the universe is a sphear

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Dec 17, 2005.

  1. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Or, maybe he means, 'spear.'
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
  8. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    so funny... and i think the universe has no form, it's infinite.
     
  9. Lord Insane Banned Banned

    Messages:
    178
    I wish you would go to the religion forum and say that , some christians there claim that god exists outside the universe !!
     
  10. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    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'.
     
  11. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    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!
     
  12. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    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.
     
  13. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    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?
     
  15. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.
     
  16. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.
     
  17. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    it is a sphere... as everything relates to a circle.. and so Pi...

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    -MT
     
  18. jack54 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    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)?
     
  19. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    Infinity is only a MATHMATICAL CONCEPT... it doesnt exist in reality.

    -MT
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    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.
     
  21. jack54 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    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!
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    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?
     
  23. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848

    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.
     

Share This Page