the things in the water make it impure and give the illusion that it is visible.

    Space without matter or energy would not be noticed, it would be the true void. The ultimate vacum, the total lack of substance. The problem is that space in this state still actually exists. We may not be able to scoop it up and put it in a test tube, but none the less it would still exist.

    As far as we know the universal container (space) goes on forever. That is as far as we know. The real question should be what holds space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    The real question should be what holds space?
    Yes. Physics (so far) tell us that the big bang was an explosion of space, not one in space. So, what indeed, is the context in which this 'explosion' took place? Is it meaningless to even ask this question?

    Tilerdurden,

    I agree with most of your thoughts on subjective/objective reality as I have argued this before. We can only have reality insofar as we (perceptive beings) agree that things are as we perceive them.

    Just a note: White is not a wavelength. It is our perception of a uniform distribution of wavelengths in the visible spectrum (deep red to far violet).
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman flodnag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    "you are nothing but an Animal"
    Posts
    26
    If you browse through my website, you will find that the universe is a mere cosmic coagulating sand in a glass waterbowl, says GOD himself. There is no way out of its confines. You will also become Enlightened from browsing my website.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    scientists don't usually consider that space has a shape or size, but insted just refer to everything in the universe, from stars and galaxies to photons and gluons.
    what holds space would simply be the multitudes of dimensions.

    the vacuum is also not as empty as it would seem.
    those who know what i'm talking about would know that in the quantum vacuum there is the supposedly constant particle-antiparticle creation and the traces of EM force that have been labeled Zero-point energy.

    hence if there is vacuum outside our universe then the fabric of our universe and the outside would only be the many dimensions which hold all the matter and energy of our universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Glad to here so many replies to my questions.

    Well, can't say I could digest all of them. There were many broad views from scientific to cosmological viewpoints. Anyway, here are some definitions from wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

    It seems that even the presence of photons or neutrinos will make the vacuum not perfect.

    For me, after reading the article, I would believe (in my limited physics knowledge) that there is a perfect vacuum before big bang and our current universe has a boundary where its outside is true void (not even light). That is a person there will theoretically see nothing, not even the entire expanding universe somewhere far away, not even as a tiny dot.

    And I was thinking if this would cause a big difference in density between the internal of the universe and its outer zone which might cause diffusion effects adding to the expansion of the universe?

    Does that make any astronomical sense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    15
    the problem is not so much what is outside of the universe, I believe the answer is nothing, there is no outside. If you want to give the universe an edge, a boundary, it is where nothing exists. No space, time, energy. But I do not believe that place exists. Einstein said he believed the universe was infinite, but then again he did say that there was a God who showed himself in the natural harmonious order of the universe. Which doesn't exist now thanks to Quantum theory.
    I believe the universe is finite in size but infinite in nature. It will expand forever.
    I believe space is like the rules of a game that allows energy to travel from A to B. In this way of thinking, I don't see why space should have an end.
    But without C, another object, there is no way to determine the distance the energy has travelled. And no way to define the size or expansion of the universe...
    If there was only one travelling object, a space craft just going along, in the universe, how could we determine the distance it had travelled, where it was going and in which direction. Space would be the nothingness that surrounded the ship. But you couldn't say how big that nothingness was.
    We determine the size of space by the distance between two objects. Seemingly it can go on forever. You could moved them in opposite directions forever and say the universe was expanding.
    Maybe no matter how far away two objects were the answer is still the same, there is always space, and you can not reach the end. Maybe our way of measuring space is wrong. That the distance between two objects does not determine what space is, its size. Maybe it has no size until you measure it with objects of energy. Maybe space is something outside of human thinking and we have the wrong end of the stick, since our current understand of space doesn't make complete sense.

    Getting back to the question, the question isn't really what is outside of the universe, but what is beyond it, not in space but in dimensions.
    As if you could step up out of the universe, like stepping out of a puddle.
    What is above (dimensionally) the universe?
    Brane worlds? Higher dimensions? Or things that are in no way relatable to what we now experience. Or nothing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    A place without energy is pretty easy to imagine. A place without space is getting pretty hard to grasp. A place without time!! What's that? I do somewhat understand the space-time continuum but imagine a place with time flowing because there isn't any space there is a very hard concept.

    I have always thought that even if you are in the "outside", time still flows and your body still functions and gets older. But to say that because there is no space and time outside, you effective won't get older or die but live forever. Is my argument logical?

    And I don't really understand the idea of dimensions outside our universe. What does that really mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    If the definition of space includes absolute vacuum, then I would agree that space is infinite. If space is defined as a zone containing matter, antimatter, energy, photons, plus the semi-vacuum within the boundary, then space would be finite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Even if you had an absolute vacuum, you could place a single object in this vacuum and move in 3 dimensions. One would have to conclude that this in fact is still a place or object. So the question would still remain, what holds it. Now can one have nothing with dimensions. If you can sector it off, name it, label it, travel in it, pollute it, populate it, then it is in fact an object. So what holds the object. What is beyond matter and energy that we see and can measure. What is this absolute vacuum made of. It has to be made of something, even if it's not something we recognize as being something at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    So what holds the object.
    Logically, if the "void" exists beyond the known universe -- beyond where the universe ends -- and if that "void" is infinite, then the known universe is but an insignificant speck in a sea of infinity, right? So I would gauge that the sea "void" is holding itself together by sheer might of everlasting existence/presence. Does one consider existence as an object?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Does one consider existence as an object?
    No, that goes in to the realm of Gods and such. We need matter, energy, anti matter, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    Well then, if nothing -- no time no space no matter -- exists outside the capsule that is the "universe", then nothing has a presence? And presence, in and of itself, is something -- like a glue holding itself together. Can't you see that?

    Ahh. But you guys want something that makes sense. Lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Well Time is not a factor, if you stated that outside of all space exists a place where nothing exists and matter and energy vanish in to nothingness then that I could accept. This place could not be dectected, traveled through or any way interact with our known existance. I for one don't go for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i read somewhere that due to the curvature of space you would never reach a boundry but insted would just continue through space. Consider a fish in a fish bowel, as the fish aproaches the edge it just continues along the surface of the glass, an object aproaching the theoretical boundry of our universe would just continue along the edge and never get anywhere.

    'Space is finite but holds no boundry.'
    -Albert Einstien

    besides even if you could leave the universe just to experience the 'void', i doubt you would experience much due to the absence of space and time. you would be frozen in place until the expansion caught up with you, in which case you would not have noticed the passage of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    besides even if you could leave the universe just to experience the 'void', i doubt you would experience much due to the absence of space and time. you would be frozen in place until the expansion caught up with you, in which case you would not have noticed the passage of time.
    Yes, due to the lack of matter and energy. If however you opt to leave a bread crumb trail you could regain this sense of time. One could also then detect the fish bowls edges and realize what was happening.

    I for one don't believe in the fish bowl idea. I'm more for the idea that their are voids in space that separate multiple universes. These voids are simply areas where matter and or energy have not yet reached. Eventually these universes will start to mix and collide. Perhaps an anti matter universe will collide with a non anti matter universe producing a "Big Bang"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    besides even if you could leave the universe just to experience the 'void', i doubt you would experience much due to the absence of space and time. you would be frozen in place until the expansion caught up with you
    Yes, due to the lack of matter and energy. If however you opt to leave a bread crumb trail you could regain this sense of time.
    Odd. I've often tried to envision eternity -- perpetual space sweeping away endlessly. And this thread helped me somewhat to advance that vision: instead of roaming outwards from this "one" universe, I "imagined" many universes like galaxies and clusters of galaxies spreading further and further away. What was odd was that my "vision", as oppose to my earlier imaginings, continued on for a few more seconds before decelerating in front of a thick blanket of total darkness -- the same blanket as previously encountered during my earlier "ventures" from this single universe. Yet, it felt like I covered so much more "territory".

    The point is that that "bread crumb trail" seemed more plausibly "active" via the faculty of "imagination", and that imagination might be linked to spirituality. How so? Well, imagination needs faith: “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

    [edit]
    Hence, the spiritual may be the only candidate available to us to travel to the outer limits where matter can't penetrate.
    [/edit]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    Just think of the universe like a coffe cup with grapes in it, each grape is a different universe.yikes..... but the grapes end...... and the number of different universes is like .... um...

    Anyway , maybe there is an explaination to this, but we are just not able to understand it yet, human beings arent THAT smart yet, when the time comes, we'll understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8
    I came up with what I call "The Pacman Theory" to describe it.

    Remember how on Pacman you could disappear off one edge of the screen and appear on the other? Well if it ever becomes possible to pass beyond the edge of the universe you will just appear at the other side.

    My theory hasn't been proven right yet, but neither has it been proven wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman flodnag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    "you are nothing but an Animal"
    Posts
    26
    Yeah, Pacman wa good at bending space time to get away from the ghosts. It was always unfortunate when he got trapped between two ghosts and a wall painted to infinity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    besides even if you could leave the universe just to experience the 'void', i doubt you would experience much due to the absence of space and time. you would be frozen in place until the expansion caught up with you, in which case you would not have noticed the passage of time.

    Yes, due to the lack of matter and energy. If however you opt to leave a bread crumb trail you could regain this sense of time. One could also then detect the fish bowls edges and realize what was happening.
    we'll really you can't go into the void because there is nothing to go into, our minds find this hard to grasp because we all try to imagine it when it is just plain and simply not there. we can't really speak of outside, as there is none, but for the sake of argument i will.

    outside the universe you wouldn't be able to move because there would not be any space for you to move in or any time for you to move through. thus you really can't leave our Universe, or Multiverse, because there would be no where to go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore Elbethil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by shanethewolf
    Remember how on Pacman you could disappear off one edge of the screen and appear on the other? Well if it ever becomes possible to pass beyond the edge of the universe you will just appear at the other side.
    I always interpreted it as the screen's actually supposed to be round, but you only see it as 2D... of course, I have a tendency to overanalyse video games. :-D

    Interesting notion, though.
    "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    didn't hawking state in one of his books that the universe is not bounded and if there is something outside our it would be of infinte density. He didn't mention that this would mean that we live in a singularity. I think that particles and anything that has mass are devoid of space they are not part of the spacetime continuum. That would mean that space does not exist outside our universe so also time doesn't exist. well maybe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Space exists forever,

    As far as we know the universal container (space) goes on forever.
    This is pure speculation on your part. No one knows this to be true. Many people may believe that it is true, but there is not sufficient evidence for the conclusion that you state as fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Space exists forever,

    As far as we know the universal container (space) goes on forever.
    This is pure speculation on your part. No one knows this to be true. Many people may believe that it is true, but there is not sufficient evidence for the conclusion that you state as fact.
    Ok, it also depends on what you define as space. Many define space as containing matter. I'm referring to that not on a body or object. That sort of void that separates the stars. Their may in fact be an edge to the expanse of matter, that however does not indicate the end of space.

    What would you propose is outside of space if space doesn't go forever? Is it someones living room

    The only logical explanation and the only one that doesn't create a paradox is that space goes on forever. Populated space may not, but space does. Even if you said it's a wall that you will hit, then what's outside of the wall?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Ok, it also depends on what you define as space. Many define space as containing matter.
    I do not consider space to be a container, but the contained.

    What would you propose is outside of space if space doesn't go forever? Is it someones living room
    I think that the common thought is that there is no beyond the edge of space. The question is typically not whether space currently exists beyond its edge, whatever that might mean, but whether it will continue to expand forever.

    The only logical explanation and the only one that doesn't create a paradox is that space goes on forever.
    I am sorry, but I do not consider this the only explanation, not do I consider it at all logical. It is a possibility, but a remote one.

    I am willing to recognize that it is the only explanation that you have encountered that you find reasonable. However, your statement is not that at all, but that you are stating that no other logical explanation exists. There are other explanations that are at least as reasonable as yours. Furthermore, I don't really understand what logic has to do with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Space, the contained? Huh?

    It's a simple concept to consider space as not conforming to the laws of physics, it has no physical makeup. Now if you call space what I consider outer space then you could say it has boundaries. Space however still continues outwards for infinity. It has no physical properties at all, true space is 100% void of everything. That void can be filled with matter and energy. One clearly could not argue the big bang without believing space is 100% void.

    We start with nothing (aka space) we then add matter and energy and explode it. That matter and energy travels outward through the void and fills it. The void goes on forever, the matter and energy keep moving outward filling it.

    Space defined as the absolute void that holds all matter and energy. (Empty space as opposed to occupied space).

    By definition:

    "The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists."

    For anyone that says space is not infinite I would love to hear what they think is beyond space? We are not talking about occupied space here, the terms need to be kept clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i know this concept is hard to grasp because our minds cannot grab hold of the idea of nothing.

    but that is the simple answer there is nothing not even empty space beyond our universe.
    space is just a reference to the 3, or more, dimensions in which we can move, wether this space is filled does not matter the fact is that space is something that matter can move through.

    the concept of nothing is wierd because on one hand we have the fact that there is nothing for matter to move through but on the other hand there is nothing to stop it hence where we must start asking the questions.

    i heard this somewhere once and i thought it might have meaning.
    the Universe is Finite but has no Boundries. -Albert Einstien
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Well "nothing" is actually something. It's a concept To say that "nothing" exists beyond the boundaries of occupied space would indicate either a void as in space without matter or energy...or another form of existence that is beyond our comprehension.

    Nothing is an impossibility as you can't put something inside or on "nothing". Void of everything we know of I would go for and actually think that would be the case.

    "Nothing" borders on God and ideas beyond anything we could ever hope to grasp.

    What is between two atoms? Nothing or something that we just can't figure out yet? I would have to say something we just can't figure out.

    Albert Einstein was human just like the rest of us, he too dreamed and had fantasies and concepts that were based on what he Knew. The key is what he knew. Everything we know may one day be upset and the rules changed forever. Einstein was very good at drawing conclusions based on his knowledge. I'm very good at saying if it has a hole in it then it's going to slowly leak.

    Nothing has a hole in it Well how can nothing have a hole in it?

    exactly.......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Well "nothing" is actually something. It's a concept To say that "nothing" exists beyond the boundaries of occupied space would indicate either a void as in space without matter or energy...or another form of existence that is beyond our comprehension.

    Nothing is an impossibility as you can't put something inside or on "nothing". Void of everything we know of I would go for and actually think that would be the case.

    "Nothing" borders on God and ideas beyond anything we could ever hope to grasp.

    What is between two atoms? Nothing or something that we just can't figure out yet? I would have to say something we just can't figure out.
    how is nothing something?

    you can put something into nothing it's just that the something breaks the existence of the nothing in the area in which it exists.

    the only thing between two atoms is spacetime and quite possibly energy. spacetime being the something that broke the nothing in the first place who's expansion continues to break the nothing as there is nothing to stop it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    how is nothing something?

    you can put something into nothing it's just that the something breaks the existence of the nothing in the area in which it exists.

    the only thing between two atoms is spacetime and quite possibly energy. spacetime being the something that broke the nothing in the first place who's expansion continues to break the nothing as there is nothing to stop it. Laughing
    See, now I think we are getting somewhere. I just wish they would not have named spacetime what it is. It makes people think you can't have space without time. It's really just a way to map out the universe based on how far light travels in a given time. It's a very complex coordinate system that helps compensate for the fact that everything is moving and there are no really perfect reference points. We could not exactly say "See that star, head toward it and you'll be at the location I requested". That star is nothing but leftover light, so it's not really where we think it is. Space-time was created to help map out locations in space regardless of the fact that all the landmarks are old. It has nothing to do with "time" in the sense of time being an object.

    Sorry, I just think so many people get weird ideas when they hear "spacetime". I love it when I hear things like "warp space and time". Yes I would love to see them warp time

    Ok, I'm done for now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i'm done for now my heads in to much of a spin contemplating the ideas of something breaking nothing and the multiple view points on everything, Spacetime esspecialy, and continueing them all over again in other threads...

    it's all to damm relative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    The problem also is that anyone can say just about anything, and so long as it can't be disproven by pure facts it stands a chance of being a theory.

    How about this one, we are actually on the outside of a universe turned inside out. Try to picture that, if you want a headache
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    ouch it hurts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2
    i believe the universe is full of surprises.
    i think there are 7 earths & 7 suns, planets just like ours, but away in the universe.

    Each planet is bigger with humans like us, and beyond the 7 earths is what i believe is heaven, thats where god is.

    I could be wrong, like i said the universe is full of surprises, no one has the true facts of what beyond in the universe.

    Tell me what you think about this?

    Regards

    Sambam
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    The only answer that makes any sense at all to me is that this is just a simulation. In a simulation logic can be defied. Space is the empty memory cells that have yet to hold a value. They are in a tri-state mode (NULL). This would allow the existence of "nothing". In a simulation the void of beyond space could go on forever. You simply would never reach the end. New space could even be allocated to hold any bread crumbs you left while trying to reach the outside edges.

    We live in the Matrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    then where is the one? :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2
    then where is the one?
    the one is lost lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by sambam2005
    then where is the one?
    the one is lost lol
    then lets find the Two.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman Capnemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by sambam2005
    i think there are 7 earths & 7 suns, planets just like ours, but away in the universe.
    Why 7 ? Again this stupid number ... it's getting really boring... be imagitive guy if you try to create new theories !

    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    The problem also is that anyone can say just about anything, and so long as it can't be disproven by pure facts it stands a chance of being a theory.
    Ahh you havent still understand what is a theory if you say that !! Just to remind you that the gravitation of Newton is still a theory ! It has been proved of course by fact and also is false at high speed, but we still can use it. Science is full of theories which can be from 0% to 99.999% true (meaning with lots of proofs behind).

    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    How about this one, we are actually on the outside of a universe turned inside out. Try to picture that, if you want a headache
    ohh .. not so difficult in fact .. our universe is like that but flat
    Capnemo - a frenchie in new jersey
    http://www.nemoworld.info/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Space exists forever, it is the container that holds all matter and energy.
    As interesting as this is, is sounds like pure speculation on your part.

    As far as we know the universal container (space) goes on forever. That is as far as we know. The real question should be what holds space?
    Who is this "we" you speak of? You and some number of other people? Most scientists do not claim to "know" this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Space exists forever, it is the container that holds all matter and energy.
    As interesting as this is, is sounds like pure speculation on your part.
    Everything is speculation, even the very facts we work with every single day. In the end we get so use to what should happen that we take certain things as fact, we really don't know why many things happen. In the end we might just be on a reality show

    As far as we know the universal container (space) goes on forever. That is as far as we know. The real question should be what holds space?
    Who is this "we" you speak of? You and some number of other people? Most scientists do not claim to "know" this.
    So what would be a theory of what is outside of space? It's easier to think of space being infinite then anything else. Anything else leads to a paradox. Infinity just leads to more space.

    Think of yourself inside a simulation, the boundaries of the inside of that simulation could go on forever, with nothing outside of it. The simulation exists as logic (a thought), the parameters of it are endless. It would be impossible to excape from this simulation as one would not exist. Space would be the inside of that simulation, because it is a thought it would be endless.

    Make more sense now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    As far as we know the universal container (space) goes on forever. That is as far as we know. The real question should be what holds space?
    Who is this "we" you speak of? You and some number of other people? Most scientists do not claim to "know" this.
    So what would be a theory of what is outside of space? It's easier to think of space being infinite then anything else. Anything else leads to a paradox. Infinity just leads to more space.

    Think of yourself inside a simulation, the boundaries of the inside of that simulation could go on forever, with nothing outside of it. The simulation exists as logic (a thought), the parameters of it are endless. It would be impossible to excape from this simulation as one would not exist. Space would be the inside of that simulation, because it is a thought it would be endless.

    Make more sense now?
    no...it is not easier for me to imagine an infinite universe. it is easier for me to think of a universe that contains everything and outside of which is nothing.

    as if the infinite universe idea doesn't create a paradox. and infinite universe contains and infinite spacetime in which there would be no begining. observational evidence supports the idea that our universe is expanding, and infinite universe would not do this because it is infinite.
    we can follow the expansion backwards and of course we arive at a point, the begining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    no...it is not easier for me to imagine an infinite universe. it is easier for me to think of a universe that contains everything and outside of which is nothing.

    as if the infinite universe idea doesn't create a paradox. and infinite universe contains and infinite spacetime in which there would be no begining. observational evidence supports the idea that our universe is expanding, and infinite universe would not do this because it is infinite.
    we can follow the expansion backwards and of course we arive at a point, the begining.
    First of all, why is nothing outside of the universe easy to understand? Nothing? What is nothing? Better still how can something exist inside of "nothing"?

    Second, the universe may be expanding however this just translates in to the matter travelling outward. Seeing as how we can't find an edge it would be kind of hard to really say this giant plastic bag (as I see your explanation) is blowing up. Ohh and the bag exists inside of "nothing". Kind of hard to fathom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    no...it is not easier for me to imagine an infinite universe. it is easier for me to think of a universe that contains everything and outside of which is nothing.

    as if the infinite universe idea doesn't create a paradox. and infinite universe contains and infinite spacetime in which there would be no begining. observational evidence supports the idea that our universe is expanding, and infinite universe would not do this because it is infinite.
    we can follow the expansion backwards and of course we arive at a point, the begining.
    First of all, why is nothing outside of the universe easy to understand? Nothing? What is nothing? Better still how can something exist inside of "nothing"?

    Second, the universe may be expanding however this just translates in to the matter travelling outward. Seeing as how we can't find an edge it would be kind of hard to really say this giant plastic bag (as I see your explanation) is blowing up. Ohh and the bag exists inside of "nothing". Kind of hard to fathom.
    nothing is exactly that you can't define it because there is nothing to define, you can't see it or measure it or contemplate it because it isn't there.
    why can't something exist inside nothing as there is nothing stoping it.

    the expansion of spacetime causes matter to move further and further apart, it's not as if the matter is actually moving away.

    whats so hard to fathom about that?
    anyone else have an opinion to break the deadlock?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    the expansion of spacetime causes matter to move further and further apart, it's not as if the matter is actually moving away.
    Picture a void (call it nothing if you will). Void of all matter and energy. This void has an infinite distance in all directions. It doesn't require anything to sustain it as it's 100% void. This place would be the holding place for what would come, a large amount of matter and energy introduced in to this void. It would be exploded and form the universe we know. This matter then would expand outward from it's center filling this void. One could call the void "nothing" however it actually is something. It's a building space to add matter and form the universe. The problem is we just don't have a clue what this void is made up of. Just as we don't know what to call the space between atoms. It's not "nothing". It's something we just can't define ..yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Void...Nothing.

    they are the same thing the only difference between the two definitions we have used is that you refer to the void as being infinite and thus having size, which alows you to imagine a universe being inside this.

    nothing has no size because there is nothing there to take up space...
    o screw it i've defined what nothing is previously.

    nothing, is obviously hard to imagine because there is nothing to imagine so don't imagine it. if you imagine it you end up with something instead of nothing.
    instead just imagine the universe it is the only thing there.
    it is all that is, was and ever will be. there is nothing else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    nothing has no size because there is nothing there to take up space...
    o screw it i've defined what nothing is previously.
    The ONLY problem I have with this is how does something (the universe) expand in to nothing? My empty void (something) has room for this expansion. That's the problem I'm having with "nothing". Does the "nothing" turn in to something? If so what process would cause that
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    It's easier to think of space being infinite then anything else.
    I am not sure what this means. However, the fact that it might be easier for YOU to think in this way does not make if fact, but your opinion based on what is easiest for you. I do not think that space is infinite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Picture a void (call it nothing if you will). Void of all matter and energy. This void has an infinite distance in all directions.
    You are asking us to visualize your model of the world, and then accept something on the basis of it. However, how can I visualize someting that isn't? Why should I accept your assumption that infinity exists in space, particularly in space that you state inn't?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Picture a void (call it nothing if you will). Void of all matter and energy. This void has an infinite distance in all directions.
    You are asking us to visualize your model of the world, and then accept something on the basis of it. However, how can I visualize someting that isn't? Why should I accept your assumption that infinity exists in space, particularly in space that you state inn't?
    A void is something, it's the absence of all matter and energy. It's a very dark cold place. It's still something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    nothing has no size because there is nothing there to take up space...
    o screw it i've defined what nothing is previously.
    The ONLY problem I have with this is how does something (the universe) expand in to nothing? My empty void (something) has room for this expansion. That's the problem I'm having with "nothing". Does the "nothing" turn in to something? If so what process would cause that
    what is there to stop it?
    the universe is contained and the absence of anything being outside would not effect it.

    the problem with your void is that if it is there it must have spacetime which then makes it a vacuum and a vacuum always has energy in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    the problem with your void is that if it is there it must have spacetime which then makes it a vacuum and a vacuum always has energy in it.
    Ok, so what's the space between atoms called?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    space between atoms is called spacetime, just like everywhere else in the universe, and is is far from having a lack of energy.

    i need a better understanding of atomic theory so maybe someone else can get more specific with this but i'm guessing that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus would be exchanging some for of energy to keep it together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    space between atoms is called spacetime, just like everywhere else in the universe, and is is far from having a lack of energy.
    You seem to have some understanding of space-time. This is correct.

    i'm guessing that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus would be exchanging some for of energy to keep it together.
    All space-time in the universe, excluding that which is too far away for its light to reach, interacts with all other space-time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    space between atoms is called spacetime, just like everywhere else in the universe, and is is far from having a lack of energy.
    You seem to have some understanding of space-time. This is correct.

    i'm guessing that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus would be exchanging some for of energy to keep it together.
    All space-time in the universe, excluding that which is too far away for its light to reach, interacts with all other space-time.
    So what's the space between the protons and neutrons ? Is it nothing

    I think we are just missing some fundamental building block. Perhaps some part that is beyond anything we can ever hope to see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    space between atoms is called spacetime, just like everywhere else in the universe, and is is far from having a lack of energy.
    You seem to have some understanding of space-time. This is correct.

    i'm guessing that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus would be exchanging some for of energy to keep it together.
    All space-time in the universe, excluding that which is too far away for its light to reach, interacts with all other space-time.
    So what's the space between the protons and neutrons ? Is it nothing

    I think we are just missing some fundamental building block. Perhaps some part that is beyond anything we can ever hope to see.
    the space between the protons and neutrons is the same as the space in the protons and neutrons and the space everywhere else in the universe and as i said is far from being empty of energy.

    spacetime is everywhere it is in everything and outside everything, all the matter in the universe is not just made up of energy but it is also made up of spacetime aswell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    spacetime is everywhere it is in everything and outside everything, all the matter in the universe is not just made up of energy but it is also made up of spacetime aswell.
    So what is it? It has to be something for energy to pass through it. So what is it? Kind of goes back to my infinite universe concept. In order for matter to expand it has to have a location to expand in to. Call it spacetime if you wish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    spacetime is everywhere it is in everything and outside everything, all the matter in the universe is not just made up of energy but it is also made up of spacetime aswell.
    So what is it? It has to be something for energy to pass through it. So what is it? Kind of goes back to my infinite universe concept. In order for matter to expand it has to have a location to expand in to. Call it spacetime if you wish.
    ok maybe i should dumb it down a little.

    spacetime is an object in which matter and energy move through.
    like all objects it has boundries and it works in a certain way under certain conditions everytime, we call these the laws of physics.

    this object called spacetime has many objects within it, we call this matter and energy, and it has nothing outside it, provided there is not a multiverse. and if there is a multiverse then it is an object with nothing outside it.

    we measure this object with our human measurements as dimensions, there are many dimensions we can't see hence our human measurements are invalid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    spacetime is everywhere it is in everything and outside everything, all the matter in the universe is not just made up of energy but it is also made up of spacetime aswell.
    So what is it? It has to be something for energy to pass through it. So what is it? Kind of goes back to my infinite universe concept. In order for matter to expand it has to have a location to expand in to. Call it spacetime if you wish.
    ok maybe i should dumb it down a little.

    spacetime is an object in which matter and energy move through.
    like all objects it has boundries and it works in a certain way under certain conditions everytime, we call these the laws of physics.

    this object called spacetime has many objects within it, we call this matter and energy, and it has nothing outside it, provided there is not a multiverse. and if there is a multiverse then it is an object with nothing outside it.

    we measure this object with our human measurements as dimensions, there are many dimensions we can't see hence our human measurements are invalid.
    LOL, I know all this of course. I'm trying to lead you in to the concept of my infinite universe made of the same thing spacetime is made of except without the matter and energy

    Think about it, you just said matter and energy travel through spacetime yet people find it hard to believe this same thing could exist on the outer edges of the universe and beyond. Why not? If it exists along with matter it has to also be able to exist without matter. Lets forget about definitions for a second and look just at the basics.

    Matter and energy have some "space" between them, this space could in theory exist beyond our known physical universe just waiting for matter and energy to reach this area. It would be nothing in the sense we know of, yet it's not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    LOL, I know all this of course. I'm trying to lead you in to the concept of my infinite universe made of the same thing spacetime is made of except without the matter and energy

    Think about it, you just said matter and energy travel through spacetime yet people find it hard to believe this same thing could exist on the outer edges of the universe and beyond. Why not? If it exists along with matter it has to also be able to exist without matter. Lets forget about definitions for a second and look just at the basics.

    Matter and energy have some "space" between them, this space could in theory exist beyond our known physical universe just waiting for matter and energy to reach this area. It would be nothing in the sense we know of, yet it's not.
    as i said an object with boundries, i also forgot to mention a begining as a universe that is infinite or without boundries will not have a center or a begining.

    this defies observational evidence that the universe is expanding.
    a universe can expand into nothing but it can not expand into infinity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    this defies observational evidence that the universe is expanding.
    a universe can expand into nothing but it can not expand into infinity.
    Depends on your definition of the universe. If it was infinite that would not mean that matter was not located at one location in far greater concentration then other areas. Big bang. The infinite void with a glob of matter in some location. Blow up that glob and now you have the center of the universe. Nobody can say that another glob didn't also get blown up at some other time in some other place in this infinite universe. You could even have an infinite number of such occurrences making up an even large universe consisting of an unlimited number of what we consider our universe. These would all be separated by what you like to call spacetime or what I like to call "the void". So a traveler would reach the edge of our universe and find themselves in a next to perfect vacuum. The universe that we know would be chasing after them as it expands, filling that void. In time the universes could start to collide with each other. Trillions of years later.

    Code:
    *          *
        *    *
                 *
          *
    *
    The asterisks could be universes with the white space being just that...space. Not so much spacetime, as matter would be absent.

    Edit: I should point out that these universes (*) are far enough apart that we don't have a chance of detecting them....yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Depends on your definition of the universe. If it was infinite that would not mean that matter was not located at one location in far greater concentration then other areas. Big bang. The infinite void with a glob of matter in some location. Blow up that glob and now you have the center of the universe. Nobody can say that another glob didn't also get blown up at some other time in some other place in this infinite universe. You could even have an infinite number of such occurrences making up an even large universe consisting of an unlimited number of what we consider our universe. These would all be separated by what you like to call spacetime or what I like to call "the void". So a traveler would reach the edge of our universe and find themselves in a next to perfect vacuum. The universe that we know would be chasing after them as it expands, filling that void. In time the universes could start to collide with each other. Trillions of years later.

    Code:
    *          *
        *    *
                 *
          *
    *
    The asterisks could be universes with the white space being just that...space. Not so much spacetime, as matter would be absent.

    Edit: I should point out that these universes (*) are far enough apart that we don't have a chance of detecting them....yet.
    this theory can work for the nothing idea too. nothingness is without size and has no energy, all points of spacetime including a vacuum are filled with energy which probably alows all points of spacetime to interact with each other. but there maybe other universes out there in the nothing that we will never see, even though there is nothing between us, wether or not the energy in spacetime could interact with it as well i do not know, might have something to do with other dimensions.

    our theories are begining to share some of the same properties .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    this theory can work for the nothing idea too. nothingness is without size and has no energy, all points of spacetime including a vacuum are filled with energy which probably alows all points of spacetime to interact with each other. but there maybe other universes out there in the nothing that we will never see, even though there is nothing between us, wether or not the energy in spacetime could interact with it as well i do not know, might have something to do with other dimensions.

    our theories are begining to share some of the same properties
    Yes, we are pretty close on our ideas.

    I still can't handle nothing. I can handle a vacuum, a black void, empty space. Nothing I just can't deal with to well. To me it brings up visions of a wall at the edge of the universe where you can't travel out in to nothing. Nothing is like NULL. It's not able to be traversed as it doesn't exist at all. A void, a vacuum, etc is just waiting to be filled. Nothing is unable to be filled as it's well...nothing at all
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Yes, we are pretty close on our ideas.

    I still can't handle nothing. I can handle a vacuum, a black void, empty space. Nothing I just can't deal with to well. To me it brings up visions of a wall at the edge of the universe where you can't travel out in to nothing. Nothing is like NULL. It's not able to be traversed as it doesn't exist at all. A void, a vacuum, etc is just waiting to be filled. Nothing is unable to be filled as it's well...nothing at all
    the problem i have with infinite spacetime or vacuum is that the vacuum is bursting with energy. in infinite spacetime we would find an infinite energy and to me inifinity doesn't just go on forever but always would have been forever. hence my problem with a lack of begining.

    a perfect vacuum would be without energy and hence without spacetime which means it is nothing.
    your void is just an infinity with nothing to fill it.
    my nothing has nowhere to fill anything.

    both submit to the same flaws as the Big Bang theory because there is an absence of anything before, if there was then our universe would have been created sooner. however nothing is without time, where as infinte spacetime still has a time factor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    both submit to the same flaws as the Big Bang theory because there is an absence of anything before, if there was then our universe would have been created sooner. however nothing is without time, where as infinte spacetime still has a time factor.
    The only theory that works with this is that everything is a simulation (a thought). This allows for something to just appear out of absolute nothingness. Just as you can create any universe you want in your mind and walk forever never finding an end.

    This of course would mean that the true nature of existence may not have anything at all to do with the physical universe we think of. The rules we know may only apply in the reality we are aware of. Kind of hard for most people to grasp as it counts on them believing in something they can't ever hope to see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    The only theory that works with this is that everything is a simulation (a thought). This allows for something to just appear out of absolute nothingness. Just as you can create any universe you want in your mind and walk forever never finding an end.

    This of course would mean that the true nature of existence may not have anything at all to do with the physical universe we think of. The rules we know may only apply in the reality we are aware of. Kind of hard for most people to grasp as it counts on them believing in something they can't ever hope to see.
    the thought would have to have some form of energy driving it though.
    the true nature of thought and how it is created in the brain is yet to be understood but we do know that no thought occurs in a brain which no longer has the energy to drive that thought.

    because the thought must have energy driving it then there must be a universe outside the thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    The only theory that works with this is that everything is a simulation (a thought). This allows for something to just appear out of absolute nothingness. Just as you can create any universe you want in your mind and walk forever never finding an end.

    This of course would mean that the true nature of existence may not have anything at all to do with the physical universe we think of. The rules we know may only apply in the reality we are aware of. Kind of hard for most people to grasp as it counts on them believing in something they can't ever hope to see.
    the thought would have to have some form of energy driving it though.
    the true nature of thought and how it is created in the brain is yet to be understood but we do know that no thought occurs in a brain which no longer has the energy to drive that thought.

    because the thought must have energy driving it then there must be a universe outside the thought.
    Yes, correct. Think of it as the cosmic mind. The universe we know being a thought process or a computer simulation. This allows for the boundaries to be infinite. Once you reach the areas where "nothing" exists the simulation can simply not produce any output (no matter).

    Have you ever played a video game where you drive off the edge and it just keeps going forever? Think of it the same way.

    Still most would never accept this idea as it implies we are lab rats.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    there are also those games where you reach a boundry you cannot cross even thought there may appear to be something there when in actual fact there is nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    there are also those games where you reach a boundry you cannot cross even thought there may appear to be something there when in actual fact there is nothing.
    Well, this is by design. The universe(s) may be by design. Time will tell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    yes time will tell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84 Space Ends! 
    Forum Freshman the universe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    37
    Space Ends! that way space has a shape!

    you can check it out here
    http://www.cybcity.com/theuniverse
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85 (In)Sanity i think it fits! 
    Forum Freshman the universe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    both submit to the same flaws as the Big Bang theory because there is an absence of anything before, if there was then our universe would have been created sooner. however nothing is without time, where as infinte spacetime still has a time factor.
    The only theory that works with this is that everything is a simulation (a thought). This allows for something to just appear out of absolute nothingness. Just as you can create any universe you want in your mind and walk forever never finding an end.

    This of course would mean that the true nature of existence may not have anything at all to do with the physical universe we think of. The rules we know may only apply in the reality we are aware of. Kind of hard for most people to grasp as it counts on them believing in something they can't ever hope to see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    infinite space also lacks a center and thus any definative point in spacetime.

    a circle without a center would not have a radius and thus would continue to infinity.
    whereas a circle with a center will have a radius and thus a definitive point in which the circle stops. and nothing outside, except for maybe some other circles.

    the same goes for any shape the universe may take.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    infinite space also lacks a center and thus any definative point in spacetime.

    a circle without a center would not have a radius and thus would continue to infinity.
    whereas a circle with a center will have a radius and thus a definitive point in which the circle stops. and nothing outside, except for maybe some other circles.

    the same goes for any shape the universe may take.
    Unless it's a virtual universe. Then it needs no center and can be infinite. There also is no proof that there isn't more then one known universe in what we call spacetime. To give the universe an edge makes it have to exist inside of something. You have the inside where we are and the outside that holds what? The nothing answer doesn't work as the universe can't expand in to true nothingness. It could expand in to a vacuum. That however would imply a holding place for the universe, infinite or not.

    We could go round and around over and over on this topic and never come to any finite conclusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Unless it's a virtual universe. Then it needs no center and can be infinite. There also is no proof that there isn't more then one known universe in what we call spacetime. To give the universe an edge makes it have to exist inside of something. You have the inside where we are and the outside that holds what? The nothing answer doesn't work as the universe can't expand in to true nothingness. It could expand in to a vacuum. That however would imply a holding place for the universe, infinite or not.

    We could go round and around over and over on this topic and never come to any finite conclusions.
    a virtual universe would need a center too, only this would be a center of programing or the source.

    stop thinking about the universe existing inside something and stop imagining it from the outside. if there is nothing outside then that means that the universe and everything in it is all that is and nothing more.
    so it can expand if it wants. imagine that and maybe you will get a better grasp on my idea.

    also our universe in infinite spacetime would not be a closed system hence heat and matter are seeping away and will never return. which means the universe would achieve absolute zero much to quickly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89 Space Ends 
    Forum Freshman the universe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    37
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90 Space Ends! 
    Forum Freshman the universe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    infinite space also lacks a center and thus any definative point in spacetime.

    a circle without a center would not have a radius and thus would continue to infinity.
    whereas a circle with a center will have a radius and thus a definitive point in which the circle stops. and nothing outside, except for maybe some other circles.

    the same goes for any shape the universe may take.
    Unless it's a virtual universe. Then it needs no center and can be infinite. There also is no proof that there isn't more then one known universe in what we call spacetime. To give the universe an edge makes it have to exist inside of something. You have the inside where we are and the outside that holds what? The nothing answer doesn't work as the universe can't expand in to true nothingness. It could expand in to a vacuum. That however would imply a holding place for the universe, infinite or not.

    We could go round and around over and over on this topic and never come to any finite conclusions.
    outside of space there is nothing!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91 the universe does not expand 
    Forum Freshman the universe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    infinite space also lacks a center and thus any definative point in spacetime.

    a circle without a center would not have a radius and thus would continue to infinity.
    whereas a circle with a center will have a radius and thus a definitive point in which the circle stops. and nothing outside, except for maybe some other circles.

    the same goes for any shape the universe may take.
    Unless it's a virtual universe. Then it needs no center and can be infinite. There also is no proof that there isn't more then one known universe in what we call spacetime. To give the universe an edge makes it have to exist inside of something. You have the inside where we are and the outside that holds what? The nothing answer doesn't work as the universe can't expand in to true nothingness. It could expand in to a vacuum. That however would imply a holding place for the universe, infinite or not.

    We could go round and around over and over on this topic and never come to any finite conclusions.

    the universe does not expand only the matter and energy move around in space
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    the universe does expand.
    this expansion is occuring in empty spacetime mostly because there is not as much energy there.

    BTW you might want to incorporate some evidence or logical thinking proccess that brought you to your previous conclussions as we can't just take your word for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93 no No NO 
    Forum Freshman the universe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    the universe does expand.
    this expansion is occuring in empty spacetime mostly because there is not as much energy there.

    BTW you might want to incorporate some evidence or logical thinking proccess that brought you to your previous conclussions as we can't just take your word for it.
    the universe is not just the matter and energy it is the time and the space also

    the universe is not expanding the matter and energy are moving around in space
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    if you paint two dots on a balloon and then inflate it the dots will have moved further apart.
    the same principal also applies for our universe, it is expanding and the matter in it is moving further and further apart.

    again provide something other then your word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Wow! Didn't know that this thread has been ongoing for close to 2 months. Havent been reading all the posts here. But way to go guys!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    the universe does expand.
    How do you know? Because you read about it?

    if you paint two dots on a balloon and then inflate it the dots will have moved further apart.
    Why would the universe be like a balloon?

    again provide something other then your word.
    Why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjalian
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    the universe does expand.
    How do you know? Because you read about it?
    and the people who wrote the web page or book would have seen the evidence of redshifting on objects in the night sky.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tjalian
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    if you paint two dots on a balloon and then inflate it the dots will have moved further apart.
    Why would the universe be like a balloon?
    it inflates...Duh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tjalian
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    again provide something other then your word.
    Why?
    because your argument is highly illogical without evidence. if you don't want to provide evidence then i'll just do the same thing by saying.

    the universe is expanding.
    spacetime is expanding, not the matter.
    there is nothing outside the universe.

    ohh yeah i'm right everyones wrong because i said so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Just a thought about redshifting. Could the redshift that we observe be just a part of a random wave or ripple effect? Maybe this region of observable universe is expanding so we noticed redshift. However the other parts of the universe which we haven't seen could be contracting?

    Just speculating. No evidence or theories on my side to support this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    tell you the truth. i don't know an incredible amount about redshifting. but i do know this.

    wavelengths will appear shorter on waves of light or sound that are traveling towards you making light blue and frequencies higher. and they will apear longer when moving away, turning light red and frequencies lower.

    i think people saw that a lot of objects were becomeing more and more redshifted so they started thinking and came up with ideas like the big bang, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and other concepts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Is acceleration of the expansion a good evidence that pure expansion must have taken place instead of regional expansion? That is, is acceleration a characteristic of expansion or is it just a normal effect in something like a wave or ripple?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •