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.
neo96
reply to post by spav5
Guess people just fall off the edge of the universe when they get there.
Should sound familiar.
Although the shape of the universe is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, based on the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error", according to NASA scientists.
---
The model most theorists currently use is the so-called Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. According to cosmologists, on this model the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the universe is infinite and flat
en.wikipedia.org...
DeadSeraph
neo96
Seems to me when the universe is constantly expanding 'infinite' seems to be correct.
When everything is constantly in motion rather hard to 'quantify' it.
Right ?
But if it's expanding then it has to have an "end" to expand into, doesn't it?
paradox
DeadSeraph
neo96
Seems to me when the universe is constantly expanding 'infinite' seems to be correct.
When everything is constantly in motion rather hard to 'quantify' it.
Right ?
But if it's expanding then it has to have an "end" to expand into, doesn't it?
Space is not contained within anything.edit on 1-10-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)
paradox
reply to post by spav5
there is none. Infinity is conceptual.
spav5
paradox
DeadSeraph
neo96
Seems to me when the universe is constantly expanding 'infinite' seems to be correct.
When everything is constantly in motion rather hard to 'quantify' it.
Right ?
But if it's expanding then it has to have an "end" to expand into, doesn't it?
Space is not contained within anything.edit on 1-10-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)
This applies only to space? How did we come to define that?
There is no such thing as infinity +1
spav5
spav5
paradox
DeadSeraph
neo96
Seems to me when the universe is constantly expanding 'infinite' seems to be correct.
When everything is constantly in motion rather hard to 'quantify' it.
Right ?
But if it's expanding then it has to have an "end" to expand into, doesn't it?
Space is not contained within anything.edit on 1-10-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)
This applies only to space? How did we come to define that?
I am asking does this only apply to space..not being contained in anything?
And if so how did we/you come to that conclusion?
Peaceedit on 10-1-2014 by spav5 because: (no reason given)
ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Haxsaw
There is no such thing as infinity +1
Of course there is such as thing. You can even test it on a calculator which supports infinity. If you do infinity + 1 the answer will be infinity.
paradox
spav5
spav5
paradox
DeadSeraph
neo96
Seems to me when the universe is constantly expanding 'infinite' seems to be correct.
When everything is constantly in motion rather hard to 'quantify' it.
Right ?
But if it's expanding then it has to have an "end" to expand into, doesn't it?
Space is not contained within anything.edit on 1-10-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)
This applies only to space? How did we come to define that?
I am asking does this only apply to space..not being contained in anything?
And if so how did we/you come to that conclusion?
Peaceedit on 10-1-2014 by spav5 because: (no reason given)
I would define space as the field of energy in which all things exist. And if the universe was contained within something, would that not be space as well?
Infinite.
ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Haxsaw
Lol what do you mean "it already has it". It has an infinite number of 1's actually, adding another 1 doesn't change anything. What you're saying is like saying that if 1+2=3 then you can't do 1+3=4 because 3 "already has 1". Your logic is completely absurd.
ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Haxsaw
Lol what do you mean "it already has it". It has an infinite number of 1's actually, adding another 1 doesn't change anything. What you're saying is like saying that if 1+2=3 then you can't do 1+3=4 because 3 "already has 1". Your logic is completely absurd.