Impossible to answer?

[Patashu]

I'm not reading this whole topic atm but I'd like to point out that the universe is not a sphere as in the 3 dimensional object but is actually a four dimensional surface that wraps back on itself.
Think of how you can fold a two dimensional piece of paper into a three dimensional object, and if you travel along the surface of this object you'll never reach the edge because there IS no edge, and if there is no edge there is nothing beyond. Our universe is equivalent to this, only it is a three dimensional sphere that has been wrapped into a four dimensional manifold, and we're on the three dimensional 'surface' and can't leave it.

[cooke71892]

well, that sounds good.....but ! hole in your explanation......wouldn't that paper be surrounded by air? so is our universe surrounded by a larger universe? answer that.

[Bolth mannn]

in my view, every single theory has holes, christianity, big bang, string theory, evolution, blah blah blah. it is unfair to take one and try to convince everyone it is the right one.

[devonin]

Saying that every theory isn't completely proven is a meaningless statement. The fact that it isn't completely proven is -why- it is a theory and not a law.

[Bolth mannn]

Originally Posted by devonin

Saying that every theory isn't completely proven is a meaningless statement. The fact that it isn't completely proven is -why- it is a theory and not a law.

yes i understand that, what bothers me is people going around talking about it like its fact.

[Patashu]

Originally Posted by cooke71892

well, that sounds good.....but ! hole in your explanation......wouldn't that paper be surrounded by air? so is our universe surrounded by a larger universe? answer that.

No, the paper is the entirety of its two dimensional universe; folding it in a third dimension is more representative of the kind of geometrical/topological transformation it goes through, not an indication of higher space it goes through.

The analogy is imperfect, as are all analogies. Don't take it at its face value but grasp the concept I am trying to convey.

[Shaydow]

Originally Posted by Patashu

No, the paper is the entirety of its two dimensional universe; folding it in a third dimension is more representative of the kind of geometrical/topological transformation it goes through, not an indication of higher space it goes through.

The analogy is imperfect, as are all analogies. Don't take it at its face value but grasp the concept I am trying to convey.

Understanding what your trying to say aside, it's a concept many of us won't be able to identify with. I'm also a firm believer in " always something on the other side ". The original person to ask you seems entirely correct, the folded space must still be sitting in something, even if that something is an infinite nothing.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

[insanefreddy926]

Originally Posted by Shaydow

Understanding what your trying to say aside, it's a concept many of us won't be able to identify with. I'm also a firm believer in " always something on the other side ". The original person to ask you seems entirely correct, the folded space must still be sitting in something, even if that something is an infinite nothing.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

You can't say "there's always something on the other side" because, there is no "other side" of the folded space. No matter what direction one travels, they always end up at the point they began at. That was the whole point of the analogy.

If the space was sitting in something, then obviously that space wasn't the entirety of all space, because there is still more space for it to be in. If we take the whole universe, there is no space "beyond" it because there is no "beyond" it, because we define the universe as the entirety of all space.

Also, there is nothing beyond the universe because that literally means that there isn't a beyond the universe. The universe isn't in a vacuum of nothingness, because it is impossible to be inside of something which does not exist.

[devonin]

So that space extends out for an infinite distance in all directions? That means that outside the current outer reaches of where matter actually is, there is just an infinite stretch of void space that the universe's matter is expanding into?

[Patashu]

Originally Posted by Shaydow

Understanding what your trying to say aside, it's a concept many of us won't be able to identify with. I'm also a firm believer in " always something on the other side ". The original person to ask you seems entirely correct, the folded space must still be sitting in something, even if that something is an infinite nothing.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

Is anything more north than the north pole?

[customstuff]

Originally Posted by korny

There can't be NOTHING. There's no such thing as true nothingness.

You do have a good point, then again, there also can't be everything forever. It has to end at some point.

[devonin]

If it ends, what's on the other side of that border?

[customstuff]

I didn't really mean that it does end. It is just that it seems that somehow it can't end. Here is a universe size comparison video just for further arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FwCMnyWZDg

[Shaydow]

Originally Posted by devonin

If it ends, what's on the other side of that border?

I don't think they are following it.

You can't say "there's always something on the other side" because, there is no "other side" of the folded space. No matter what direction one travels, they always end up at the point they began at. That was the whole point of the analogy.

If the space was sitting in something, then obviously that space wasn't the entirety of all space, because there is still more space for it to be in. If we take the whole universe, there is no space "beyond" it because there is no "beyond" it, because we define the universe as the entirety of all space.

Also, there is nothing beyond the universe because that literally means that there isn't a beyond the universe. The universe isn't in a vacuum of nothingness, because it is impossible to be inside of something which does not exist.

I understand your folded space analogy, but your talking about it being infinite from OUR point of view. Someone used the universe as a cup analogy before, said yadda yadda yadda its filled with all our stuff and that's it, lets bend it so it becomes a mobius strip or what have you and tada now it's infinite! . . . . ya, to US. However, it's still in existence somewhere, we just can't see that place from our own perspective. Something exists on the outside of that cup, and if we reach the end of that and there is a barrier, then something is on the other side of that.

I know it makes you feel much more insignificant and meaningless when you look at it that way, but I don't see how logic can dictate things just STOP. Logic would dictate to me that things never stop, they go on in all directions for ever.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

[R3t4rd3dSt3pdud3]

Does anyone here belive in multiverse?

[Reach]

Originally Posted by devonin

Saying that every theory isn't completely proven is a meaningless statement. The fact that it isn't completely proven is -why- it is a theory and not a law.

Really need to correct this misconception.

The differentiation between a theory and a law has nothing to do with how correct it is. They're only two different ways of formulating a model. Theories have explanatory power and laws have descriptive power. That's really the only difference.

Laws can be wrong, certainly. Newton's law of universal gravitation was, in some respects, wrong, and was replaced by Einstein's *theories*. The difference here is meaningless, except that Newton's law is a mathematical description of planetary motion where as the theories of relativity have explanatory power in that they explain how gravity works.

I could give another example - if I formulated a mathematical description of energy production within a call, showing it is proportional to some constant times whatever, I would call it a law, though if I formulated a model describing the electron chain and transport mechanisms involved I would refer to it as a theory and a not a law.

As such, models such as the big bang or evolution will always be theories.

If it ends, what's on the other side of that border?

It depends. If the universe is the totality of everything that can and does exist, then there is nothing on the other side of that border. This could be the case, but it could not be the case as well.

Also, the idea of a border to the universe is a bit of a fuzzy concept. I mean, sure, there's a limit to the universe we can actually see because of how fast light travels, but the actual 'border' of the universe would be a very fuzzy thing indeed. I explained one possible scenario in my first post I think.

[insanefreddy926]

Originally Posted by devonin

So that space extends out for an infinite distance in all directions? That means that outside the current outer reaches of where matter actually is, there is just an infinite stretch of void space that the universe's matter is expanding into?

Ehhh, not exactly. The universe is all the space and matter and everything else that exists, and it is expanding. It does not expand into anything, it just expands.

Originally Posted by Shaydow

I understand your folded space analogy, but your talking about it being infinite from OUR point of view. Someone used the universe as a cup analogy before, said yadda yadda yadda its filled with all our stuff and that's it, lets bend it so it becomes a mobius strip or what have you and tada now it's infinite! . . . . ya, to US. However, it's still in existence somewhere, we just can't see that place from our own perspective. Something exists on the outside of that cup, and if we reach the end of that and there is a barrier, then something is on the other side of that.

I know it makes you feel much more insignificant and meaningless when you look at it that way, but I don't see how logic can dictate things just STOP. Logic would dictate to me that things never stop, they go on in all directions for ever.

If there is something on the other side of this hypothetical barrier, than obviously that barrier was not the edge of the universe, since the universe is everything that exists. If things go on forever, than there is no barrier anyway, which was what I was saying. It's impossible to go beyond infinity.

[Shaydow]

Originally Posted by insanefreddy926

ehhh, not exactly. The universe is all the space and matter and everything else that exists, and it is expanding. It does not expand into anything, it just expands.



If there is something on the other side of this hypothetical barrier, than obviously that barrier was not the edge of the universe, since the universe is everything that exists. If things go on forever, than there is no barrier anyway, which was what i was saying. It's impossible to go beyond infinity.

OUR Universe is everything WE know to exists, not everything that exists, that can't be known.

Your under the impression that the universe can't be a bubble of space time expanding and existing in something else, that also could house other bubbles of similar types. The expanse of this other stuff universes sit in is either infinite, or is housed in something else, that is either infinite, or . . . . . etc etc etc.

Why are you so quick to dismiss this highly likelly scenario?

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

[insanefreddy926]

Originally Posted by Shaydow

OUR Universe is everything WE know to exists, not everything that exists, that can't be known.

Your under the impression that the universe can't be a bubble of space time expanding and existing in something else, that also could house other bubbles of similar types. The expanse of this other stuff universes sit in is either infinite, or is housed in something else, that is either infinite, or . . . . . etc etc etc.

Why are you so quick to dismiss this highly likelly scenario?

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

From Wikipedia:

The Universe comprises everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

There may be many universes, but our universe still wouldn't be inside of something else. It's an easy way to visualize the idea of multiple universes but it isn't what would really happen. There isn't any *space* between universes.

[cooke71892]

is it at all possible that our entire universe is just being pulled by a super-mega-massive black hole that is still trillions of light-years away?? i realize the chances are quite slim, but hey, i don't see any other definitive answers.