Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

Well, first, I don't intend to perform extensive calculations, and scientific experiments on this subjet, when I am not being paid to do so.

Second, what would it take for it to be "based on science and mathmatics"? Current science seems to indicate that the knowable universe is connected by some type of matter, I believe it was once called "dark matter".

Given that the universe is vastly larger than any means we have of exploring, we cannot know for sure what is beyond the "knowable universe".

There are certain facts that we know, "An object in motion, stays in motion". Air is expands to fill vacuum. If the known universe is showing evidence of expanding, then the we can postulate that the universe itself is not meeting with any resistance in its expansion, as air inside a balloon would not meet resistance in space. There is currently no reason to believe that the universe is accelerating, meaning that it is unlikely that there is a greater force at the edge of the universe, such as the universe itself (loop hypothesis).

We can look at planets, solar systems, and galaxies, and extrapolate from their what type of structure the "Knowable Universe" is likely to have. Likely the universe has the same shape as most solar systems, or galaxies, and is a flat circular rotating disc.

Now IF this entire universe is physically connected, that connection likely ends somewhere, beyond which there is likely no more matter, or existence. This would be the "edge" of the universe, but is likely not a magical end of space, just an end of matter, beyond which is blackness.

Otherwise matter and energy are infinite, and so is the "knowable universe". If the "knowable universe" is infinite, it could never be proven, but would indeed be beyond my ability to imagine it. Nothingness is much easier to imagine that something.

---------------------------------------------------------
I just came up with an interesting hypothesis.

The big bang was not just the beginning, but the end. For the universe that existed inside the "big bang" the universe was cold, dead, and incredibly vast. It was a universe that had reached its end, and that end would stretch out for an eternity for that universe, and continues to do so.

Yet, the universe is not dead as that universe perceives it, but is alive, and radiant. When our perception of the universe grows cold, another cycle will begin. This next cycle will consider our cold, dead, unmoving universe to be fluid, and a blazing inferno, a "big bang".

Given that the universe is infinite, and matter and energy are infinite, time itself has no meaning to the universe. What if the forces that created our worlds does not end when heat goes out of our universe? What if those forces have merely grown in size, like a child growing in size? What if this new cycle perceives time at a different rate that we do, thus they do not notice the slower than a glacial pace that their universe is moving at compared to ours.

There is no end, and no beginning, just an eternal cycle of death and rebirth. Like life itself here on Earth.

I do not believe that this is possible, but given infinite time, what is possible?

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

That doesn't really clear anything up. I already know that in a curved space Euclidean geometry doesn't hold.

Where and how?

I'm weakly attached to any set of theories where distortions in the fabric of space time represent gravitational fields. This does not seem particularly controversial, even going faster makes you more massive.

I don't believe we're talking about the same question here so this is largely a point of procedure:

You come to the police with a load of evidence concerning a crime: the stolen goods you found in Bert's house, Bert's elaborate plans, Bert's confession given freely without any duress, videos of Bert doing the deed - and the police gives you a hundred theories about how Bert might have been framed by an unknown identical twin or something.

And then you're all like, "No! I wanted the exact OPPOSITE of this."

You can claim to be good at thinking if you have a large number of theories at a given level of generality and little evidence, or a lot of evidence and few theories. Not both.

Go on then.

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

I seem to have gravely mistaken the purpose of this thread. My mistake. Clearly no one here has any interest in the actual state of the universe, instead preferring speculation and their own personal thoughts/feelings. That number of men made of straw (I'm looking at you, Nemmrle, as it seems be a habit of yours) are also getting annoying. I think I'll be going now.

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

It's strange to think, with the vastness of space, there are still some people who believe we humans are the only intelligent species in the whole universe. :uhoh:

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

I understood this thread to be about speculating about what lies beyond what we have seen of the universe.

Having a decent understanding of the state of the universe is necessary, but not the point of this thread.

I have shared my limited understanding of the universe. You have not pointed out the wholes in my argument, or on what points I am wrong. You merely posted a video, and a couple of articles, and failed to highlight any useful information. (I hate videos, especially of those with people just jabbering on, BTW).

In the video, and your links, it almost sounds as if the universe itself is unchanging. I.e, the universe is "expanding", but it is not expanding either. The "big bang" happened everywhere, but it is expanding? I cannot rationalize this. It happened "everywhere", but "everywhere" was smaller than what it is now, and thus "everywhere" had not expanded to where it even reached where "here" is now. And that video stated that the "knowable universe" has an edge (possibly).

How does that make any sense Obankonobi? How does that conflict with anything I posted? Okay, so meant "fabric" and not "Dark Matter", and I may be wrong about the universe not accelerating, but what else?

Let me go to Wikipedia,

It was dense, it expanded rapidly. If it is not expanding, then how is it expanding? Why are we measuring it, if it is not expanding? How could it be dense, and now not be dense, if it hadn't expanded?

Now, unless you can further explain the concept in the video, I don't see how it is relevant.


------------

Spherical space.
What Do You Mean, the Universe Is Flat?, Part 2: In Which We Actually Answer the Question | Degrees of Freedom, Scientific American Blog Network

You understand that current calculations are being made from a very limited range, with a limited knowledge of how the universe works right? I don't believe this is the most likely explanation, but didn't I mention planets in my post at the top of this page? I admit, it is possible, but it does not seem to contradict most of my post.

What this seems to be saying is that our "flat" universe sits on the surface of a sphere, a sphere that cannot be penetrated by light, because light itself flows along the surface of the sphere.

In short, the universe does indeed loop around from our perspective, even thought it does not loop around in reality, just that it looks that way. Just as a pilot who thought the world was flat, would be surprised to fly in one direction, and end up right back where he started.

If this is the case, then the edge of space is not left or right, but up. We would have to reach escape velocity to leave the "knowable universe", and reach the infinite blackness. At which point we return to the discussion of this thread.

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

It's not a straw-man when someone goes 'Too much inferential distance,' and you go 'Heh, right. If you want to educate yourself...' and they answer along the lines of what they think you mean. Of course they don't understand you, they warned you of such.

Accusing someone of a straw-man isn't some trump card that beats any argument. If someone is doing it with malice, saying that they are won't help you any, and if they're not it will just insult them. At best it's a way of admitting to a breakdown in communications, most commonly it's just a way of spitting on the other person's character.

If you think I argue dishonestly, then please don't respond to any of my posts in future. And if you think I honestly try to understand you then... what is this? What is this I'm looking at you stuff meant to mean to me?

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

To lighten the thread a little...

I'm curious, but are we talking about the universe, or are we talking about space? The Universe (in my eyes) is everything we can see. Space would be everything else. I can't remember who said it now, but someone up there said that the universe could be infinite? Okay, except aren't the respective galaxies and stars moving further and further apart? If this is the case, then wouldn't that point toward a growing universe rather than an infinite one? If its infinite, nothing would need to expand. :uhm:

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

Everything we can see now? Or just whatever reflects or gives off light?

We are talking about whether or not there is an end to the universe, and what lies beyond that. Does space continue without the universe? What is the ultimate shape of space? Of the universe?

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

If it's a balloon inside an even greater universe, then you have to consider whether that one is infinite or not.

We accept that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, but then we try to come up with theories about how matter, energy and even time were created.

I like to think of our observable universe as a similar concept to galaxies. A galaxy is made up of stars. The universe is made up of galaxies. Maybe there is a similar collection of what we call universes, making up a super universe? And then there are super-mega universes made up of super universes. Etc.

In that line of thinking, maybe that would explain the big bang? Perhaps whatever we call the universe is actually the exploded remains of something far larger and older than anything we can comprehend? Much like when a star explodes; it's contents are sent shooting away, and coalesce into new things - like other stars, planets, or you and me.

But ultimately, it means that whatever space we inhabit has always been here and always will be, even if the contents weren't always arranged in the same way. In my mind, it's the only idea that works.

Even if we were to get into a religious debate, and say that God made everything, then we'd have to consider whether HE was always around, and whether or not whatever space he is contained in was always around.

In either school of thought, scientific or theological, SOMETHING has to be infinite.

Re: Beyond the observable universe
 

Well, to be honest I'm more into biology than astronomy. I'm not too familiar with these things- maybe you could give an overview of this rather than chastising us for not being as scientific as you would desire here?