does the univerce have an end, a limit?

.

i didnt said it's a ball, i just gave an example,
anyway, it seems reasnebal with your thinking, but not totally reaseneball,
so, we can all be right, after all, we only know 3percent of this entire existence,
3percent, of the kind of existence is what we know, wich it's matter, and black matter, and anti matter,
and there still more we don't know, and we cant even imagine, so, eveything can be true,
right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was only referring to one of your descriptions. I thought you might like an alternate way to look at the universe.

No, I don't think everything can be true. I think anything can be true ... within the bounds of known physics ... in an infinite number of universes like our local universe.

Metaphysical philosophies, including alternate dimensions have been around for thousands of years. God, and heaven are two prime examples.

In recent history, science fiction clarified, popularized, and even legitimized the concept of alternate dimensions among the non-religious.

Then mainstream science weighed in.

Unable to think up a reasonable, rational, logical solution for the observations contradicting GR, and accepted physics, science ressurrected *magic* as a reasonable, and valid line of research.

Scientific research has taken a serious left turn ... away from it's rigorous and unyielding methodology ... in the last 50 years. Until that time theories required falsification, or they were 'worthless' ( in the words of scientists ).

I believe Paul Davies wrote "It Can't Even Be Wrong" to point out the seriousness of science's detour from reality. They are responsible for today's new 'religion'. The belief in ST/SST/M-theory.

In a truly infinite universe, with an infinite number of local universes all operating under the same laws and properties of space/time/matter/energy, and all unfathomable distances from each other, there will be ... by definition ... every possible combination of events and occurrences.

Whatever can exist will exist in this infinite universe ... as long as it doesn't 'break the law'.

After decades of serious research ... with the sharpest mathematical minds working on it ... with the incredible array of technological tools at our disposal ... there is still absolutely NO evidence that alternate dimensions exist anywhere outside of our imaginations.

They are purely mathematical constructs with very real, and it appears, insurmountable problems.

I think we need to go back to GR, and accepted physics, if we are ever going to unravel the mysteries of our universe ... both our local one, and the infinite one beyond.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(edit)

It is interesting to note that for the last 100 plus years, 'science' has maintained the possibility that 'just beyond our view' things could be very different.

They provided 'evidence' for this with chaos theory, and later the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics.

50 years ago I read everything I could about our universe. The message to the masses was clear. "We currently have a very limited view of the cosmos. It is possible that other areas of our universe operate under entirely different, and unknown physics."

At the time, we 'knew' there were a few thousand galaxies beyond our own. We 'knew' that the Milky Way consisted of around 250 million to maybe 2 billion stars tops. Other structures in the universe were of too murky a nature to make any definitive guesses about them.

By leaps and bounds, our view of the cosmos has expanded in this last 50 years. Yet wherever we looked ... these magical, mystical possibilities failed to materialize. The universe was the same everywhere we looked. And remains so everywhere we are looking now. The same laws of physics apply universally ... or so our observations tell us.

Yet the mantra that "Anything is possible just beyond our field of vision" has not changed.

You would think by now, that the scientists would have gotten the message. Not the case apparently. Even though we can now 'see' that our MW galaxy has at least 300 billion stars, and the visible universe has hundreds of billions of galaxies ... and we can view our local universe 13 billion years into the past ... and nothing has contradicted GR in the macro universe, science still insists that "Anything is possible". And they have added ST/SST/M-theory to the chaos theory and the uncertainty principle to bolster their case.

I would not deny either chaos theory, or the uncertainty principle. They are well-documented. However, I think it is rather obvious that those same concepts will always end up with the same general result: The universe as we see it.

To think otherwise is totally irrational in the face of overwhelming evidence. It was no less irrational 50 years ago ( or even 20 years ago ) to claim the mathematical possibility that our star, and our star alone, could be the only one in the entire universe that had/has planets.

... Out of quadrillions of stars ( 50 years ago ) and septillions of stars ( 20 years ago ).

Anyone have any suggestions on how we can convince the scientific community to return to rational thought processes, using logic, and deductive reasoning to assess the observational evidence? They seem little inclined to get there on their own ....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.

here's my other topics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=4303034

 

My opinion is that the universe is infinite in depth (hair to atom to quark) and infinite in the normal sense (light years.. length?). Don't know what to call it.

 

Well, there is a great deal of evidence to support the 2nd half of your opinion. To date there is zero evidence to support the 1st half.

Infinitely small is a mathematical construct. It does not seem to be a rational, or logical construct, however.

There are a few good reasons why infinitely small can not exist. The most important one, is that ( logically ) it is a one-way trip. A black hole could swallow every atom of matter/energy in the universe, and it would be lost forever on an endless journey into the 'ever smaller'.

The very fact that black holes exist should be sufficient evidence that infinitely small can't happen. How can a black hole exist if everything that fell into it disappeared from our universe? If all that matter/energy disappeared from our universe, then the black hole would have to disappear, too.

There would be no gravity left behind, because gravity requires mass. But clearly, the gravity is there. Therefore, so is the mass.

Another issue : We already know that space itself can exceed c. We have a great deal of evidence supporting this. So it is logical to assume that this one-way trip of mass from our universe would not have a 'limit' to it's rate of acceleration.

Meaning, that the rate of collapse of mass would continue to accelerate unchecked. There would be no constraints to the rate of acceleration and therefore the rate of collapse would in itself be infinite.

And this infinitely small construct creates yet another 'impossible' paradox.

If the mass is lost forever from our universe, where does new matter spring from? Other dimensions that have an eternal supply of excess matter/energy which conveniently dump that matter/energy into our 3 dimensional, physical universe?

Some omnipotent being who magically produces matter at 'will'?

As I have said before, we need to get back to physics, and stop spending all our resources on trying to prove the existence of 'magic'.

 

the universe is infinite i suppose

 

I tend to think of the universe as a Yoyo, eventually it will reach a point where it will come to the end of its string and come back up, then it will start its Decent/expansion all over again. The laws will change and it will be a whole new universe.

It's my belief that it has happened infinatly, a never ending perpetual cycle. It's like recycling. And yes it is possible to have perpetual motion, go to the sub atomic scale and watch the electrons, they spin and spin and spin, with seemingly no driving force, if you know why the electrons move constantly with out energy imput, then tell me. And it is also possible to have that motion in larger scales, visble scales, you just need to know how to properly use the forces of physics that swirl around you every day.

 

If i am assuming right, T stands for time and 0 stands for the staring point of our current universe. But if we restrict ourselve to just T and 0, we find that our possiblities a stageringly small.



What if....




T= Ininity
Not so much as it goes on forever with no boundry, but as a constant cycle with no end? We may never know.

 

Good post Fraggle. Stunning how spatially limited our brains are, isn't it?

 

Though that was sarcasm, its true. Humanities still young and still learning, we'll find out alot more when we can start exploring the universe and see things first hand instead of observing from a small planet.

 

No.

 

Actually, I was not being sarcastic. Very few human minds can look beyond their own little slice of the world, let alone begin to contemplate the reaches of the universe ... other than the fake one of movies.

Sadly, we will never be able to actually explore the universe first-hand. We will always be limited to our detection of photons. And we will always view the universe from our little planet.

Unless magic really exists. It does not appear to be the case, though. We are limited bythe laws of physics, and the universe does not allow forms such as ours to physically explore it.

Yes, we have much to learn ... but we are nearing the limits of technology.

 

Supposed to say all on this forum can truly see with their eyes and experience multiplication of reality even though they have both the answer and know what the question is, would you believe that there's something funny going on?

 

Perhaps I am obtuse. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

if you can see things for what they truely are you have a factor one.
If you cannot see anything for what it truely is, you cannot see at all.
you cannot see things for what they are if you don't have a factor one

the factor one is on the highest of dimensions. not even the imaginary is higher.
try to square the real and you get real likewhise.
That is why a singularity has formed in the vincinity.
and that black hole it's in must not explode.

 

It does have a beginning/end its called a DUETRONIC SPONSE IN A POOL OF DUALITY AT A TEMPERATURE OF ABSOLUTE ZERO KELVIN. A Sponse has no mass but gives off a temporal vacuum and generates an absolution reticle in absolute time which is a an on going recurring reaction that lasts 100 trillion years.

 

could you rephrase all that in ENGLISH please?

And maybe provide a little scientific evidence to back up whatever it is you are trying to say? In case you haven't noticed ... the universe IS real. A very real physical structure. There is zero evidence that anything of metaphysical nature, or whatever you choose to imagine has any actual bearing on the REAL universe.

Wow. You've decided black holes can't explode because of WHAT????

And please include your ACTUAL evidence of 'higher' dimensions .... other than the ones you imagine to exist.

Thanks.

 

.

lol, me either, i didnt understand anything from what he said,
xD
good point