The Edge of the Universe - a few questions

[ShaiGar]

Expanding Universe
Fixed Edge Universe

If if is expanding, what is it expanding into?

If it has a fixed edge, what's on the other side?

nb. I am not a science nerd, but I've always wondered these two questions.

[xtremegeek]

If there's two kinds of energy - energy at rest and energy in motion, could you really get to the edge of the universe? Everytime you take a step forward, you are moving energy forward, so would you be extending the edge of the universe forward, thus never really able to reach the edge?

[thegnat]

If there's two kinds of energy - energy at rest and energy in motion, could you really get to the edge of the universe? Everytime you take a step forward, you are moving energy forward, so would you be extending the edge of the universe forward, thus never really able to reach the edge?

As you said - there are two kinds of energy - kinetic (motion) and potential (static/at rest). The energy in motion is not moving energy forward. It does not have a direction to it, it only has a magnitude. Usually X amount of Joules. Basically I think the simplest way to explain it is that "It took X amount of energy to get to Y place." Like it takes you more energy to walk 2 miles than it takes you to walk 1 mile - you aren't moving the energy - you're using it to propel yourself. Or my kinetic energy while walking x speed is Y Joules. This energy is propelling me forward. I am not moving the energy forward - it is propelling me forward.

Aside from that energy is conserved "neither created nor destroyed"

Make sense?

ShaiGar:
here's a really good answer to that question. Of course it is not definitive as it cannot be proven as of now if it's expanding *into* anything or not. Or that it has a finite size.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's basically saying that if the universe is infinitely huge, that it's not expanding into anything. If there is a finite size then it might be reasonable to assume it's expanding into something. But of that we have no idea.

[xtremegeek]

If there's two kinds of energy - energy at rest and energy in motion, could you really get to the edge of the universe? *Everytime you take a step forward, you are moving energy forward, so would you be extending the edge of the universe forward, thus never really able to reach the edge?

As you said - there are two kinds of energy - kinetic (motion) and potential (static/at rest). *The energy in motion is not moving energy forward. *It does not have a direction to it, it only has a magnitude. *Usually X amount of Joules. *Basically I think the simplest way to explain it is that "It took X amount of energy to get to Y place." *Like it takes you more energy to walk 2 miles than it takes you to walk 1 mile - you aren't moving the energy - you're using it to propel yourself. *Or my kinetic energy while walking x speed is Y Joules. *This energy is propelling me forward. I am not moving the energy forward - it is propelling me forward.

Aside from that energy is conserved "neither created nor destroyed"

Make sense?

ShaiGar:
here's a really good answer to that question. Of course it is not definitive as it cannot be proven as of now if it's expanding *into* anything or not. *Or that it has a finite size. *
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's basically saying that if the universe is infinitely huge, that it's not expanding into anything. *If there is a finite size then it might be reasonable to assume it's expanding into something. *But of that we have no idea.





Hey thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, although it still seems that if something was propelled into nothing, the something would disintegrate, or the edge of the universe would expand to the farthest point which the something had been propelled. My mind has a hard time fathoming matter entering into nothing. My body is energy, so how can my body survive in nothingness, or outside of the universe?

[thegnat]

I think kind of the point if the universe expanding into nothing is basically saying that the universe *is* everything. And if the universe has infinite bounds, then it *is* everything. Therefore if we look at the universe as *everything* every single thing in existence is being moved by the stretch of the universe. It's expanding at an extraordinarily low rate though.

OK. Imagine the universe is a piece of putty. You can stretch the putty. The molecules that make up the putty are staying the same. They aren't being stretched themselves. But their position relative to one another is different. Its physical properties, chemical properties, and composition are the same. It's just stretched. That's how I think of the universe expanding.

On the other hand, if the universe is finite, it could be expanding into something.

With regards to the universe and theories, the String Theory is another.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
this website does a really good job of explaining it. And I think the cosmology section would be the best reference.

The following is a more detailed website about the expansion of the universe:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[xtremegeek]

Thanks for the info. I have seen something about the string theory on the history channel. It makes more sense to me because I always wondered why time was not considered a dimension before. I can't say that I understand all the dimensions (10 vs 11), but I certainly never could come to grips with the idea that there are just 3 dimensions.

[blueback]

I think you have to consider the universe to be everything. If not then whatever is outside the universe is the universe.

That being said, I thought the "expanding universe" theory was talking about how all the stuff inside the universe is expanding out from a central point. So, after the Big Bang, the matter and energy radiated out into an infinite volume and the only question now is whether or not it's all going to squish back together again or keep expanding.

There can't be an edge to the universe because they universe is everything. I heard a theory that the universe is shaped like a torus so that if you travel far enough in one direction you end up back where you started. In that case I guess the universe would technically have an edge, just like a mobius strip has edges, but you could never get to it because you'd have to lift off the surface of reality.

[xtremegeek]

I think you have to consider the universe to be everything. *If not then whatever is outside the universe is the universe.

That being said, I thought the "expanding universe" theory was talking about how all the stuff inside the universe is expanding out from a central point. *So, after the Big Bang, the matter and energy radiated out into an infinite volume and the only question now is whether or not it's all going to squish back together again or keep expanding.

There can't be an edge to the universe because they universe is everything. *I heard a theory that the universe is shaped like a torus so that if you travel far enough in one direction you end up back where you started. *In that case I guess the universe would technically have an edge, just like a mobius strip has edges, but you could never get to it because you'd have to lift off the surface of reality.

OK, I'll chew on that one for awhile. Thanks

[rwyatt365]

If the universe is everything that there is then there can be nothing 'outside' of the universe.

In order for something to expand, there must be some 'other' thing for that something to expand into. In effect, there is an inside and an outside and the two are separated by some boundary. Expansion occurs when the boundary increases, allowing the inside to encroach on the outside.

If there can be nothing 'outside' of the universe then there is no 'outside' for the universe to expand into and there is no boundary to increase.

Therefore, the universe cannot expand, OR the universe is NOT everything.

[Raven Queen]

I read an analogy somewhere some time ago that described matter in the universe as the markings on a ruler which carries on to infinty. As the universe expands, the spaces between the markings widen, but the marks themselves don't get bigger..

But then again I'm still quite unfamiliar with these stuff. :P

[thegnat]

If the universe is everything that there is then there can be nothing 'outside' of the universe.

In order for something to expand, there must be some 'other' thing for that something to expand into. In effect, there is an inside and an outside and the two are separated by some boundary. Expansion occurs when the boundary increases, allowing the inside to encroach on the outside.

If there can be nothing 'outside' of the universe then there is no 'outside' for the universe to expand into and there is no boundary to increase.

Therefore, the universe cannot expand, OR the universe is NOT everything.


I haven't taken astronomy so don't count me on this....(this discussion makes me want to take Astronomy just for the heck of it)
I think it's one of those things that the universe is so incomprehensibly huge that it's really hard to comprehend it as everything...and that we're really just kind of shifting inside of the universe that's infinite. And again infinity in my view is just so incomprehensibly HUGE.

Now I'm being *entirely* speculative and there is a high probably that I'm *WAY* off.
Perhaps there have been other "Big Bangs" in other parts of the universe. Space is a vacuum after all and let's say there is something outside of our universe - say another universe encompasses ours that's also a vacuum. That means there would be no external pressure due to gases on our universe. Our universe would have to do no work to expand which is *extremely* thermodynamically favorable. Perhaps the other universe is expanding infinitely too. As it was made by a Big Bang. Therefore there would be no bounds! I have absolutely no idea. I think I'm going way off here haha.

[phoenix]

The biggest issue astronomers have with investigating the exact question you are asking, is that time IS a dimension. Thus obeseravational astronomy (looking at things very far away like the earliest galaxy or the microwave background radiation) is also looking backward in time. The energy being emitted by the microwave background was released at the time the universe completed it's inflation phase, so within the first few seconds of its existence.

These are the oldest photons we can observe, because they were the first actual photons created (they were generated at the moment when the many initial physical dimensions involved in inflation "rolled up" into the four dimensions we know now. That was the moment at which physics as we understand it began. There is much speculation about how physics worked before then, but there is not observation to use to test that speculation, because there is nothing to observe. Well...let me qualify that. There's nothing to observe directly. Many people feel we can imply information about that period from observations of the distribution of material from after that period.

Since looking farther and farther away simply puts you back in time to the initial point of the universe, one must conclude that during inflation (the period after the big bang and before "normal" physics) the size of the universe increased to such a vast point that the edge is farther away than the distance light has travelled since the beginning of the universe. That puts the "edge" of the universe at some distance greater than 12-18 billion light years.

What does all this mean? As an observational astronomer, I don't often theorize about the edge of the universe, or what may lie outside it, or even if the word "edge" can have any meaning in this situation. All I can tell you is that looking at photons...which is what astronomers do...will not help you.

Sorry.

For what it's worth, since I can't observe it, and I can't test it, I find the whole thought exercise as futile as contemplating the existence of the divine. So I ignore it.

[rwyatt365]

The biggest issue astronomers have with investigating the exact question you are asking, is that time IS a dimension. Thus obeseravational astronomy (looking at things very far away like the earliest galaxy or the microwave background radiation) is also looking backward in time. The energy being emitted by the microwave background was released at the time the universe completed it's inflation phase, so within the first few seconds of its existence.

These are the oldest photons we can observe, because they were the first actual photons created (they were generated at the moment when the many initial physical dimensions involved in inflation "rolled up" into the four dimensions we know now. That was the moment at which physics as we understand it began. There is much speculation about how physics worked before then, but there is not observation to use to test that speculation, because there is nothing to observe. Well...let me qualify that. There's nothing to observe directly. Many people feel we can imply information about that period from observations of the distribution of material from after that period.

Since looking farther and farther away simply puts you back in time to the initial point of the universe, one must conclude that during inflation (the period after the big bang and before "normal" physics) the size of the universe increased to such a vast point that the edge is farther away than the distance light has travelled since the beginning of the universe. That puts the "edge" of the universe at some distance greater than 12-18 billion light years.

What does all this mean? As an observational astronomer, I don't often theorize about the edge of the universe, or what may lie outside it, or even if the word "edge" can have any meaning in this situation. All I can tell you is that looking at photons...which is what astronomers do...will not help you.

Sorry.

For what it's worth, since I can't observe it, and I can't test it, I find the whole thought exercise as futile as contemplating the existence of the divine. So I ignore it.


But what if...a FTL particle did exist (the hypothetical tachyon) and that particle could be (somehow) observed, could we then see back before the Big Bang?

I know, a lot of "if's" in that, but I find the thought exercise intriguing. :thinking:

[phoenix]

But what if...a FTL particle did exist (the hypothetical tachyon) and that particle could be (somehow) observed, could we then see back before the Big Bang?

I know, a lot of "if's" in that, but I find the thought exercise intriguing. :thinking:

::chuckle:: I find watching you try the though exercise intriguing.

FWIW, if such a particle existed and could be observed then maybe we could see before the end of the inflationary period. But maybe not. It would depend on how much faster than light the particle could travel, and whether that was fast enough to allow us to get to the edge in the time since the beginning of the universe. So...not a certainty at all.

[rwyatt365]

::chuckle:: I find watching you try the though exercise intriguing.

FWIW, if such a particle existed and could be observed then maybe we could see before the end of the inflationary period. But maybe not. It would depend on how much faster than light the particle could travel, and whether that was fast enough to allow us to get to the edge in the time since the beginning of the universe. So...not a certainty at all.
So then the hypothetical particle is in a "drag race" with the leading edge of the expansion front to get there and back to the observational atstonomer before he/she fades away in entropic dissolution, or is crushed in the "Big Crunch".

Ah science!

[GOD]

Expanding Universe
Fixed Edge Universe

If if is expanding, what is it expanding into?

If it has a fixed edge, what's on the other side?

nb. I am not a science nerd, but I've always wondered these two questions.

I think the Universe is a closed loop hence it doesn't have edges. Its likely to spherical. We currently think the universe is flat... because we can't detect enough of the universe.

I'd say that the Universe revolves around one huge black hole and the so called big bang is just our calculation of the exit point out of that black hole. In theory if we travelled towards the exit point we should come across data that points us to successively later dates of "creation".

Why the universe and any matter even exists really is a question that will probably never be solved. Just maybe, intelligent aliens believe in God.

[Ijz]

I'm sure MacGyver would have known the answer to this one...

[INTJohn]

The light that astronomers are observing that is from galaxies that are 10 to 15 billion light years away - on the "edge of the universe" and reveals the universe to be expanding, - is a picture of the universe as it existed 10 to 15 billion years ago.....

We have no frikkin' idea what the hell the universe loox like right now - today - out at "the edge" and never will. Nature reveals it worx, operates in cycles, and for all we know we are lookin' at a galaxy's light from 10 billion years ago that same galaxy may be practically right next to us today........... we, as a specie have no idea and never will.

One of those galaxies "out there" may even, could possibly be, the Milky Way galaxy's light from 10 billion years ago........... We may be lookin' at "ourselves" - don't know and never will.

INTJohn

[xtremegeek]

If Light and Time are dimensions, I doubt that it would be possible to reach the edge of the universe, assuming there is an edge. By the time we calculated the location of the edge, the edge would have changed millions of times. This would render it impossible to reach, therefore, it can't be proven.

[nesmar]

I always thought that the universe was infinite, since our universe is essentially our reality.

Anything outside the universe would be another reality or dimension.

[rocksteady]

Why the universe and any matter even exists really is a question that will probably never be solved. Just maybe, intelligent aliens believe in God.

I like that! Screw this atheism crap, what do you call the religion that believes in that god? Logic?

[Hdier]

That used to bother me, until I realized that it was impossible to find out it my life time (most likely), so I moved on to things I could find out.

I am a science nerd.

[Antares]

That used to bother me, until I realized that it was impossible to find out it my life time (most likely), so I moved on to things I could find out.

I am a science nerd.

I empathize... But these questions plague me and I can't get them off my mind. I'm a science nerd too. Ok. A better description would be physics nerd.

I don't think the universe has an edge because it's homogeneous and isotropic, according to the stuff I've read. What's beyond the universe... I don't know...? More universes? Oh blast. That gets me into another dilemma... What happens if two universes is to touch? How many universes are there? Ok. I won't go there. My brain... :irked:

[jdc127]

I believe it is now commonly held that the universe is expanding and will continue to do so infinitely. At some point, there will be such distance between stars and planets that the sky will be completely dark- no stars visible because light will never have an opportunity to travel between the planets. I think an entropic heat death is in the future of the universe ( I almsot said our future, and while it is remotely plausible, it is much more implausible that humans will not be here anywhere near the time it takes for that to happen. I doubt if we will even see the death of our own sun in the cosmically near future of 4-5 billion years.)

[thod]

The expanding universe is still a theory. Heres another

The far galaxies only look red because the photons take a long time to reach us. Its an inherant property of photons that they become redder over time. Photons from realy far are the cosmic background microwaves which is the limit of the reddness they can decay to. So the universe is infinite, the galaxies are fixed and not even that far off.

If space was expanding and you body occupies space, as the universe approachs infinite size, so will your body, you can hop between stars. If the universe were to double in size overnight could you tell? the universe is a lot bigger now than 4 billion years ago. Yet the gravitational force holding us to the sun is proportional to r^2 since r has increased, but not m, shouldnt the planet have flown off?

[jdc127]

The gravitational effect that the sun has on the earth hasn't diminsihed, because there isn't greater difference in the distance between the two bodies. Gravity is a local condition.

Space and the bodies that occupy it are not one and the same. Space can expand but bodies do not; otherwise there would never have been planets or stars or galaxies. Unfotunately, no hopping between stars for us. :)

[Hdier]

I empathize... But these questions plague me and I can't get them off my mind. I'm a science nerd too. Ok. A better description would be physics nerd.

I don't think the universe has an edge because it's homogeneous and isotropic, according to the stuff I've read. What's beyond the universe... I don't know...? More universes? Oh blast. That gets me into another dilemma... What happens if two universes is to touch? How many universes are there? Ok. I won't go there. My brain... :irked:

Ah, I have a similar problem with things such as 'where did all the energy and matter come from' and 'how was god created', things like that. I've been able to figure out the latter, I created a scenario where a time loop caused us to create ourselves, but the former still haunts me.

Perhaps we are all in a giant cage, with giant people preforming experiments on us (natural disasters), a cage that works kind of like the holodecks on Star Trek.

[ssfanatic]

Expanding Universe
Fixed Edge Universe

If if is expanding, what is it expanding into?

If it has a fixed edge, what's on the other side?

nb. I am not a science nerd, but I've always wondered these two questions.
I dont know if any of this has already been said but ill just put my 2 cents in here.
Its proven that its expanding with the help of dark energy. Though dark energy is only theoretical it is almost certain that it is there. It makes up roughly 70% of the universe.

There is also a string theory that it is not expanding and that time is slowing down. This is unfamiliar to me but it rests on the fact that when we look at distant stars they are going much faster than we are, so either there is an unknown energy source, or time is slowing down. Which is more logical? Neither lol!





ssfanatic added to this post, 2 minutes and 23 seconds later...

Ah, I have a similar problem with things such as 'where did all the energy and matter come from' and 'how was god created', things like that. I've been able to figure out the latter, I created a scenario where a time loop caused us to create ourselves, but the former still haunts me.

Perhaps we are all in a giant cage, with giant people preforming experiments on us (natural disasters), a cage that works kind of like the holodecks on Star Trek.
And the theory with the dark matter is that it was formed in the big bang along with everything else. The matter was the domineering force when the universe was much smaller but now the dark energy has taken over bec the space in between the massive objects is so large.

[Provoker]

And the theory with the dark matter is that it was formed in the big bang along with everything else. The matter was the domineering force when the universe was much smaller but now the dark energy has taken over bec the space in between the massive objects is so large.

Questions for Big Bangers:

1) To what extent does Big Bang theory defy the law of thermodynamics that states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed?

2) Objects in space move at a consistent rate unless they encounter resistance. The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.82cm per year. If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (as Big Bang posits), then when the earth was established the moon would have been 17190000000 cm closer to the earth ( or 106 813.707 945 598 miles closer). The alleged distance right now between earth and moon is approximately 236000 miles. 236000-106813 = 129186 miles apart 4.5 billion years ago.

With the moon being only 129186 miles away from the earth 4.5 billion years ago, there would have been catastrophic floods which would likely prevent life form, and it would seem plausible that the earth's gravitational pull may have even drawn the moon closer. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that "the gravitational attraction between any two objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between their centers". Basically, this means two things:

-the more massive two objects are, the stronger the force of gravity between them

-the farther apart two objects are, the weaker the force of gravity between them

For one, given the size and closeness it's surprising that they are moving away rather than closer. But in any event it seems probable that there would have been major floods and turbulent weather preventing the formation of protoplasm or any life form - how could there be life under such harsh environmental conditions?

It seems like a bit of a stretch. One might even say it's pure Walt Disney. I would appreciate any feedback or if someone can provide a sensible answer to my two questions.

[thod]

1) To what extent does Big Bang theory defy the law of thermodynamics that states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed?


It doesnt defy it at all. The universe and all its properties came into existence with the big bang. We can only state the properites of this universe. Physics cannot explain the big bang or why the certain constants are the values they are.

) Objects in space move at a consistent rate unless they encounter resistance. The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.82cm per year. If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (as Big Bang posits), then when the earth was established the moon would have been 17190000000 cm closer to the earth ( or 106 813.707 945 598 miles closer). The alleged distance right now between earth and moon is approximately 236000 miles. 236000-106813 = 129186 miles apart 4.5 billion years ago.


This is news to me. I always understood the moons orbit was decaying. Its losing energy by raising ocean tides on earth.

[ssfanatic]

Ok, on the flood topic, its a historical archetype that there was a "world wide flood".
THere are civilizations all around the world that record a flood. And i will quote the best modern author of our time (Michael Chrichton) in his book Jurassic Park...
"Life Finds A Way..."

[gallihand]

With the moon being only 129186 miles away from the earth 4.5 billion years ago, there would have been catastrophic floods which would likely prevent life form, and it would seem plausible that the earth's gravitational pull may have even drawn the moon closer.

Last I heard life was thought to start in the sea... floods and storms wouldn't impact this as much. IIRC Land life forms haven't been around for more than a few hundred thousand years. The floods would not have been nearly as constant and devastating as 4.5 billion years ago.

And if the moon is slowing down due to tides as thod said then it would also have been moving faster 4.5 billion years ago. F = m(v^2)/r is the formula for centripetal force in a perfect circle. I don't even want to complete that path as I'd have to address quite a bit and I'm not sure I can do it accurately. How the earth's orbit around the sun affects it, universal gravitation, gravity on the moon from the sun, etc. This does an ok job of showing the weird orbits To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Blacklustre King]

I’ am tempted to say that considering we are stuck on this back water rock hurtling through “space” we probably have little to no real understanding of the universe. We can say there is this and that and that physics can be measured mathematically and despite the nature of our science people insist we have concrete “unquestionable theories” what the fuck kind of mentality is that?

In a world where medical and scientific “fact” is proven wrong daily I would assume our methods of understanding the universe are ultimately flawed to a point they need to be entirely reconstructed from scratch.

Mathematics as useful as they are may have been the worst thing to ever happen to physics. Scientist often find themselves in conundrums because they are unable to “measure” a specific principle and when they finally think they have it right it contradicts their other findings. This cycle of idiocy is a pointless, ultimately fruitless, and inefficient method of study.

One could say our universe expands like a membrane and black holes are like tears in the membrane to the omniverse outside of our universe. Say in the omniverse whatever it may be composed of assuming it is itself not the fabled “abyss” where all worlds/universes meet. Our universe may be no different then a bubble among infinite others floating in an abyss with no measurable size or shape.

Who says our size is limited to its current state, in other universes or just beyond our own things like time, space, and size may be irrelevant. One can sight M-theory and String theory; even going as far as combining or modifying them and we come the same conclusion over and over again.

I could tangent forever and a day about this study and ultimately it all, every last bit of it comes to one final conclusion. We do not and might never know a damn thing about our universe beyond what we can see in the night sky unless humanity starts doing the extreme…

Paranormalists speak of vortexes where individuals die. Strange energy that cannot be captured and in many cases is undetectable like the theorized “dark energy” that supposedly compromises the greatest majority of our universe. Why does it always spin in our universe? What is gravity and why things are pulled towards each other but continue expanding. What is our universe exactly but a poorly misunderstand concept of reality?

What happens to the dead, assuming there is something more then rotting in the ground.

I have a good idea but I’ll leave it as just that until more “concrete findings” appear… Might death be the only means of escaping this plain?

[brainiac]

I think it's fair to say that just like there is other planets, solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, more than likely there is other universes.

Do you guys think that maybe the laws of physics change, at the extremely large level, like universal level. Like the laws of physics change at the atomic level. Something that we probably couldn't measure at this point in time. I just thought I'd throw this out there, I'm sure there is an answer somewhere.

[vkut79]

I have a good idea but I’ll leave it as just that until more “concrete findings” appear… Might death be the only means of escaping this plain?

You seem astoundingly ignorant of the scientific method and discipline despite having some knowledge of its theories. Science doesn't or "prove" or "disprove" anything - scientific "facts" as you call them are nothing more than models that help us predict phenomenon. "Unquestionable theories?" - that is a ridiculous concept, the only unquestionable theories are theorems in mathematics. Scientific views undergo revolutions on a regular basis, it is expected, as old, obsolete models are discarded for newer, more advanced and sophisticated ones. Their real value doesn't come from being an absolutely certain measure of truth - their value comes, once again, from their value in predicting and explaining natural phenomenon. Mathematics was the worst thing to happen to physics?? Do you realize that we wouldn't even be having any of these ideas or conversations without the extensive understanding that has been attained through physics, with mathematics being absolutely indisposable to these achievements? I mean, geez, you can talk about pseudo-scientific myths like parallel universes and vortexes and whatever all you want, but don't put down real science if you don't even know what its even about. Just because we don't know the answer to every "why" question one can think of (the more we know, the more unanswered questions there will be), doesn't mean our "picture of reality" is useless and
"wrong". Practical value means quite a bit.

[ssfanatic]

I think it's fair to say that just like there is other planets, solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, more than likely there is other universes.

Do you guys think that maybe the laws of physics change, at the extremely large level, like universal level. Like the laws of physics change at the atomic level. Something that we probably couldn't measure at this point in time. I just thought I'd throw this out there, I'm sure there is an answer somewhere.
Are you asking if they would change outside of the universe? Bec i dont think there is anything outside of the universe. So i guess there is a change, there are no laws. I dont think anything can exist outside of the universe.

Of coarse this is all speculative, there is no proof anywhere. :)

[Blacklustre King]

You seem astoundingly ignorant of the scientific method and discipline despite having some knowledge of its theories. Science doesn't or "prove" or "disprove" anything - scientific "facts" as you call them are nothing more than models that help us predict phenomenon. "Unquestionable theories?" - that is a ridiculous concept, the only unquestionable theories are theorems in mathematics. Scientific views undergo revolutions on a regular basis, it is expected, as old, obsolete models are discarded for newer, more advanced and sophisticated ones. Their real value doesn't come from being an absolutely certain measure of truth - their value comes, once again, from their value in predicting and explaining natural phenomenon. Mathematics was the worst thing to happen to physics?? Do you realize that we wouldn't even be having any of these ideas or conversations without the extensive understanding that has been attained through physics, with mathematics being absolutely indisposable to these achievements? I mean, geez, you can talk about pseudo-scientific myths like parallel universes and vortexes and whatever all you want, but don't put down real science if you don't even know what its even about. Just because we don't know the answer to every "why" question one can think of (the more we know, the more unanswered questions there will be), doesn't mean our "picture of reality" is useless and
"wrong". Practical value means quite a bit.

No Shit, thanks for repeating half of what I said. I have a great fundamental understanding of our scientific method and since you so aimlessly pointed out what I had already stated then I’ am sure you should be able to understand the rest of it correctly when I try to simplify my message for you.

I was attempting to purpose the idea that current mathematics as they are, are not good enough. The system we have created and the system needed to understand the universe correctly are two very different things.

I do not down play the importance of mathematics however I do question it's reliability in measuring an amorphic reality.

My only real point is that no one person has a concrete grasp on reality and thus the MANY perceptions of reality lose their overall integrity in this confusion. Everyone says this and that and no one gets anywhere, lest the meaning of our reality is to forever try to figure out the meaning of our reality.

[lordrrr]

If there's two kinds of energy - energy at rest and energy in motion, could you really get to the edge of the universe? Everytime you take a step forward, you are moving energy forward, so would you be extending the edge of the universe forward, thus never really able to reach the edge?

Oh that makes a lot of sense.

When I was a kid I sort of pictured the universe as a really big box and that it did have a bottom and sides and such and those bottom and sides were painted with white dots and all. Of course I've learned more since then.

[Antares]

Ah, I have a similar problem with things such as 'where did all the energy and matter come from' and 'how was god created', things like that. I've been able to figure out the latter, I created a scenario where a time loop caused us to create ourselves, but the former still haunts me.

Perhaps we are all in a giant cage, with giant people preforming experiments on us (natural disasters), a cage that works kind of like the holodecks on Star Trek.

This reminds me. An ancient Chinese philosopher dreamt of being a butterfly. When he awoke, he remarked: "Did Zhuang Tzu (him) dream of being a butterfly, or did the butterfly dream of being Zhuang Tzu?" It kind of bothers me to not know things, and yes, we might just be another nasty experiment. All things in the universe are bound by laws which end at singularities... Does that mean before the universe, there were no laws? Could we have just sprang into existence randomly?

Ok, on the flood topic, its a historical archetype that there was a "world wide flood".
THere are civilizations all around the world that record a flood. And i will quote the best modern author of our time (Michael Chrichton) in his book Jurassic Park...
"Life Finds A Way..."

The black sea basin was flooded, but it was not world wide. To the writers of many myths, it might be the whole world for them, but there is no way, no way that there're enough water for the whole world to be flooded. Let's count. I remember Gilgamesh was the protagonist in one flood story. The Mesopotamians. So if the stories are true; one certain family survived the flood along with a pair of each animal... Does that mean we're all inbred? How did we reach such diversity in appearance in a several millenias?

There ARE many stories of flooding, but it shouldn't be uncommon as: The Nile brings forth nutrition but disaster for the Egyptians; The Yellow River devastated many early China civilizations... And they're not all the same either. The Chinese one is very different from the Hebrew one.