Hi, my first post here....
Just a question that been on my mind, whats outside of the universe? If the universe is expanding then what is it expanding into? I've seen a few videos on youtube that try to explain my question.
I think that the universe is everything, there is nothing else, keep going in a straight line and you will end up back where you started. I dont think our brains are capable of understanding the universe properly.....
I'll try to stay on topic but if theres are other life forms out there that are far more advanced then us, maybe they hold the answer?
1 universe
Trillions of galaxies, each galaxy has trillions of stars, each star has the possibility of a planet in its orbit. There got to be other life out there.
Please give an answer for each question if you can, thanks
QUOTE (uperkurk+Aug 2 2008, 07:04 AM)
I think that the universe is everything, there is nothing else, keep going in a straight line and you will end up back where you started. I dont think our brains are capable of understanding the universe properly.....
Hello uperkurk,
One of the main problems in asking these questions is that 'mainstream' science does not have an answer, but still insists on a 'big bang' scenario, thus clinging to a 'void', 'vacuum', 'nothingness' invention to make the 'big bang' seem plausible. This, to me, makes very little sense at all, and so I asked the same questions as you, some years ago now.
Are you looking for a 'mainstream' answer? A more plausible answer? Or just happy to speculate?
If you say that the Universe is 'everything' and that 'nothing' is a non-existent concept of Human invention, then It MUST be Infinite (existence is what exists, and it must do so 'everywhere'!). So, when you go a step further to say that: "keep going in a straight line and you will end up back where you started" ~ this cannot be true, either; only in a 'spherical' universe might this be plausible, and this brings us back to the initial problem of 'something' making the Universe spherical and it also existing 'within' another medium...which is?
Also, "I dont think our brains are capable of understanding the universe properly" ~ is your prerogative to believe what you like, but consider, why you would then a. want to try, and b. be even capable of trying. Also, what do you mean by 'understand', and 'properly'? ~ If the Universe is Infinite, then its entirety can never be discovered, by any 'entity' under any circumstances. However, there is no good reason why we cannot understand how it performs the motions it does, being that we are also 'it', or evolving parts thereof. This is effectively the role of 'science', and it is my firm conviction that we CAN find out HOW existence 'operates', indeed, some people are convinced we already have.
This is my 'philosophical' approach, for whatever you think it's worth. The mainstream people here have another story...
Welcome to physorg.
g.
wow thanks for the detailed answer.... You pointed out a few things there and the reason I say people just arnt capable of knowing the universe fully is because if we did then there would only be "one" answer. Many diffrent scientists belive many diffrent things about the universe. I belive that the universe is infinite and I have told many people this and they turn round and say how can it be never ending... again another example of people not being able to get a grip of something being infinite. The main question people have real trouble grasping is if "god" created the universe and everything in it then what created "god"
Another example without using "god" is if the universe was created by a big bang then where did the energy come from to create the big bang?
Personally I think that energy is, was and always will be there. It cant be destroyed. So when people say god I just think of the energy having a name, whether is be allah, jesus ect. It's just energy?
I dont know much about this sort of stuff as you can proberly tell
I'm here for answers, thanks
Another example without using "god" is if the universe was created by a big bang then where did the energy come from to create the big bang?
Personally I think that energy is, was and always will be there. It cant be destroyed. So when people say god I just think of the energy having a name, whether is be allah, jesus ect. It's just energy?
I dont know much about this sort of stuff as you can proberly tell
I'm here for answers, thanks
IMO...
The void is infinite. The universe is everything that exists in the void. As a part of everything that exists we have a basic knowledge of everything that exists and no basic knowledge of anything that does not exist. We think we understand the concept of zero but we do not and never really can because noone living has ever known what its like to be nothing and lived to tell about it. So we are grasping for the impossible the drive for all humans imo is to grasp for impossible things. Its aim for the stars land on the moon. If we had a full understanding of nothing/void I believe we would have the answer to everything but at what cost does that full understanding come?
As for things that exist the sky is the limit on things that can exist. Infinity vs Nothing I guess...
As for aliens if they are way way more advanced then us we need not worry about them because they will effectivly own us despite anything we do... If they are equal then we will probably make good friends. If they are below us in advancement we will probably own them so they need not worry about us...
The void is infinite. The universe is everything that exists in the void. As a part of everything that exists we have a basic knowledge of everything that exists and no basic knowledge of anything that does not exist. We think we understand the concept of zero but we do not and never really can because noone living has ever known what its like to be nothing and lived to tell about it. So we are grasping for the impossible the drive for all humans imo is to grasp for impossible things. Its aim for the stars land on the moon. If we had a full understanding of nothing/void I believe we would have the answer to everything but at what cost does that full understanding come?
As for things that exist the sky is the limit on things that can exist. Infinity vs Nothing I guess...
As for aliens if they are way way more advanced then us we need not worry about them because they will effectivly own us despite anything we do... If they are equal then we will probably make good friends. If they are below us in advancement we will probably own them so they need not worry about us...
This is the way I choose to think; [BS]Our perceived/intellectualized universe only appears infinite, as our existence is limited within its split geometry that we reside in. Additionally, I also feel the 'real' universe is of finite geometry; math dudes currently think 11-D[/BS]
The universe is the size it needs to be. I like that answer better than any other.
QUOTE
The main question people have real trouble grasping is if "god" created the universe and everything in it then what created "god"
Another example without using "god" is if the universe was created by a big bang then where did the energy come from to create the big bang?
Another example without using "god" is if the universe was created by a big bang then where did the energy come from to create the big bang?
Ok, this issue is as old as man.
"Something" must be infinite, else existence wouldn't... exist.
In other words, no matter what the underlying laws of the universe are that we live in, and no matter how old it is or how it got here, there must be "somthing" that has always existed in some way.
And you hit on a good point that BOTH atheists and creationists have trouble arguing around.
Creationists say "God made everything" and simply say that God always existed, but with no explaination of how this is possible.
Atheists say the Big Bang created the universe, or otherwise say the universe always existed, but also have no explaination for how this is possible.
The fact is, it doesn't even matter how it is possible, there is no answer.
For example:
God himself could not possibly have an explaination for his own existence, he simply "IS", and that's that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The main question people have real trouble grasping is if "god" created the universe and everything in it then what created "god" Another example without using "god" is if the universe was created by a big bang then where did the energy come from to create the big bang? |
Ok, this issue is as old as man.
"Something" must be infinite, else existence wouldn't... exist.
In other words, no matter what the underlying laws of the universe are that we live in, and no matter how old it is or how it got here, there must be "somthing" that has always existed in some way.
And you hit on a good point that BOTH atheists and creationists have trouble arguing around.
Creationists say "God made everything" and simply say that God always existed, but with no explaination of how this is possible.
Atheists say the Big Bang created the universe, or otherwise say the universe always existed, but also have no explaination for how this is possible.
The fact is, it doesn't even matter how it is possible, there is no answer.
For example:
God himself could not possibly have an explaination for his own existence, he simply "IS", and that's that.
Personally I think that energy is, was and always will be there. It cant be destroyed. So when people say god I just think of the energy having a name, whether is be allah, jesus ect. It's just energy?
This doesn't work because of several reasons.
1) obviously different religions that say different things about God, man, and the universe, cannot all be correct. No mre than one of them can be correct.
2) Energy, matter, space, time, etc are all concepts we use to try to understand the universe around us, but everything is not energy, and energy is not everything. There are other quantities and variables, else there would be no order at all.
OK you say that somthing has always existed in some way. I agree with that but at the same time is there a law or something that says this is possible or is it still a "therory"
Thanks for replying....
Thanks for replying....
QUOTE (uperkurk+Aug 3 2008, 02:22 PM)
OK you say that somthing has always existed in some way. I agree with that but at the same time is there a law or something that says this is possible or is it still a "therory"
Thanks for replying....
Very simple.
There is no mechanism within "nothing" to produce "something".
Therefore "something" must have always existed, and there was never a time when "nothing" existed.
Thanks for replying....
Very simple.
There is no mechanism within "nothing" to produce "something".
Therefore "something" must have always existed, and there was never a time when "nothing" existed.
OK I understand what your saynig just out of curiosity, what do you think this something is that has always exsisted? and this thing that has always exsisted created the big bang.
just out of curiosity, what do you think this something is that has always exsisted? and this thing that has always exsisted created the big bang.
QUOTE (uperkurk+Aug 3 2008, 03:32 PM)
OK I understand what your saynig just out of curiosity, what do you think this something is that has always exsisted? and this thing that has always exsisted created the big bang.
Who said I believe in the Big Bang at all?
The Big Bang is based on the delusion that you can somehow run the laws of the universe in reverse for a few eons and hit a "Point of Origin" or "event of Origin".
Well, that belief has already been shown to be a fallacy any number of ways.
Very elegantly:
One can theoretically wind a clock backwards to the time 20 trillion B.C. but that doesn't mean the clock existed 20 trillion years ago.
just out of curiosity, what do you think this something is that has always exsisted? and this thing that has always exsisted created the big bang. Who said I believe in the Big Bang at all?
The Big Bang is based on the delusion that you can somehow run the laws of the universe in reverse for a few eons and hit a "Point of Origin" or "event of Origin".
Well, that belief has already been shown to be a fallacy any number of ways.
Very elegantly:
One can theoretically wind a clock backwards to the time 20 trillion B.C. but that doesn't mean the clock existed 20 trillion years ago.
There is no mechanism within "nothing" to produce "something".
Prove to me there is no mechanism that causes nothing to produce something?
Prove to me there is no mechanism that causes nothing to produce something?
QUOTE (magpies+Aug 3 2008, 11:37 PM)
Prove to me there is no mechanism that causes nothing to produce something?
This is one of those semantic cul-de-sac's.
How can anyone prove that there is no mechanism?
Seeing as 'nothing' does not exist, can not exist, you would have to prove that something can come out of nothing by proving that nothing can exist and explaining the mechanism of how this mysterious paradox can create something.
This is one of those semantic cul-de-sac's.
How can anyone prove that there is no mechanism?
Seeing as 'nothing' does not exist, can not exist, you would have to prove that something can come out of nothing by proving that nothing can exist and explaining the mechanism of how this mysterious paradox can create something.
Just because the world is flat does not mean you can sit around doing that.
When nothing becomes something does something then become nothing?
No nothing exists, everything exists put on a inkblot find the secret spot.
You say I dont exist I say you dont exist. I say I do exist you say you do exist.
Who is correct when everyone is wrong?
When nothing becomes something does something then become nothing?
No nothing exists, everything exists put on a inkblot find the secret spot.
You say I dont exist I say you dont exist. I say I do exist you say you do exist.
Who is correct when everyone is wrong?
QUOTE (magpies+Aug 3 2008, 11:57 PM)
Just because the world is flat does not mean you can sit around doing that.
When nothing becomes something does something then become nothing?
No nothing exists, everything exists put on a inkblot find the secret spot.
You say I dont exist I say you dont exist. I say I do exist you say you do exist.
Who is correct when everyone is wrong?
Who said that?
When nothing becomes something does something then become nothing?
No nothing exists, everything exists put on a inkblot find the secret spot.
You say I dont exist I say you dont exist. I say I do exist you say you do exist.
Who is correct when everyone is wrong?
Who said that?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Aug 4 2008, 12:11 AM)
Who said that?
The voice in his head?
The voice in his head?
Yeah its called thinking try it once you might like it.
This aint no alien comspiracy this is real.
This aint no alien comspiracy this is real.
the big bang model does not say the universe was created from nothing.
according to the big bang, the universe was once in a state of infinite density and infinite temperature, that hardly constitutes nothing.
now that i have that off my chest
hello uperkurk
according to the big bang, the universe was once in a state of infinite density and infinite temperature, that hardly constitutes nothing.
now that i have that off my chest
hello uperkurk
QUOTE
uperkurk Posted: Yesterday at 4:04 AM Just a question that been on my mind, whats outside of the universe? If the universe is expanding then what is it expanding into? I've seen a few videos on youtube that try to explain my question.
by definition all that exists is a part of the universe. there is no outside the universe, since that any pre-existing space that contains the universe exists, so by definition is part of the universe.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| uperkurk Posted: Yesterday at 4:04 AM Just a question that been on my mind, whats outside of the universe? If the universe is expanding then what is it expanding into? I've seen a few videos on youtube that try to explain my question. |
by definition all that exists is a part of the universe. there is no outside the universe, since that any pre-existing space that contains the universe exists, so by definition is part of the universe.
I think that the universe is everything, there is nothing else, keep going in a straight line and you will end up back where you started. I dont think our brains are capable of understanding the universe properly.....
I think that the universe is everything, there is nothing else, keep going in a straight line and you will end up back where you started. I dont think our brains are capable of understanding the universe properly.....
the idea of ending up where you started has to do with what is described as the shape of the universe. some extra reading will help understand what is meant by this as the conventional meaning of "shape" can be slightly misleading when applied to the universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=62
i take this to mean that a singularity occurs, at a finite period of time in the past, when the expansion of the universe is extrapolated backwards using the equations of GR.
QUOTE
I'll try to stay on topic but if theres are other life forms out there that are far more advanced then us, maybe they hold the answer?
maybe, maybe not.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'll try to stay on topic but if theres are other life forms out there that are far more advanced then us, maybe they hold the answer? |
maybe, maybe not.
1 universe Trillions of galaxies, each galaxy has trillions of stars, each star has the possibility of a planet in its orbit. There got to be other life out there.
1 universe Trillions of galaxies, each galaxy has trillions of stars, each star has the possibility of a planet in its orbit. There got to be other life out there.
without proof what do you have? another speculation. where do you stop drawing the line when it comes to belief?
welcome!
welcome!
How do you define infinite pressure and temp? Surely it wasnt truely infinite pressure? Or was it?
QUOTE
magpies Posted on Today at 5:27 PM How do you define infinite pressure and temp?
General relativity suggests that just before the big bang, a point with zero volume and infinite density contained all the matter of the universe. This phenomenon is called a singularity. Stephen Hawking.i take this to mean that a singularity occurs, at a finite period of time in the past, when the expansion of the universe is extrapolated backwards using the equations of GR.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| magpies Posted on Today at 5:27 PM How do you define infinite pressure and temp? |
General relativity suggests that just before the big bang, a point with zero volume and infinite density contained all the matter of the universe. This phenomenon is called a singularity. Stephen Hawking.
i take this to mean that a singularity occurs, at a finite period of time in the past, when the expansion of the universe is extrapolated backwards using the equations of GR.
Surely it wasnt truely infinite pressure? Or was it?
i take this to mean that a singularity occurs, at a finite period of time in the past, when the expansion of the universe is extrapolated backwards using the equations of GR.
Surely it wasnt truely infinite pressure? Or was it?
is GR complete?, is an important question. some think not. some say that until GR is reconciled with a working theory of quantum gravity, GR is incomplete. what could this incompleteness mean for the theoretical basis of the big bang model? could there be a period of the universe that GR is incapable of describing?
QUOTE (uperkurk+Aug 2 2008, 02:09 PM)
wow thanks for the detailed answer.... You pointed out a few things there and the reason I say people just arnt capable of knowing the universe fully is because if we did then there would only be "one" answer.
There is only One True answer to the question of HOW the universe exists. This is why I ask: Have you formulated your question correctly, so that you achieve the kind of answer you are looking for?' You may be expecting others to automatically know what you mean, when you yourself have not even posed the correct question, merely to achieve an answer you think you already have. You will find that people quite often, and quite unconsciously, 'formulate' an answer first, and then 'build' a question that leads to what they already think they know. This is self-deception, and is not conducive to True understanding. Remember, you are also 'the universe', so when you deceive (unconsiously) yourself you cannot then know HOW the rest of the universe operates. Your Real task then becomes one of increasing self-consciousness. Are YOU asking the right questions?
There is a difference between 'believing' and knowing; speculation and correct deduction. Also, there are many methods devised to achieve these things. 'Science' is a relatively new method, but not the only one. The correct application of science will determine what is false, as much as what may be true, but it cannot do so without deductive reasoning applied to that which it finds. This is why many great scientists also become formidable philosophers. It is a question of personal motivation.
There is a difference between 'believing' and knowing; speculation and correct deduction. Also, there are many methods devised to achieve these things. 'Science' is a relatively new method, but not the only one. The correct application of science will determine what is false, as much as what may be true, but it cannot do so without deductive reasoning applied to that which it finds. This is why many great scientists also become formidable philosophers. It is a question of personal motivation.
The main question people have real trouble grasping is if "god" created the universe and everything in it then what created "god". Another example without using "god" is if the universe was created by a big bang then where did the energy come from to create the big bang?
The most plausible answers to these 'problems' lie in the part of your question: "...people have real trouble grasping..." . This is the truth of it. The scientific method would be to ask 'HOW do people mis-understand things?' The even newer branch of 'western' science, that of 'psychology', may help determine this. In fact, this is why there are other methods than just 'modern western science' to determine the Reality of things for yourself. It is a different approach, but amounts to the same thing. The idea is that if you 'know yourself' you also know how your 'larger self' (the rest of existence) operates; not in a 'modern scientific' way, but in a personally gratifying way. Some peope claim to have done this, and yet still continue to argue with 'modern science', indicating that they simply have not done the necessary work.
This is the conclusion. It is a political act to separate your 'gods' from yourselves. The mechanism by which this 'energy' becomes all of the things we observe, and indeed ARE, must be the 'One thing' that you allude to initially. So, again, you can see that it is a question of 'HOW..?' rather than 'How big...?' Once you correctly deduce that 'big' has no relevance within an Infinite Space, the initial question changes. 'How big...?' reduces the enquiry to a finite question, a question of measurement, which does not apply to the Infinite/Eternal aspect.
This is the conclusion. It is a political act to separate your 'gods' from yourselves. The mechanism by which this 'energy' becomes all of the things we observe, and indeed ARE, must be the 'One thing' that you allude to initially. So, again, you can see that it is a question of 'HOW..?' rather than 'How big...?' Once you correctly deduce that 'big' has no relevance within an Infinite Space, the initial question changes. 'How big...?' reduces the enquiry to a finite question, a question of measurement, which does not apply to the Infinite/Eternal aspect.
I dont know much about this sort of stuff as you can proberly tell I'm here for answers, thanks
That's absolutely fine! However, you have to realise all of this for yourself, learn how to deduce the truth of things from your own perspective. You are REAL, and so therefore is your own TRUE perspective. Why do you want to know? Will it bring you greater happiness, do you think?
g.
There is only One True answer to the question of HOW the universe exists. This is why I ask: Have you formulated your question correctly, so that you achieve the kind of answer you are looking for?' You may be expecting others to automatically know what you mean, when you yourself have not even posed the correct question, merely to achieve an answer you think you already have. You will find that people quite often, and quite unconsciously, 'formulate' an answer first, and then 'build' a question that leads to what they already think they know. This is self-deception, and is not conducive to True understanding. Remember, you are also 'the universe', so when you deceive (unconsiously) yourself you cannot then know HOW the rest of the universe operates. Your Real task then becomes one of increasing self-consciousness. Are YOU asking the right questions?
QUOTE
Many diffrent scientists belive many diffrent things about the universe. I belive that the universe is infinite and I have told many people this and they turn round and say how can it be never ending... again another example of people not being able to get a grip of something being infinite.
There is a difference between 'believing' and knowing; speculation and correct deduction. Also, there are many methods devised to achieve these things. 'Science' is a relatively new method, but not the only one. The correct application of science will determine what is false, as much as what may be true, but it cannot do so without deductive reasoning applied to that which it finds. This is why many great scientists also become formidable philosophers. It is a question of personal motivation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Many diffrent scientists belive many diffrent things about the universe. I belive that the universe is infinite and I have told many people this and they turn round and say how can it be never ending... again another example of people not being able to get a grip of something being infinite. |
There is a difference between 'believing' and knowing; speculation and correct deduction. Also, there are many methods devised to achieve these things. 'Science' is a relatively new method, but not the only one. The correct application of science will determine what is false, as much as what may be true, but it cannot do so without deductive reasoning applied to that which it finds. This is why many great scientists also become formidable philosophers. It is a question of personal motivation.
The main question people have real trouble grasping is if "god" created the universe and everything in it then what created "god". Another example without using "god" is if the universe was created by a big bang then where did the energy come from to create the big bang?
The most plausible answers to these 'problems' lie in the part of your question: "...people have real trouble grasping..." . This is the truth of it. The scientific method would be to ask 'HOW do people mis-understand things?' The even newer branch of 'western' science, that of 'psychology', may help determine this. In fact, this is why there are other methods than just 'modern western science' to determine the Reality of things for yourself. It is a different approach, but amounts to the same thing. The idea is that if you 'know yourself' you also know how your 'larger self' (the rest of existence) operates; not in a 'modern scientific' way, but in a personally gratifying way. Some peope claim to have done this, and yet still continue to argue with 'modern science', indicating that they simply have not done the necessary work.
QUOTE
Personally I think that energy is, was and always will be there. It cant be destroyed. So when people say god I just think of the energy having a name, whether is be allah, jesus ect. It's just energy?
This is the conclusion. It is a political act to separate your 'gods' from yourselves. The mechanism by which this 'energy' becomes all of the things we observe, and indeed ARE, must be the 'One thing' that you allude to initially. So, again, you can see that it is a question of 'HOW..?' rather than 'How big...?' Once you correctly deduce that 'big' has no relevance within an Infinite Space, the initial question changes. 'How big...?' reduces the enquiry to a finite question, a question of measurement, which does not apply to the Infinite/Eternal aspect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Personally I think that energy is, was and always will be there. It cant be destroyed. So when people say god I just think of the energy having a name, whether is be allah, jesus ect. It's just energy? |
This is the conclusion. It is a political act to separate your 'gods' from yourselves. The mechanism by which this 'energy' becomes all of the things we observe, and indeed ARE, must be the 'One thing' that you allude to initially. So, again, you can see that it is a question of 'HOW..?' rather than 'How big...?' Once you correctly deduce that 'big' has no relevance within an Infinite Space, the initial question changes. 'How big...?' reduces the enquiry to a finite question, a question of measurement, which does not apply to the Infinite/Eternal aspect.
I dont know much about this sort of stuff as you can proberly tell
I'm here for answers, thanksThat's absolutely fine! However, you have to realise all of this for yourself, learn how to deduce the truth of things from your own perspective. You are REAL, and so therefore is your own TRUE perspective. Why do you want to know? Will it bring you greater happiness, do you think?
g.
I'm a very curious person. And evgen though I know nothing about the universe it fasanates me when I watch a program or video about it. My head instantly becomes full with questions. Sometimes I think I know the answer to the questions I ask myself but then one word always pops up and thats "HOW"? most of you are proberly been studying the universe ect and can understand. I thought of another question today lol and if you were to travel faster then the speed of light you are slowing down time??? if you travel for 2 years at 200,000mps for example when you get back its still going to be 2 years of earth time?
the big bang model does not say the universe was created from nothing.
Yes, but the Big Bang theory has no explaination whatsoever for what could have caused the sudden explosion.
Hence the absurd new "post modern" physics.
Twistors
Strings
Branes
one might as well continue the list
elephant
turtle
ocean
Yes, but the Big Bang theory has no explaination whatsoever for what could have caused the sudden explosion.
Hence the absurd new "post modern" physics.
Twistors
Strings
Branes
one might as well continue the list
elephant
turtle
ocean
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz
Most people do not understand the Big Bang Theory let alone all the varies types.
Most even consider it as fact.
This mistake or assumption has allowed scientists to assume and than fit the data to the model.
So what we have is ad hoc ideas supporting the foundations of the Big Bang supported by politics, churches and so on,,,,,,,,,,,,and cash for projects.
Most people do not understand the Big Bang Theory let alone all the varies types.
Most even consider it as fact.
This mistake or assumption has allowed scientists to assume and than fit the data to the model.
So what we have is ad hoc ideas supporting the foundations of the Big Bang supported by politics, churches and so on,,,,,,,,,,,,and cash for projects.
Here is my concept of the universe at this time:
X (Each of the following is within X, Forum really doesn't like my formatting.)
I - God
- The universe as we know it
II - Big Bang
-The universe as we know it
III - Y
-The universe as we know it
As you can see, we have two undefined variables here (X and Y), Y is simply "How did the universe get to be like it is if there Wasn't a God / Big bang
X is a bit more important, this is the "Where did it come from?" Variable, I.E.
- "Where did God come from?"
- "Where did the Big Bang come from?"
- "Where did Y come from?"
Unfortunately, as far as I know nobody knows what the answer to X is, In fact I consider it likely that it is the most impossible question in science, though possibly it would be the most enlightening to figure it out?
X (Each of the following is within X, Forum really doesn't like my formatting.)
I - God
- The universe as we know it
II - Big Bang
-The universe as we know it
III - Y
-The universe as we know it
As you can see, we have two undefined variables here (X and Y), Y is simply "How did the universe get to be like it is if there Wasn't a God / Big bang
X is a bit more important, this is the "Where did it come from?" Variable, I.E.
- "Where did God come from?"
- "Where did the Big Bang come from?"
- "Where did Y come from?"
Unfortunately, as far as I know nobody knows what the answer to X is, In fact I consider it likely that it is the most impossible question in science, though possibly it would be the most enlightening to figure it out?
G'day Skum
Maybe your right.
But! What if !!!!!!!!!!!!
Reading and reading to understand leads to other roads.
Maybe your right.
But! What if !!!!!!!!!!!!
Reading and reading to understand leads to other roads.
QUOTE (kjw+Aug 4 2008, 08:05 AM)
General relativity suggests that just before the big bang, a point with zero volume and infinite density contained all the matter of the universe. This phenomenon is called a singularity. Stephen Hawking.
i take this to mean that a singularity occurs, at a finite period of time in the past, when the expansion of the universe is extrapolated backwards using the equations of GR.
is GR complete?, is an important question. some think not. some say that until GR is reconciled with a working theory of quantum gravity, GR is incomplete. what could this incompleteness mean for the theoretical basis of the big bang model? could there be a period of the universe that GR is incapable of describing?
Our spacetime may be looked upon as the large scale structural quality possessed by the sufficiently low energy gravitational fields as described by GR.
At higher energies, eg shorter distances, quantum fluctuations in the gravitational field will wash out this structure so that geometrical notions like distance and curvature then lose their applicability.
If what should replace them is the current subject of quantum gravity.
i take this to mean that a singularity occurs, at a finite period of time in the past, when the expansion of the universe is extrapolated backwards using the equations of GR.
is GR complete?, is an important question. some think not. some say that until GR is reconciled with a working theory of quantum gravity, GR is incomplete. what could this incompleteness mean for the theoretical basis of the big bang model? could there be a period of the universe that GR is incapable of describing?
Our spacetime may be looked upon as the large scale structural quality possessed by the sufficiently low energy gravitational fields as described by GR.
At higher energies, eg shorter distances, quantum fluctuations in the gravitational field will wash out this structure so that geometrical notions like distance and curvature then lose their applicability.
If what should replace them is the current subject of quantum gravity.
QUOTE (uperkurk+Aug 2 2008, 06:04 PM)
Hi, my first post here....
Just a question that been on my mind, whats outside of the universe? If the universe is expanding then what is it expanding into?
The idea is that the singularity that produced the big bang was/is all there is, so the universe is expanding into nothing, since the universe is all there is. This does not mean that there could not be other universes unimaginable distances away that started in the same way.
Just a question that been on my mind, whats outside of the universe? If the universe is expanding then what is it expanding into?
The idea is that the singularity that produced the big bang was/is all there is, so the universe is expanding into nothing, since the universe is all there is. This does not mean that there could not be other universes unimaginable distances away that started in the same way.
QUOTE (Skum of the universe+Aug 8 2008, 10:25 PM)
X is a bit more important, this is the "Where did it come from?" Variable, I.E.
- "Where did God come from?"
- "Where did the Big Bang come from?"
- "Where did Y come from?"
God came from our imaginations
The Big Bang is believed by some to have come from a multiverse, so maintaining total matter and energy constancy over all. That however just puts the original origin back one step.
As to Y, you have to decide what it is first before you can decide anything about it. If you can have virtual particles coming from nothing, how about a virtual universe?
- "Where did God come from?"
- "Where did the Big Bang come from?"
- "Where did Y come from?"
God came from our imaginations
The Big Bang is believed by some to have come from a multiverse, so maintaining total matter and energy constancy over all. That however just puts the original origin back one step.
As to Y, you have to decide what it is first before you can decide anything about it. If you can have virtual particles coming from nothing, how about a virtual universe?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.