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 outside our own universe?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   


Our universes is defined as


The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.[2][3] Definitions and usage vary and similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature. Scientific observation of earlier stages in the development of the universe, which can be seen at great distances, suggests that the universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history. There are various multiverse theories, in which physicists have suggested that our universe might be one among many universes that likewise exist.[4][5]
wiki


Although, many probably believe the idea that nothing can or could exist outside of our universe. They also said that about space as well, space was considered some heavenly kingdom at one time, so I suggest the same idea or thought would be compared to todays average joe who believes nothing could be outside of our universe.


Although this question is far deeper when ask as well? If nothing exist, that would mean that nothing was holding onto our own universe. Or I suppose it probably is some sort of different renounce universe, a different dimension in other words. Just the idea and thoughts, I also wonder how dark enegery/matter rrelates to this as well. Perhaps the LHC will have all the answers soon enough, but until now I wonder these things, instead of whats inside our universe, let us open the door





posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I was thinking that same thing the other day and I'd like to believe its actually someone. A being that likes to create things and is busy painting and drawing things. Everything is just positioned just right in our galaxy and I find it hard to believe that everything is just one big coincidence.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   


Personally I like to believe that outside of our universe is another universe. What's in that universe? Nobody knows but I'd like to imagine that it's all of us with minor yet noticeable differences. Like there you're fat , here your skinny or Here you have hair , There you are bald. At least that's my take on the subject.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reptius




Yes I do believe in the multi verse idea. IMOH and yes it does make sense, but where did those universes orginated? seriously. I am for other universes/parallel universe, different dimensions. , but what substance cut the cheese first? I mean the big bang theory created us our 3dimension world, this one... What created the pre big bang? It's getting difficult for me to explain this now lol, i am no scientist



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Another Universe.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


The Flying Spaghetti Monster Dance Band.

(How could anyone know what is outside everything they could possibly experience?)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Aren't we just getting ourselves tripped up on our own definitions here? Is there really a problem? If the Universe is multi-dimensional and contains a lot of "chunks" that we have heretofore thought of as "universes," then can we not say that the "Universe" is multi-dimensional?

The Universe includes everything by definition. There was a time when people conceived of the Universe as earth-centric with the planets, moon, and sun floating around this great dome where the stars were painted on. In time we were able to work past that limited definition to a greater understanding of a heliocentric solar system where we understood that the stars were actually very much like our own sun and very far away. We were able to expand the definition of universe.

It seems to me that of it turns out that this membrane multi-verse theory holds up, we can simply expand the definition of universe again--just like we managed to do before. The problem is not with the universe itself, but with our conception of what it contains.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
That first video kind of freaked me out.

What does it all mean?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
i was just watching futurama yesterday, the one where fry downloads a lucy lui copy onto a robot from napster

anyways in an earlier part of the episode he's doing all the things he had dreamed of and went to the edge of the universe and on the other side was a parallel universe

fry asked if there were an infinite amount of universes then and the professor replied 'no theres just the two'

though there is another episode where they get a box and can jump into various parallel universes

personally i would say there is only one universe but it is infinite with 'multiple parallels and dimensions'

though it is very odd that they can determine the size of the universe is ever expanding



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Aren't we just getting ourselves tripped up on our own definitions here? Is there really a problem? If the Universe is multi-dimensional and contains a lot of "chunks" that we have heretofore thought of as "universes," then can we not say that the "Universe" is multi-dimensional?

The Universe includes everything by definition. There was a time when people conceived of the Universe as earth-centric with the planets, moon, and sun floating around this great dome where the stars were painted on. In time we were able to work past that limited definition to a greater understanding of a heliocentric solar system where we understood that the stars were actually very much like our own sun and very far away. We were able to expand the definition of universe.

It seems to me that of it turns out that this membrane multi-verse theory holds up, we can simply expand the definition of universe again--just like we managed to do before. The problem is not with the universe itself, but with our conception of what it contains.



the idea of labeling the universe as the universe is because contained in the "universe" is a pattern of uniformity,, an event connected on multiple levels in multiple ways,,,,, galaxies, stars, planets,, elements, energy, chemicals, particles,,,,,,,,,

the idea of there being more then this universe comes from the question,,,,, why should we think this is the only universe that exists,,, do universes have to be made like this one is, in its patterns and materials, and dimensions, and geometry......



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
If the universe is infinite in scale then there's no outer boundary from our perspective. Infinity is an infinite distance away. If somehow we found a way to bridge infinite distances we may then attempt to 'go outside', though I suspect this may result in a flipping or mirroring of our perception of time (a dark mirror).

This can tie into the idea that we're inside a black hole. I will now attempt to expand on this:

Imagine if you will: You pass through an event horizon with your temporal spaceship into a black hole, but the further in you go in, the more space contracts. Since you contract with the space around you, you too become smaller and smaller. Had you not just seen it from the outside you probably wouldn't even notice the contraction. Therefore it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the singularity... which all of the sudden doesn't even make sense because from within: the singularity is the combined masses of everything inside (planets, stars, galaxies...). It's like the idea where you have an infinite line with different points on the line. From infinity's perspective (outside the event horizon), all those points may as well be collapsed to a single point.

I could go on but I ramble. I've been connecting these ideas to math, and in particular naturally emergent geometry (like my avatar) and it's rather exciting... though it can certainly make you crazy.
That's because I've had to treat infinity as something that actually exists for all this to make sense (something that scientists even today are reluctant to do). Fortunately (or not) I'm one of those people who would take a 'schitzo pill' just to see what it's like. Curiosity, meow.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
the idea of labeling the universe as the universe is because contained in the "universe" is a pattern of uniformity,, an event connected on multiple levels in multiple ways,,,,, galaxies, stars, planets,, elements, energy, chemicals, particles,,,,,,,,,


By definition the "universe" is everything. It's a mistake to claim that everything in th universe is "uni"form. It includes matter and anti-matter.


the idea of there being more then this universe comes from the question,,,,, why should we think this is the only universe that exists,,, do universes have to be made like this one is, in its patterns and materials, and dimensions, and geometry......


Then you are changing the definition of "universe" to be something not so universal, to be something finite with its own geometry and physics different from some other place that has different rules.

This makes no sense at all.

The universe is everything. If we don't quite "get it" because our concept of the universe insists that everything obey our rules as we perceive them, then we need to change our definition of "universe" to be more inclusive.

There is really not a problem here. We're just making it up. The "universe" is everything, whether we understand it or not.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler


By definition the "universe" is everything. It's a mistake to claim that everything in th universe is "uni"form. It includes matter and anti-matter.


We defined this term universe,,, what i meant by uniform is, it sharing a single style, the pieces of the puzzle fit, it is a oneness, one verse of cosmic event, sharing commonalities, composed of the same style of particles and such... All Im saying is the everything we can know and are apart of,,, may not be everything that is happening wherever things like "universe" happens....


So everything that has ever existed and ever will should be considered a part of this universe,, this is when i ask what if there are different universes outside this one, that have different ways, what if this universe is not entirely what it seems to be to us? a few posts up someone mentions quantum computing and the ability to store a massive amount of information in small particles, what if planets and stars are particles in a microchip in the computer of a programer?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
It could be that there is no such a place as "outside the universe". That's not the same as saying that outside our universe there is nothing, nor am I saying the universe is infinite, and therefore there is always "something", forever and ever.

What I'm saying is that there is no way to go outside the universe, nor is it possible to describe the characteristics of outside the universe, because "outside the universe" does not exist.

When something doesn't exist, it is even less than "nothing". The word "nothing" seems to connote an empty place. There may actually be no "place" at all outside the universe to even call "empty". The place is simply non-existent. Non-existent is less than nothing.


edit on 3/13/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
According to the WORD we chose to define "everything", the answer to your question is nothing.

It's like asking what flavor ice cream is OUTSIDE the bowl... Clearly none because the ice cream is in the bowl.

If the "universe" is EVERYTHING in existence, then nothing can exist outside of it.

"Space" is totally different...



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
According to the WORD we chose to define "everything", the answer to your question is nothing.

It's like asking what flavor ice cream is OUTSIDE the bowl... Clearly none because the ice cream is in the bowl.

If the "universe" is EVERYTHING in existence, then nothing can exist outside of it.

"Space" is totally different...


That's exactly what I was getting at. Even totally and 100% empty space is still "something" -- it is empty space. It's a place things can be, even if at the moment that place is 100% empty.

Outside the universe may even be less that that totally empty space. It's a place that does not exist.


edit on 3/13/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
According to the WORD we chose to define "everything", the answer to your question is nothing.

It's like asking what flavor ice cream is OUTSIDE the bowl... Clearly none because the ice cream is in the bowl.

If the "universe" is EVERYTHING in existence, then nothing can exist outside of it.

"Space" is totally different...


That's exactly what I was getting at. Even totally and 100% empty space is still "something" -- it is empty space. It's a place things can be, even if at the moment that place is 100% empty.

Outside the universe may even be less that that totally empty space. It's a place that does not exist.


edit on 3/13/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Well actually, empty space, isn't even empty space... Human beings are just hard wired to label everything, but just because we label it as something, doesn't make it that.

I can label myself rich, but I'll still be poor.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
Well actually, empty space, isn't even empty space... Human beings are just hard wired to label everything, but just because we label it as something, doesn't make it that.


I'm saying that even IF you took everything out of space and made it empty (no subatomic particles, no radiation, nothing at all) it would still be something. It would be empty space -- and empty space is a place, a place that can have stuff in it.

Stuff can't exist outside the universe, because maybe there is no such place as "outside the universe" in which that stuff can exist.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


This is the same as that old philosophical argument "is there ever a time humans are doing nothing?"

When we're sleep, our subconscious is working..
When we're dead, we're laying down, decomposing..
When we're decomposed, we're effecting the soil...
Then through some sick twisted philosophers mind, we're reincarnated as a flower...

There's such thing as one question too many..



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


if something was outside of the universe, wouldnt it automatically become part of our universe given the definition?
edit on 13-3-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join