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.

 

Does space end?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tibris
It's weird to think about, because unlike the earth it doesn't have one surface you can walk on...


Space all of that, but more, if you think about it. Anyways, shoot off in one direction and you will die before you hit the mucous baby.




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
It has to have some form of boundary or end. If it goes on forever then how is it still expanding. But my question is what is it expanding into. What is it like where theres no space.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I find it easiest to comprehend as a Mobius Strip. I know, I know. That is a bad analogy but it helps me visualize. A Mobius Strip is only unending in one direction ( or two if you want to be difficult). I think that if you could travel far enough in one direction you would eventually end up back where you started, but I don't envision it as a sphere. I see it more as all things, at all times, occupy the same space.

What I find more difficult to envision is a Universe with an end as that raises the question; what is on the other side? What is outside the Universe?

If anyone truly ever understood All Things, at that point they would become God. Perhaps that is the real truth of it. Or perhaps it is 42 after all.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I find such a question quite stimulating ... as opposed to a headache


The way I have always viewed it, since a child is as follows ... I see all things - as being infinitely small and large, composed of systems of smaller things, which themselves are systems of smaller things ... and this goes on beyond all scope of imagination.

A point would be ... we, as humans are a single entity, comprised of many sub-systems ... these sub-systems have sub-sytems ... and you eventually get down to the element level, these elements have their own components, and each time we break it down further, we find there is something else that makes up that unit ... such as atoms made of quarks, etc. This is the infinitely small side, as of course, our body is as large as a galaxy compared to quarks and smaller.

On the opposite end, our bodies are a sub-system of an ecological system of earth, which is a sub-particle of the solar system, part of a galaxy, the galaxies part of a universe ... but I go further to contend, the universe is but a atom of an even greater collection ... and to find the end of our universe, would be similar as an atom going out into space ... the space exists, but on the scale of the atom, it would hardly understand it. It may see it as nothingness compared to being a part of a human body. It may not see the moon, or the other stars, but that doesn't mean they do not exist. Thus, its reality is it came to the end of its universe and surpassed it ... possibly unlocking a new perception of reality and coming to a new state of awareness. Replace us with that atom, and it serves that we would have a new understanding of things, if we ever come to the point of crossing a universal barrier.

I also have pondered the possibility of our misunderstanding of black holes ... they could be inter-dimensional portals, inter-universal portals ... or like we 'believe' them to be, large masses that have enough gravity to pull in light ... but ... my argument against that is the fact that some spit out mass ... and if it was purely a strong enough gravitational force to suck in light, then even the ejected mass should loop back around in a visible manner, no matter how strong it was pushed out.

Will we ever know? Not unless another life-force/entity decides to slowly educate the masses, and give the low-down in larger chunks to those whose mind are more open to the possibility. If you read this thread, and how many headaches it supplies just at the thought, you would see how far away we are from the comprehension of such thought patterns in even the more open-minded public (no offense, it is understandable). I think with the current state of thought, and our slow progress (limited a lot by assumptions) that it will be a very long time before we ever come to a true understanding of the universe ... but, then there are those few rogue thinkers that progress us in leaps and bounds occasionally ... they always have a chance to be looked upon as loony or make a shift in knowledge, depending on those around them at the time.

I guess the simple answer to your question from my perspective is this ... yes, space as we know it, ends ... but space overall, not so much. Is there an eventual end to the infinitely larger systems ... possibly, but I don't think we are anywhere close to where the end of existence ... exists



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Maybe I'm not understanding the question in general.

Are we talking about the point at which mass, or the big bang ends? Or the point at which even dark matter and space ends?

Is there scientific proof that space could end? I know that we've began to pick up algorythms suggesting that space can expand or grow, but does that suggest that it began as the size of a quark and grew into what we see today?

I do believe that there is an end to the outer most reaches of the big bang; Those clusters that were thrown to the furthest reaches from the big bang is where I believe "our" universe would end, but space would still exist. I believe if one travel another universe's distance they would eventually reach another universe or the outer most reaches of another big bang.

Maybe I'm not adept at mathmatics enough to understand this spherical concept of space ending and nothingness starting, being that my thoughts of "nothing" would be space itself. If one were to believe in this theory, I would be more apt to believe (not that I don't already) in the exsistance of a God. How could something, even a big bang, come from nothing. But, it would seem atheist would be apt to believe in unending space because it would have always have been here and will always remain. Matter just floats about throughout.

Also with this theory of the universe folding back onto itself ... would this not explain black holes more easily? I find it hard to grasp a shperical concept of space ending, but to me thinking that nothing can escape a black hole, it's easier for me to accept that space would actually end. But thinking in this manner would contradict the spherical theory because the actual "end" of the universe would be dispersed throughout by matter crunching black holes.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Cool topic OP.
I don't think the universe has a definable size and I believe it's never ending.

This stuff about expanding universe, hmmm, considering no one knows the size how can we be sure it's expanding. Sure we observe galaxies receding from us at an accelerating pace, but that doesn't *prove* the universe is expanding. Rather something out there is pulling on these bodies making them move away from us. Even if the universe is expanding, why are these bodies moving away. My guess is there's something massive out there we've yet to detect.

To sum up, I think the universe is infinite. There may be places in the universe where nothing exists (void), but that doesn't mean that's not part of the universe. Also, regarding multiverse. No reason to assume that multiple *verses (dimensions) can't exist in the universe.
WOW does that make sense



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by styxxz
Cool topic OP.
I don't think the universe has a definable size and I believe it's never ending.

This stuff about expanding universe, hmmm, considering no one knows the size how can we be sure it's expanding. Sure we observe galaxies receding from us at an accelerating pace, but that doesn't *prove* the universe is expanding. Rather something out there is pulling on these bodies making them move away from us. Even if the universe is expanding, why are these bodies moving away. My guess is there's something massive out there we've yet to detect.

To sum up, I think the universe is infinite. There may be places in the universe where nothing exists (void), but that doesn't mean that's not part of the universe. Also, regarding multiverse. No reason to assume that multiple *verses (dimensions) can't exist in the universe.
WOW does that make sense


There are a number of reasons to support the idea that the universe is expanding, and they are pretty well documented. Here are some of them:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The question of wether space has a border is one that will always be asked because even if we develop technologies that allow us to skip for star to star it would take way longer to skip galaxies until you reached the outermost galaxies, only then would you probably be able to see what is beyond space, and if space truly is infinite you might just find yourself on the other side looking back.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
The universe is 13 billion light years in length and expanding exponentially. I have always felt that it never had a beginning or and ending as we could understand it. Additionally it may be one of billions of universes that float next to each other in a bubble stream of infinity.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I think we all forget the fundamental thing about all this.

Say we can take pictures of the outer reaches of the universe. That will prove whats going on. Right? Not necessarily. The fact is, what we photograph now, is in the past. Just like looking at a far our star. To us right now it may look like a normal star as we gaze up, but in fact, that star may have exploded, but its just that this information hasnt reached us because its still traveling through space and time to get to us.

So...we can take photographs, but they may be millions of years old, and that wouldnt be the best evidence to go by. Unless Im missing something.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I would like to interject if I may. First of all, this is an excellent subject. The responses are fantastic. I have done some reading on Einstein. He theorized that if you could draw a straight line long enough, it would curve back on itself. In addition he indicated that IF you could shoot a bullet from here to infinity that you would shoot yourself in the back of the head. With our world’s current technology, I suspect that the only way we have to answer the OP's question is through mathematics. With so many variables and unknowns I would say that any answer extrapolated would be a scientific wild ass guess at best. In my opinion Space has no end, however it does have its limits.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Dr Sminty]

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Dr Sminty]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Today microsoft word kept showing a grammatical mistake when I typed the tautology nothing is nothing. It suggests I replace the second nothing with anything. Nothing is anything.

Scientists see no boundary to the Universe, no center of expansion, nor do they know what the Universe is supposed to be expanding into. But it’s both necessary and contradictory for there to exist infinite nothing outside a finite Universe. Thereby inflationary cosmology’s potential something they call nothing defies its definition upon existence. The only reconciliation is to agree with my word processor. Nothing isn’t nothing. Nothing is anything, and the anything’s infinite.

Now, this is important. Big bang theorists think the Universe is finite yet began as an infinitely dense, hot and infinitesimally small singularity. The theory also maintains that since then, the Universe has been expanding and cooling. This means shortly after the space-time singularity, certain aspects of the Universe (heat, density, and size) somehow changed from infinite to finite. We must either accept this mathematical impossibility, or that space-time singularities are extremely small, hot, and dense, but are not infinitely so. And if this is true, it means at some measurable heat, size and density, all physical laws break down. Like at 100 googolplex degrees, 100 googolplex grams per negative cubic centimeter all laws of temperature and density hold, but at 100 googolplex and 1, everything changes allowing space-time itself to enter or exit existence.

Big bang theorists also think the Universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old, yet We’ve recently discovered huge galaxies and quasars 15 billion light-years away from Us. Based on Einstein and Hubble’s own equations, this means that fifteen billion years ago, the fabric of space-time was stretched at least 15 billion light-years across, and gigantic celestial bodies were already formed. These are both quite incompatible with current inflationary cosmology. To top it off, We can’t observe the red-shifting of galaxies beyond the Hubble radius because they’re approaching and possibly breaking the light barrier at the very bounds of Our perception. Theoretically We’re left with few options. Either galaxies break the light barrier past the Hubble radius where We’ll never see them or they mysteriously disappear for another reason, because We don’t yet see a boundary, just the infinite anything.

Everything in space rotates round bound in elliptical orbits or swings unbound in parabolas and hyperbolas. The Earth spins on its axis at 1000mph, around the sun at 66,000mph. Our solar system orbits the Milky Way at 500,000mph and the galaxy speeds through the known Universe at 1,000,000mph. Then the known Universe likely orbits another, larger, more central entity at even greater speed etc. I highly doubt this fractal trend of orbital motion ends in the mysterious non-orbital expansion from a singularity. And if so, what resultant force from the big bang is responsible for beginning both space-time’s expansion and matter’s orbital motion? For the outward expansion of space-time and the orbital motion of matter to co-exist in the same Universe, the original acting force either exerted its power in a spiraling, circular pattern, or matter mysteriously developed the motion on its own.

Whichever way, the spiral and other fractal shapes, are abundant in nature, and I suggest the logical progression from quantum physics to cosmology suggests not the expansion of a singularity that defies causality, physics, and mathematics, but instead a timeless, fractally infinite and infinitesimal Universe in perpetual centrifugal motion around itself.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Logically, if you divide a second in half and in half again and again, this process continues forever. Likewise, if you divide a chunk of matter in half again and again, there should always be half your last division left over. And mathematicians agree that any number but zero may be divided ad infinitum. Quantum theorists, however, think the process of dividing time and matter reaches its end long before infinity. At some point far past their ability to see, they claim there’s a fundamental particle of matter and a fundamental unit of time of which there is nothing smaller or shorter.

Since it’s crucial to higher math, but impossible to prove or disprove, mathematicians assume infinity in their equations. Likewise, science can never prove nor disprove the necessary fundamentality of any supposed fundamental particle, but every time someone gets a new microscope they think they’ve found the end. I propose instead of always supposing they’ve reached the limit, why don’t scientists take after mathematicians and assume infinity in their experiments? By all means continue the further telescoping and magnification of matter, but concede that each time We’ve seen further into the macro and micro-unknown, technology throws down the gauntlet, and God picks it up with seemingly infinite resources, from galaxies and quasars to stars and planets, moons down through molecules to atoms and protons and quarks and gluons and so on and so forth. The fractal unknown forever taunts Our limited perceptions from afar, no matter how deep We reach, so why not assume infinity until We’re somehow given real reason not to?

Science can only prove what We can test with tools and Our senses, but it’s more likely that ultimate answers lie far beyond Our perceptions and any tools We can fashion to aid them. Even if some Unified Field Theory proved perfectly consistent with Our every observation, I’d still be suspicious of some finite answer’s eerie consistency, and forever wonder if something undetectable lay one step further. Personally the only Unified Theory that satisfies my deepest concerns is Infinity as Truth in all facets of existence. Matter is infinitely divisible, time is eternal, and speed is limitless for something We can’t see. I present Infinity as the Anti-Unified Field Theory, a concept We grasp but can’t understand - it dangles around Our minds taunting Us with its necessary Truths but never allows Us access to it’s eternal complexity, like God.

The blasphemy scientists are committing is eliminating the infinite aspects of Our Universe. Einstein thinks light’s the fastest thing, Planck thinks strings are the smallest and shortest things, Hawking thinks the big bang’s the first thing, I think they’re all limiting themselves trying to stop one step before infinity.

We’ve already observed instantaneous, non-local correlation in entangled particles, some physicists insist there exist tachyons faster than light, others say halos around black hole event horizons break the barrier due to time dilation. Whatever the explanation We keep pulling over for Einstein’s ultimate speed limit. Then quantum theorists step-up and create one-dimensional superstrings that walk the Planck between quantum mechanics and Einstienian relativity. Finally, cosmologists and astronomers play their finite observations in rewind and find a Big Bang Beginning as inexplicable and unsatisfying as you’d expect from science.

The frantic search for fundamental particles, universal boundaries, other endings and attempts to finitize the Anything into sets of symbols shows a human fear of infinity that’s driven many crazy. Reality may be finite and expressible, but if it isn’t then We’ll all die believing whatever current chaotic theory they throw at infinity instead of honoring its integrity, by believing it over any inconsistent set of finite meanderings.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Why is it that so many truly important math equations, scientific theories, and philosophical refutations end in an infinite regress? We always take this as a sign of failure when it could be the answer popping up over and over again. Science, Mathematics, and Philosophy give opposite requirements for proof and Truth. For a scientific theory, mathematical formula, or logical argument to be proven it must contain the ability to be falsified so that experimentation can further refine it’s validity. But Truth by necessity cannot be disproved, and thus would not contain the ability to be falsified. So if Truth was looking your theory straight in the eyes, the institution shuts it down - an unfalsifiable theory cannot be tested and what cannot be tested cannot be verified true. So if ultimate Truth lay in infinity, which I assure you it does, science will never concede it; it’s up to you.

The origin of the Universe endows necessary Truth on one of two equally unfathomable options: an uncaused cause or infinity. Rationally they are mutually exclusive but equally valid - neither makes sense, and one of them is right. Thus a rationally based decision to your personal opinion of the origin of the Universe leads to an impasse.

Emotionally, however a decision can be made for, infinity feels awe-inspiring in its complex simplicity whereas an uncaused cause is an incomprehensible paradox and feels like betrayal. A first cause is a He, She, or It out there above rationality and causality, necessitating hierarchy on nature. But infinity is Us, Our Universe, all matter in perpetual motion and interaction together.

(The preceeding was taken from my Novella "The Heads" which I'm currently trying to get published. Any ATS agents out there?)



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
The big bang has been proven incorrect, the universe is not expanding, dark matter is a fudge factor to make the equations of a failed gravity only based model work. (A fudge factor of 96%!!) Black holes are a myth, again trying to compensate for the lack of energy in the gravity model, comets are not dirty snowballs, neutron stars defy the island of instability law and stars are most likely electrical in nature and not nuclear furnaces held together by the infinitely weak force of gravity. Mainstream cosmology is a joke and is only supported by a dogmatic view akin to religion.

Need proof? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Other than the mainstream nonsense, some great thoughts have been raised so far. I do believe in the fractal nature of the universe, if there is a boundary, the universe is most likely embedded in a larger universe.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
space IS space.

so... no. space will never end...

... as long as there IS space.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
I really do not understand what some other people are even mentioning except some sort of philosophical expansion or thought going on in his/her spacealien brain. With that sorry to disappoint anyone but:

Yes, space ends. Back in 1964, Preries (spelling) and Wilson of AT&T Bell Labs found the background radiation (left over from what is preceived to be the Big Bang) all around. So yes, Space does end even if it is expanding. At the boundary, it is a few tenths of a degree above absolute zero all around any direction you care to look. (The background radiation boundary.)

Besides that there is entrophy, so when the energy goes, the universe will run down, and continue to run down unless there is some other process going on that can end entrophy (or the gradual running down of all things in the universe).

I hope you have a nice day but like life, the universe has its own physics properties also like the physical properties that you have.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
i think that some people are confusing "space" and "the universe." space is the background that the universe is moving on. empty space is still space. on the other hand, matter tells space how to bend. if there's no more matter beyond a certain point, perhaps space bends backwards upon itself. and you can't really compare times between two points that are so vastly different in space. in a very real sense, our "now" doesn't exist on the edge of the universe. could be wrong. freight tomsen, nice posts.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
I believe that the universe does act as a loop system, but i do not like to look at it as a loop since that can raise difficult questions, like whats on the inside of the loop. So i simple put it as if you travel in one direction you will end up where you started, then if you travelled in the same direction again, the same thing would happen except the trip will take more time due to the expansion of space. Of course the universe is most likely tangled up on its self in grand complexity and in ways that we cannot imagine. and if this is indeed the shape of the universe, then we will never actually be able to come to the end of the universe. So in my opinion the universe is finite with a possible infinite growth.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I feel everyhting must come to a end so for the universe must have a ending. But because it is soo big nobody will ever find out the answer to that. But if it did end what is beyond there? We will never find out in anyones lifetime because it is just too big.




new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join