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.
wiki
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]
Originally posted by Reptius
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.
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,,,,,,,,,
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......
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.
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...
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)
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.