does the univerce have an end, a limit?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Shadow1, Jan 1, 2010.

  1. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    I suppose if there weren't any higher dimensions you would all be gods and tell the lie that you ain't and would not eventualy get the real cordinate that sees things for what they were, hence there would be no god, and that indicates that you're missing the big point.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    okay, this topic, is nto talking about the existence of god, so, keep your opinion in the topics, that talk about those stuff,
    the topic here is not about teh existence of God,
    anyway, what's wrong with you? why are walkign into all my topics, and posting off-topic replyies, saying that God don't exists,
    are you ok? why are you always talkign about dimentions, i bet that you cant even give a defintion,
    also, don't you respect people's beleifs, just don't kare about what they think, you don't beleive in God, he beleive in God, and the other he don't, i do, they don't, they do,
    who kares!!!
    and pleaaaass! stay on topic
    thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    I believe in that there are many gods, by the way, If I'm infinite, the universe shouldn't have an end. Questions?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Yes. Just two. Seven billion people hold seven billion uniquely different 'beliefs' ... although many may share beliefs that are similar. But most certainly, no two people look at their particular religion in identical ways.

    Since logically all can not be correct, and the odds of one of you being correct are at minimum seven billion to one ( taking into account the physical evidence amassed to date, the odds are actually much higher that all of you are wrong ) ...

    1. What makes you think that your particular 'take' on gods is correct?

    2. How can your unproven, untestable, imaginary, unsupported by any evidence what-so-ever, irrational belief possibly provide any of us with a meaningful, or useful answer to the topic at hand?
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2010
  8. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    That, my friend, is because I'm eternal. Now you can become my apprentice, and I shall teach you what I know in your own ways of understanding.

    Because I can.
     
  9. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    become a flower.

    Now imagine that a black hole throws sands of reality on the world. It is not visible, nor is it provable and they said the black hole spoiled it. Why did they say it spoiled it? Because reality exists, and it dirted the world.

    So what is the purpose of sand? it makes things grow.
    So what is the purpose of reality? It makes things real.

    Now I reason: Here is reality, what is it made up of? All, and where is all? in the real. It is a dimension where all things can be. The real is a sand of the gods.

    I am real, and I am a sand, and I am good and I am a god.

    What is real, a sand that falls from the cliff of eternity, the black hole, sacrificed its life to become outside its mountain. It became nothing in order to break loose from it, but all things grow and things can change in size. Now I can grow from anything since I can become what I know and know what I become, I transmitt the outside into the inside of the real. Hence I grow.

    Eternity is plenty in the universe, most are inside black holes. That is why I answered like I did
     
  10. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160

    okay, stay away from my topics, you're making me nurvise

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    and i don't know what are you even talking about,
    you still want to talk about teh same thing, but you're just using words, that are used in teh univerce
    oh common! give me a brake, go make a topic by your own,
    gosh!!!
     
  11. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    .



    ya ghabyii
     
  12. Learned Hand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    361
    OK. On topic. If there is an end to the universe, then something else has to be after it. And so on. You just don't like hit a wall and go all Forrest Gump, turn around, and run to the other end of the universe and hit a wall, and then turn around, and then say, "I think I'm done now." But really, can you fall off the edge of the universe? If you can, then what do you fall into? Something else. I know some astrophysicists out there claim the universe is expanding, and they may be right. But spatially, its expanding into something all ready existing. IDK, just my common sense thoughts.
     
  13. Learned Hand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    361
    And if the universe is a circle, sphere, oval, etc., then what's outside of that circle/sphere/oval, ad infinitim?
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    We have to be a little more precise in our topology here. If by "the universe is a sphere" we mean that the universe is a three-dimensional object bounded by a spherical surface, then it does present the duality of inside/outside. We know what's on the inside of that surface (well maybe we think we do), so it's reasonable to ask what's outside.

    But if what we mean is that the universe is a spherical surface, then it is only two-dimensional. It doesn't include anything "inside" the surface because there's no such thing as "inside" or "outside." The surface is all that exists. Of course it is not a Euclidean surface: It's a Riemannian surface governed by Riemannian geometry. For example, there's no such thing as two "parallel" lines, because all lines eventually intersect; the sum of the angles of a triangle will always be greater than 180 degrees; etc.

    For millennia we assumed that the Earth's surface was Euclidean (a plane) because we couldn't see enough of it to notice the curvature. As soon as we developed enough mobility to see the curvature, it began looking like the surface of a sphere. Soon enough people began wondering what's inside and what's outside, because we could see things both above and below the surface. We could dig down below the surface and toss things up into the sky.

    Of course the universe has three dimensions (that we can perceive) so it's not a two-dimensional surface like a plane or the outside of a sphere, but both of those two-dimensional surfaces have three-dimensional analogs. Our conventional depiction of the universe is the three-dimensional analog of a plane: a Euclidean solid in which every line has one and only one parallel line through any selected point. One could call this model of the universe a hyperplane.

    I think what the people are saying when they suggest that the universe is a sphere or some other shape is that it might be a hyperspherical surface, and that the reason we can't establish this for sure is that we can't observe enough of it to detect its curvature. Perhaps a trillion years from now, or a quadrillion years or a quintillion years, when our Hubble volume has expanded and we can see further into the spacetime continuum, we will begin to detect that curvature and realize that the universe is not a hyperplane.

    But unlike the Greeks, we cannot see "above" or "below" the three-dimensional hypersurface upon which we live. We can't dig holes down into a four-dimensional solid or launch objects up into a four-dimensional sky. Our physical senses and all of our instruments can only "see" into three dimensions. If the universe is a hypersphere, then all we can say is that it is the hypersurface of a hypersphere, and does not include its hypervolume, nor anything external to that hypervolume. We have no way of knowing whether the question "what's outside the hypersphere" is valid, because it assumes a dimension for which we have no evidence. Space can exhibit all the properties of "curvature," without implying that there is anything "outside" of it.

    There are of course other non-Euclidean geometries. The shape of a saddle, extended to infinity in all directions, is a Lobachevskian surface. Through any selected point there are an infinite number of different lines that do not ever intersect a given line; the sum of the angles of a triangle will always be less than 180 degrees. The universe might be a hypersaddle. This is somewhat easier to imagine since there is no "inside" and "outside" to the shape, merely the "top" and the "bottom." Our curiosity can't help but be piqued by a Riemannian shape because logically it implies that it has an inside, so there might be something there. This is not true of a Lobachevskian shape.

    If the quintessential Riemannian surface is the sphere, then do not forsake the beloved donut, or torus shape. It has the interesting property that, like a sphere, you can set out walking "north" (to arbitrarily name a direction) and eventually come back to your starting point. But unlike a sphere, your wife can set out walking "east" and also come back to the starting point, without ever crossing your path until you complete your journeys and meet at the starting point. A hypertorus would be an interesting shape for the universe indeed.

    And don't get me started on the Klein's Bottle, the three-dimensional analog of the Möbius Strip. If you walk all the way around a Möbius Strip or a Klein's Bottle, halfway through your journey you will end up at your starting point, but standing on the other side of the surface, with your head pointing in the opposite direction.

    I can't speculate about the properties of a hyperklein bottle.
     
  15. Learned Hand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    361
    Fraggle Rocker -- You obviously know a lot more about geometry than me. In my simplistic view, what goes "up" in space will continue in that direction infinitely and its path could be calculated (though not infinitely) based on its mass and gravity effects of other known objects near its trajectory (which also contain mass). To say that the universe is one big three dimensional roller rink, or God forbid, a Mobius one, is difficult to conceive. To put it into geometric terms, to me the universe has infinite height, width, and depth. You're right, we perceive three, and only three dimensions. Everything we perceive in the universe is three dimensional. Even the thinnest line of graphite on paper is 3D. Thus, all squares actually have depth too. The only conceivable 2D "object" to me is a shadow, or conversely, light as it travels across a 3D plane.
     
  16. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    .

    maybe we are in the surface of space,
    maybe the space is infiny because on a 4D surface,
    or, maybe its not a ball, but a sphere, and we are inside it and on it, and it's infiny, and there's another layer on it, maybe, like, another layer, you cant go to, only with breakign the sound, or running a lot faster of the speed of light,
    i agree that it's infiny, and i agree that there's some else behindf it,
    also, maybe i'm wrong,
    and it's just infiny,
    after all, who are we to judge, we don't even know anything that can allow us to know the answer of this question,
    so, maybe, the other layers, are not like, other places, maybe like two places, or 4 places, at the same place,
    dimentions,
    but, how are the other dimentions
    also, if an ant was walking on a wall or something, and you were walking at the same place, you are not going to see the same, teh ant is going to see things huge, and you'll see things normal or small,
    so, the ant, is looking at her dimentions, and humans, are lookign at their dimentions
    but the dimentions i'm talking about,
    i mean,
    like existing two places at one
    and those places, can never be from the same kind of maters,
    for example, our dimentions, is from mater, well, at least some of it, that we know,
    anyway, so, the other dimetnions, and the other place, that exists in that same place, shouldn't be from mater,
    cause if it was from mater, then we can see, and then you can find it in this dimentions,
    also for another 3rd place at the same place, it should be, completly anotehr kind, of things, existent things, (i cant call it mater, cause i don't think it would be mater)
     
  17. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    assuming the universe had a beginning, it would be relative to time so therefore an end.

    even if it's expanding doesn't mean it will infinitely. i also think this universe is finite simply because it has definite physical properties and laws.
     
  18. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    well, maybe it have an end,
    but we could never never reach that end,
    first, the unvierce, is very very, and extremly large,
    and also, even how much we devoloped our technologies to move faster,
    he univerce will keep expanding,
    so, we cant reach it's end
     
  19. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    I can prove the first bit; the universe has an end in time. There is no time in a black hole, hence the end cannot come. This was proven by relativity, Questions? Answers?

    Well I get that if the volume of space equals it's time, then: F(V) = F(T)
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2010
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    You should not admit that in public!
    But you're precisely right: it is indeed a simplistic view. We have barely been able to understand macrocosmology based on the evidence we have available. There is no strong evidence to support the hypothesis that the universe is infinite. For all we know, we're like the people who lived before the Bronze Age, when no transportation technology existed that would allow them to see enough of the earth to doubt its flatness. You could spend your entire life traveling around Alaska, our biggest state, with a flat map, and never have reason to suspect it's wrong. Our Hubble Volume may be the cosmic equivalent of Alaska. Well maybe with a better governor.
    Then you need to read more science fiction!
    Yes, we all understand that this is the way it appears to you, but appearances can be deceiving. Just because a Euclidean universe is comfortable and familiar from your frame of reference, doesn't make it correct.
    Track down a copy of the old book Flatland. It describes the experience of encountering people who live in a two-dimensional universe and uses that perspective to teach the reader about the possibility of more dimensions than you can see. You can probably find a used copy on Amazon.com for half a buck. Plus $2.95 for shipping, of course.
    I don't follow your reasoning. What do you see in the discovered laws of nature that preclude the universe from having additional dimensions? Bear in mind that those laws only deal with three dimensions (let's be proper and call it four dimensions including time) because our senses are limited to them. If there is a fifth dimension and there are laws describing how the universe works in that vastly larger scope, we have no way to discover them.

    Although it seems that the microcosmologists really are finding clues suggesting additional dimensions, even if the macrocosmologists are not. String Theory uses more than four. So does Brane Theory. The Heisenberg Principle becomes slightly more comfortable if you think of particles as vibrating in a dimension perpendicular to all of ours, so that the only time we see them is when they briefly pass through our hyperplane.
     
  21. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    technically, it is definitely an assumption of mine but i think that because there is just no way of knowing if this universe is infinite or there are just dimensions overlapping our own level/dimension of existence. It may be the latter or even both as well as multiverses.

    because we do have limited capability to perceive (due to laws of nature) is why i think that the universe that we can perceive of is finite. the question would be, why can't we perceive it all or know it all easily if there are infinite or other dimensions related to us? if they are unrelated, then that would hint at multiverses.

    we perceive clearly the three dimensional (as well as time) with some vague question of 'intuition' or 'emotion' etc as additional sensory tools which are not even easily quantifiable. all this hints to my understanding that the universe we inhabit is finite for all practical purposes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2010
  22. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    .

    Really, I fail to see how your 'evidence' hints that the universe is finite. Furthermore, 'for all practical purposes' is irrelevant to the actual state of finite versus infinite.

    Me. Me. Me. Lol. The 'universe' has always been about 'me'. While it's true that the universe will always be 'finite' to us ... due to the physical limitations of our bodies, and that our ability to measure will always be limited to the speed of a photon ... but this in no way suggests that the universe is finite.

    The universe is 'something'. It is not 'nothing'. It is a physical structure. It is not imaginary. It is REAL.

    So we can immediately draw one of two conclusions. Either the universe had a beginning. Or it did not. There are no other options.

    So ... if it had a beginning ... and was not created by some entity already existing in some dimension inaccessable/unmeasurable to us ... then it must be finite. The only alternative to this conclusion is that an infinite universe *magically* popped into existence where nothing existed before. NOTHING. And it happened without rhyme or reason.

    This does not make the slightest bit of sense, taking into account the voluminous amount of evidence we have amassed to date regarding the form and structure of physical objects existing in this universe.

    Contrary to some people's opinions ... black holes are not infinite in any sense of the word. They are objects. Massive, strange ... bizarre even ... to our human comprehensive abilities ... but they are finite. Finite in mass. Finite in gravitational force. Their existence has nothing to do with whether or not the universe is finite, or infinite.

    So again ... if the universe had a beginning, it is finite ... based on everything we understand about physical objects. There is insufficient mass in this physical structure we know as 'the universe' for it to expand forever. For to expand forever would require an infinite amount of mass. We can say with certainty that the Big Bang did not produce infinite mass. It is obviously not continuing to produce mass, and it is nonsensical to think that an infinite amount of mass materialized in that instant of the BB.

    If the universe did not have a beginning, it is infinite. Hard as it may be to comprehend ... it is a physical structure that goes on forever in any direction. Parallel lines will never converge. This physical structure has properties that we can measure, and observe. We call it 'space'. And this space has four dimensions. Matter and energy existing within this medium called space must conform to the limitations placed upon them by those same physical properties that exist everywhere we look within our current technological abilities.

    There has never been a variation of any kind from these limitations. The farther out we look ... it is the same. It is always the same. There has never been any evidence that any dimensions co-exist with the four we are familiar with. Is this proof there are no other dimensions? No, but at some point ... after all the failed mathematics ... the failed experiments ... and our ever-increasing abilities to see our universe ... maybe we should just accept that there are no other dimensions. Certainly, none that will ever have the slightest effect, or relationship with the universe as we see it.

    Space exists. I will never understand why humans can't just accept that it does. And there is no reason, other than arrogance, and our egotistical need to feel 'special' for it to be anything other than infinite in breadth and scope.

    What happened here ... in our little location ... is just a normal function of the properties of space. If a BB happened here, it must have happened everywhere in space. In infinite space. We are not special, or unique. We are just complex forms of matter/energy. This same process that has allowed for our existence must be happening everywhere in infinite space. And has happened an infinite number of times.

    It's not 'multi-verses'. It's not an 'infinite number of co-existing dimensions'. It's an infinite number of localized universes ... just like ours. All spread out ... drawing the required mass/energy necessary to form matter from the extremely low energy content of space itself ... repeating endlessly, and eternally.

    Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?
     
  23. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    This is very likely to be the case.

    Nope. We're not "in" the universe. We are actually part of it, so we can't separate from it (at least not without some kind of conversion technology).

    Correct. Different theories of reality suggest what is outside of our universe. My favaorite is M-Theory which shows the outside to be an unbounded multi-dimensional structure in the shape of a complex Calibi Yao. No beginning, no end, just constant change.
     

Share This Page