It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What is past our Universe?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
As the title goes, what is past our universe? Particles, waves, or absolutely nothing?
Our universe is huge, 30 billion light years across, a huge amount, and constantly expanding - or, as some say (inc. me) now contracting. But what is beyond the 'walls' of it? It must end. It just cannot go on and on. It just doesn't fit to imagine nothing beyond it. I reckon that there are other universes beyond ours, all roughly spherical in shape, with smaller and smaller universes fitting into the gaps the bigger ones make. These smaller ones go down to an atomic size. And these other universes just go on and on and on, never, ever stopping.
What I like about that fact, however, is that even if I am wrong, something still must go on and on, whether it's nothing or something. And this, simply, just cannot end. Amazing.
Of course, that's just my theory. What is everyone else's?




posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Kinda makes you feal like a 13th centery caption of a ship going into unknown waters .
does the world just end and you fall off the edge ? Or here be monsters?
so Do the universe just End ? or do you just fall off the edge ?
One thing for sure there be monsters out there . Giant black holes sucking in entire solor systems.
Mind bolging to say the lest .Behond human comperhension.
Just try puttin the number of stars and try immmanging it.
Space the NEVER ending frounter . Our mission to go with AWWL were no one has going befor .
There may or may not be a God but looking apon the face of the universe it seams like were looking into the face of God.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
It's like I posted in another thread somewhere...

What if you're just going and going, and suddenly you come to the end of the Universe?

Do you just crash like you hit a wall? Do you get mysteriously transported to the other side of the universe? Will you find a restaurant?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
If you can assume either that everything goes on or that everything ends at some point... Why can't the universe be "everything"? It's weird when you start thinking of the universe as "small" and considering, "well, that can't be all that's there" when it's obvious that the universe itself must contain a completely unimaginable number of things.


I guess it's the idea that there can actually be "one" of something that we can't comprehend.

[edit on 24-11-2005 by aV09s]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
What an excellent concept to ponder, as many astronomers have. No one knows of course. But I imagine it to be something different than the spatial concept. I think if it were possible to fly a craft beyond the borders of our known universe, you would end up back on the other side of the same universe. In other words it would curve around and you could end up back where you started. So it literally would be infinite, and go on forever.

If not, and there are other universes that we cannot see, then I will be the first to say, our universe is the center of it all.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well theres a theory knocking about that if you traveled in a straight line for x amount of time you would end up back where you started, a bit like that new miller ad
But...we dont know because we have no way of testing it except for computer models. Hal just because the universe curves in on itself does not mean it is infinite,its like saying the line of a circle is infinite because it has no marked beginning or end, when in all actuality the line can be measured to a finit value.



(sp)

[edit on 24-11-2005 by Merkeva]

[edit on 24-11-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva
Hal just because the universe curves in on itself does not mean it is infinite,its like saying the line of a circle is infinite because it has no marked beginning or end, when in all actuality the line can be measured to a finit value.

Well from the respective point of the craft it would always be infinite. If you were able to step outside the circle or sphere, then it would not be. But if you can't do that, it would be infinite. Wouldn't it?

If not, your back to the same original question then. What is beyond the circle or sphere that is our universe?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Its depends, say we started from earth and after x amount of time arrived back at earth could we not measure the distance we had covered and would it not be a finit value?

[edit on 24-11-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I believe if we were able to cross the edge of the universe we would do a “Trumen show” and realise we are in glass tank being observed by giant beings.

And then die from shock

Which makes me angry



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I think to answer this question in a reasonable way, we need to look at a few things from the Bible. I am a religous man and by far not one of the so called [Bible Thumpers] I notice that the Goodbook states "That God is, was, and will be for infinity" Now to me, that tells me since he has been around longer that myself or anything else, is that the universe is constantly growing on. My own thoughts about this are that I strongly feel that it would be impossible to ever come near the edge since it is never ending. It is sort of like a rain drop that never hits anything and just keeps falling through space until or if it comes into contact with something to make it stop. If it makes no contact, it will just drop forever. Just my .2cent's



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I think the term “the Universe” applies to all that we are aware of. It’s everything we can observe, measure or sense, be it physically or mentally and whether through our unaided senses or via instruments that extend our senses. It’s basically the set containing “ALL that we know and are aware of”.

Therefore, “the Universe” is a concept that is perpetually changing. What is “the Universe” today is not the same as “the Universe” 1000 years ago, or “the Universe” we will know 1000 years from today. And since “ALL that we know and are aware of” is most definitely limited, then “the Universe” that we discuss here today is equally bounded.

Now, if there is a deeper reality that exists outside the bounds of human understanding, which I suspect there is, then our concepts of “the Universe” and “boundaries” and so on may be totally irrelevant and have no meaning at all outside human understanding. In such a case, “the Universe” may indeed be unbounded and infinite and outside our ability to comprehend. With time, as we learn more, I think the “size” of the universe will either continually increase or possibly one day lose it’s meaning all together. After all, if one day we extend our concept of “the Universe” to include other dimensions, then the notions of size and boundaries begin to fade.

Our human intelligence is discriminating, and we naturally group things into sets in order to make sense of “reality”. “Humans” are in a different set than “Great Apes”, and “trees” and “automobiles” and so on. We group things with like properties into sets. After all, it’s hard for us to grasp EVERYTHING as ONE SEEMLESS WHOLE. We then tend to place sets into other like sets, extending the concept of sets to include subsets, and so on, and so on … I think of the Universe as being the Master Set; everything else is just a subset of it.

So, what I’m trying to get at is that “the Universe” is simply a human concept that may or may not be “Universally” shared. It’s our house, or home, distinguishing us from all the rest of which we do not yet know. It’s the farthest reaches of our human knowledge and current understanding. Whether it has any true meaning in reality, I wouldn’t know.

I don’t know if any of the above made the least bit of sense, or even if it’s relevant to this thread. If not, then you have my apology. It’s just the way I currently see it …



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva
Its depends, say we started from earth and after x amount of time arrived back at earth could we not measure the distance we had covered and would it not be a finit value?

Ok, I agree that if you took this trip, you would travel a certain distance that would be a discrete number, therefore finite. I stand corrected. But here is another mind bender. The trip would only be from one point, and may not necessarily determine the size of the universe. If you started from a different point the distance could be different.


Originally posted by netbound
I don’t know if any of the above made the least bit of sense, or even if it’s relevant to this thread. If not, then you have my apology. It’s just the way I currently see it …

I think I understand exactly what you’re saying, and thanks for sharing. You’re saying that by human nature we have a need to put our ideas into a box, and in reality the box does not exist.

Hmm... this is starting to sound like something from a Matrix movie.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
It would figure my first ATS post would be about a topic that used to cause me many a sleepless night leaving me to stare at the shadows of branches on the ceiling caused by the streetlight out front.

My opinion closely mirrors the sentiments of member ‘netbound’. The reality of the concept of a universe boundary, and what would be beyond, I think is just something we in our present state just cannot fathom intellectually. For everything we know today about the things within our grasp, there is and endless amount that will never begin to enter the minds of our civilization before it expires. I won’t even bring up dimensions.



We still know very little of the confines of our own planet.

Anyhow, these thoughts have stirred the other question that used to enter my mind during the same sleepless “sessions”. It wasn’t about endless in a large sense, it was about endless in the smaller sense. I used to just think of how every single thing, matter in general, can be equally divided (using the ideal ability of a perfect cutting edge for each subsequent slice). One piece created by every division can be divided again, and again, and again. At what point is it impossible? Not in reality with particles/atoms I know but the idea to a kid, (quarks weren’t even in the picture yet). Everything has mass, including an atom so I’d just wonder how far down this concept could go.

Anyhow, sorry for rambling. Just brought up thoughts from decades ago when curiosity meant a bit more to me obviously.

I could have replied to this post with – “Ditto. What netbound said.”





posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by Merkeva
Its depends, say we started from earth and after x amount of time arrived back at earth could we not measure the distance we had covered and would it not be a finit value?

Ok, I agree that if you took this trip, you would travel a certain distance that would be a discrete number, therefore finite. I stand corrected. But here is another mind bender. The trip would only be from one point, and may not necessarily determine the size of the universe. If you started from a different point the distance could be different.


Originally posted by netbound
I don’t know if any of the above made the least bit of sense, or even if it’s relevant to this thread. If not, then you have my apology. It’s just the way I currently see it …

I think I understand exactly what you’re saying, and thanks for sharing. You’re saying that by human nature we have a need to put our ideas into a box, and in reality the box does not exist.

Hmm... this is starting to sound like something from a Matrix movie.


Thanks for clearing that up for me, Hal9000. Thats exactly what I meant.


And what you say about getting a different measurement depending on the trip's point of origin is interesting. I guess it would depend on whether or not space is relatively uniformly distributed. If space extends pretty much equally in all directions, then I would think the trip from point A to point A would be roughly equivalent to the trip from point B to point B, regardless of the mass density encountered along the way on either trip. This would be assuming both trips were in a perfectly straight line. The thing that confuses me the most is what would be used as reference points in order to follow a perfectly straight line in each case. Veering off course would cause a different measurement, I think.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Wow, Breezin that was an excellent first post. It's new members with deep thoughts like your own that make this place rock.


Welcome to ATS.

That reminded me of an idea I had as a child about the universe. I was always struck with the notion that the solar system resembled the structure of the atom. And what if size was just relative. I had the notion that if you could go near the speed of light, and as Einstein’s theory predicts, mass becomes infinite, maybe stars and solar systems would increase in size, and distance between them would decrease. Then when the speed of light it reached, you would find yourself in another dimension where the stars and solar systems are the atoms of a world beyond our own. That is enough to make your head hurt.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by netbound
And what you say about getting a different measurement depending on the trip's point of origin is interesting. I guess it would depend on whether or not space is relatively uniformly distributed. If space extends pretty much equally in all directions, then I would think the trip from point A to point A would be roughly equivalent to the trip from point B to point B, regardless of the mass density encountered along the way on either trip. This would be assuming both trips were in a perfectly straight line. The thing that confuses me the most is what would be used as reference points in order to follow a perfectly straight line in each case. Veering off course would cause a different measurement, I think.

I guess I am still imagining the universe as a sphere. The further away from the center, the longer distance would be traveled. But if it were uniform as you suggest, from any given point, the distance would be the same. That is considering you do travel in a straight line, without gravity or whatever, causing you to go off coarse.

Another thought just occurred to me. How could you travel in a straight line and wind up back where you started? It would have to be a curved path parallel to the curvature of space. It would appear to be a straight line, but in fact it must be curved.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Thanks, Breezin. In a way it's comforting to know that my mindless babble made a little sense to someone. At times I get the feeling I'm speaking Alienese, from the reactions I get.


It seems to me sometimes that as science marches on, and technological advancement allows us to see deeper and deeper into both the micro and macro worlds, the more our uncertainty grows over just what the nature of reality truely is.

I've always been curious to know at exactly what point the micro world becomes the macro world and the particle behavior best described by quantum physics transitions into a state better described by classical physics. I imagine it to be a place where one state of reality transitions/shifts to another. At that level, Classical physics takes over and seems to best describe the things/events we are most familiar with in our daily existence on Earth. Then it seems another transition (reality shift) takes place at a more cosmic level where the laws of relativity now rule. Following a similar line of thought, it makes me wonder if the "boundaries" of our universe might represent yet an even stranger point of transition where the reality best described by Relativity then breaks down and another level of reality begins. It would make it seem as though there is perhaps level upon level, world upon world, cosmos upon cosmos, reality upon reality, on and on infinitum.

Again, I ramble on. Unfortunately, I have no answers; only questions and endless curiosity.



[edit on 11/24/2005 by netbound]

[edit on 11/24/2005 by netbound]

[edit on 11/24/2005 by netbound]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Another thought just occurred to me. How could you travel in a straight line and wind up back where you started? It would have to be a curved path parallel to the curvature of space. It would appear to be a straight line, but in fact it must be curved.


Good question, Hal9000.
Let's put it this way: traveling the shortest distance "through space" between 2 points (in this case, point A to Point A); just following the curvature of space itself.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I have a few ideas about our universe where I define our universe as not everything possibly imagined or that exists but simply everything that fits our known laws of physics in space and time. I often think of our universe as an expanding bubble in space and time where what we know as real exists and we are comfortable with that. I think of an area outside this bubble as a somewhat empty void of nothing. However I also think of some fabric or maybe a string in a way connecting multiple bubbles or different universes where the laws of physics and/or space time differ from the one we are in.

Getting back to what I consider our known universe, I will further divide our universe up into parallel dimensions that may be thought of as alternative timelines (what the world would have been like if something different happened). I think of these worlds or universes as separate from our own but extremely close. Then I can think of different dimensions such as the physical dimension we are familiar with and a spiritual dimension overlapping this one but not visible or well known.

Then I can also imagine that our entire universe that we know of with all of the galaxies and galactic structures and groupings of galaxies in this universe is simply an atom in a vastly larger universe and this atom of a universe is just part of a banana waiting to be eaten. I can imagine someone eating the banana containing our universe and nothing noticeable ever happening to the universe we live in.

Then going down in scale, I can imagine an advanced civilization of creatures pondering some similiar questions but living on such a small scale that I and they never comprehend the size difference.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter
Then I can also imagine that our entire universe that we know of with all of the galaxies and galactic structures and groupings of galaxies in this universe is simply an atom in a vastly larger universe and this atom of a universe is just part of a banana waiting to be eaten. I can imagine someone eating the banana containing our universe and nothing noticeable ever happening to the universe we live in.

Yep, thats the same idea I had (except for the bannana
), so maybe it wasn't so crazy. But we woudn't notice any change within our lifetime or even within the age of our solar system because our time is different (faster) than the higher universe.

edit: BTW, I would be interested in hearing what the author of the thread thinks of these ideas. To many times I see threads started, and the author never replies.


[edit on 11/26/2005 by Hal9000]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join