what is outside the universe

[faustus]

it's a bit nasty the way that you continually insult incognito.

such a monger of hate, thunder. you're the type of cunt who needs to focus on zenning the fuck out.

have any of you cunts watched the documentary series "through the wormhole" hosted by morgan freeman? haven't got up to it yet, but season 2 episode 2 is titled "is there an edge to the universe"

[CβL]

I'd just like to make it clear that there are no actual answers to this question at the moment. The best we have from science are hypotheses compatible with our strongest theories.

[qualia]

of course. will humans ever actually know, i.e. experience first hand?

doubtful, but the conjecture is half the fun.

[Dolos]

such a monger of hate, thunder. you're the type of cunt who needs to focus on zenning the fuck out.

have any of you cunts watched the documentary series "through the wormhole" hosted by morgan freeman? haven't got up to it yet, but season 2 episode 2 is titled "is there an edge to the universe"

 

I understand there may (or may not) be an insiders joke going on here but your use of the word cunt/cunts got me thinking. Is there any other word in the English language you could think of that does as little to a written conversation than the word CUNT/CUNTS. The word to me just doesn't translate well in text unless of course I was describing one. A very powerful verbal expression, especially when used in anger but some how it just doesn't seem to work well when written down. I will defend to the death your right to say it though

Sorry for the highjack

Peace

[faustus]

I understand there may (or may not) be an insiders joke going on here but your use of the word cunt/cunts got me thinking. Is there any other word in the English language you could think of that does as little to a written conversation than the word CUNT/CUNTS. The word to me just doesn't translate well in text unless of course I was describing one.

if you feel this way, it's cos the little voice inside your head is getting the intonations all wrong. it's pronounced cunt, not cunt.

regardless, you should be spending less time hijacking this thread (meta-hijacking doesn't count) and spending more time engaging in armchair philosophy. so many ideas that we'll never know the answer to are just waiting to be contemplated.

[Rabaelthazar]

Are you from Australia, Dolos? It's lost a lot of its nastiness here as a word. Like calling someone you mate. "hey cunt, feel like catching up for a beer tonight?"

[Seldom]

how dare you all.

[Thelema]

yeah and I got bollocked for the pun on female shamans as "cuntahuasca" I thought that was pretty cool.

Anyhow, there can be no edge to the universe, lets make it clear....the Universe is ALL there is and thus must include anything that is (mistakenly)beyond it. The universe with a small u, which we call spacetime, might not of course be the Universe with a big U.

[qualia]

how dare you all.

 

fucking how dare you!

[qualia]

Anyhow, there can be no edge to the universe, lets make it clear....the Universe is ALL there is and thus must include anything that is (mistakenly)beyond it. The universe with a small u, which we call spacetime, might not of course be the Universe with a big U.

 

well, provided there is just a universe. maybe it's a multiverse after all?

i'm not a physicist, well far from it.

if theres no "edge" as it were. but if the universe is expanding, there must be a frontier where it expands through?

[Thelema]

cunt!

[H.E. Pennypacker]

but if the universe is expanding, there must be a frontier where it expands through?

 

Space is the final frontier.

[CβL]

but if the universe is expanding, there must be a frontier where it expands through?

Well, if you insist that the universe is expanding into something, then at least one one scale (the atomic scale) - the "edge" is fuzzy. I have a strong suspicion that on the macro scale, the universe would also exhibit fuzziness, i.e. taper off.

But I don't think that the universe is expanding into something else. It is entirely possible that the universe is expanding into itself, rather than into something else.

That is what I mentioned in my first post on this thread - the torus shape is one such shape that can expand into itself, without requiring a greater structure holding our universe.

Edit: Here is a 2-second clip of a torus rotating into itself:

Edited October 13, 2011 by βluntmuffin

[SunChaser]

I think if you use logical thought and observe the known laws of our own universe it starts to become rather clear that everything must just be an accumulation of something else. In other words although to us the universe feels like a whole of something, it's actually probably just apart of something. Kind of like when we look at the sky we see many stars, but if you saw our galaxy from a million light years away, it would look like a single galaxy.

They say matter is so empty that it's basically it's own miniature universe, with atoms being the solar systems and if you took all the empty space out of all the humans in the world, you could fit what was left into a single sugar cube.

So if you ask me our universe is probably a supernova or something similar in some other universe or dimension, which is either identical to ours or completely different. We are probably just some particle in that reality.

Anyway, fact is humans can't even manage to get past 400 miles above the earth because the environment is just way to hostile. So either way you cut it, whatever is outside our universe its not going to have much use to us humans and probably wouldn't mean anything to us either, since it ain't our reality. 

To be honest though, personally I'm much more intrigued about what's in our universe than what's outside it. Thinking about what's outside our universe is a waste of the human races combined energy. Working out what the universe is and what it contains is the way to advancing and enlightening life on earth.

It actually kind of frustrates me. For the last five thousand years humans just went crazy pushing the limits of our capabilities by building giant civilizations and amazingly complex and large pyramids & temples without any power tools. But then all of a sudden we got the combustion engine and colour tv and just said 'fuck it' and stopped trying!

Peace

[woof woof woof]

Blunt,... I think that that Torus example is exactly whats' going on on a micro scale,.....

I like imagine our known universe to be something like the gyres in this animation

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/nbc/cspd30d.gif

[paradox]

maybe OUR universe is human shaped.. & it IS us but we're also inside it experiencing our selves on the subatomic level.. the big bang was our conception & we expand (growing up) until the quantum physical dynamics of our organism ie the physics of the outer universe, stablizes & slowly cools (aging) until the individual fractal mind continuum implodes upon itself (death) & is recycled throughout the infinite fractal continuum of the multiverse..

[paradox]

as though consciousness is the substrate in which all phenomena exist.. & the whole universe is suspended in the multiverse of our collective conscious

[mysubtleascention]

Outside this Univese (lat.uni-one;verse-version; one version of creation) everyone of us is a Universe.We decided to come in this Universe to learn the construct of light(vibration),incarnating in all the light forms this Universe has to offer,experiencing all the consciousnesses of these forms as beings,in co creation with God-the being of light that is this Universe.

After we exhausted all the possibilities in this Universal cycle we started, we're closing it along with all the smaller cycles that it contains-galactic cycles,star cycles,planetary cycles,human cycles,atomic cycles exc. at the equinox on the 21 of March 2013.On that date, planet Earth which is a divine feminine aspect of this Universe, is becoming a star,giving birth to a new race of Universal creators.Everyone of us who decides to stay with mother Earth,ascends into a new state of being, which accesses all the different consciousnesses in this Universe simultaneously.

http://georgekavassilas.org

Edited October 15, 2011 by mysubtleascention

[devance]

Well newtonian physics have.

Biological quantum physics is a different type.

As a different model from a comic book hero.

[paradox]

when asking the OP's question, it's fundementally important to understand that 'the universe' as we know it is not simply something that is going on 'out there' that we are observing.. our entire experience of life as a human being is a holographic projection created by our brain & nervous system through it's decoding of an infinitely complex stream of data that is being recieved by our senses... the whole thing (ie our experience) is occurring in our brain & the reality of what we are experiencing is entirely dependent on the limitations & particularities of the functioning of the organism that we are..

the idea of 'the universe' is nothing more than an idea in all of our heads... it cannot be any other way... everything is nothing more than something going on inside our heads.. this whole discussion is only going on in our heads.. thats not to say that theres neccissarily nothing going on outside our heads.. it seems clear theres something going on, it's just that it's our consciousness that is making it something.. the concept of something verses nothing is utterly meaningless without our consciousness to ask the question..

i think 'the universe' itself & what we are capable of experiencing are two infinitely different things... what we experience when we observe the universe is much more (or at least 50%) a reflection of the perculiar way in which our consciousness decodes data rather than anything close to the 'actuality' of the universe.. when looking at the way our consciousness decodes data i think it's worthwhile to look at our stream of evolution.. the fact that we evovled from an omniverous predatory ape etc i think will tell us a lot about why we decode data in the particular way we do & therefore why our particular conception of reality is limited in the ways that it is.. i mean every different animal has a different way of apprehending & decoding sense data based on the particular evolutionary needs of that organism & i assume all the different creatures with those different needs have vastly different ways of experiencing & constructiong the universe... in our case we are social predators with an oposable thumb & a penchant for using tools... the same process that has led to these traits has determined the particular & unique way we experience 'reality' & therefore the universe we experience & we only have this way of decoding the data because it has allowed us to survive in the particular niche we have occupied throughout our evolution ... not because it represents the 'real' universe but because filtering, decoding & catagorizing an infinitely complex stream of data in these particular narrow ways has allowed us to pass on our genes & keep our species alive in the ecosystem we found ourselves in..

unless we take this into account as a fundemental facet of the question & totally re-evaluate our narrow conception of ourselves & how consciousness/existence interacts & works then how are we to even begin to ask such a question as the OP

this vid is making some extremely important points..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILsRL5vE7V8&feature=feedrec_grec_index

Edited October 17, 2011 by paradox

[7baz]

anyone know the difference between these 2 pictures ?

the one on the left is a few micro millimeters inside a mouses brain.

the one on the right is a snapshot of the universe.

notice how much alike they look ?

whats to suggest the entire universe is just a map of a beings brain in another world far unimaginable then we can even perceive ?

then the whole pattern may very well continue to infinity.

whats to suggest inside just one atom of the brain in the mouse is another entire universe ?

there is no way for us to ever truly know.

[Rabaelthazar]

there is no way for us to ever truly know.

 

If you were to add "... at least, before we die." then you would be stating the one and only irrefutable fact in our existences. (IMO)

[ThunderIdeal]

not that i haven't enjoyed reading the different ways everyone has been saying it, but as i've said in the past, the notion that if you alter the scale enough then you more or less return where you started (which was portrayed at the end of the movie "men in black" when the camera zooms out beyond galaxies and shit until you see a snail-man playing marbles) is just a little bit fucken weak! i know i'm being rude but i wish that if you all are going to the effort to describe speculations on the grandiose structures of reality then make it more worthwhile, or i feel like i'm the only person here that has taken good acid.

thought provoking, paradox (and i'm pretty sure you agreed with me last time i made a post like this heheh)

[woof woof woof]

dont fall off the edge of the universe psychonauts! hahaha

[qualia]

Various universe evolution scenarios. A universe with too much density collapses in on itself, a critical density universe stays static, while a universe with not enough density keeps expanding at a steady (coasting) rate. However, today's cosmology puts emphasis upon the cosmological constant, which gives an accelerating expansion. Does this mean that density is irrelevant? Credit: NASA.

A remarkable finding of the early 21st century, that kind of sits alongside the Nobel prize winning discovery of the universe’s accelerating expansion, is the finding that the universe is geometrically flat. This is a remarkable and unexpected feature of a universe that is expanding – let alone one that is expanding at an accelerated rate – and like the accelerating expansion, it is a key feature of our current standard model of the universe.

It may be that the flatness is just a consequence of the accelerating expansion – but to date this cannot be stated conclusively.

As usual, it’s all about Einstein. The Einstein field equations enable the geometry of the universe to be modelled – and a great variety of different solutions have been developed by different cosmology theorists. Some key solutions are the Friedmann equations, which calculate the shape and likely destiny of the universe, with three possible scenarios:

• closed universe – with a contents so dense that the universe’s space-time geometry is drawn in upon itself in a hyper-spherical shape. Ultimately such a universe would be expected to collapse in on itself in a big crunch.

• open universe – without sufficient density to draw in space-time, producing an outflung hyperbolic geometry – commonly called a saddle-shape – with a destiny to expand forever.

• flat universe – with a ‘just right’ density – although an unclear destiny.

The Friedmann equations were used in twentieth century cosmology to try and determine the ultimate fate of our universe, with few people thinking that the flat scenario would be a likely finding – since a universe might be expected to only stay flat for a short period, before shifting to an open (or closed) state because its expansion (or contraction) would alter the density of its contents.

Although the contents of the early universe may have just been matter, we now must add dark energy to explain the universe's persistent flatness. Credit: NASA.

Matter density was assumed to be key to geometry – and estimates of the matter density of our universe came to around 0.2 atoms per cubic metre, while the relevant part of the Friedmann equations calculated that the critical density required to keep our universe flat would be 5 atoms per cubic metre. Since we could only find 4% of the required critical density, this suggested that we probably lived in an open universe – but then we started coming up with ways to measure the universe’s geometry directly.

There’s a You-Tube of Lawrence Krauss (of Physics of Star Trek fame) explaining how this is done with cosmic microwave background data (from WMAP and earlier experiments) – where the CMB mapped on the sky represents one side of a triangle with you at its opposite apex looking out along its two other sides. The angles of the triangle can then be measured, which will add up to 180 degrees in a flat (Euclidean) universe, more than 180 in a closed universe and less than 180 in an open universe.

 

Krauss: Why the universe probably is flat (video).

These findings, indicating that the universe was remarkably flat, came at the turn of the century around the same time that the 1998 accelerated expansion finding was announced.

So really, it is the universe’s flatness and the estimate that there is only 4% (0.2 atoms per metre) of the matter density required to keep it flat that drives us to call on dark stuff to explain the universe. Indeed we can’t easily call on just matter, light or dark, to account for how our universe sustains its critical density in the face of expansion, let alone accelerated expansion – since whatever it is appears out of nowhere. So, we appeal to dark energy to make up the deficit – without having a clue what it is.

Given how little relevance conventional matter appears to have in our universe’s geometry, one might question the continuing relevance of the Friedmann equations in modern cosmology. There is more recent interest in the De Sitter universe, another Einstein field equation solution which models a universe with no matter content – its expansion and evolution being entirely the result of the cosmological constant.

De Sitter universes, at least on paper, can be made to expand with accelerating expansion and remain spatially flat – much like our universe. From this, it is tempting to suggest that universes naturally stay flat while they undergo accelerated expansion – because that’s what universes do, their contents having little direct influence on their long-term evolution or their large-scale geometry.

But who knows really – we are both literally and metaphorically working in the dark on this.

Source: Universe Today