Pages: 1, 2

jsoellne
From what I understand space time are only in the universe. SO what is outside the universe and at the point it ends what is the end like. Is it sudden or gradual. And what happens if u somehow make it outside of the universe or space time. I mean theroticaly if u could what woud it be like. Would u just not age or what. Im having trouble grasping the concept of what "nothing" is outside the universe.
Guest
One theory says that outside of our own universe there are an infinite number of parallel universes-one for every possibility. So, in these parallel universes, every choice you have ever made or decided not to make or never even thought of is played out-a different scenario in each universe. Sounds interesting to me.
2confused guy
I truely think that the only way to know for sure is to find the end of the universe, and see if you can't penetrate the boundary. But you also have to think, "what if there is no end to the Universe?".
jsoellne
To the first post: Even if there are parallel universes, there still should be gaps between them or some empty space somewhere becasue they are constatly growing or shrinking.
nautilus
Or maybe they are simply pushing on each other as they grow, shrinking others? Who knows? I would not have any clue what would be in the empty spaces if there were any. Perhaps anti matter?
nautilus
Another interesting thought: Extra dimensions are thought to exist inside of our own universe, "curled up" inside of the ones we are aware of, too small for us to experience. (Not quite sure how that works, but people came up with them to make their equasions work correctly.) What about dimensions in other universes? Are there tons? Less than ours? I'd like to see how a 5-D,1-D,2-D, 1000-D, etc. universe would work.
googillion
perhaps Vertical Theory can add insight to "what's outside?"

Vertical Theory provides a new model for infinity. At its simplest, Vertical Theory hypothesizes that in a multi-universe model, infinity stretches both up and down vertically from our universe. For this to work, the absolutely smallest indivisible unit or closed particle in the quantum world is a separate finite universe unto itself. There are a googillion of these units (could be some sort of sub-component of strings) and they serve as the first level building blocks for our universe. Next it states that our universe is one of a googillion other building block units for a universe much larger than ours, the next level up universe (not a mega universe because there is always a next level up). And so it goes, our universe a smallest component to a next larger universe, that universe a component to a next larger universe and so on infinitely. Alternately, the same model moves infinitely down to next smaller and next smaller universal building blocks.
fivedoughnut
QUOTE (googillion+Mar 17 2006, 09:56 PM)
perhaps Vertical Theory can add insight to "what's outside?"

Vertical Theory provides a new model for infinity. At its simplest, Vertical Theory hypothesizes that in a multi-universe model, infinity stretches both up and down vertically from our universe. For this to work, the absolutely smallest indivisible unit or closed particle in the quantum world is a separate finite universe unto itself. There are a googillion of these units (could be some sort of sub-component of strings) and they serve as the first level building blocks for our universe. Next it states that our universe is one of a googillion other building block units for a universe much larger than ours, the next level up universe (not a mega universe because there is always a next level up). And so it goes, our universe a smallest component to a next larger universe, that universe a component to a next larger universe and so on infinitely. Alternately, the same model moves infinitely down to next smaller and next smaller universal building blocks.

G'n,

Not so new, as every child has discussed this very same concept.....What if atoms are like stars and planets in a micro-cosmos....what if our stars and planets are part of a larger scale "sub atomic" assembly etc etc.......yawn

I remember this playground stuff....occurring around 40 years ago.
Inflaton
[/QUOTE]What if atoms are like stars and planets in a micro-cosmos....what if our stars and planets are part of a larger scale "sub atomic" assembly etc

Relative to something outside the universe that scale could be potentially true.

tunasashimi
Hey kids. Here's what i've gathered...

If you travel far enough you will end up in the same spot, so there's no "getting out" of this universe by finding some imaginary boundary and stepping over it. (But here's the conundrum... it's a little far, and you're going to have to travel faster than light, or something, I think! because this universe is stretching ever bigger, and will continue to do so until it freezes and theres no movement or energy or heat... . . z zZ z)

That is four dimensional space... You know, like in asteroids and star control, where you go far enough in one direction and end up in the same spot. Just in 3 dimensions instead of 2.

So how can this be?

Yes, this space is created in the folds of a bigger space. Hyperspace, a fourth dimension. But it doesn't end there. This fourth dimension is embedded in a fifth, and a sixth... all the way up to 10 it seems!

This is what the latest physics theories - string theory and supergravity theory - combined into M-theory, postulates.

So, technically you can create a wormhole to another dimension, and while you're in this hyperspace, you'll be outside this universe.

But thats not all. Soon we'll be able to create little universes in normal laboratories. How? Just fold space in the fourth dimension. It doesn't even take up any space in our dimension. Cool huh?! So for all you know, you're some mutated frog from andro-anadomeda's science experiment. You, your planet, your solar system, and your universe. I wonder if this frog knows what is going on! No, he just got the science pack for his birthday.

But wait! That's not all!

Here's the coolest part!

The diameter of the ultiverse that our universe ultimately resides in, is less than the diameter of an electron. Yes, that's right! Wrap your mind around that one!!!

Every little dot of existence in this universe, is connected to every other little dot, by a superstring that is shorter than anything any instrument we have ever made, can measure.

Make's you feel kind of ethereal, doesn't it?

Sound like science fiction?

It's not... apparently. Several volumes of equations have been developed, that support all of these theories. Many of our modern-day technological advances, are based on inventions or discoveries, enabled by these theories and equations.

Just a little footnote on God:

Our minds, the operating system of our societies, cultures, everything we know - is so utterly inconstant. You can feel like the same person you were, 10 years ago. But would you truly know? Have you ever kept a diary, and wrote down everything you thought, believed, saw, wanted to see? God is a mental anchor - a constant that, if properly installed in your consciousness, allows you to surpass all your mental inconsistency, and realise, that, you are tiny. Inconstant. Inconsistent. And that knowing gives you humility and grace. Relieves stress. Frees your mind from silly and stupid little games, so that you can do what is truly neccessary. Whatever that may be.
Guest_guest
Hi!
Get with the new way of thinking.
Don't think hyper as bigger but lower, smaller.
Three dimension surrounded by two dimension.
Follow the potential -->trail as it goes to less.
Do a search on circle packing and hypersphere packing
spondulic
I'm not against those who might contemplate the idea of "parallel universes"

BUT, let's not forget the word UNIverse implies ONE, not MANY or any others

Typical Definition: everything that exists anywhere

If we want to start discussing the possibility of the existance of others, we might best start by using a new word, maybe just VERSE.

I could at least deal with a discussion on "parallel verses"
ashley
[FONT=Geneva][COLOR=purple]If you could see things in the fourth of fifth dimension, what would you see. we have already seen things in the third so what else is there to look at? if you have the answer e-mail me at ashleysundevil@aol.com or patrice162be@yahoo.com. im curious to here other peoples take on this topic.
StevenA
QUOTE (jsoellne+Jan 6 2006, 10:50 PM)
From what I understand space time are only in the universe. SO what is outside the universe and at the point it ends what is the end like. Is it sudden or gradual. And what happens if u somehow make it outside of the universe or space time. I mean theroticaly if u could what woud it be like. Would u just not age or what. Im having trouble grasping the concept of what "nothing" is outside the universe.

We can't really see the edges of the universe. The universe could extend out infinitely or be growing over time.

One problem is that if there was actually a physical 'edge' somewhere is that we likely wouldn't even recognize it.

Imagine objects moving within a room, if they're able to pass through the wall and 'disappear' from within this 'room universe', then they went somewhere else and the walls don't really mark the boundaries.

Now instead of they bounce off the walls, then an object you see moving in one direction can come back to you later, though possibly transformed in some way. So in that case, unless things were reflected off the wall identically to how they hit it then it may not be easy in determining how large this room actually was because the walls would be like mirrors and appear to extend indefinitely, but you could estimate the actual size by finding how many objects are unique.

But anyway, as far as I know, we aren't seeing any physical edges but some repetitions to the universe might give us clues as to what extent such reflections might be making things appear larger than they are.
Physfan
We will never know the answer.

As soon as we 'travel' further 'out' from Earth, we are, by definition, still within our Universe; how can we be otherwise. Besides which, the question is rhetorical.

Infinite is 'infinite'.

Physfan
Upisoft
Santa?
elendal
tunasashimi made an analogy to the asteroid. That's is good analogy.

Try to imagine you are a 2-dimensinal being living on a surface of a ball. You can only look in 2 dimensions and not "up" in the 3rd. If you traveled in any direction, no matter what amount of time you spent, you would never reach the "end" of the ball. There is no end. Eventually, you could only end up in the same spot you started from.

Now, we are 3-dimensional beings living on the surface of a 4-dimensional (at least) object. In whatever direction you travel, you will never reach the end of our "verse".

Analogies are just great. Always try to think from a perspective of a lesser-dimensional being and you have a pretty good chance of understanding your own position.

As to what's outside, I wonder what would 3D world look to a 2D being. Only lines and dots that change constantly and make no sense at all. For us, it would probably look like allways-changing shapes and forms that make no sense at all. We just don't have the right perspective on higher dimensions.
amrit
all is in
Baa
QUOTE (elendal+Aug 25 2006, 06:52 AM)
Always try to think from a perspective of a lesser-dimensional being and you have a pretty good chance of understanding your own position.

ler177
QUOTE (googillion+Mar 17 2006, 09:56 PM)
perhaps Vertical Theory can add insight to "what's outside?"

Vertical Theory provides a new model for infinity. At its simplest, Vertical Theory hypothesizes that in a multi-universe model, infinity stretches both up and down vertically from our universe. For this to work, the absolutely smallest indivisible unit or closed particle in the quantum world is a separate finite universe unto itself. There are a googillion of these units (could be some sort of sub-component of strings) and they serve as the first level building blocks for our universe. Next it states that our universe is one of a googillion other building block units for a universe much larger than ours, the next level up universe (not a mega universe because there is always a next level up). And so it goes, our universe a smallest component to a next larger universe, that universe a component to a next larger universe and so on infinitely. Alternately, the same model moves infinitely down to next smaller and next smaller universal building blocks.

That idea was the basis for a novel, but I can't remember what it was...

There are two possibilities according to physicists: the universe is either 'open,' or 'closed.' The possibilities are determined by how much mass the universe contains.
If the universe is open, that means it has no boundary, and is infinite in every direction. The gravity of all the mass in the universe is not strong enough to overcome its expansion, and it will expand for eternity. You can never escape the universe by traveling in a straight line, because the edges are expanding away faster than light. [The expansion of space itself has no speed limit; the relative speed of matter through space does]
If the universe is closed, that means it has a finite volume, but no boundary. Gravity has been able to overcome the universe's expansion, and billions of years in the future there will be a 'big crunch' (or as I heard one scientist say, the 'Gnab Gib' ) Space is curved back on itself, so that if you went in a straight line far enough, you would end up where you started. This is like living on the surface of a balloon; there is a finite surface area but no edges or boundaries. The balloon can expand or contract, and maybe bump into other balloons. If the universe is closed, we know that the distance you would have to travel to end up back where you are is greater than the diameter of the observable universe. Otherwise we would see a 'hall of mirrors' effect as we looked deep into space; the same galaxies would repeat once or many times in a given direction. We would also be able to observe our own Milky Way galaxy from a distance (as it was in the distant past, no less!).

Current theory says that the universe is OPEN, and that its expansion is accelerating due to the 'cosmological constant;' which is a force that pushes space apart, increasing with distance (an effect Einstein predicted, but then considered a ridiculous mistake).

There are lots of different theories about other universes. The 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics says that every possible quantum state, interaction and outcome has its own universe. In one universe a radioactive nucleus decays, causing a mutation that leads to the development of five digits instead six in some distant ancestor. In another (infinitely many, in fact), it does not decay, and people have six fingers. [But in the 'Copenhagen' interpretation (the one most physicists subscribe to), there are infinitely many _possible_ universes, but each quantum state collapses into one reality, in a single universe, upon interaction or observation.]
There is a theory that says universes reproduce semi-biologically. When a star collapses into a black hole, it pinches off a region of space-time which then expands into a new universe, having slightly different values for its physical laws. The universes that are a 'reproductive success' are the ones that are stable and can produce the most black holes, and thus the most baby universes. We live in one of those relatively stable universes.
Another says that higher-dimensioned universes float around hyperspace like soap bubbles, and where they bump and intersect, universes like ours are spawned. ['Brane' theory, short for 'membrane'] It says that gravity is so relatively weak because it 'leaks' out of the universe into higher space-time.
Some say there are infinitely many universe, but all at RIGHT ANGLES to each other.
Et cetera, and so on, and so forth....

The idea of other universes altogether is different than the idea that our universe has more dimensions than we can see. They say that our universe actually has 10 dimensions, but six of the dimensions are 'curled-up;' meaning that we can move in 10-D space, but the distances we can move in the other six are too small to notice (or measure, currently). [Think of sub-microscopic closed universes. The volume of those other six dimensions is so tiny that you immediately end up where you started]

To exit this universe would mean moving through higher dimensioned space-time, into whatever, if anything, is 'out there' (just like the escape from Flatland). Would you find another universe, a hyperverse, something else...? [I guess if you want an answer, that's what religion is for. For now anyway....]

Must a universe always be nested in a higher dimensioned one, and that one in a higher dimensioned one, and so on, upward infinitely? (That's the most boggling thing I've ever thought of...)
(and is the difference between 997 and 998 dimensions the same as the difference between 2 an 3, or 3 and 4?)
elendal
QUOTE (Baa+Aug 25 2006, 09:00 AM)

It's a good advice for humans to look from sheep perspective, so yes, it's a good advice for "sheep", if you mean those who like to understand the world around them. Unlike sheep?

Wow, so many sheep in one sentence. 1 sheep, 2 sheep, 3... zzzz...
MDT
The size of the universe should be defined by how far the original BB energy has propagated. The matter of the universe has only gone a fraction of this distance. This is usually considered the end of the universe because we can see it. But the original energy extends the boundary further.

Energy has wavelength and frequency, which are defined by very specific quanta's of distance and time. Where energy stops at the moving outer boundary of the universe, there are no quanta's of distance and time, such that space-time ends.

Without space-time there is a uniform void that ironically acts as though it is at a speed of light reference, where space-time converges into a singularity. It is the finite parameters of energy, finite distance as wavelength and finite time as frequency, that add a space-time departure from the uniform C reference.

This is subtle but energy travels at C but does not show reference affects of something traveling at C. One should not be able to see finite distance and time coming from something traveling at C, but we do with energy. The speed of light makes the energy similar to the c-void beyond the universe. While its odd ball nature of showing finite space-time affects (wavelength/frequency) is what creates space-time.
MDT
The size of the universe should be defined by how far the original BB energy has propagated. The matter of the universe has only gone a fraction of this distance. This is usually considered the end of the universe because we can see it. But the original energy extends the boundary further.

Energy has wavelength and frequency, which are defined by very specific quanta's of distance and time. Where energy stops at the moving outer boundary of the universe, there are no quanta's of distance and time, such that space-time ends.

Without space-time there is a uniform void that ironically acts as though it is at a speed of light reference, where space-time converges into a singularity. It is the finite parameters of energy, finite distance as wavelength and finite time as frequency, that add a space-time departure from the uniform C reference.

This is subtle but energy travels at C but does not show reference affects of something traveling at C. One should not be able to see finite distance and time coming from something traveling at C, but we do with energy. The speed of light makes the energy similar to the c-void beyond the universe. While its odd ball nature of showing finite space-time affects (wavelength/frequency) is what creates space-time.
Nick
God.
kenno
I like to look at the universe as a balloon. The skin of the balloon is the edge of our universe and everything inside the balloon is were we live. When our universe was formed it had to be just at the right speed so that we got all the mater and energy's that make our universe what it is. When you inflate a balloon you fill it with air, we cant see it but we no it is there because the balloon is now inflated.
So when we are talking about space-time and what is out side of that are we talking out side out space-time in our universe or are we talking outside of our universe all together i think they are very different things. What ever created all of this if anything did of course, they would live outside our known universe and i don't think whether it is real or not will matter it is nothing our existence and so we can not as we are now reach or even see what is outside of our universe. A virus in our body would be aware of its universe but not ours, not because it doesn't exist but because it is not made of the same stuff as it. we are made up of the same matter as the sun's and everything else in this universe we are a part of it. Our universe may be made up of something else that we and everything that is inside our universe is not made of. these r just things that run in my head all the time i like being able to discuss all of this we as a race of being's inside this universe should have a interest in our surroundings.
Harry Costas
Hello MDT

You said
QUOTE
The size of the universe should be defined by how far the original BB energy has propagated. The matter of the universe has only gone a fraction of this distance. This is usually considered the end of the universe because we can see it. But the original energy extends the boundary further

You are assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct.

There is a massive build up of comologists who do not agree with the Big Bang.
Why?
Because it is supported by fantasy ideas. No evidence to support it.

If you think there is evidence please show it to me.

googillion
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Mar 18 2006, 08:21 AM)
G'n,

Not so new, as every child has discussed this very same concept.....What if atoms are like stars and planets in a micro-cosmos....what if our stars and planets are part of a larger scale "sub atomic" assembly etc etc.......yawn

I remember this playground stuff....occurring around 40 years ago.

Who said it was new? And I can imagine a kid on a very early time playground suggesting that the world is round - simple isn't wrong because it's simple.

It's been about 40 years for me, thinking about how a single universe simply doesn't match with other investigation outcomes of the natural sciences. When is there one of anything in nature? Our universe could be closed system in the sense that it's a component in some unknown, probably unknowable super structure. And why stop there, like the system of Russian dolls there could be an infinite number of super structures, each building on the next larger, creating a new way to view infinite - a vertical infinite. And if vertical infinite is possible going up in size, why wouldn't it be just as possible going down in size. No, our universe is not an electron, or any grade school fantasy of the like. But what if the smaller scale is much much smaller, minus a googillion of a meter small. Ok, it is starting to sound like fantasy. But it would be interesting to know what scientists will be saying in a thousand years, heck a million years. Vertical Theory - No positive proof for a million years.

Googillion
googillion@gmail.com
Imagination
Other Cells of Life.

We will not meet them though.

Immunity prevents this from happening. Immunity differentiates the Cosmological Spectrum, same as your own body knows you from another.

Each 'Cell Universe' has its 'Identity' Nucleus.

Zephir
QUOTE (jsoellne+Jan 7 2006, 01:50 AM)
Whats outside of the universe?, Whats outside of the universe?

By AWT our Universe is formed by the interior of some dense star (sort of black hole). Therefore the question has sense, but heres is just another Universe, similar to these, which we are living in.

amrit
nothing
all is in
Imagination
QUOTE (amrit+Jan 9 2007, 09:10 PM)
nothing
all is in

You have to define 'Universe' first.

I answered this partially in the response before yours.
Physfan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Not surprisingly, the definition makes no reference to a deity. It must have been written by a rational person then. It also does not include any reference to "Other Cells of Life.".

Physfan
Imagination
QUOTE (Physfan+Jan 10 2007, 01:38 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Not surprisingly, the definition makes no reference to a deity. It must have been written by a rational person then. It also does not include any reference to "Other Cells of Life.".

Physfan

If it isn't defined in the dictionary, it never happened.

Listen. 'Definitions' as we know so far, have not yielded the answers you desire.

By your type thinking, Einstein would have amounted to zippo.
In fact the greatest Physicists and scientists, were great with their Vision.

What are you? All book! The worst GrandMaster, plays by 'Book'.

I'm a novice visionary, and I see more than you.

The 'less able' person on the bus the other day, had more than I will ever have= He accepted everyone for who they were, and was joyous and greeted everyone.
He had more 'G-d Spirit' than most of the Physicists here put together(yet he had not your educational degree).

The homeless woman on the street that I attempted to help last week, had more 'G-d' Spirit than I've been able to tap as yet. And she too had more than everyone's education here combined. And I bet most of you step right over them(who live on the street and beg).

You've a 'degree', bravo. Let it save your Earth without the help of those who don't.
Frankly, you've no chance without 'G-d'.
hmmm
In this thread and many others I always see dimensions other than the "normal" 3 being referenced. I am aware that time is often considered a fourth. Is there any physical evidence of any of these other "dimensions"? Or is this just mathematical conjecture?

Also, in particular, I see lots of hypotheticals invoking me to imagine two-dimensional beings. Can there really be anything that is truly two dimensional?
I can imagine a being that could only perceive things in two dimensions and live in two dimensions, but would it not truly have three dimensions? Even if one dimension was only as wide as an proton or less?

Is there any real evidence to support this? Am I just woefully ignorant of the subject? Or is this just new mythology to support what science can't yet understand? I can imagine lots of logical possibilities but does that make it real?
kaneda
hmmmm. There are no more than three known physical dimensions at present. Some claim time is a dimension but I don't see how.

For super strings and such, ten physical dimensions are needed but these are only theory as of now. Not so much what science cannot understand as what science can imagine. For SS to work, they need ten dimensions so work is done in mathematics with them having seven extra dimensions (and a dimension of time).

The trouble with the concept of two dimensional beings is how would they work? It relies on the fact that there is only length and breadth but no thickness so could pass over or under anything else so how could you have veins and arteries since they cannot be "under" skin? You could not inflate lungs because that requires a third dimension, etc. A 2D being would be totally unlike us in all ways.

A sheet of paper can be said to be two dimensional though on a microscopic scale it looks very three dimensional. Strictly speaking, two dimensionl means no thickness so we would not be able to see it because it is so thin. It could also literally slide sideways through 3D matter because there is nothing there on thickness. No, it does not really exist (as far as we know).

This is the place to ask questions so ask away whatever you can think of.
Savants logic

The fact is that nobody here knows what's outside of the Universe. We can use reason and experiments and math to try and deduce what this reality is, however, until we can all agree on at least 'One Thing Existing', and so, a universal building block, a true form of cosmic measurement, then I feel that we will continue to stumble and fall all over our understanding of the Universe and the Dynamic Unity of Reality.

I personally feel that what's outside of this universe is more of the same, space and motion, time and distance, energy and matter, animate and inanimate, everything imaginable.

In reality, I will probably never know and I doubt that anyone will ever be able to convince me that they know what's outside of the Universe. It's almost as if we are marooned on an island of ignorance and until we are rescued we will be floundering with our limited perceptions and primitive tools.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I think that the more we dive into the quantum the more we're chasing our own tail. We're barking up the wrong tree but we just keep barking. I think that the answer is within us all and we don't need religion or science to find it. We are the universe and all that exists therein. We are just blinded by our own mis-understanding.
-Savant
googillion
"Must a universe always be nested in a higher dimensioned one, and that one in a higher dimensioned one, and so on, upward infinitely? (That's the most boggling thing I've ever thought of...)"

Yes, boggling. And yet very simple. Nice stuff.
fivedoughnut
Might even be more boggling than that? ..... a multiverse where all component sub universes transition from one dimensional realm to another.
Eric England
What's outside the universe is what makes us want to reach it.

Doughnuts. Dozens of them. Bring milk.
philip347
The universe from what I understand to us, is a relative event.

Geographically, the universe is a physical event, to a certain point in distance, then it may go to a lesser density.

This lesser density, should have a definite end.

After this, there is nothing but relatively unfettered space.

You are talking colossal distance and time, in this measurement.

There should be other ball universes, in the distances, but we can only postulate, how many other universes?

The Bell Labs, a while back, said and via film, showed that they had a resonance, from the primitive scalier boundary, of the universe wall.

Sop beyond this sound scalar wall, there still might be part of the universe that goes on, but at a lesser density?

*If you look at the pillar of creation, which were just told to have been blown away in a recently noted super nova, you will realize that when you look at distance, via a deep field telescope, that your looking back in time.

So the key question should be, if your still receiving light from an object, that is now destroyed and this light coalesces a picture, if you use light as a particle key, do you have access into the past, using this light only?

At deeper points in the universe, we see older object, as they were by their light signature, as reciprocating light, within an event only.
alokmohan
The universe is spacetime itself.No question of beginning or end.
kaneda
alokmohan. For the universe to be infinite, new atomic particles would have to be created as they have incredibly long but finite life spans.

We also have the problem that stars burn out and that black holes can live for trillions of years. New matter would have to appear to replace that lost to black holes or eventually they would be all that was left. It would also require that they not last for more than billions of years otherwise the universe would end up full of them.
Nick
Nothing is outside the hypersphere. This closed finite yet unbounded universe is expanding forever.
alokmohan
Is there any existence of hyperspace which relates to our universe?We have only four dimensions,hyperspace is not related ,it may or may not exist ouside our universe.
Eric England
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 7 2007, 08:02 PM)
Nothing is outside the hypersphere. This closed finite yet unbounded universe is expanding forever.

In to what then, is it expanding?

Would you be saying that space and time are infinite, but mass is not?
kaneda
Eric England. If the Universe started expanding into nothing, then literally nothing is beyond the edge of the Universe. This is not "empty space or a vacuum but nothing at all. Even light cannot move through it because it would be like a water wave without water. If there was something outside that our Universe was expanding into, then there should be a rippling effect at the edge of the Universe due to resistance of some kind.

Nick's hypersphere is the Universe as a three dimensional surface on an expanding four physical dimensional sphere (like the skin of an inflating balloon). Because expansion apparently accelerated several billion years ago, big bangers generally believe that it will expand forever.

Problems are: How does it expand? Is new material created and if so how? Does space stretch infinitely and if so, how without changing the laws of the Universe? How did it expand when distances were less than inside galaxies now which are apparently immune to expansion? Etc.
Eric England
Kaneda,

Is there a definable difference between an "unbounded empty space" and "nothing"?

Isn't the "stretching space" inside (between) all sizes of mass, as much as it's outside of any cumulative mass?

Aren't the "problems" possibly an indication that "expansion" is a short-sighted conclusion?

Eric
Nick
QUOTE (alokmohan+Feb 8 2007, 05:12 AM)
Is there any existence of hyperspace  which relates to our universe?We have only four dimensions,hyperspace is not related ,it may or may not exist ouside our universe.

This space-time-matter Universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere or 4D Sphere. The expansion is accelerating therefor gravity will never reverse it. The universe will expand forever. This is universal space stretching.

Time is forever. Just as is our soul.

Harry Costas
Hello All

Where is the proof that the universe is expanding?

Look at the observations and the formation of the super clusters. Than expalin to me how the universe is expanding.

Oh! the universe means ALL
How can All expand.

People talk about outside the universe. Hello where is outside?. Its not a house or a galaxy.
Nick
If the universe expands forever then it would be a twist on the Big Bang. Matter is still being created right now.
kaneda
QUOTE (Eric England+Feb 8 2007, 05:01 PM)
Kaneda,

Is there a definable difference between an "unbounded empty space" and "nothing"?

Isn't the "stretching space" inside (between) all sizes of mass, as much as it's outside of any cumulative mass?

Aren't the "problems" possibly an indication that "expansion" is a short-sighted conclusion?

Eric

Empty space is what is in the universe. Nothing is what would be outside. Near a star, space is bent by gravity. Light travels in a straight line but when it travels through bent space, it's path bends too. Light needs space. Take away the space so you have nothing and light cannot exist any more than a water wave can exist outside of water.

The idea is that somehow local gravity holds together solar systems, galaxies and even clusters of galaxies while stretching everything else. The Virgo cluster contains 2000 galaxies. Can all of these resist the expansion of the Universe and stay as a cluster? Apparently so. It would need someone with a good knowledge of where everything is in the universe to see if this were true and at what distance do galaxies need to be from each other to succumb to the expansion of the Universe?

I don't think expansion ever really worked. It fitted the red shift but did not fit so many other things. People were just a little too short sighted in the matter.
Eric England
If you differentiate "empty space" inside the universe from "nothing" outside the universe, then the universe must be a shape with an impenetrable surface. A solid shell, as it were.

This would mean that if there is expansion, matter would be expanding. The shell would be stretching. Neither one of us believe in expansion, of course, so I'm not really making a point. Just typing what comes to mind.

Like you said earlier (I think it was you), if there was something other than nothing outside of the shell, it would be rippling from resistance as the shell expanded. We don't know this of course, because we aren't there.

But if the universe has a solid shell that is expanding, then all the "shells" within it, would be expanding too.

What you're essentially describing, is a finite spherical universe, that has both a finite surface area and thickness. Expansion would suggest it's dynamic (elastic) and no expansion would suggest it's static (rigid).

One of the problems with "rigid", is that we haven't found anything with absolute rigidity within the universe. But that doesn't lead to expansion, because we haven't found that matter expands within the universe.

I think the first thing, before getting to the question of gravity, is to consider "infinite".

The other, is to consider what "nothing" is. What does it really mean, that "there is nothing outside the universe"?

Just saying the word, doesn't necessarily define it.
kaneda
Eric England. Gravity can bend space which in turn bends light which travels through it. Light is still travelling in a straight line but space itself is bent. This shows space has structure of some kind and that it is not just a vacuum.

If space expanded and reached another area of space, could we have two such mediums occupying the same area? Probably not. It is possible in another area of space beyond our universe that light only travels at 170,000 mps instead of 186,000 mps or maybe it can even travel faster? If two such mediums could defuse into each other, as two gases, there would be some spectacular effects at the point where they meet.

Since light travels through space and can be affected by bending space, it would seem that if you have no space, you'd have no light. There would not be a physical edge to the universe. But where space ended, no light could travel beyond it, no matter could exist in it, etc.

Nothing is a concept really. It is potentially outside all that is and could be said to be infinite if there was nothing else but it also occupies no space. An infinity of nothing outside a universe would fit on the tip of a needle with room to spare. When I say there is nothing outside the universe, it means that everything ends at the edge of the universe and that is all there is.

Infinite is a concept also. No matter how high a number/quantity/etc you think of, it can always be mulitplied by itself.

I don't believe in expansion as such but I don't believe in an infinite universe either since all stars would eventually run out of energy and all particles would eventually decay. I think there was an origin sometime in the distant past though I can only make a wild guess as to what it was. I don't believe in a big bang but more like a wildfire where the creation of space, particles and energy spread outwards from a central point. The universe is getting ever bigger but things are not moving away from each other.
Eric England
Kaneda,

I can see that our viewpoints are quite far apart.

Eric
Nick
What can you say about nothingness other than it doesn't exist?
Guest_Andy
Hi,

The universe is expanding, and its accelertaing too... This is measured, proven and true...

You can not measure nothingness - simply because you need something present to measure, however bear in mind that nothingness is based on our own frequency and size.. so maybe it does not exist..
Nick
QUOTE (Guest_Andy+Feb 11 2007, 10:53 PM)
Hi,

The universe is expanding, and its accelertaing too... This is measured, proven and true...

You can not measure nothingness - simply because you need something present to measure, however bear in mind that nothingness is based on our own frequency and size.. so maybe it does not exist..

In order to measure something the measuring device must possess that quality. So a clock has the quality of time. A Clock Is Time. That is why it can measure it.
Eric England
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 11 2007, 03:33 PM)
What can you say about nothingness other than it doesn't exist?

If it's "absolute nothing", that IS all you can say.

QUOTE ( Guest_Andy+)
The universe is expanding, and its accelertaing too... This is measured, proven and true...

I know this sounds a bit "off" Andy, but nothing in theoretical science has been "measured, proven and true". All science has so far, are "approximations". To a "certainty" has never been achieved.

The "expansion theory" only has to do with space. It doesn't mean existing mass is expanding or being added to, and it doesn't mean mass is getting further apart.

I won't assume that Nick would agree, but if the universe is expanding into "nothing", it can't. It doesn't exist for it to expand into.

Which gets back to the question of the difference, between nothing and empty space. Empty space (if it is empty), is an integral part of the universe.

There's only two possibilities. Either a finite only or a finite, yet infinite universe.

A finite only universe, would be a rigid (static) sphere. All the space would be within this sphere. The sphere would not be elastic. It could not expand or contract. For the universe to expand or contract, it has to have something outside of it, to contract when it expands and expand when it contracts. Since there isn't even nothing outside of the sphere, this is impossible.

A finite, yet infinite universe, is a whole different story.
kaneda
QUOTE (Eric England+Feb 11 2007, 03:47 PM)
Kaneda,

I can see that our viewpoints are quite far apart.

Eric

Eric. That is what a debate is about. If we all thought the same, this place would be dry as desert sand.
kaneda
QUOTE (Guest_Andy+Feb 11 2007, 10:53 PM)
Hi,

The universe is expanding, and its accelertaing too... This is measured, proven and true...

Only if red shift is from expansion and not another cause. Only if the big bang idea is true and it is full of many holes that need to be explained before anyone thinks of using the word "truth".
Guest
see nothingness forum; zamkaon entry p.7.
Eric England
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 11 2007, 10:47 PM)
Eric. That is what a debate is about. If we all thought the same, this place would be dry as desert sand.

I understand. It's just that there's only so much time in a day and there would be so many points to discuss.
Nick
What other kind of nothingness is there than absolute nothingness?
Eric England
In short... no-thing and relatively nothing.

1. A priori Absolute Nothing is the one "nothing" that isn't.

2. Posteriori No-thing is the internal absence of Everthing.

3. Relatively Nothing is the internal and external partner to Something Relative.

Jeremy Fisher
I feel so sorry for you, why not just accept gods creation?
Nick
I think relatives are partners to the absolutes.

Does the station come to the train? - relative
Does the train come to the station? - Absolute
Eric England
Jeremy,

Yes, it is all about that.

Feel SO sorry for me? What a load of self-rightous crap.

Oh please tell me you accept everything that has happened and will happen, and never even think or feel about it.

If you dare to, you're either ignorant or a liar.

The only one that accepts God's "creation" without a doubt or wonder, is God.

Nick,

So where were we? Oh yeah, God's station and train. Neither the station or train are absolute. Both are something relative and relatively nothing. That's what both are made of. The arrival of the train at the station, requires the station as much as it requires the train. Although the train is obviously moving towards the station, the station is not sitting at rest.

Pairing a relative with an absolute, is only possible in one instance. In all the others, it can't be done. The only instance is when "The Absolute" CONTAINS "The Relative".

Just as a side note. Are you aware that when an object falls to earth, the earth at that point comes up to meet it? It's imperceptable, but it happens.
thwhistler
QUOTE (tunasashimi Posted: Mar 18 2006+ 02:43 PM)

The diameter of the ultiverse that our universe ultimately resides in, is less than the diameter of an electron. Yes, that's right! Wrap your mind around that one!!!

Every little dot of existence in this universe, is connected to every other little dot, by a superstring that is shorter than anything any instrument we have ever made, can measure.

Our place in time is directly linked to our place in the universe.
If you are at the rim of the universe, then the universe is very young, small, dense and hot. Even smaller than an electron.
It ceases to exist if you pass the rim. You pass the cause of this universe.
If you are at the center, then the universe is very old, huge and diffused.
And we are now moving towards the center of the universe, like on a spoke.
You cannot travel to the center or the rim with a velocity. Because the time stands still at the speed of light. And then you travel in distance instead of time, really standing still relative to the center and the rim. Round and round a sphere, returning where you left.
This is how I understand it. Is is true? I have really tried to wrap my mind around this.

In other words. The universe is all the time always. So is God.
Nick
QUOTE (Eric England+Feb 13 2007, 12:54 AM)
Nick,

So where were we? Oh yeah, God's station and train. Neither the station or train are absolute. Both are something relative and relatively nothing. That's what both are made of. The arrival of the train at the station, requires the station as much as it requires the train. Although the train is obviously moving towards the station, the station is not sitting at rest.

Pairing a relative with an absolute, is only possible in one instance. In all the others, it can't be done. The only instance is when "The Absolute" CONTAINS "The Relative".

Just as a side note. Are you aware that when an object falls to earth, the earth at that point comes up to meet it? It's imperceptable, but it happens.

On Earth the station is at rest and this is verifiable because its clock will be going slower than the fast moving train's.

Please demonstrate how absolutes do not produce relatives.
I can demonstrate how all Relatives come from absolutes.

Does the Earth rotate or does the sky turn?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Eric England
The station isn't at absolute rest, although it appears to be stationary.

I did not say that Absolute can not produce relatives. I was responding to this quote of yours...

QUOTE
I think relatives are partners to the absolutes.

A "partner to" is not a "production of".
Nick
QUOTE (Eric England+Feb 13 2007, 02:32 AM)
I did not say that Absolute can not produce relatives. I was responding to this quote of yours...

A "partner to" is not a "production of".

I meant it that way.

QUOTE
The station isn't at absolute rest, although it appears to be stationary.

The reason that Einstein's statement that there is No Absolute Rest Frame rings true is that everything is moving through space.

The station is stationary by definition.
Harry Costas
Hello All

Thewhistler said

QUOTE
Our place in time is directly linked to our place in the universe.
If you are at the rim of the universe, then the universe is very young, small, dense and hot. Even smaller than an electron.
It ceases to exist if you pass the rim. You pass the cause of this universe.
If you are at the center, then the universe is very old, huge and diffused.
And we are now moving towards the center of the universe, like on a spoke.
You cannot travel to the center or the rim with a velocity. Because the time stands still at the speed of light. And then you travel in distance instead of time, really standing still relative to the center and the rim. Round and round a sphere, returning where you left.
This is how I understand it. Is is true? I have really tried to wrap my mind around this.

Who said there was a RIM or a centre or an age to the universe.
Time stands still.

Where do people get this type of info?

The universe is endless, unless you can prove it is finite.

If you are thinking along the lines of the BIG Bang Theory than you would expect the bang to occur everywhere at the same time.

When we look into deep field images and thats over 13 billion light years we see existing galaxies not an early universe as expected.

The Big Bang theory is based on ad hoc ideas and new ideas are added when things cannot be explained, for example expansion of the universe, singularity and dark matter to say but a few.

kaneda
QUOTE (Jeremy Fisher+Feb 12 2007, 10:43 PM)
I feel so sorry for you, why not just accept gods creation?

Because we have brains.

Because all religion is wrong.

Because you should get an education.

Why do you feel sorry for people who are obviously better educated than you are? Do you regard education as evil?
thwhistler
QUOTE (Harry Costas Posted on Today at 6:16 AM+)

Who said there was a RIM or a centre or an age to the universe.
Time stands still.
Where do people get this type of info?

The big bang theory is all wrong because of this simple fact.
Highly educated intellectuals, who decide, there is no God, have even placed themselves outside the universe before it existed and observing a giant explosion. And they call it Big Bang. They believe in an inflating universe. But it is really their opinion of themselves inflating because they replace God.
I have intersected such peoples in reality and they are thought-travelers in the academic dimension. Lost.
I will explain the RIM. Or boundary
I have had some complex number theory, Conformal mappings. So i know there is such a thing as a boundary. But I have called it rim of some reason.
These are my thoughts.
I have heard two kinds of boundaries of this universe. The very old disintegrated universe. And the very young universe that is generated by some cause.
And they both reach infinity. Since we cannot leave this universe.
What is between those boundaries is time and distance. And we know we travel from the young boundary to the old.
The old boundary is a huge universe, And the young boundary is a small universe.
And the size of the universe is infinity, in its smallness and vastness. It really depends on your speed. The young universe has a greater speed. The old one is slower.
Imagine a bicycle wheel. All the matter is falling from the rim, down the spokes, which is the young universe towards the center. As it approaches the center, it slows down and all the matter disintegrates in to photons, that originate in a time, but have nothing to hit, therefore do not exist anymore.

And why do I say that the small young universe is the outer boundary or rim? idk, you made me think!
Harry Costas
Hello thewhistler

Before you decide on the age of the universe, old or young. Look at the observations.

There are super clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies. Thes super objects are huge. Some say over 100 billion years in the making.

The big bang states that the universe is about 14 billion years old.

It does not account for recycling and the subsequent re-dating process.

For example our sun went through a recycle about 5 billion years ago. The previous sun went sepernova and left a compact core that our sun grew from and formed a solar envelope.

kaneda
thwhistler. god is irrelvant because there is no evidence such a thing ever existed.

How can both of these imaginary universes of yours reach infinity? Infinity is a mathematical convcenience that does not exist.

How can the young universe be small yet reach infinity? Stick to what you know then you won't talk such nonsense:

QUOTE
And the size of the universe is infinity, in its smallness and vastness. It really depends on your speed. The young universe has a greater speed. The old one is slower. Imagine a bicycle wheel. All the matter is falling from the rim, down the spokes, which is the young universe towards the center. As it approaches the center, it slows down and all the matter disintegrates in to photons, that originate in a time, but have nothing to hit, therefore do not exist anymore.

Eric England
Until we reach a point beyond "approximations", the "possibility of God" is relavent.

I'm not even going to rule Jeremy Fisher out. He has to have some purpose. Don't ask me what though.
thwhistler
QUOTE (Posted on Today at 5:27 AM+)
There are super clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies. These super objects are huge. Some say over 100 billion years in the making. Goggle for the info.

Interesting read. Could it suggest, that the "dark matter" really is matter. Matter is being generated in vacuum space. Later condensing into new stars and galaxies. And the universe is forever. Then life had to be.
Totalitarian Principle states: "Everything which is not forbidden, is compulsory."
The universe just might have a conservation law. Everything in the universe has?

QUOTE ( Posted on Today at 6:11 AM+)
thwhistler. god is irrelevant because there is no evidence such a thing ever existed.
How can both of these imaginary universes of yours reach infinity? Infinity is a mathematical convenience that does not exist.
How can the young universe be small yet reach infinity? Stick to what you know then you won't talk such nonsense:

How could I faithlessly have evidence of anything. Nobody can, except liars and cheats. The evidence of God is your faithfulness, you know yourself what is relevant.

I am actually referring to the law of relativity. Maximum speed is 3E8 m/s
There is the law of cause and effect.
If you travel at the speed of light. Then the universe is infinitely small. And you reach everywhere instantly. And effect follows the cause instantly.
If you stand still, then you take infinitely long time to reach a place. Then the universe is indefinitely big. Whatever cause, no effect.
Big universe slow.
Small universe fast.
Both are infinite and real at the same time.

I postulate that the original cause, beyond this universe does effect and create our universe now.
Nick
QUOTE (thwhistler+Feb 15 2007, 03:55 AM)
I postulate that the original cause, beyond this universe does effect and create our universe now.

If the universe is going to expand forever then new matter is necessary. This is the marvel of God's endless creation.

Who's to say he isn't creating at this moment?

Whether we will ever see him create is the interesting question.
I believe the answer is a resounding NO.
kaneda
thwhistler. Apologies for the use of the word "nonsense" even if that part of your post was.

Dark matter is supposedly matter but no one has decided what other than that it cannot be detected and that it reacts gravitationally.

Under strict laboratory conditions we can create virtual particles but that requires two plates close to each other which we do not have throughout space. There is no evidence that matter is continually being generated anywhere. I think we would see signs of it if it were.

"The evidence of God is your faithfulness"

Since I am not faithful, that means god does not exist?

The idea is that the faster you travel, the slower time moves for you (time dilation). In theory at almost light speed you could travel around the Universe in 50 years but that would be space ship years. Outside in the real universe, a few hundred billion years woulod have passed. At light speed you would be frozen forever in a moment of time and the universe would die of old age before you even had time to blink your eye.

The opposite, standing still does not work opposite.

The energy has to come from somewhere. Some believe that the big bang came from a multiverse but don't explain where that came from. If a god made the universe, then he is god minus the energy needed to create the universe.
kaneda
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 15 2007, 04:41 AM)
If the universe is going to expand forever then new matter is necessary. This is the marvel of God's endless creation.

The god of the bible only made the earth, sun and moon and it took him six days and he needed to rest afterwards. He clearly did not make the rest of the universe on the fourth day as an afterthought. The boastful god of the bible said nothing about making new stuff when he spoke to Moses in Exodus so we have no evidence of what you say.
kaneda
QUOTE (Eric England+Feb 14 2007, 08:40 PM)
I'm not even going to rule Jeremy Fisher out. He has to have some purpose. Don't ask me what though.

To make the rest of us look good?
Guest_gorgeous
you will never find anything that you have convinced yourself is unfindable. this gives you no motivation to look and motivation is everything, the movement of all things in the universe.

g.
Harry Costas
Hello All

I have read the above posts.

I respect each post and their opinion.

Saying that.

None of the above are based on science.

Reality needs to be based on science, not on opinion based on belief that can take the form of thousands of different religions.

As for the expansion of the universe, it does not expand.

If it did it would require new matter to be created. Matter cannot be created.

Regardless

What is expanding?

Can someone show me that the universe is expanding.

Does our galaxy expand?

Does our local group of galaxies exapnd?

Does the cluster group that our local group of galaxies exapnd?

Does the super cluster of clusters of galaxies expand?

The answer to the above is NO.
silverhorse
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 14 2007, 06:11 AM)
thwhistler. god is irrelvant because there is no evidence such a thing ever existed.

How can both of these imaginary universes of yours reach infinity? Infinity is a mathematical convcenience that does not exist.

How can the young universe be small yet reach infinity? Stick to what you know then you won't talk such nonsense:

There are many worlds and dimensions outside of the universe, if you know astral projection then you are able to see other dimensions.

There is a God, but you need to use astral projection to see him.
kaneda
silverhorse. Your intellect (mind) comes from your very physical (and electrical) brain which is influenced by it's environment and the chemicals pumped into it. You cannot just take this "mind" out of it's cause and expect it to still exist. What you are experiencing is just dreaming.
thwhistler
Hello Harry Costas
QUOTE (Harry Costas Posted on Yesterday at 12:36 PM+)
What is expanding?
Can someone show me that the universe is expanding.
Does our galaxy expand?
Does our local group of galaxies expand?
Does the cluster group that our local group of galaxies expand?
All the above are rotating.
The universe might be rotating as well.
Imagine the wheel again.
The rim has the speed of light, therefor exists all the time in the beginning, encapsulating all times.
QUOTE (kaneda Posted on Yesterday at 11:02 AM+)
At light speed you would be frozen forever in a moment of time and the universe would die of old age before you even had time to blink your eye.
In other words, the beginning is always, it never was, but is. The end never will be. Since the end is visible in the beginning.
But since we are observers like a beetle on the spoke. Watching the hub, where everything is static and reference. And the rim, moving at the speed of light, which is the beginning and reference.
The constant size of the universe can then be described as the radius from the hub, or center, where everything is static. To the rim, where everything is static with the speed of light.
A wheel is 2 dimensional, but the universe might be rotating in 4+ dimensions.
I have used hours working on that beetle on a spoke analogy, and it is complicated. But it works, and it looks like it fits. I even think it explains gravity. You just have to think logically. Try it out. Rotation requires gravity. Gravity is the rotation. Gravity is the vortex that comes of the rotating universe. Like a vortex in the kitchen sink, that revolves because of the rotating earth.
Harry Costas
Hello thwhistler

I can see you have imagination.

But reality is a different track.

thwhistler
And "Dark Matter" is ripples in the vortex.
Now I know where I have gotten those thoughts.
I have reading Ezekiel ch.1 in the Bible.
QUOTE

Eze 1:15  Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
Eze 1:16  The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
Eze 1:17  When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.
Eze 1:18  As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.
Eze 1:21  When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
Eze 1:22  And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

The universe is rotating in four dimensions according to Ezekiel, and contains the living creatures.
And the rim is the firmament that also has four corners. And ideas always have some origin.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Eze 1:15  Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. Eze 1:16  The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. Eze 1:17  When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went. Eze 1:18  As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.Eze 1:21  When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. Eze 1:22  And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

The universe is rotating in four dimensions according to Ezekiel, and contains the living creatures.
And the rim is the firmament that also has four corners. And ideas always have some origin.
But reality is a different track.
Suspense!
kaneda
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 15 2007, 12:36 PM)
Hello All

I have read the above posts.

I respect each post and their opinion.

Saying that.

None of the above are based on science.

The all knowing idiot makes his pronouncements again. Doh!
kaneda
thwhistler. As you say, the Universe may be rotating. All big things in space tend to. But the universe is big enough that even if the outside were revolving at light speed, much of the inside would be barely moving.

But such huge differences in movemnent would be detectable as angular momentum of all objects in one direction or an opposite direction (eg: left or right from our field of view) with the further away an object is, the faster it is moving in a set direction at an angle to us.

Having said that, if you add extra dimensions, we may perceive a universal rotation as everything moving away from us, a universal red shift?

Your quotes from Ezekiel are believed by some (even christians) to be the world's first account of a UFO close encounter. The rings were wheel like flying saucers and the eyes were portholes. Their likeness may have been due to space suits they were wearing.
Nick
Space then a place where theres no space?

No such place.
kaneda
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 17 2007, 09:15 PM)
Space then a place where theres no space?

No such place.

We know space is a definite material in that it can be deformed by gravitty so that light which travels in a straight line through space bends when it travels through this bent space (light itself is not affected by gravity here).

Nothing would be a place where there is not even the medium through which light can travel and even gravity cannot propagate. Even matter could not exist. If there were a real edge to the Universe, it would seem infinitely tough since you could not go through it because there is nothing beyond it.
Nick
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 18 2007, 08:20 AM)
We know space is a definite material in that it can be deformed by gravitty so that light which travels in a straight line through space bends when it travels through this bent space (light itself is not affected by gravity here).

Nothing would be a place where there is not even the medium through which light can travel and even gravity cannot propagate. Even matter could not exist. If there were a real edge to the Universe, it would seem infinitely tough since you could not go through it because there is nothing beyond it.

Still space can't become NO SPACE at some Edge.

No such beast.

IT WAS EINSTEIN THAT SOLVED THIS PROBLEM. HE SAID THE OVERALL GRAVITY OF THE UNIVERSE COULD CLOSE IT; COULD CAUSE IT TO CURVE BACK ON ITSELF. HE CALLED IT FINITE YET UNBOUNDED.

There is the hypersphere.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Eric England
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 18 2007, 01:20 AM)
If there were a real edge to the Universe, it would seem infinitely tough since you could not go through it because there is nothing beyond it.

If there is "truly nothing" beyond the edge, then there doesn't have to be an edge.

An "edge" keeps the outside out and the inside in. If there is "nothing" outside, there isn't anything to keep out. Conversely, if there is something inside, then it doesn't need to be kept in; because "nothing" also means, there is no "somewhere" for the something to go.
MDT
If we assume an expanding universe, which appears to be the case, and if one also assumes that there is a outer perimeter beyond which matter does not exist, yet, (BB), there will still be a larger fuzzy perimeter where light speed wave phases exist, which have propagated from the substances of the universe, since the dawn of the expansion. These light speed wave phases would include energy and force fields such as from EM and gravity, which have propagated from finite space matter since the beginning, heading toward infinity.

Beyond that second fuzzy boundry (assume the universe has been expanding 15 billiion years) there is empty space that is void of matter as well as the light speed wave phases and is therefore not participating in most of the known laws of physics. There is no distance, time, matter, energy, force, waves, charge, relativity, etc. It is a very singular place that is the same no matter what scale one looks at it.

If one was standing in this singular place and the fuzzy outer boundry of the universe begins to enters, it is no longer the same singular place, as time and distance based waves (wavelength/frequency) begin to enter, bringing with them finte space-time (there is now a way to guage and define time and distance. In this type of space virtual particle may appear as long as there is conservation. Eventually, the inner perimeter of matter also reaches this area, with it, more laws of physics come into play to fully define finite space.
Montec
Hello all

In what direction must one travel to get outside the universe?

Can we consider more than just three dimensions?

One must have a direction to get anywhere.

Nick
QUOTE (Montec+Feb 18 2007, 08:05 PM)
Hello all

In what direction must one travel to get outside the universe?

Can we consider more than just three dimensions?

One must have a direction to get anywhere.

If the universe is a hypersphere it would be a brane. You couldn't leave the surface. But the surface is moving away from the center in a universal expansion (as the universe grows in other words.)

We are moving away from the center of space expansion; ie The Big Bang.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

thwhistler
QUOTE (Montec Posted on Yesterday at 8:05 PM+)
In what direction must one travel to get outside the universe?

If you want to travel outside our universe, Then you would have to travel on dimensions that continue beyond our 3D space and, or 4D hyperspace.

There are people who say, that there are nonphysical dimensions, that are just as real or more real. But you will have to use nonphysical means to go there. Big Bang is an excellent example of nonphysical travel.
Some physicist "Edwin Hubble" was before this physical world and heard a Big Bang. I know, I was there, and saw his behind in a Big Flash
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.