It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What lies beyond the farthest star?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2014 @ 11:50 PM
Whoops... Not sleeping (homework) really affects me, I guess... I stopped, mid-run-on sentence/thought. Oh well... I'll just kinda continue. I still haven't slept, so it might not be too coherent, either.

The further we get out, the more advanced the space is that's created by our conscienceness. The bubble-verses are out there... So are all the other ideas we're putting forth... And so on, and stuff...
Including the mobiusverse, of which there is no beginning, or end, so how you get there... Ok. I'm done.

a reply to: japhrimu

edit on 5/12/2014 by japhrimu because: trying to finish an unfinished thought... I'll see if I succeeded tomorrow.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:30 AM

originally posted by: Jekka
a reply to: openminded2011

I think that space is far larger than we can possible fathom at this point and that the only reason we can perceive any sort of end to it from where we are is because the universe hasn't been around long enough for the light to travel to us from any distance farther than the amount of years the universe has been in existence calculated as a distance of light years from the objects. There was a long period of simple expansion before anything began to form that produced light and we have only been able to look even remotely close to that far out for the past ten or so years.

Interesting thought experiment OP. S&F

What a brilliant reply! I love this and in a way it makes sense. It is a marvel to think that when we look into the sky we are actually seeing into the past.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:37 AM
a reply to: openminded2011

How long is a piece of string?


We don't really know. I suspect that the "inflation" was just our percievable part of a greater expansion which has continued superluminally for 13.8 billion years.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:39 AM
You would be able to (roughly) determine your motion with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, by measuring its Doppler shift. The CMB will be slightly blueshifted in the direction you're moving in, and redshifted in the opposite direction.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:44 AM
I'm not sure why detectable light would matter, you can get inside a box and the stars disappear but it doesn't pull you out of the universe or anything.

Basically what I mean is, regardless of how far away you fly, you will always be a certain distance (ever increasing) away from all the matter in the universe.

If you could fly faster than light, and get out in front of all the light ever emitted from the universe, you are still just a certain distance away from that matter, the light just hasn't reached you yet. And if you stood still eventually the light would reach you. So why does the light not having reached you yet change anything about the fundamentals of the universe?

Also, I could be wrong on this, but I thought that the very idea of a vacuum devoid of matter has been called into question. Something about on a quantum level matter blinks randomly into existence so even if you extracted 100% of the matter from a given area of space, matter would magically appear again (or something like that) So even if you got away from all the matter, you'd still have matter popping up around you.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:53 AM
on this theoretical trip past the last stars on the Universes' frontier...

the spacecraft you are traveling in will itself begin to decompose- because all the laws of physics would disappear...
the horizon would become a fog of subatomic particles and then quantum energies the further past the last stars you go---
you might equate the outside environment as akin to the event horizon of a black hole..

but by then--- your own Voyager spacecraft will look like a derelict, hole riddled, empty hull of a spaceship... as exotic materials would have already disintegrated while only the basic elements of the structure would have enough integrity to not disintegrate as yet

(think of the sequence of events that happen in the Stephen King story of the 'time eating force' Langoliers)

edit on th31139997536913022014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:28 AM
a reply to: openminded2011

My favourite question. Used to ask the old man this almost every night from the about the age of 5 up until i discovered girls

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:37 AM
a reply to: SLAYER69

If true, the question should then be adapted to what a past the furthest Universe's final Star...

I think the answer is the same in either situation...
Just empty space waiting to be filled!!!
The Creator = Artist
The Universe/Multiverse = Infinite Canvas
The Galaxies = What Had Been Painted So Far
Empty Space = Unused Canvas

How does the Big Bang Theory apply in the Multiverse Theory...
Were the other Universe's already surrounding the centre of our Universe and decreased as we expanded???

Peace Slayer!!!

Peace OpenMinded!!!

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:38 AM
a reply to: openminded2011

"As you make more and more powerful microscopic instruments, the universe has to get smaller and smaller in order to escape the investigation. Just as when the telescopes become more and more powerful, the galaxies have to recede in order to get away from the telescopes. Because what is happening in all these investigations is this: Through us and through our eyes and senses, the universe is looking at itself. And when you try to turn around to see your own head, what happens? It runs away. You can't get at it. This is the principle. Shankara explains it beautifully in his commentary on the Kenopanishad where he says 'That which is the Knower, the ground of all knowledge, is never itself an object of knowledge.' "

[In this quote from 1973 Watts, remarkably, essentially anticipates the discovery (in the late 1990's) of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.]

edit on 13-5-2014 by Necrose because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:33 AM
One physics answer is this, imagine a 3D room with someone blowing up a balloon. On the surface of the balloon are spots that represent the galaxies. They are confined to a 2D surface. They see space in 2D and it is expanding everything is moving away from them.
Now we exist in a 4D spacetime, which is expanding in 4 directions and we are constrained on the 3D "surface" at any one time.
Like on the balloon there is now way to go "up" or "down", only to move on the 2D surface. There is no edge, you come back around the other side.
In this model there is no edge of the universe.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 10:06 AM
Hi new guy here

there is a theory out there that states that the universe might be a computer simulation or might behave as one ,images on a computer screen are created as needed then deleted or buffered for farther use so if the universe behave as a PC simulation space will be created based on the position of the object ,there will be no edge of the universe at all,the only limit on how big the simulation can be is directly proportional to the amount of memory you have at your disposal but even if you had a finite amount of memory at your disposal the simulation could just buffer the object and re spawn or reset the object just like it happens in a video game and you nor anybody else will ever notice !

well this is just an overly simplification of the concept and mostly speculation on my part ,you'll forgive my poor English

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 10:35 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

There is no 'farthest star'. No matter where you go, you're at the center of the Universe. Contemplate that one for awhile.

I call it the Quantum Treadmill Effect, because if you throw the word 'quantum' in there it sounds all sciency and no one expects to understand it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 10:44 AM
Infinity is a tough concept for a finite mind to grasp, but maybe the universe is actually infinite in nature?

But, logic seems to indicate that although that universe is ever-expanding, there has to be an end somewhere.

Perhaps the universe is effectively infinite, because we cannot outrun the expanding universe from our location. It would be wierd to be in a galaxy that is effectively the end of the universe, and stare out in one direction where it is complete blackness. You would think that world probably exists.

Or, maybe as another poster alluded to, the universe wraps around itself and infinity is only an illusion. Sort of like going around the world and ending in the opposite hemisphere. If you didn't know the world was round, your 25,000 mike trip might seem like a straight path in a virtually infinite world. Of course, it's not.

Bottom line. I have no idea. Thought provoking question though.
edit on 13-5-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 10:57 AM
a reply to: openminded2011

Do you really think the last star we can see is the last star? I think you would just see a new set of stars and this would go on forever! Light is only observable to the eye for a certain distance, you would see more as you went beyond the stars we see now...IMO of course!!

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:51 AM
Hubble has taken pics of what looks like Empty space.
and guess what? Its full of galaxies.

and from what I can see they seem to be spaces't
out the same as the ones around us!!!
with a explosion or big bang it spreads Out.
so the further out it is from the center
the more distance from each other.

Unless their never was a Big bang.
it was just a galaxy/supper black hole blowing up!

you have seen the video!
space looks like a human brain. or the brain of god.
that dose Not look like any Explosion.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 12:19 PM
Sounds like either heaven, or hell... O.o Maybe it's like some video games where, if you go to the edge of the map and keep going, you have the illusion of movement (in your scenario there would be no visual cues since there was no visible matter, but you could verify your thrusters are on and your ships computer would still compute distance increasing between you and the no longer visible stars behind you, or whatever particular star you have your navigation computers locked onto), but then as soon as you turn around and travel a small distance, everything appears again as if you never went anywhere once your reached "the edge".

I guess that wouldconfuse the hhell outta the navigation computers...

Or if this is a computer simulation, there may be safeguards set in place to prevent any thing from going beyond where matter has "naturally" expanded into. For instance I remember one game where if you went out of bounds a 5 or 10 second countdown would commence and at the end of it, either one or multiple invincible or very strong (not sure on some details it was a while ago) enemies would appear and either destroy you or if you could get away in time, chase you back towards the map.

So there are many ways of accomplishing this. Maybe as you get away from larger amounts of matter and it is only you pretty much, time is effected by dilation in a way so that you could never travel fast enough because the expanding universe behind you would be in "faster time" than you, allowing it's expansion to "catch up" with you just enough that you could never actually gain any real progress in trying to "leave the edge". (bigfatfurrytexan's post gave me the idea).

Or maybe an asteroid would "come out of nowhere" or any random thing (a different thing every time you attempt the voyage?) like your spacecraft breaks down, or everyone (or the crucial members of the mission) gets some kind of "space sickness" and goes crazy. Maybe the physical separation from large amounts of matter makes you go crazy. Maybe we are dependent on it somehow. There are many who believe we are dependant on the earth itself and we would need special devices to "mimick" the conditions on earth if we are to ever leave it. We already have the idea of artificial gravity using momentum and centrifugal motion, and I believe the astronauts today have devices that pulse some kind of frequencies matching the earth's "heartbeat" or something.

So what if our galaxy also has some kind of frequency or something that we need. Apparently our last galaxy got swallowed by the larger milky way, which, as a neighbor may be somewhat familiar, but this transition into our new home may be having some effect on our planet, or sun... I don't know where we were when life spawned on earth so I don't know if life itself is being effected, positively or negatively by this process, but clearly it was a loong time ago when we were a "seperate" galaxy. I don't even know if the sun or earth was created.

Will it be possible to create a device tremendous enough to mimick the natural conditions of our home galaxy? If it's just a frequency like the earth, then we'll obviously the device used by astronauts to recreate that frequency is much smaller than the earth itself.. but there may be other things to consider besides just frequencies. Things we don't know about yet. But with human ingenuity, and willpower, we may overcome that unknown obstacle as well.
edit on 5/13/2014 by 3n19m470 because: added everything after "...confuse the hell out of the nav comps"

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 12:39 PM
There was another thread about this a while back, some of us came to the conclusion that the universe is actually infinite, the only reason that a time date on the beginning of the universe was set at 13.8 billion years was because scientists only have the ability to see light as far as that distance away, some of us came to the conclusion that if we traveled 13.8 billion light years in any direction having the same technology that we would only be able to see up to 13.8 billion light years in any direction until we have technology that can see further than that we will never know the actual size of the entire universe , I imagine as our civilization gets more advanced the age of the universe will continue to get bigger until we accept the reality that it is infinite.

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 12:42 PM
I've seen a few people here already quoting the laws of physics and multiple theories and yes the laws of physics do apply but as far as we know only here in our solar system and even that we are not quite sure of. in my opinion we should conquer and master our own planet before we start messing about with forces we can't even comprehend. and so I don't go way off topic my answer to your hypothetical question is that even beyond the furthest star their is still something there probably only hydrogen and other base elements but their atoms are probably their none the less. this next point is highly unlikely but extremely badass if true. their could be a barrier at the edge of the universe. by that I mean anti matter so anything that leaves the universe gets instantly annihilated

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 01:59 PM
I believe how far you could travel depends on if space is flat or curved, and if curved, then the combined gravity of stars and galaxies and super clusters would actually prevent you being able to travel beyond the current observable universe, but if flat, then theoretically it would be possible ignoring the whole lifetime limitations, etc. I think this is akin to the old "if you could reach your arm out infinitely then you'd eventually tap yourself on the shoulder". A flat structure to space time would mean galaxies would keep moving away for one another until they were all so far away no lightbulb reach to other galaxies and as the stars in your galaxy died the universe would go black..whereas a curved space time would supposedly lead to matter eventually collapsing back in on itself in a Big Crunch. And presumably followed by another Big Bang someday. Or course these are old theories, and there are a bunch of very cool theories about nowadays, from the many worlds or multiple universe interpretations (and arguments against such interpretations) to more metaphysical ideas and even that we are all in a big simulation like a video game or Matrix.

I remember when I was younger I used to believe that if I thought about it too much I could think myself out of existence. Or rather realize that what I am living is actually a dream from another existence, which is a dream or day dream or nightmare from yet another. Even now I sometimes catch myself lost in thoughts that are somehow too...something to even out into words or even begin to try to explain what I was just thinking, even to myself, and in a moment or two it disappears into a whoosh of confusion. But for however long, I could swear that I was immersed in a different reality with different rules and physical laws and just everyday stuff that seemed so normal and routine that I didn't even realize it was bizarre or incomprehensible until I tried to hold it in my mind to think about how I'd explain it to someone. And that's just momentary daydreams...when I wake up from a full on nighttime REM dream stage - now that's some serious weirdness. Though it seems absolutely normal while I'm "in it", when I wake up it sometimes takes me a few minutes to fully comprehend where I am now in my life, and what stage and so on. And then it's back to this reality seeming completely normal and mundane, and try as I might, I cannot fully recall what I had dreamed or day dreamed or drifted off lost in thought, and what I can recall makes so little sense as to sound so bizarre to me that I'd never try to explain it. And these are just the inconsequential environment descriptions, but so very very strange.

Obviously I have some form of brain damage or perhaps the first stages of insanity or dementia or something terrifying like that. But if that's not it, then I do believe we have the ability to glimpse other realities, perhaps even exist in them, simultaneously with this existence at least as far as a temporal term like "simultaneously" can apply to such extra-temporal metaphysical outer/supra realities, or whatever fancy terms we use to describe such concepts.

Anyone else ever get these peaks into other &$@#%*^ or am I just a plain ol wacko that has spent far too much time near wireless tech equipment? :-)

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:06 PM

So the universe would have a sort of self imposed boundry, beyond which is "nothing".

Just brainstorming here but the concept of nothing (NO - THING) seems to be a paradox equal to or on par with the concept of infinity. Both of which the human mind is incapable of comprehending..we can only but apprehend or acknowledge the concepts.
Think of what nothing looks like for a minute. What do you picture? black space?..white space? with no atoms in it?
Well black and white are colours therefor things. They may be just a conceptual human constructs to make a visual representation in our minds eye of what nothing looks like, but they still need certain cosmological laws to exist.
Not only that.
If you think that point is moot, then what is observing this nothingness?
Your consciousness is required to maintain this visual representation. So therefor your consciousness would also have to be categorised as a thing. (without the matter inside your brain making you conscious it is impossible to logically perceive no-thing) as your consciousness will always be that "thing" observing the concept of no-thing.4

Ah gotta love paradoxes

What if the universe truly was infinite? That would mean there never was a beginning, nor will there be an end. It just "IS"
Great question though, just some food for thought.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in