the universe is a sphear

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

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

It's in the dictionary.

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?

 

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

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.

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!

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lol.

 

You forgot the poetry.

 

no, URO is fiiine. its you its you!

 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

yeah, i agree with you there. its just a description based on interactions that we have observed.

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.

 

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

 

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, 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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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