i think the universe is a sphear like most things in the universe itself. i also do not think the universe is "everything" maybe our universe is just like a large system, wich is connected to many other systems.


anyways yeah i think the universe is a sphear,

comments?

peace.

I think you mean 'sphere'.

The definition of the world 'Universe' is everything that exists. So the Universe IS everything. Nothing exists beyond the Universe.

There is no 'our Universe', there is just one Universe.

Or, maybe he means, 'spear.'

Yeah,
one end of it would appear to be spear shaped.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47059&highlight=shape

so funny... and i think the universe has no form, it's infinite.

The definition of the world 'Universe' is everything that exists. So the Universe IS everything. Nothing exists beyond the Universe.

There is no 'our Universe', there is just one Universe.

I wish you would go to the religion forum and say that , some christians there claim that god exists outside the universe !!

i think there would have to be something outside of our universe. either that or our universe has existed for eternity and will continue to do so. but there is much evidence for a big bang start to the universe which would neccessitate an outside which causes this big bang.

also, a sphere seems to best describe what our universe could 'look like'.

There is nothing 'outside' our Universe. The Universe is all that exists, so anything you consider 'outside' the Universe, is, by the very fucking definition of the word Universe, part of the Universe, so stop being a dolt.

A sphere in no way describes what the Universe is like. Space time sprang into being at the point of the singularity, it didn't explode in three dimensions, and the the sheer clue of the anisotropy of matter might give you a clue that there might just be asymmetry, or something a little less simplistic going on!

obviously it depends on one's definition of universe, you 'dolt'. And obviously, the universe 'exploded' into three[+] dimensions because we live in three dimensions. A sphere describes how this happens because it goes from being a single point, to being 3d. the dimension of time is the second to come (after the first, the point, the singularity) time is neccessary for change which then brings about the next two dimensions, associated with space.

Again, if nothing exists outside of our universe, then our universe must exist perpetually and infinitely.

Hum,
I don't want to be <b>condescending</b> but if you use the search function on the forum.

you would find this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49775&highlight=universe

Roy

obviously it depends on one's definition of universe, you 'dolt'.

Please explain why you or anyone else would have a different definition of the universe other than THE definition, and if so, why would it be valid?

obviously it depends on one's definition of universe, you 'dolt'.

No, it doesn't depend on 'one's' definition, it depends on THE definition. You complete dolt. If we are to discuss these things, we need common terms. If you go redefining the terms (without actually stating what your new terms are) your posts are meaningless.


And obviously, the universe 'exploded' into three[+] dimensions because we live in three dimensions.

Quite obviously, it didn't, or we would be able to extrapolate back towards the source of the explosion. We can't, so you are incorrect. We live in more than three dimensions too. There are three spacial dimensions, mass, charge, spin, ... etc etc etc not just three. Go read a physics book.


A sphere describes how this happens because it goes from being a single point, to being 3d. the dimension of time is the second to come (after he first, the point, the singularity) time is neccessary for change which then brings about the next two dimensions, associated with space.

Nope, again, if that were the case, we'd know where 'ground zero' for the big bang was. We don't. Therefore, your postulation is incorrect.

Again, if nothing exists outside of our universe, then our universe must exist perpetually and infinitely.

Why do you jump to that conclusion? The word Universe is merely a dictionary definition! To assume a definition forces the Universe into a certain state, means you don't have a clue what you are talking about! DOLT! DOUBLE DOLT! The Universe is everything that exists. Period.

Roy

obviously it depends on one's definition of universe, you 'dolt'.

Please explain why you or anyone else would have a different definition of the universe other than THE definition, and if so, why would it be valid?

u·ni·verse (yn-vûrs)
n.

1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
4. Logic. See universe of discourse.
5. Statistics. See population.

basically, anything that we can observe. but that doesn't mean that everything observable is everything period. i am not against the idea that the observable universe is all there is, but for that to be, the big bang would have to be something completely different that what is predicted.

No, it doesn't depend on 'one's' definition, it depends on THE definition. You complete dolt. If we are to discuss these things, we need common terms. If you go redefining the terms (without actually stating what your new terms are) your posts are meaningless.

the terms are not completely defined in the first place, everyones interpretation is different. so you are just as guilty of "redefining the terms" as i am. the way i see it, there could be an outside to our observable universe, as studies in string theory dealing with gravity show (i am no advocate of this theory, but it is research and it is showing very complex relations between numbers that are based on real aspects of the universe). by your definition of universe i would posit that this outside would actually be a part of the universe rather than outside it. but it all depends on how you look at it and how you define the terms.

Quite obviously, it didn't, or we would be able to extrapolate back towards the source of the explosion. We can't, so you are incorrect. We live in more than three dimensions too. There are three spacial dimensions, mass, charge, spin, ... etc etc etc not just three. Go read a physics book.

you base this conclusion on the premise that we are able to extrapolate back towards the source of the explosion, if there was one. that is an ignorant assumption. perhaps we are not advanced enough to figure it out, or perhaps it never did happen. obviously i know there are more than 3 dimensions because i said "three[+] dimensions". don't be so quick to be condescending.

Nope, again, if that were the case, we'd know where 'ground zero' for the big bang was. We don't. Therefore, your postulation is incorrect.

again you are basing your conclusion on the idea that we are able to know these things yet. we are far from knowing about everything in the universe, why do you insist that we do?

Why do you jump to that conclusion? The word Universe is merely a dictionary definition! To assume a definition forces the Universe into a certain state, means you don't have a clue what you are talking about! DOLT! DOUBLE DOLT! The Universe is everything that exists. Period.
is your method of arguing to try to beat me into submission with ad hominem insults? this gets us nowhere. the idea i was talking about has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of the universe. the only way our universe can exist is if it always existed, thats all i was saying.

it is a sphere... as everything relates to a circle.. and so Pi...

Pi.. has been a mystery for so long.. until now.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3281/bcoverrrr1by.th.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bcoverrrr1by.jpg)
-MT

I always thought we lived in a marble that giants were rolling about, like in MiB.

Actually, I have very little idea. I can't even get past the infinite vs. finite thing. The whole concept of infinite blows my mind, but how can 'everything' be any less than that? To those arguing about the definition of universe, aren't there theories that postulate multiple universes? Like the branes in string theory? Are they still considered infinite because they exist on different 'frequencies' (or whatever it is)?

Infinity is only a MATHMATICAL CONCEPT... it doesnt exist in reality.

-MT

basically, anything that we can observe. .

It is NOT about what we can observe, it is simply everything that exists, observed or not.

That is the definition of the word. If you mess with it, discussion is pointless.

Infinity is only a MATHMATICAL CONCEPT... it doesnt exist in reality.

-MT

That's the thing: I can deal with it fine in mathematics, but if it doesn't exist, then there must be 'nothing' somewhere. But 'nothing' is something, so therefore there was no 'nothing' to begin with!

Roy

basically, anything that we can observe.

Nowhere in the definition you provided does it say anything about the observable universe.

the terms are not completely defined in the first place, everyones interpretation is different

No, your interpretation is different.

but it all depends on how you look at it and how you define the terms.

The terms are correctly defined and no one is misinterpreting them but you.

you base this conclusion on the premise that we are able to extrapolate back towards the source of the explosion, if there was one.

What do you mean, 'if there was one'?

perhaps we are not advanced enough to figure it out, or perhaps it never did happen.

Then, what did happen, in your opinion?

There is nothing 'outside' our Universe. The Universe is all that exists, so anything you consider 'outside' the Universe, is, by the very fucking definition of the word Universe, part of the Universe, so stop being a dolt.

A sphere in no way describes what the Universe is like. Space time sprang into being at the point of the singularity, it didn't explode in three dimensions, and the the sheer clue of the anisotropy of matter might give you a clue that there might just be asymmetry, or something a little less simplistic going on!


sorry i wasnt aware you were god,


how on earth do you know what you just claimed to know? want to back that up with some evidence there chappy?.



peace.

Let's see Phlogistician. Around one century ago we thought the Universe was our galaxy. We were vaguely aware of some hazy nebula, but had little notion what they might be. Ask someone then what The Universe was, and you would have found the terms Universe and Galaxy were synonomous. There are plenty of cosmologists who have postulated other Universes, so your rather singular and precise claims for the meaning of Universe in this thread turn out to be somewhat inflated.

a sphere seems to best describe what our universe could 'look like'.

As the universe is everything how could you get into a position t see the universe may i ask? :p

Nowhere in the definition you provided does it say anything about the observable universe.

but don't you think that everything we can observe would be labeled as part of, or in, the universe?

No, your interpretation is different.

The terms are correctly defined and no one is misinterpreting them but you.

so everyone thinks exactly the same except for me? is that what you're saying?

the only thing i was saying differently was that there is probably something outside of what is commonly known as 'the universe'. and that there is probably something outside of that outside and so on infinitely. if you want to call all of that the universe as well, be my guest. i'll do the same if it makes you feel better.

you base this conclusion on the premise that we are able to extrapolate back towards the source of the explosion, if there was one.

What do you mean, 'if there was one'?

i try to think of everything as a probability. the big bang has lots of evidence, but its not proven and there are so many ways to explain the same thing.

perhaps we are not advanced enough to figure it out, or perhaps it never did happen.

Then, what did happen, in your opinion?

i think a lot of things could have happened. the universe could be a constant expansion-contraction of energy. or it could be one of an endless series of universes that expand or contract at different rates depending on their makeup. the universe could be the realisation of some immensly complex entity. it could be an illusion with everything tied to an actual part of reality. time could have existed infinitely, or it could have started at what we call the big bang.

personally, i lean more towards the idea that existence goes on infinitely and that the ~14 billion years that we think is the age of the universe, is just the age of our local universe. that is why i have a different definition for the word. what many people call the universe is said to have existed for 14 billion years. now, observation of what we can see of the universe gives evidence for this, but i think that the universe must be perpetual for it to even exist. that means that there must have been time before the big bang, or our universe must extend farther than physics predicts, farther than we are able to see. this also neccessitates a force that is either faster than light, or travels such that it seems to be faster than light.

As the universe is everything how could you get into a position t see the universe may i ask? :p

the description doesnt really show a visual characteristic as much as it does show the relationship between dimensions. or at least how i see it. the surface of the sphere would be space and the 3 dimensions that go with it. you only see two in this description though. the 3rd dimension of the sphere would be time. the inside of the sphere is the past and the outside is the future. neither exists except for where the surface of the sphere is. that is the now. as time progresses, the sphere expands. i'm not saying the universe actually looks like this, who knows, but i think it describes the dimensions well.

EmptyForceOfChi,

You don't know how to spell "sphere" and yet you say the universe is a sphere.
Huuummm...

Ok, I won't be mean. But my question is: why?

sorry i wasnt aware you were god,

Do you need to be god to have read a dictionary?

how on earth do you know what you just claimed to know?

It's in the dictionary.

want to back that up with some evidence there chappy?.

Guess what, try a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=universe

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Universe

See that? ALL matter and energy, regarded as a WHOLE. Not 'some matter and energy in one 'universe' and some other bits in another. WHOLE. Universe! Entirety! WHOLE! ONENESS! Grasp it yet?

so everyone thinks exactly the same except for me? is that what you're saying?

No, there are plenty of people who hold the misconception that there is something outside of the Universe. Even a widely held misconception, is still a misconception, however.

the only thing i was saying differently was that there is probably something outside of what is commonly known as 'the universe'. and that there is probably something outside of that outside and so on infinitely. if you want to call all of that the universe as well, be my guest. i'll do the same if it makes you feel better.

Excellet. The word 'Universe' has a meaning, and it means 'everything that exists', 'Entirety'. So if you see matter and energy in one region of space, that's just part of the Universe, not a whole Universe. A whole Universe, is ALL matter and energy. You can't arbitrarily assign some matter to one universe, and more to another. Why would you place a dividing line somewhere? How would you decide which galaxy belonged to which Universe?

i try to think of everything as a probability. the big bang has lots of evidence, but its not proven and there are so many ways to explain the same thing.

Well, fewer and fewer ways to explain the evidence, really. Anisotropy takes some explaining, but the CMB is a really strong hint at the BB.

i think a lot of things could have happened. the universe could be a constant expansion-contraction of energy. or it could be one of an endless series of universes that expand or contract at different rates depending on their makeup.

Here I have to take issue. Endless series of Universes. Well, the only way there could be an endless series of Universes, is if there were states of matter in other Universes, which utilised dimensions completely orthogonal to ours. If that were true, we'd have no way of measuring them, or detecting them, they would not affect our experiences. So, they would just be a thought experiment. Now, postulation is fine, but if you are going to do that, you need to set up your thought experiment first, if you go hijacking terms we end up having to come back to common terms, and as you can see, this is time consuming!

personally, i lean more towards the idea that existence goes on infinitely and that the ~14 billion years that we think is the age of the universe, is just the age of our local universe.

What leads you to think that? It's a headfuck, for sure, but the idea that the Universe has a finite age has evidence. You need evidence to make your statement about 'local' and inifinity.


i think that the universe must be perpetual for it to even exist. that means that there must have been time before the big bang, or our universe must extend farther than physics predicts, farther than we are able to see.

We can use physics to get back to the point of the singularity, the big bang. After that, it breaks down, because physics is merely a set of observations about the matter and energy that were created in the big bang. Physics is not a set of laws, it is not an external reality, it's just a description of how matter behaves.


this also neccessitates a force that is either faster than light, or travels such that it seems to be faster than light.

The speed of light is determined by Universal constant, that are a product of our Universe. If our Universe were to recollapse, and then undergo another big bang, these constants could emerge differently, and c could have a different value. That would change a lot of things, potentailly. Here is the fomula for the speed of light;

http://en.wikipedia.org/math/5/7/4/574e79fcd783f402f69907b6acbf7cd1.png

the speed of light is a product of some constants that describe free space. Now, it is a headfuck to have values assigned to a vacuum (surely, a vacuum is empty, so how can you measure a property of it?) But we are measuring not a truly empty space (that would be a void) but space itself. Isn't that pretty cool?

Let's see Phlogistician. Around one century ago we thought the Universe was our galaxy. We were vaguely aware of some hazy nebula, but had little notion what they might be. Ask someone then what The Universe was, and you would have found the terms Universe and Galaxy were synonomous.

Largely due to a geocentric model postulated by the Church. Since the rennaissance, science has been largely unbound by religious insanity, and able to make more precise (and less heretical!) statements. The word Universe comes from the latin, I'll try and see when it was first recorded in a dictionary. I think it probably always meant what it meant, we just perhaps did't appreciate the scale. Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter what we have observed, if we have only observed our solar system, stuff outside that solar system is not extra to our Universe.

There are plenty of cosmologists who have postulated other Universes, so your rather singular and precise claims for the meaning of Universe in this thread turn out to be somewhat inflated.

Other Universes separated by time, iirc. There's nothing in physics to say that our Universe couldn't recollapse, and undergo another big bang, and another Universe could be created. But multiple Universes existing contemporaneously, with overlapping dimensions? I need selling that idea, somewhat.

IMO and from mathematical analysis

The Universe is composed of magnetic bubbles,,,, bubbles within/within/within etc bubbles.

These bubbles are spherical....

wqhy is universe not S P I R A L...why not a fractalspiral of mutlidimensonality whre matter-energy and consciousness are like a Caduceus of dynamico potentia....twirlin serpents inlove with othe other .......etc

so materialistic grimly teels us it is ONLY ONE VIEW. bla bla bla. totally devoid of poetry and magic...IF they insist it is only their descripton. their description AS that IS poetry and magic, it is their insistance it is ONLY that that grimmifies what comes next. always does. they need a good hard slap out of it they do!

IMO and from mathematical analysis
The Universe is composed of magnetic bubbles,,,, bubbles within/within/within etc bubbles. These bubbles are spherical....Please resume longer posts of nonsense. I involuntarily read this one.

>> why is universe not S P I R A L

yes that is also correct, dynamically it is plane spiral, but statically it is spherical
and yes it is created by the harmony of the two forces, magnetic and static electric

as far as I can tell :)

as far as I can tell :)

Lol.

>> yes that is also correct, dynamically it is plane spiral, but statically it is spherical
and yes it is created by the harmony of the two forces, magnetic and static electric


You forgot the poetry.

You forgot the poetry.
no, URO is fiiine. its you its you!

No, there are plenty of people who hold the misconception that there is something outside of the Universe. Even a widely held misconception, is still a misconception, however.
ok, the reason i was speaking thus is largely due to the fact that i've read/seen a lot of scientists or scientific articles talking about what could be outside our universe, or if there are other universes. M-theory and multiverses posit that our universe is not all that exists. that is how universe, to me, became just what is in our universe. which is hard to explain because it doesn't seem to define boundries. so i guess it would be better to just say everything that exists is the universe. but i think we'd need another word for our local universe.

Excellet. The word 'Universe' has a meaning, and it means 'everything that exists', 'Entirety'. So if you see matter and energy in one region of space, that's just part of the Universe, not a whole Universe. A whole Universe, is ALL matter and energy. You can't arbitrarily assign some matter to one universe, and more to another. Why would you place a dividing line somewhere? How would you decide which galaxy belonged to which Universe?
if there were a noticable difference, or some kind of boundry that could be observed, yet there was obviously stuff on the other side, would you opt for a new definition of universe, or a new word to describe what we've been calling the universe?

Well, fewer and fewer ways to explain the evidence, really. Anisotropy takes some explaining, but the CMB is a really strong hint at the BB.
i know that anisotropy is the difference in temperatures due to the CMB, and that the CMB is radiation predicted to have spread out from the big bang, but thats about as far as my knowledge in that area goes.

Here I have to take issue. Endless series of Universes. Well, the only way there could be an endless series of Universes, is if there were states of matter in other Universes, which utilised dimensions completely orthogonal to ours. If that were true, we'd have no way of measuring them, or detecting them, they would not affect our experiences. So, they would just be a thought experiment. Now, postulation is fine, but if you are going to do that, you need to set up your thought experiment first, if you go hijacking terms we end up having to come back to common terms, and as you can see, this is time consuming!
i think there would be some way of detecting them. for one, i've heard of the problem of gravity being the weakest of the fundamental forces, and that m-theory predicts this is because [gravitrons] are able to escape our universe. if this is true, or if something like it is true in some other way (maybe not with gravity) then we could possibly be able to detect outside of our universe. also, i know that an endless universe would neccessitate an outside to our universe. my thoughts are that there is always an outside, infinitely.

What leads you to think that? It's a headfuck, for sure, but the idea that the Universe has a finite age has evidence. You need evidence to make your statement about 'local' and inifinity.
i know the universe has a finite age, or that it appears to. i agree that it does. what i mean is that there must have been something before the big bang, and there must have been time before the big bang. this would be something like another universe outside, or perhaps something completely different than anything in our universe, but it would have to be something.

We can use physics to get back to the point of the singularity, the big bang. After that, it breaks down, because physics is merely a set of observations about the matter and energy that were created in the big bang. Physics is not a set of laws, it is not an external reality, it's just a description of how matter behaves.
yeah, i agree with you there. its just a description based on interactions that we have observed.

The speed of light is determined by Universal constant, that are a product of our Universe. If our Universe were to recollapse, and then undergo another big bang, these constants could emerge differently, and c could have a different value. That would change a lot of things, potentailly. Here is the fomula for the speed of light;

http://en.wikipedia.org/math/5/7/4/574e79fcd783f402f69907b6acbf7cd1.png

the speed of light is a product of some constants that describe free space. Now, it is a headfuck to have values assigned to a vacuum (surely, a vacuum is empty, so how can you measure a property of it?) But we are measuring not a truly empty space (that would be a void) but space itself. Isn't that pretty cool?
very cool stuff. i've read about the appearance and immediate disappearance of particles in a vaccuum. i forget the guy who discovered it, but it was something like putting two metal plates together with only an atom's width between them. there was an observable attraction between the two with no explainable force behind it. he theorized that in a vacuum, particles were constantly coming into existence and immediately disappearing, not long enough to disobey conservation, but there nonetheless.

.... it was something like putting two metal plates together with only an atom's width between them. there was an observable attraction between the two with no explainable force behind it....You are referring to the Casimir effect. For very good and complete (276pages!) discusion of it - much more than you will every want to know, see:

arXiv:quant-ph/01060405v1

i think there would have to be something outside of our universe. either that or our universe has existed for eternity and will continue to do so. but there is much evidence for a big bang start to the universe which would neccessitate an outside which causes this big bang.

also, a sphere seems to best describe what our universe could 'look like'.
Universe is a concept which is beyond the capacity of human beings to comprehend. Science is also incapable of comprehending it and it can hardly be described by shapes.

Everything physical has a beginning and an end. Everything physical originated somehwere in time and will end somewhere in time. Universe seems to be beyond that.

Perhaps, though I am not sure, spirituality has some insights.

Universe is a concept which is beyond the capacity of human beings to comprehend. Science is also incapable of comprehending it and it can hardly be described by shapes.

Everything physical has a beginning and an end. Everything physical originated somehwere in time and will end somewhere in time. Universe seems to be beyond that.

Perhaps, though I am not sure, spirituality has some insights.
what else does your crystal ball say?

ok, the reason i was speaking thus is largely due to the fact that i've read/seen a lot of scientists or scientific articles talking about what could be outside our universe, or if there are other universes. M-theory and multiverses posit that our universe is not all that exists. that is how universe, to me, became just what is in our universe. which is hard to explain because it doesn't seem to define boundries. so i guess it would be better to just say everything that exists is the universe. but i think we'd need another word for our local universe.

OK, we've hit common ground, hoorah. Yes, M-Theory, and there being 11 dimensions, and our Universe is part of that space in 11 dimensions, but there could be more Universes out there, with different physical conditions. Well, it takes some believing that one, over a 'big bounce' model, I have to say. My real issue with it is influence and detection. If we cannot detect another Universe, and it doesn't affect us, does it really exist, or is it just a postulation?


if there were a noticable difference, or some kind of boundry that could be observed, yet there was obviously stuff on the other side, would you opt for a new definition of universe, or a new word to describe what we've been calling the universe?

Good question, but to me, it's like finding a secret compartment in your wallet. You've found more space than you might have thought there was, but you still only have one wallet. My question about any boundary that defines a Universe, is can we affect or interact with the other side at all? Cross the boundary somehow? Do any forces exist that can cross the boundary (I think you mentioned gravity, as a contender). I think we only have a new Universe, if we have a soft boundary. IE, some difference of dimension, but something common, that allows some interaction.


i know that anisotropy is the difference in temperatures due to the CMB, and that the CMB is radiation predicted to have spread out from the big bang, but thats about as far as my knowledge in that area goes.

Yep, that's exactly it, the big question being if the Universe started out as a single point of infinite density, and expanded into a void, why was that expansion not completely symmetrical and uniform? IE, why didn't it expand as as a sphere (or whatever the corresponding 11 dimensional geometric form is!), and just rarify? What caused clumps to form, and for energy to settle into matter, and for that matter to not be exactly evenly placed? That's even more interesting than the big bang, really, because a big bang doesn't get us far, if it turns into a big crunch too quickly.


i think there would be some way of detecting them. for one, i've heard of the problem of gravity being the weakest of the fundamental forces, and that m-theory predicts this is because [gravitrons] are able to escape our universe. if this is true, or if something like it is true in some other way (maybe not with gravity) then we could possibly be able to detect outside of our universe. also, i know that an endless universe would neccessitate an outside to our universe. my thoughts are that there is always an outside, infinitely.

An even bigger headfuck! But, yes, I'd accept that there were other Universes, if we could interact with them through a subset of the forces we experience. The idea that there are 'bubbles' with other physical rules is quite intriguing.


i know the universe has a finite age, or that it appears to. i agree that it does. what i mean is that there must have been something before the big bang, and there must have been time before the big bang. this would be something like another universe outside, or perhaps something completely different than anything in our universe, but it would have to be something.

Time before? Difficult to imagine there not being, but what actually is time? Separation of events? Cause preceding effect? If there is no matter, and no energy, no cause and effect, is there time? Is time just a measure of entropy? If so, them time was born along with space during the big bang. if the 'Big Crunch' model were true, then, yes there was time before the big bang, in another Universe. It's like the time being 00:00:00 at the big bang. There was yesterday, the old Universe, and today, 00:00:01+ but 00:00:00 is midnight, the cusp, the big bang. we just don't know how long the days are!


very cool stuff. i've read about the appearance and immediate disappearance of particles in a vaccuum. i forget the guy who discovered it, but it was something like putting two metal plates together with only an atom's width between them. there was an observable attraction between the two with no explainable force behind it. he theorized that in a vacuum, particles were constantly coming into existence and immediately disappearing, not long enough to disobey conservation, but there nonetheless.

Yes, as someone said, the Casimir effect, which I'm just going to brush up on, and get back to you for more discussion. But a quick thought here, if a photon or particle could have popped into existance in a true void, ie, been the start on the big bang, what do you think should have happened to it?

phlogistician, you may be interested in the following link. If extra dimensions exist, the
physicists working with particle accelerators believe they can detect them when the new LHC collider goes online. An excerpt and link:

"Theorizing that black holes decay into a wide array of particles, Landsberg believes the manufactured black holes will "light up a detector like a Christmas tree." This, he says, will provide scientists with their long-sought smoking gun. And properties of Hawking radiation may tell physicists something about the shape of extra-spatial dimensions. By measuring the energy needed to make black holes and the energy of Hawking radiation, scientists will be able to determine how many extra dimensions there are and how tightly they are folded up, according to Landsberg.

With laboratory-produced black holes, physicists will be able to test not only the theories of gravity and extra dimensions, but also the "information paradox." Although scientists have long held that information can never disappear, some wonder whether information dropped into a black hole would in fact be erased when the hole eventually disintegrates. Others, however, believe that the information is still there and is imprinted on the Hawking radiation released from the hole."
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ10a.html

Here's something I've always been a bit shady about in my understanding of General Relativity:

A black hole is surrounded with what is known as an "event horizon." Within that boundary, virtually nothing — not even light — can escape. If you were to fall into a black hole, the gravitational pull would be so great you would reach its core within seconds. Because light can’t escape, we are unable to see a black hole, but scientists do think they’ve seen surrounding matter falling into what they believe is one.

(emphasis added by me)
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ10a.html

Because of time dilation, from the perspective of someone outside the black hole, you would never pass the event horizon, right? So when they say this, then mean from your perspective (you being the person who jumped into the black hole... for whatever reason), whereas to everyone else it would be an infinite amount of time?

Another question: what do physicists mean by how tightly dimensions are 'folded up'?

I think it will take us some 1000 years to prove or disprove the existance of multiverse,
like it was with 2500 years and the atomic theory put forward by the ancient Greeks.

I see no reasons why it couldn't exist, the cosmologic constant invites us to the possibility that it indeed very well could, i.e., it's too precise to be just chance, but it could be if there was more than one universe - favourably an infinite number of them in the multiverse space.

At our present knowledge and technological development no camp can claim to know the objective truth in this, so no need to attack each other ;)
Let's better work together at finding it out for sure, just like with the atom.

the cosmologic constant invites us to the possibility that it indeed very well could, i.e., it's too precise to be just chance

Well, if the cosmological constants were any different, we wouldn't be around analysing them would we? Hm... I can't really express what I'm trying to say here... We are only here because they are what they are, so to exclaim at the chance of that is meaningless, because we have no idea what didn't exist because they were different.

Nope, that's still pretty crappy! Anyone catch my drift?

That's not reasonable to assume that it's just our luck to have such a universe, because it's (the cosmological constant) precise and "tuned" to 120 decimal places. That's one in trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, or the universe would be so different that we wouldn't exist. I think it's too much to give for just luck.
But if there are many universes and each can have different values for the laws of physics then we're out of the dead end.

Obviously this universe is perfect for us because we are a product of this universe. There is no luck involved.

That's not reasonable to assume that it's just our luck to have such a universe, because it's (the cosmological constant) precise and "tuned" to 120 decimal places. That's one in trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, or the universe would be so different that we wouldn't exist. I think it's too much to give for just luck.
But if there are many universes and each can have different values for the laws of physics then we're out of the dead end.

Sorry, my explanation was inadequate. I'm not putting it down to luck.

Obviously this universe is perfect for us because we are a product of this universe. There is no luck involved.
I get your point and have been thinking about the same thing in the past too. Still am.

But the precision of the constant is quite intriguing, i.e., why is it such and not different, why does it have to be so finely "tuned".
Yes, we are that we are because the universe is like it is, but it doesn't answer the question - why does it exist, and why it is such and no different.

I get your point and have been thinking about the same thing in the past too. Still am.

But the precision of the constant is quite intriguing, i.e., why is it such and not different, why does it have to be so finely "tuned".
Yes, we are that we are because the universe is like it is, but it doesn't answer the question - why does it exist, and why it is such and no different.
From what i have gleaned of your worldview, i reckon your struggle with this is due to you not having insight matter/energy/Nature/Universe is sentient/intelligent

Who said that I struggle? There simply are questions that need to be answered through using the scientific method in order to get the most objective answers. Just like any other question about nature out there.
And I have no problems if the questions remain unanswered, love mysteries.

But I refuse to try to answer scientific questions with subjective visions, "divinie" insights through intoxication, religious dogma or any other means that invent the supposed reality.
There is no reason for the universe to be intelligent, even if you imagine there is.

I don't quite get it. Are you saying that all matter is sentient? Like, a rock - a plain old rock sitting on the ground somewhere - can think?

Not quite, but all matter including conciousness is made of energy. Newtonian physics viewed the universe as mechanics and logic, but modern physics postulates its made of energy and its dimensions. And at a certain energy level and dimension you arrive at conciousness.

Don't mind him (duendy), you'd be better off discussing this at the religion section of this forum, he has no objective proof.
Or you can read the thread about Consciousness in the Philosophy section of this forum to see what he thinks.

devils_reject, that is so and I strongly agree - we are a part of this universe, we are this universe, therefore it is conscious, we are the eyes and the ears of the universe. Same goes for all life.

But(!) it was not conscious during the big bang when supposedly the values for the laws of physics came into being, i.e., life has had no contribution in it, because there was no life in the begining, just hydrogen and helium in a gas state.

Not quite, but all matter including conciousness is made of energy.
Consciousness is not made of matter, it's the manifestation of the interaction of the matter and energy - biochemical and electrical processes.
Consciousness is a process where new information is evalued against data already stored.
Our consciousness is not a physical part of this universe.
What we are is this universe, and we are the matter and energy. Our ego and personality in a physical sense doesn't even exist, it's a process.
We are the eyes of this universe, because our eyes are a part of this universe,
but our consciousness is not even if it is a consciousness of the universe if looking at it from the universal energy point of view.

Who said that I struggle?

me)it is term meaning 'not undrstand'. didyou ornot say you dont understand why the universe is way it is?

There simply are questions that need to be answered through using the scientific method in order to get the most objective answers.

me)))))))is scientific method limited in this domain?

just like any other question about nature out there.

me)))THE AROGANCE OF YOU MATERIALISTS

And I have no problems if the questions remain unanswered, love mysteries.

me)))))dont believew you>

But I refuse to try to answer scientific questions with subjective visions, "divinie" insights through intoxication, religious dogma or any other means that invent the supposed reality.
There is no reason for the universe to be intelligent, even if you imagine there is.
so explain then why it s, and how comews you seem to know so much about stuf you dont knowabout???

But I know about it. Objective proof, science, a little me standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.

And I laugh at your disbelief at me stating my subjective stance about what I love and what I don't, as if it mattered!! :D
Or maybe you think you have analysed my psyche more than I have mine?

But I know about it. Objective proof, science, a little me standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.

Me))))YET STILL don' dig why universe is like it is right?

And I laugh at your disbelief at me stating my subjective stance about what I love and what I don't, as if it mattered!! :D

me))))of course it matters! these are very important questions

Or maybe you think you have analysed my psyche more than I have mine?

me))))no. YUR the clever dik who thinks yu know MINE. upstart

YET STILL don' dig why universe is like it is right?
Yes, and nobody on this planet does, or at least - nobody has scientifically proved that he or she does.
We don't even fully know what the universe is like, so much more for "why", although in the last two decades tremendous progress has been made.
The hunt for the unifying theory in physics... dream of many scientists.
And the journey is at its' beginning rather than end.

Or maybe you claim to know why there is gravity?
Or maybe you know what is beyond the event horizon of a black hole?
Ever seen a singularity? Does it even exist? How did proto-life first appear?
Is our universe a simulation in a computer? Is there more than one universe?
You know this all and much more? You have proof?

me))))no. YUR the clever dik who thinks yu know MINE. upstart
For all my intents and purposes in this forum I'd say that I know enough. You have quite amusing thinking process / patterns, although nothing very unique or unmet.

Yes, and nobody on this planet does, or at least - nobody has scientifically proved that he or she does.
We don't even fully know what the universe is like, so much more for "why", although in the last two decades tremendous progress has been made.
The hunt for the unifying theory in physics... dream of many scientists.
And the journey is at its' beginning rather than end.

me)))))but what is the CRTERIA of all that endeavour. it is complete radical turn around we need---other species, planet---needs. not ore ofsame apporach of acumulating OBJECTIVE knowledge

Or maybe you claim to know why there is gravity?
Or maybe you know what is beyond the event horizon of a black hole?
Ever seen a singularity? Does it even exist? How did proto-life first appear?
Is our universe a simulation in a computer? Is there more than one universe?
You know this all and much more? You have proof?
yes...all realy interesting questions. but how does asking al that deeply afect you me? get me?...IFyou ask/PRESUME from a materilistic assumption>
ie>< why aren@t you QUESTIONING THE QUESTIONER ??

For all my intents and purposes in this forum I'd say that I know enough. You have quite amusing thinking process / patterns, although nothing very unique or unmet.
what is unique? what's your favourite sientific dis-cover-y

why aren@t you QUESTIONING THE QUESTIONER ??
Because the questioner doesn't have all the data it needs to answer these questions.
You may and will claim that it has.
But most of our discoveries are based on technology already designed and facts we have found out.
No one in the recorded history has even imagined that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate
and only since we have had the technical ability to detect that that knowledge appeared, and not from thin air, but by using science.
what's your favourite sientific dis-cover-y
Archetypes of the human unconsciousness.
Here really is the case of questioning the questioner.
Also the expansion of the universe at an accelerating rate. Something totally unexpected, surprising and fascinating.

What!? The universe is a SPEAR!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!? :confused: :eek: :bugeye:

Yaba Daba!

Because the questioner doesn't have all the data it needs to answer these questions.
You may and will claim that it has.

me))i meant exporing the myth of the questioner. any unxamined premises

But most of our discoveries are based on technology already designed and facts we have found out.

me)))YIP> I@M aware of all the technology

No one in the recorded history has even imagined that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate
and only since we have had the technical ability to detect that that knowledge appeared, and not from thin air, but by using science.

me)))))the Hindu myth as a motif of an xpanding and inhaling universe too

Archetypes of the human unconsciousness.
Here really is the case of questioning the questioner.
Also the expansion of the universe at an accelerating rate. Something totally unexpected, surprising and fascinating.
but we hve to find a COMMON GROUND

No, we don't, I think science is doing fairly good without your contribution, duendy.

I think it all depends on how you look at the universe. I agree with your definitions on conciousness Avatar, however its still made of matter because energy and its dimensions are configurations of matter. I think the universe is like mathematics; in the sense that you can look at mathematics as units of expressions or expressions of units. Keeping in mind that expressions are emotions, and that everything has its own unique range, my guess is that the latter viewpoint is a utilitarian momentary factor while the former is the true nature of the universe-emotions to humans, energy to physics. All this true if atoms are made of energy levels and its indeed true that all matter is made of 90% empty space according to modern physics.

No, we don't, I think science is doing fairly good without your contribution, duendy.
Yes! Science is answering all our questions. 98% of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy. We have absolutely no idea what this stuff is.

...errr...
Somehow I think my logic wasn't correct here...
Maybe science could help me? :confused:

:bugeye:

:eek:

Yes! Science is answering all our questions. 98% of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy. We have absolutely no idea what this stuff is.

...errr...
Somehow I think my logic wasn't correct here...
Maybe science could help me? :confused:

:bugeye:

:eek:

Yes. All the formulas and numbers of science prove that, just to start with, half of the universe is missing, the anti-matter half.
And then the formulas go on to prove that at least 9/10's of the remaining half of the universe is also missing (this dark matter) that then leaves only about 1/20th of the universe to be real, somehow.

Physics give us one impossibility on top of limitless others: UNLESS -- it is all just thoughts, the mind.
THEN and ONLY THEN – far beyond our wildest dreams: everything falls into perfect place.

What!? The universe is a SPEAR!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!? :confused: :eek: :bugeye:

Yaba Daba!

Maybe he meant his Universe has gone PEAR shaped?

Yes! Science is answering all our questions.
Would you prefer all your questions answered, but all the answers to be false.
Or do you prefer some of your questions answered, but with a lot higher chance of being not false?

If you prefer one, press religion,
if you choose two, press science.
Connecting...

A lot of people prefer to be given a little book where all the questions are answered, they do not care if the answers are correct or not, are made out of thin air and wishful thinking or not.

Would you prefer all your questions answered, but all the answers to be false.
Or do you prefer some of your questions answered, but with a lot higher chance of being not false?

If you prefer one, press religion,
if you choose two, press science.
Connecting...

A lot of people prefer to be given a little book where all the questions are answered, they do not care if the answers are correct or not, are made out of thin air and wishful thinking or not.
but you miss a vital point monseur a'vataaar....science as you knows it misses the VITA question out of their equations.......CONSCIOUSNESS. and the polar bears are drowning

I miss nothing, consciousness is researched inter alia by neurology, psychoanalysis, psychology

I miss nothing, consciousness is researched inter alia by neurology, psychoanalysis, psychology
....whih as said is struggling with the 'Hard Problem' of subjective consciousness

all ironically amusing but also deadly serious to, for planet, other species, and us. for it was with the energence. The irony is that with te beginnings of Galilean acience it was agreed between church and science that the latter would leave 'spiritual' concerns out of te scientific agenda. then scientists even dispense with the church's misunderstanding of 'spirit'....and voila we are right

H E R E

I LOVE senseless conversations between science and religion.........

I LOVE senseless conversations between science and religion.........
the are not 'senseless conversations'. the 'hard problem' isn't 'religion'. it is a grappling with the question of 'what IS consciousness?'!

That question has been generally answered, even if you imagine it's not. See the discussion about consciousness at the philosophy section of this forum.

That question has been generally answered, even if you imagine it's not. See the discussion about consciousness at the philosophy section of this forum.
summarize it here

Why should I? Read your own thread. There is no need to repeat here what has already been said there.

Why should I? Read your own thread. There is no need to repeat here what has already been said there.
cause you dont know hey avatar...??????

No, because I've already answered. But you didn't listen.
But hey, that's your own problem, no?!

No, because I've already answered. But you didn't listen.
But hey, that's your own problem, no?!
look Avatar yus just being silly

if someone asked me to summarize a VITAL point like---errrrONLY having THE answer to THE Hard Problem, i would not shirk from a doin so. i wouldn't decadently point to some other fukin thread whilst doin my nails...!

That's right, I am not you. Happy reading!
ciao

That's right, I am not you. Happy reading!
ciao
YOu generationX's CHILE you

the are not 'senseless conversations'. the 'hard problem' isn't 'religion'. it is a grappling with the question of 'what IS consciousness?'!
That's not the point. The point is that you are talking about something which is untangible and neither science nor religion can find any evidence in favour of the concept of consciusness besides the mere fact that we can perceive it within ourselves... :m:

Simplifying it: it's a pointless discussion.

YOu generationX's CHILE you
eh?

Read the thread about consciousness, TS, it's interesting.
Counsciousness is not really so ungraspable as you and duendy claim.

Do you have a link?

No, but I can find.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49897

Is electricity physical?
If consciousness is made of electricity, how come we don't die from it?

....:p

It is not made of......
:rolleyes: blah!

It is made of what?

If you look close enough, everything is made of nothing.

Energy is everywhere, even in "empty" space. Everything that exists in this universe (i.e., the universe itself!) is made of energy.
But consciousness is not, we only imagine it exists. It's just a process we've given a name, like throwing, but no throwing exists, only the thing (mass) that is being thrown, the speed at which it flies and the space through which the thing flies. You can derive E=mc^2 from this. But there is no "P" in "mc^2"

Oh. So you are trying to find evidence for something which is not tangible. I didn't know you were into religion, Avatar....

If you look close enough, everything is made of nothing.
*munching...*
My double cheeseburger with 1,000 grams of pure lard is made of nothing?

Well, tell that to an anorexic person!!

*picks up bags of chips*

Energy is everywhere, even in "empty" space. Everything that exists in this universe (i.e., the universe itself!) is made of energy.
But consciousness is not, we only imagine it exists. It's just a process we've given a name, like throwing, but no throwing exists, only the thing (mass) that is being thrown, the speed at which it flies and the space through which the thing flies. You can derive E=mc^2 from this. But there is no "P" in "mc^2"
exactly, you are IMAGINING. now how can consciousless matter/energy happen that begins to imagine is the question?

you aint answered it

Oh. So you are trying to find evidence for something which is not tangible. I didn't know you were into religion, Avatar....
Ha! You just lack the ability to grasp abstract concepts.
It has nothing to do with religion.
And I'm not trying to find evidence for consciousness, because physically it doesn't exist, there exists an activity which we call consciousness.

Ha! You just lack the ability to grasp abstract concepts.
It has nothing to do with religion.
And I'm not trying to find evidence for consciousness, because physically it doesn't exist, there exists an activity which we call consciousness.

heyyyy avatar, i agree wid u. ......get the flags ou. but only to where you say:
consciousness doesn't exist physically. no it doesn't. it is not made of energy, electrical, etc. it is not measureable, for you know that we can only measure what is physica dont you

it IS how matter-energy FEELS tho

It's an interaction of physical things. It is not something seperate from them, if that's what you mean. Change in the physical structure = change in the consciousness.
We don't have to measure "consciousness", we can observe the process, we can detect the electrical signals, we can look at the synaptic connections.

It's an interaction of physical things. It is not something seperate from them, if that's what you mean.

me)))that assumption cant explain the phenomena of NDE where subject/consciousness feels 'separate' from physical body, even when latter is flat-lined

Change in the physical structure = change in the consciousness.

me))alright. say near death is a change of consciousness in that brain is seemingly dead and consciousness feels apart from body....?

We don't have to measure "consciousness", we can observe the process, we can detect the electrical signals, we can look at the synaptic connections.

but isn't that sneaky way of beliving you AREmeasuring it by assuming it lies in connections between physical events?

Any feeling is subjective, it doesn't mean anything.
An activity can be detected.

I won't continue on this, think what you wish, everything that needs to be said has been said in the beforementioned thread, anything else is your own capacity to make sense of that information.

We do not know what consciousness is. We do not know how it arose. We do not know to what extent other animals are conscious. We do not know to what extent other persons are conscious.
You cannot lightly dismiss it as almost an incidental, because we can observe the process. We do not observe the process of consciousness. We observe activities that appear to be related to the process, but the cause/effect relationship is not clear in many cases.
Well, of course, you can dismiss al of this, and have done so. But then, you are just responding in a determined, mechanistic manner to stimuli, while suffering the illusion of free will and the impression that you are conscious.

We do not know how it arose.
But we have a pretty good guess.
We do not know to what extent other animals are conscious
To the best of their physical capacity.
We do not know to what extent other persons are conscious.
Ha! To what extent are you conscious? Can we even apply the word?
We observe activities that appear to be related to the process, but the cause/effect relationship is not clear in many cases.
That still doesn't give us clearance for inventing metaphysical explanations.
But then, you are just responding in a determined, mechanistic manner to stimuli, while suffering the illusion of free will and the impression that you are conscious.
Of course, indeed I am. I wouldn't call it suffering though.
Enjoying the ride.

*munching...*
My double cheeseburger with 1,000 grams of pure lard is made of nothing?

Well, tell that to an anorexic person!!

You didn't look close enough. The hamburger is made of atoms, and atoms are made of smaller particles. All the way to infinity, to nothingness.

You need to learn physics more.

The universe is not physical, so physics is not the right science for reality.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :D :D

From ignorance stupidity arises.

That still doesn't give us clearance for inventing metaphysical explanations.
.
You need to learn metaphysics more.

Avatar, I am God. Tell me: if the universe is physical, what is it made of?

Your breath, oh mighty one.


It is truly very powerful.

Tell me: if the universe is physical, what is it made of?
Why, energy of course.

Why, energy of course.
...AND consciousness is how that energy that makes the universe feels

wonder if you'll ever click hun....?

wonder if you'll ever click hun....?Is Avatar German?
:cool:

consciousness is how that energy that makes the universe feels
Of course.
I wouldn't use the word "makes" though, I'd use "lets".

avatar: your definition of consciousness is bang on!

The universe is a term given to encompass everything. It is infinite and finite at the same time (at least from our prospective).

If you could freeze frame the universe so to speak, yes it would be a sphere. There would of course be local invariants but the average would be a sphere. This is all assuming that the big bang is correct; which most people would agree it is. That being said there is no center point. So as far as we can tell it would go on forever in all directions.

So as far as we can tell it would go on forever in all directions.
But the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In what does it expand then? Or do you think there is no need for that extra space in which to expand?

I like the multiverse assumption, it's very ellegant and fits in different theories as a nice possible addition. Of course, it's still just an assumption. A bit like the atomic theory 2500 years ago.

Of course.
I wouldn't use the word "makes" though, I'd use "lets".
your agreeing with now has me worried....DO we mean the same...?.......if you are then you are now a wild panpsychist...!

pan·psy·chism Pronunciation (pn-skzm)
n.
The view that all matter has consciousness.
Don't be silly, a rock isn't conscious.
And besides consciousness doesn't arise from matter only, electricity, for example, isn't matter.
Energy can be conscious, that's what we physically are, a part of the universe that is conscious.

[quote]pan·psy·chism Pronunciation (pn-skzm)
n.
The view that all matter has consciousness.[/qupte]
Don't be silly, a rock isn't conscious.

me)))))))knew u hadn't clicked

And besides consciousness doesn't arise from matter only, electricity, for example, isn't matter.

me)))i never said consciousness DID arise, you did. that is thematerialistic view. that complex matter produces consciousness. and we are asking, how can consciousless matter/energy porduce consciousness including of course subjective consciousness. tis is thehard problem, for those whove forgot

Energy can be conscious, that's what we physically are, a part of the universe that is conscious.

so you say energy can be conscious, but you dont include rock-energy......and/or musical notes energy, etc

Of course. A rock doesn't have any means to perceive the environment, including itself.

Avatar, if the universe is made of energy, what is energy made of?

Of course. A rock doesn't have any means to perceive the environment, including itself.

Still it radiates positive and negative energy and holds itself together. That is a sign of consciousness.

[so you say energy can be conscious, but you dont include rock-energyRocks are conscious, but for the most part should be ignored, as they are generally Republicans (apart from a few ultrabasic igneous rocks, and a sillaminite schist, just outside Oban, which voted Conservative at the last election. It may stand at the next election where it hopes to get into Parliament on a landslide.)

c7ityi_, you need to study physics more.

I like the multiverse assumption, it's very ellegant and fits in different theories as a nice possible addition.

Except that, like the Big bang theory, it doesn't explain where universe came from and why.

Ignorant moron ignorelisted.
I really have better things to do than waste my time on you if you even haven't bothered to check out recent theories and assumptions in physics.

But the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In what does it expand then? Or do you think there is no need for that extra space in which to expand?

I like the multiverse assumption, it's very ellegant and fits in different theories as a nice possible addition. Of course, it's still just an assumption. A bit like the atomic theory 2500 years ago.


I know what your saying, but your confusing terms. The universe is everything. <----period

You can't expand the universe into something.

The reason the universe is infinite has to due with the speed of light and not being able to pass it. So where ever you look, and how ever fast your moving, its always farther and farther away...hence the infinite part.

Rocks are conscious, but for the most part should be ignored, as they are generally Republicans (apart from a few ultrabasic igneous rocks, and a sillaminite schist, just outside Oban, which voted Conservative at the last election. It may stand at the next election where it hopes to get into Parliament on a landslide.)


:D I am a geology guy...this was pretty fucking funny

I know what your saying, but your confusing terms. The universe is everything. <----period
Then you have to propose a new term for the observable universe.
We don't know what's beyond the observable one, maybe nothing,
but we have no proof that the universe indeed is everything.
It would be fairly safe to say that the multiverse is everything if it exists.

You can't expand the universe into something.
Alas, it is expanding.

Thank you for the gneiss comment, Underwhelmed. I hoped someone other than myself would appreciate the post.

fine the "obserable universe" is expanding...anything outside of that is completely irrelevant because there is NO way of ever knowing if the observable universe is expanding into some. We are a part of the observable universe and thats it.

If your going to move this thread beyond that try the religion area... :rolleyes:

Thank you for the gneiss comment, Underwhelmed. I hoped someone other than myself would appreciate the post.

your effort was definitely noted! :D

because there is NO way of ever knowing if the observable universe is expanding into some.
At the current level of our technology indeed there isn't.
But I wouldn't go so far as to claim it isn't theoretically possible.
There are a lot of things we still don't know.

At the current level of our technology indeed there isn't.
But I wouldn't go so far as to claim it isn't theoretically possible.
There are a lot of things we still don't know.


c7ityi_, you need to study physics more.

:rolleyes: ;)

Of course. Or do you think we as humankind have knowledge of all the aspects of the nature?
c7ityi_'s problem is that she doesn't even want to know what we have found out.

I'm about to put a quote down that might actually help you...read it!!! and understand what its saying...

the best way of looking at the Universe is to think of the surface of a balloon. Right now the "balloon" is expanding (being blown up) so the distance between any two points on the balloon is increasing. However, there is no edge to the surface of the balloon. This is where cosmologists (people who study the physical nature and evolution of the Universe) and relativists (people who study Einstein's general theory of relativity) talk about a curved space-time continuum

any more problems? :)

I have no problems. I know of the baloon demonstration, it has been mentioned in many books.
That doesn't exclude the theoretical possibility of a multiverse.

I have no problems. I know of the baloon demonstration, it has been mentioned in many books.
That doesn't exclude the theoretical possibility of a multiverse.

the why did you bring up the whole "out side" the universe BS... :rolleyes:

As I've mentioned before (at the start of my entrance in this discussion) it's not bs, I've also mentioned the reasons why.

And this is my exit from this discussion, because most of you here are constantly unaware of previously mentioned arguments and only whine to restate everything again and again. I'm off to party in the old city.
ciao

As I've mentioned before (at the start of my entrance in this discussion) it's not bs, I've also mentioned the reasons why.


I just scanned over your posts...I find nothing that explains multiple universes

bye

Not explains, introduces the possibility.
bye

:p nor reasons why...

Ignorant moron ignorelisted.
I really have better things to do than waste my time on you if you even haven't bothered to check out recent theories and assumptions in physics.
I have already checked them and they made me laugh. You're not just ignorant, you're a coward too!

I have already checked them and they made me laugh. You're not just ignorant, you're a coward too!
I hate you.

i know,,,,,,he's a pompous prat wid his nose up in the air...someone like this youuung buoy will NEVER deeply learn with that arrogant attitude he shows to people....
Einstein wouldn't invite him IN..!

hint anyhow:....we dont understand universe =:= we dont understand consciousness

sorry i wasnt aware you were god,


how on earth do you know what you just claimed to know? want to back that up with some evidence there chappy?.



peace.

he is not god only less stupid than you
and that is only because I am more stupid than U -- and it will take a hell of a lot of stupidity before you will understand just how stupid I really am to be not only god but also heaven.