space and the universe

[AJI]

isn't space and time curved - meaning that the universe has no outer limits and therefore the question about "whats beyond the limits of our universe" is irrelevant.... because the universe doesn't have a limit if you simply can not reach any of it extents.

 

Basically if you were to set off from the earth in any one direction and continue in that direction without changing course... you would eventually come back to your start point.

[Patrick_Devlin]

Hmmmm, but isn't the size of the black hole in your wallet, proportional to the mods on your supra? So if the entire universe was to be consumed surely you would be able to crack into the 9's? OR even more interestingly, would a supra that could do a sub 6 second run cause the end of all existance?

 

LMAO

 

Thats the kind of context that these things need to be put in!!!

[tbourner]

A creater or a single starting point........but if there was this starting point, what was beyond that starting point......its the never ending circle of questions that i never think will be answered.

 

Well the creator is a higher dimensional being - we exist in the 4th dimension which is time i.e.: we have a certain amount of control over the 3 dimensions that we see as X Y and Z, but are 'carried along' by time (that doesn't mean a 5th dimensional being {for example} has control over time and can time travel - same as we can't push a sponge through a lump of lead there are rules), so a higher dimensional being is incomprehensible to us.

Imagine we have created a computer program (2 dimensional) that has say 3 rules; birth death and existence, and it consists of blocks that are 'lit' or not, every cycle (say 1 second) the program updates it decides which blocks are made, which die and which carry on as normal relating to the rules of each point. This has been done and the outcome of running it from various start points is quite extraordinary!! I think it's called 'life' actually but can't remember.

 

It's perfectly comprehendible that a 'higher' dimensional being has a 'computer' that can have millions of rules input into it - say all the rules of physics that we know, every chemical element interaction etc. This being then inputs some start point variables like certain elements to begin with, and BANG the universe as we know it is created.

 

 

 

So to answer the question, It could be a loop, it could be whatever 'the being that made it' wants it to be. Same as we can simply extend the screen on our computer when the little lit blobs reach the edge, this being can control our universe outer boundary so that we never see or reach it. He could switch off his computer too!!!

[Digsy]

I don't think we can begin to understand the universe by applying Newtonian physics.

We have to understand Einstein's theories on general and special relativity

Dude, that's soooo last century.

 

It's all M-theory and superstrings nowadays.

[Jspec Germany]

"To infinity and beyond!"

 

Read "Infinity and the Universe". -unknown author but as you're on the ganja, you won't mind. Speaks a lot towards the psychobabble in this thread.

 

A long time ago..... *scrolls up the screen*

 

insert spaceballs qoute here...

[slick]

I don't think we can begin to understand the universe by applying Newtonian physics.

We have to understand Einstein's theories on general and special relativity

 

I think we need to realise that these 'thoeries' are simply that, and best of all they are produced by other insignificant specs of dust on an insignificant slightly larger spec of dust when compared to the grand scale of the universe

We will probably never know the full story as its simply beyond our comprehension unless something major changes, and we can actually handle using 100% of our brains instead of developing behavioural problems if we by pure chance have access to a few extra % of it ala Rainman and the other savants.

IMO theres something out there that started something and it dwarfs our existance and yet most of our 'intellectuals' would rather make guesses about all manor of other things.

Anyone remember the experiment where some Scientists set out to prove life could start from the amino acids etc, I forget what but it was basically some sludge of the lowest degree with nothing complex added. They succeeded to a degree with getting certain reactions (no not monkeys popping out the sludge don't get excited there ) after applying light/heat taking the part of the sun and moisture etc taking the part of varying atmospheres but the overall question they was left with was 'who played the scientist in the begining preparing it all?' Scary question

 

Need a lie down now

[RedM]

Why does there have to be a 'creator'? Why not just accept that the origins of the universe are beyond our understanding at this time.

 

It always seems like a cop-out to me. Can't understand something so put it in the hands of a mysterious creator. Riiiiight!

[Max Headroom]

Perhaps we are just here, nothing more and nothing less. We live we die. Do we theorise on our existance in the hope that there is something else.

[jamesgtr]

Dude, that's soooo last century.

 

It's all M-theory and superstrings nowadays.

You're right. I was talking from the mid-eighties.

I once attended a lecture on time & space given by Stephen Hawking and

I couldn't grasp a thing. Maybe it was the voice synthesiser that he was

using :D

[SupraLuigi]

Does this help confuse things.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4600981.stm

[carl0s]

isn't space and time curved - meaning that the universe has no outer limits and therefore the question about "whats beyond the limits of our universe" is irrelevant.... because the universe doesn't have a limit if you simply can not reach any of it extents.

 

Basically if you were to set off from the earth in any one direction and continue in that direction without changing course... you would eventually come back to your start point.

 

If it's curved then presumably you can move upwards on the y-axis and come away from that curve, just like getting in a rocket ship and coming off the earth. But then where are you?

[dane_stone]

In our universe we have time and distance but say once you left our universe these rules don't apply. So if you left the universe for say 1 year then returned would you have returned at the same time you left. Also if you traveled 1000 miles out side of our universe would you have traveled any distance at all? So you could say did you leave our universe at all?

 

 

Sorry if this sounds a load of bull it's just a thought

[carl0s]

I think these questions will never be answered unless we delve into the hidden parts of our consciousness. It's all just too wierd. We surely have been designed in such a way that we cannot see and comprehend beyond our predesigned variables.

 

I think we're going to have to use chemical tools to get any kind of understanding, and even then we won't be able to rationalise these findings once we 'come down'.

 

If anybody is good at chemistry, I'm up for being the test specimen. Recipes here Can I suggest 2C-B as the first trial

[Digsy]

If it's curved then presumably you can move upwards on the y-axis and come away from that curve, just like getting in a rocket ship and coming off the earth. But then where are you?

I don't think it works like that.

 

All the space-time diagrams I've seen represent motion in ANY of the three extended spatial dimensions as a single axis, and then there is a second axis representing time.

 

If the curved space-time theory is correct then I think you could move in any direction (or probably any combination of directions) and still come back to your starting point.

[jamesgtr]

Point of reference. Time, space, velocity, distance, etc. are relative.

You have to have a point of reference. Without this point of reference, nothing

has a value.

[carl0s]

I don't think it works like that.

 

All the space-time diagrams I've seen represent motion in ANY of the three extended spatial dimensions as a single axis, and then there is a second axis representing time.

 

If the curved space-time theory is correct then I think you could move in any direction (or probably any combination of directions) and still come back to your starting point.

 

hmm okay, so then it does have a physical size, so to speak, because it's curved. We just can't get away from it because it's curved in all dimensions (i was pondering that thought just before you posted). Man this is too wierd. I am considering adopting a couple of Peyote cactii (lopho-whatsit williamsii) to help me understand this when I think I'm old enough to get it.

[carl0s]

Well the creator is a higher dimensional being - we exist in the 4th dimension which is time i.e.: we have a certain amount of control over the 3 dimensions that we see as X Y and Z, but are 'carried along' by time (that doesn't mean a 5th dimensional being {for example} has control over time and can time travel - same as we can't push a sponge through a lump of lead there are rules), so a higher dimensional being is incomprehensible to us.

Imagine we have created a computer program (2 dimensional) that has say 3 rules; birth death and existence, and it consists of blocks that are 'lit' or not, every cycle (say 1 second) the program updates it decides which blocks are made, which die and which carry on as normal relating to the rules of each point. This has been done and the outcome of running it from various start points is quite extraordinary!! I think it's called 'life' actually but can't remember.

 

It's perfectly comprehendible that a 'higher' dimensional being has a 'computer' that can have millions of rules input into it - say all the rules of physics that we know, every chemical element interaction etc. This being then inputs some start point variables like certain elements to begin with, and BANG the universe as we know it is created.

 

 

 

So to answer the question, It could be a loop, it could be whatever 'the being that made it' wants it to be. Same as we can simply extend the screen on our computer when the little lit blobs reach the edge, this being can control our universe outer boundary so that we never see or reach it. He could switch off his computer too!!!

 

 

very well explained Trev! makes me feel kind of sad and sympathetic for all those electrons we're controlling in our computers though

[AJI]

the main problem we have is that all our maths are based on quantum physics. And quantum physics is based on probabilities.

As soon as you introduce an assumption anywhere down the line when creating maths for the universe then it can lead you to come up with very strange and wonderful theories.... as is the case today.

All the scientists that have produced universe theories have had to make an assumption (or a best guess probability through quantum mechanics) somewhere in their calculations and this has resulted in all theories from the big bang through to the current M-theory with its 11 dimensions.

 

I think the times of 'creators' and 'religious figures' to explain events in the universe and here on earth, are well past their sell by date. In modern times with our knowledge of maths that sort of thing is no longer required.

[tbourner]

I completely agree Aji m8, and I'm a true aethiest. But having seen this programme a while ago that I can't remember what it was called - I'm begining to open my eyes a bit more!!!

 

It was based around the main universal constant, which is mathematically worked out and designed with computer models etc. as the gravity constant, that almost all of physics that we know works around, and it's correct to something stupid like 60 decimal places!!!!!!! 1 single 60th decimal out and the whole universe would never have been!!!!!

 

So either there were billions of 'possible' universes and this is the only one that works (which they also disproved can't remember how now) or there was someone somewhere that designed it to work!!

[Gaz Walker]

Some of you guys are deep, real deep

 

BTW has anyone seen The Butterfly Effect? Some interesting stuff on Chaos Theory etc - its a good headf*** of a movie.

 

Gaz.

[tbourner]

Yeah it is a cool film, a few inconsistencies though.

[tbourner]

Found something about what I was trying to say earlier:

 

http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban/20011128/features_12.shtml

 

Still not exactly what I was looking for though.

[TLicense]

This is my preferred theory, as it's been scientifically proven that it *could* be a possibility, by the experiment with two slits, and particle wave duality, and probability wave theory.-

Every time there is a decision made two universes are created. (decisions on an atomic level - ie does an atom emit an electron or not, which is in essence the foundations of which all existance is currently known to occur by). One universe the decision is yes, the other no. However only the observation of the occurance of a decision being made, by a conscience being causes the universe on which the conscience being does not live in to collapse. However this does lead to the ultimate question. Which conscious being witnessed the very first decision.

[Craig David]

I would say...

 

Every time a decision is made, the universe DOES NOT split.

 

There are no real decisions made.

 

Everything in the universe is goverened by scientific principle, which is always predictable.

 

Everything runs from a start point in a completely predictable path and none of us can alter it.

 

Every thought we have was predetermined millions of years ago, just as every other single event has been and will be.

 

Of course it's too complex to actually ever predict or even understand. You'd need a computer as big as the universe itself to model the everything. So it appears we make decisions and there are choices.

 

But there aren't. Every thought you have is just a chemical reaction in your brain.

 

So everything runs from start to finish along a predictable, unalterable line as it's all goverened by scientific principles, which are non-random.

[AJI]

Craig... I tend to agree that every decision the universe does NOT split also, but to say that everything was predetermined is where I dissagree.

To say that means that the whole current theory of quantum mechanics and the working of probability is not worth the paper its written on.

Surely if you have probability then its not predetermined. Otherwise you'd have sure fire simple equation maths which would explain everything.

 

Einstein in his quest for the perfect equation I think had a similar view. He didn't like quantum mechanics as it was based on probability.... but it's quantum mechanics which brought the world into the electronic age. And it explains so much more than what any of Einsteins equations do.

 

I think there are simply just somethings which will never be explained by an equation. I say this because of the fact to record something you end up disturbing it. To read the position of an electron you must fire another electron at it to deflect its path.

Until we can physically read and measure quarks and strings instead of simply using probability then we will have to work wwith current M-theory or whatever else seems to fit the observed universe.