dave_rhino
Closed Account
I haven't smoked enough drugs to even think about it.
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
What's Beyond This Universe
- Thread starter CaDDaFy
- Start date
I don't know if I buy the nonexistent data on the beginning or the end of the universe. It seems to me that things keep getting assembled and disassembled. What if there really is no beginning and no end? Whatever we say about the issue, NameTaken is right when he says we'll never know. I happen to believe in my own personal version of intelligent design. It doesn't just help me sleep at night, it gives me something to look forward to in the morning.
Humans are very clever. Some day we may know the answer to question like this. For example, here is an article about a scientist attempt to see before the Big Bang.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html
I think Steven Hawkins once said something to the effect that trying to figure out time before the Big Bang was like trying to find out what is south of the South Pole. From everything we know there isn't a definition to it. I know that's hard for people to understand. Time as we know it probably didn't exist before then. We don't know exactly what happened, and we might have to also figure it might be one of those questions that humans are incapable of wrapping their minds around yet if ever. There is a real good chance that time just didn't exist until the universe did. It is just another product of it. Some people have speculated that time is just an entopic process that the universe goes through that can only go one way. Asking the question of why does existence exist might very well be the greatest question we have ever asked ourselves. Sometimes when I think about it, it can make my mind hurt just trying to grasp it. It might also be the thing humanity is always going to search after as long as we are around, the ultimate question we are always going to be on a journey to find.
As far as the universe being infinite we don't know about that either. It extends out past the universe's event horizon from our vantage point. As far as we know there is not an edge or center to it. Or maybe in some ways every point of the universe is it's center.
As far as the universe expanding what they believe now is that it's accelerating faster than its binding forces can hold itself together. In any case, it's not just the matter in the universe that is expanding. The universe itself is expanding and has been ever since the first huge expansion right after the Big Bang. What I mean by the universe itself is the very fabric of existence is expanding not the galaxies racing away from each other on their own. The further one goes out the faster the expansion. That is why there is some parts of the universe that are now invisible to us and galaxies at the very edge of known space are frozen in time. They are racing away from us as fast as light is being emitted by them. In fact the expansion of the fabric of space is the only thing we know of that can go faster than the speed of light. Someday in the extreme far future if what we know now holds true the expansion will get to the point where things will no longer be able to hold themselves together. First it will be huge groups of galaxies, and then smaller groups then the stars themselves won't be able to maintain contact with each other. It will go to the point where the very atoms that make everything up will no longer be able to hold themselves together. At least that's what most people think now.
As far as what's beyond the universe, who knows? I have a feeling it's like the question of what's south of the South Pole. In some ways there just doesn't exist a definition for it or if there is one it's beyond human comprehension.
As far as the universe being infinite we don't know about that either. It extends out past the universe's event horizon from our vantage point. As far as we know there is not an edge or center to it. Or maybe in some ways every point of the universe is it's center.
As far as the universe expanding what they believe now is that it's accelerating faster than its binding forces can hold itself together. In any case, it's not just the matter in the universe that is expanding. The universe itself is expanding and has been ever since the first huge expansion right after the Big Bang. What I mean by the universe itself is the very fabric of existence is expanding not the galaxies racing away from each other on their own. The further one goes out the faster the expansion. That is why there is some parts of the universe that are now invisible to us and galaxies at the very edge of known space are frozen in time. They are racing away from us as fast as light is being emitted by them. In fact the expansion of the fabric of space is the only thing we know of that can go faster than the speed of light. Someday in the extreme far future if what we know now holds true the expansion will get to the point where things will no longer be able to hold themselves together. First it will be huge groups of galaxies, and then smaller groups then the stars themselves won't be able to maintain contact with each other. It will go to the point where the very atoms that make everything up will no longer be able to hold themselves together. At least that's what most people think now.
As far as what's beyond the universe, who knows? I have a feeling it's like the question of what's south of the South Pole. In some ways there just doesn't exist a definition for it or if there is one it's beyond human comprehension.
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is.'' - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Yeah - thats in another thread too but hey it fits here.
If you want to get a headache over it... read up on Stephen Hawkings latest theories. He basically has done a 180 and is arguing AGAINST his prior arguments that no one ever did disprove, until now. This is the Black Hole issue and that he now says there are black holes all around us, theres one right next to you now! eeek!
http://www.hawking.org.uk/
Dont forget to bring a towel! :thumbsup:
Yeah - thats in another thread too but hey it fits here.
If you want to get a headache over it... read up on Stephen Hawkings latest theories. He basically has done a 180 and is arguing AGAINST his prior arguments that no one ever did disprove, until now. This is the Black Hole issue and that he now says there are black holes all around us, theres one right next to you now! eeek!
http://www.hawking.org.uk/
Dont forget to bring a towel! :thumbsup:
Space and time applies non-linearly ...
Traditional mechanics and physics we observe are radically altered at the rates the universe is expanding.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is only the beginning of those explanations.
There are also matter differences that we are just now discovering.
Attempting to apply our understanding of localized physics is futile.
Unfortunately, we don't understand it very well yet, but we just know many of the concepts are poorly explained by what we do know.
Most scientists currently believe there is sufficient proof that it is definite, and have for some time.
Unfortunately, you're oversimplifying things greatly.
Traditional mechanics and physics we observe are radically altered at the rates the universe is expanding.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is only the beginning of those explanations.
Again, things are radically altered as you near the edge of the universe, or even at various portions of the universe.
There are also matter differences that we are just now discovering.
Attempting to apply our understanding of localized physics is futile.
That's because you're applying basic, linear concepts of space and time.So why would it stop there?? there must be something beyond what we know at this point, we just don't know how to see it yet.
Just hope we don't end up blowing our selfs up before we find out!
The thing that i can't start to get my head round is, i'm sure there is somthing beyond the universe, and there is something beyond that and so on, layer after layer like the pc screen in the room. But for that layer after layer to happen where is it all???
Think of it like an onion (bear with me ) you and the pc screen is at the center of the onion and the layers over it are the planet and the universe and so on....... where is the onion to begin with? where is it sitting so it can excist?
And why/how the universe came into existence in the first place.
Unfortunately, we don't understand it very well yet, but we just know many of the concepts are poorly explained by what we do know.
A little advice for you Prof Voluptuary;
People might take your points more seriously if you backed them up with some proof in the form of links.
This is especially applicable to you considering you recently admitted that you had lied in over 50 posts. I realize they were not 'technical' in nature, but when one lies as much as you admit to have done, it makes others less apt to take your word on things.
Besides. Considering you type that you are so knowledgeable about these things. Then I imagine it would be easy for you to find the links to back up your statements (like YMIHERE and DrDetroit did above).
People might take your points more seriously if you backed them up with some proof in the form of links.
This is especially applicable to you considering you recently admitted that you had lied in over 50 posts. I realize they were not 'technical' in nature, but when one lies as much as you admit to have done, it makes others less apt to take your word on things.
Besides. Considering you type that you are so knowledgeable about these things. Then I imagine it would be easy for you to find the links to back up your statements (like YMIHERE and DrDetroit did above).
But what exisited before the universe was born?
No space no nothing. This is hard to get a grasp on, because we cannot imagine this kind of nothing. We have never seen it. It is, presumably, what existed before the universe existed. Apparently, at the creation of the universe, there was truly nothing. Space, with its ability to transmit different types of energy, was created when the universe was created. Then energy in this space condensed into matter -- the atoms that we find all around us today.
No space no nothing. This is hard to get a grasp on, because we cannot imagine this kind of nothing. We have never seen it. It is, presumably, what existed before the universe existed. Apparently, at the creation of the universe, there was truly nothing. Space, with its ability to transmit different types of energy, was created when the universe was created. Then energy in this space condensed into matter -- the atoms that we find all around us today.
Let's just say you walk into a room and there is "nothing in it" -- no objects of any kind, no furniture and no people. It's just four walls, a ceiling and a floor.
Even though we think of the room as empty, what this room contains is air. Floating around the room are an unbelievable number of atoms and molecules. The air in the room contains nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor and all sorts of other chemicals. But we cannot see all these atoms because they are transparent. So we think of the room as full of nothing, even though it is full of atoms.
To get to a real form of "nothing", we need to go into outer space. Imagine that you go to the farthest, emptiest corner of the universe. This is as close to nothing as we are ever going to get. What we are looking for is a section of space that contains zero atoms. No atoms at all -- it is a perfect vacuum. That is the best approximation of "nothing" that we have in our universe
But what is the color is nothing?
Even though we think of the room as empty, what this room contains is air. Floating around the room are an unbelievable number of atoms and molecules. The air in the room contains nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor and all sorts of other chemicals. But we cannot see all these atoms because they are transparent. So we think of the room as full of nothing, even though it is full of atoms.
To get to a real form of "nothing", we need to go into outer space. Imagine that you go to the farthest, emptiest corner of the universe. This is as close to nothing as we are ever going to get. What we are looking for is a section of space that contains zero atoms. No atoms at all -- it is a perfect vacuum. That is the best approximation of "nothing" that we have in our universe
But what is the color is nothing?
Key words being "in our universe". That wasn't the scope of the question however. A vacuum is the absence of matter (and energy if you want to be thorough, though that's not required in the definition unless I'm mistaken). It is empty, but it is still something. It contains dimensions, such as length or time which can be measured. The nothing I've been talking about is not the absence of things, but the absence of dimensions; existence itself. You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the entire concept. For example, you ask what the color of nothing is. If you had managed to grasp what I've been trying to explain, you'd know that such a question is total nonsense. The color of emptiness is easy; there is no color because there is nothing to reflect the light, but that reasoning can't be applied outside the scope of existence. You're working with the assumption that things somehow exist in non-existence.
"color" comes from light that hits our eyes. Small units of light, called photons, have to leave the object we are looking at in order for our eyes to see a color. Photons can either be produced by something, like a light bulb, or they can bounce off of something and get reflected into our eyes. Those photons are what our eyes "see."
Since "nothing" contains zero atoms, there is nothing in "nothing" that can produce photons, or reflect them - so there are zero photons. Our eyes see zero photons as black. So the color of "nothing" is black.
But here's a deeper question: Is a section of space that contains zero atoms really "nothing"?
Not really. Space, even if there are no atoms in it, is "something." For example, photons can move through space even if the space contains zero atoms. So can gravity. So can radio waves. So can a magnet's field. And we can measure space -- a chunk of space has a length, a width and a height. And time elapses. In other words, empty space is a measurable framework that has the ability to transmit certain types of energy.
Since "nothing" contains zero atoms, there is nothing in "nothing" that can produce photons, or reflect them - so there are zero photons. Our eyes see zero photons as black. So the color of "nothing" is black.
But here's a deeper question: Is a section of space that contains zero atoms really "nothing"?
Not really. Space, even if there are no atoms in it, is "something." For example, photons can move through space even if the space contains zero atoms. So can gravity. So can radio waves. So can a magnet's field. And we can measure space -- a chunk of space has a length, a width and a height. And time elapses. In other words, empty space is a measurable framework that has the ability to transmit certain types of energy.
I give up. If I wasn't already sure I wouldn't become a teacher, this thread has certainly cemented that decision. I'm not sure what your point is, but whatever it might be gets lost in the overall incoherency. I'm not sure how much physics you've studied, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that it wasn't enough.
Ok then That tiny ball of high density matter that created the big bang had to, in essence, create itself if we assume there was nothing else out there. And one cannot simply go in circles with the argument that universes have always existed and that time is spherical. The fact is, all matter needs to come from somewhere. That being the case is leads me to the most puzzling conclusion of all. The big bang cannot exist in terms of definitions set up by observable nature. It is thusly an event that must be classified as outside of observable science… also known as “supernatural.” A word I shudder to utter.
The intriguing thing to me is what entity held up the pre-bang dime size material? And what were the dimensions of this void? But, in the final analysis, you must acccept the fact that something does not come from nothing. Although, science will attempt to quantum leap you through an array of theories - it can not in any manner, shape or form explain the origin of the dime size material.
The problems with discussing this ...
The problems with discussing this are compounding.
1. Traditional, non-scientific observation is incomplete
2. Even modern physics-based observation is incomplete
3. We really don't understand our own, local space-time completely
4. We honestly don't know how consistent space-time laws are across the universe
5. But we have observed great differences between local and near-edge of the universe (as we have observed it is)
6. Which brings us back to the fact that we're still limited to the understanding of our observations
Starting with #1, we can't even get to #2. People have a tendency to observe to the limits of their understanding and knowledge. That's, simply put, why people assumed the Earth was the center of the universe. Heck, going back to the "Moon Landings Were Faked" thread, people still believe that "air" is required for many things that are easily explained by traditional, multi-century understood, Newtonian mechanics.
But even when we hit #2, we're still limited to our observations which are limited to our understanding and knowledge. Einstein relativity is rather incomplete of an explanation for many things we observe, other than the fact it was one of the first system of equations that showed reality at a point of observation does not always match another point -- based on earlier work by researchers like Maxell and others.
In 1899 Lord Kelvin felt physics was well explained, except for a few, small, unexplained experiments. Now we're seeing those same type of small, unexplained experiments put under relativity are starting to balloon into great expansions as well. I've been reading Scientific American since the '80s, and once Hubble started observing and recording data that was at odds with past theories and explanations often referred to the "Big Bang," it got very interesting. At the same time, we're still trying to take those observations and explain them against our current understanding and knowledge.
Scientific American continues to revisit this debate, and one good entry on the explanations considered are here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147
Regarding #3, #4 and #5. We still don't have a full grasp on our own local space-time. We have also observed radically different laws as we observe where we believe is the edge of the believed expanding universe. So it's very possible, and many solid models presented in the last decade, show that our own "local" space-time may have been very different at one time as well. Just how consistent are the laws on space-time, in general, across the universe?
And, finally for #6, it's still all observations from our own, local space-time anyway, so that certainly makes the observations of non-local questionable as well.
And that's before we even tackle the fact that our mathematics is still in its infancy overall, which limits our ability to describe (with a system of equations) these observations more completely. Hawkins and others may be able to think to much higher complexities using the calculus of variations, but we could realize a better mathematical tool for the problem. Various quantum approaches may be the key, as some tools seem to fit.
In any case, most models still seem to peg the universe as a finite entity, or probably a much better term, a "discrete" entity that we should be able to describe and quantify for any point in space-time.
The problems with discussing this are compounding.
1. Traditional, non-scientific observation is incomplete
2. Even modern physics-based observation is incomplete
3. We really don't understand our own, local space-time completely
4. We honestly don't know how consistent space-time laws are across the universe
5. But we have observed great differences between local and near-edge of the universe (as we have observed it is)
6. Which brings us back to the fact that we're still limited to the understanding of our observations
Starting with #1, we can't even get to #2. People have a tendency to observe to the limits of their understanding and knowledge. That's, simply put, why people assumed the Earth was the center of the universe. Heck, going back to the "Moon Landings Were Faked" thread, people still believe that "air" is required for many things that are easily explained by traditional, multi-century understood, Newtonian mechanics.
But even when we hit #2, we're still limited to our observations which are limited to our understanding and knowledge. Einstein relativity is rather incomplete of an explanation for many things we observe, other than the fact it was one of the first system of equations that showed reality at a point of observation does not always match another point -- based on earlier work by researchers like Maxell and others.
In 1899 Lord Kelvin felt physics was well explained, except for a few, small, unexplained experiments. Now we're seeing those same type of small, unexplained experiments put under relativity are starting to balloon into great expansions as well. I've been reading Scientific American since the '80s, and once Hubble started observing and recording data that was at odds with past theories and explanations often referred to the "Big Bang," it got very interesting. At the same time, we're still trying to take those observations and explain them against our current understanding and knowledge.
Scientific American continues to revisit this debate, and one good entry on the explanations considered are here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147
Regarding #3, #4 and #5. We still don't have a full grasp on our own local space-time. We have also observed radically different laws as we observe where we believe is the edge of the believed expanding universe. So it's very possible, and many solid models presented in the last decade, show that our own "local" space-time may have been very different at one time as well. Just how consistent are the laws on space-time, in general, across the universe?
And, finally for #6, it's still all observations from our own, local space-time anyway, so that certainly makes the observations of non-local questionable as well.
And that's before we even tackle the fact that our mathematics is still in its infancy overall, which limits our ability to describe (with a system of equations) these observations more completely. Hawkins and others may be able to think to much higher complexities using the calculus of variations, but we could realize a better mathematical tool for the problem. Various quantum approaches may be the key, as some tools seem to fit.
In any case, most models still seem to peg the universe as a finite entity, or probably a much better term, a "discrete" entity that we should be able to describe and quantify for any point in space-time.
