Jump to content

Where Does Space End? It Must End Somewhere!


Recommended Posts

Thus, unless space itself has expanded faster than the speed of light (which it has, so it kinda throws this out the window), all matter/energy in the universe has a radius of probability of ~14 billion light years.

 

Is this true, space has expanded faster than the speed of light? Can that be calculated with the variables at hand?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

half a quark

With regards to the Universe size:     So, just for the record; It isn't an issue of - could, not - 50%, not even 99.99%. The Universe is Infinite by 100%.

matter cannot always be divided into smaller protions. do the words "elementary particles" mean anything to you?

Posted Images

Okay let me add more to this.

 

The universe is not a place nor a location. It is not a thing or a place.

 

Think about how the universe can distort and change for one persons observation but not for another.

 

Each observer forms a universe in their mind with a mental pattern.

 

The universe itself eminates from a patternless source we know as quantum physics. At this level reason doesnt exist, it just becomes patterns in your mind when you try to understand it. It comes from Possibilites, but not absolutes.

 

So the universe only begins from inside your mind, as you create patterns out of various smaller eminations of patterns.

 

Each observer has their own universe. Yes the entire thing you see and experience is unique to yourself. You can see space shrink and time dilate, but I might not.

 

So the universe and everything in it, all of space and time, is not a One object, its an independent creation formed in each observer.

 

The only thing that is One about it is, that it all shares a possibility that eminates from the quantum realm.

 

The most fundamental part of reality is your self, and your understanding of patterns eminating around you. The entire universe was given to you, and you alone, as it was given to me and me alone. For I did not create myself, nor did I come from a bacteria, I came from a womb.

 

I am my cells, and my bacteria, I am my atoms and my molecules and DNA, I am my skin and me bones and my mind and my thoughts. I am thousand of levels and stages, but they all form me, a self...they are all true, but just different levels of truth, and the truth of all truths is that all truths are connected... and the this ultimate truth is a self, and how it percieves the world related to your wisdom on its designs.

 

Gather this comprehension and you will understand that science will never lead you to the ulimate truth. It will only sepearte the oneness of things by exposing the details which lead to the loss of patterns, and tri (three) location relativistic reasoning (the loss of patterns)

and know that the universe is not a place its a possibilty, One that you can never reach the end of. For light has already been all places and times.. it is the first and the last...you just access it from the state of matter, as it eminates out in patterns for the self to make reason of and sustain its multiple needs of multiple levels.

 

So I stress again, its not one thing, this universe, its infinite things, infinite universes all blended into one, in the time scale that light came into being and the time that it leaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But when you stop studying the details you return back to the oneness of things and that is unstudied living of the self.

 

So it is a place.. but its not when you try to look where comes from other than yourself.

 

Einstein said, I want to learn how god thinks the rest, its just details...

 

He already answered his question.. everything is details.. to think like god thinks in the context of his proposal, is to just live happily, and know spirit is all that is and will be. Infinite possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that if the universe was expanding at the speed of light in one direction (though I think this is highly unikely) and it was expanding at the speed of light in the other direction, as well, then the relative speed between both separate ends would be twice the speed of light, though we would never see the light from the other end because we would be travelling away from it too fast. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose that if the universe was expanding at the speed of light in one direction (though I think this is highly unikely) and it was expanding at the speed of light in the other direction, as well, then the relative speed between both separate ends would be twice the speed of light, though we would never see the light from the other end because we would be travelling away from it too fast. :D

 

Ok, a few things:

 

The universe expanding does not have a "speed." You can judge how fast any two particular objects are getting farther apart, but that's it. (The farther apart any two objects are from one another, the faster they're moving apart.)

 

However, those two objects are not moving. They are getting farther apart. But they are not moving. This cannot be stressed enough. It is space that is getting larger. This article explains it decently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion

 

If things were moving (which they ARE NOT), then they couldn't be moving "at the speed of light." Nothing moves at the speed of light except light.

 

The universe does not have "ends." This, also, cannot be stressed enough.

 

In your example, we can say they're moving at, say 99% the speed of light (since lightspeed is impossible) in opposite directions from us. Mr. A goes 0.99C left, Mr. B goes 0.99C right. To us, it looks like they're going almost double lightspeed relative to one another. However, they are NOT. Mr. A will see us moving 0.99C away from him, and he will see Mr. B moving around 0.99999C or so away from him. Nothing can ever be moving more than lightspeed relative to whoever is looking at it. Two observers moving relative to one another, then, obviously can't agree on what a third object is doing. Welcome to the world of special relativity!

Link to post
Share on other sites
In your example, we can say they're moving at, say 99% the speed of light (since lightspeed is impossible) in opposite directions from us. Mr. A goes 0.99C left, Mr. B goes 0.99C right. To us, it looks like they're going almost double lightspeed relative to one another. However, they are NOT. Mr. A will see us moving 0.99C away from him, and he will see Mr. B moving around 0.99999C or so away from him. Nothing can ever be moving more than lightspeed relative to whoever is looking at it. Two observers moving relative to one another, then, obviously can't agree on what a third object is doing. Welcome to the world of special relativity!

 

 

I disagree with this. If there was a way to travel .99C, and two objects travelled away from a common origin at .99C, then the light from object A would simply take many years to get to object B. The relative speed between the two moving objects would simply be irrelevant. Relative speed is irrelevant, theoretically speaking. The speed of light is irrelevant when compared to relative speed. Time travel can no longer be accomplished because in order for the relative speed between two objects to be greater than the speed of light, they must be travelling away from each other, theoretically speaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. Ordinarily, you would expect A to see B moving away at 0.99C+0.99C=1.98C, based on what we see between them. Or rather, he wouldn't "see" B at all, since they'd be moving away from one another at a speed greater than light, and the light can't "catch up."

 

However, this is not the case. A will see B moving away at a speed which is still less than lightspeed. In fact he won't just "see" B moving at a less than C relative speed, B will actually be moving at a less than C relative speed. It is impossible that any two objects have a relative speed of C or greater. The way this is possible is that A, B, and us in the middle will all disagree about distances and the rate at which time passes, and we'll all be right, because distance and time are merely relative, also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true that in this thought experment where you shine a laser away from you in a huge dust chamber, as the laser increases distance, it will be observed to travel slower than C...?

 

This being because the light you recieve comes from dust particles from certain locations, but as the laser trucks on, it takes greater and greater time for the light to reflect back and the laser will observe to slow down..

 

True?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is what I believe. Equations are equations, kind of like estimating the flight path of an electron around a nucleus. However, when you get Object A flying .99C in one direction and Object B flying .99C in the opposite direction, we'll just have to see what actually ends up on the flight data recorders. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it true that in this thought experment where you shine a laser away from you in a huge dust chamber, as the laser increases distance, it will be observed to travel slower than C...?

 

This being because the light you recieve comes from dust particles from certain locations, but as the laser trucks on, it takes greater and greater time for the light to reflect back and the laser will observe to slow down..

 

True?

 

I think this is probably an optical illusion caused by the diffusion of the light travelling through the dust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
we'll just have to see what actually ends up on the flight data recorders. :D

 

We've done just that. Well, not that, but equivalent to that. Relativity has been confirmed experimentally many times. We use technology every day, like GPS, which would not work if those "mere" equations were false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is probably an optical illusion caused by the diffusion of the light travelling through the dust.

 

Even so, the experiment is intended to represent that of a typical object traveling in space. One that sends out light from different locations just like the laser bouncing off of dust.

 

If the laser is viewed to slow down.. then as such, objects we view are often as you coined, optical illusions..

 

this is if the logic holds true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if space ends somewhere then perhaps if you get to the boundary of space and manage to get past that boundary you will find yourself back in space; our space but the other side of it or at least somewhere else in it.

 

The problem is that just leaving our space will make the non-space you enter become part of our space; because you are there.

 

I don't think we can get to the edge of space though, we'll just keep going around and end up back where we started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the energy we call light or that energy which reflects off an object, has little to do with its source. those two objects traveling away from each other (at .99C) would be seen by each at locations that were. the sources no where near where observance is made. even in our observance of galaxy from distant places are not current reality, only that which was in accordance to how long ago it was emitted.

 

the technical meaning of Universe is all things. if space itself is infinite, then all thats in space is our universe. the entity we call a universe no doubt ends someplace, but the space beyond, not this entity and would have different meanings. even the so called, expansion reflects the idea, our universe is going into this other entity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to be perfectly honest space can be easily defined using Mr. H. Simpson’s theory of a doughnut shaped universe..........

no seriously:

 

the easiest way to think of the universe (in its expanding state) is as a sheet of rubber, draw three dots (think of them as galaxies) on the rubber (in its relatively un-stretched state) then begin to stretch the rubber, un-surprisingly the "galaxies" will begin to move apart, this same little miracle occurs if you draw dots, sorry "Galaxies" on a balloon, then blow the balloon up....

 

Anyway there are my two pence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is a bit of an invalid question.

 

First of all you have to try and find where the end is. Then you have to define what the end means.

 

We are talking about location, and space-time.

 

When you view distance objects, its possible you are viewing something behind you, or perpendicular to your forward (12 o'clock) observation.

 

Next the distance also means time, so the long distance away is also many years away (ancient past). Yet, it is also your present moment, that you see, and the future.

 

So in one relativistic context, its not the past.

 

In another relativisitic context, it is the past.

 

So as for the end of space. There isnt really any strait lines in space, and it is not certain you will arive at what you see.

 

We can speculate and end, but if you were at that speculated end right now, you would most considerably be looking at the same question.

 

It is so big that anything infront of you could actually be behind you (in extreme cases).

 

As I said its all relative circumstance, and it really only begins when it reaches your mind.(but thats another topic)

 

The question can not be asked with comman sense.. the universe doesnt work like comman sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

William James Sidis, the smartest man that ever lived, proved that space is infinite.

 

"He has shown that the "Big-Bang" theory is wrong. The universe is infinite and eternal; it did not begin at some time, and will not end at some other time; it has no border at some place, and no other border at some other place." ―Dan Mahony

 

His work is available on line and written so that any body with a decent science background can read.

 

http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for the link. w/o having gone over all of it at this time, i have some trouble in no end of a this universe. space yes, i think is infinite and i am not talking about curved or any version.

 

i might wonder about "the smartest man to ever"; certainly from what i have read, many such thoughts have been offered for a very long time. i will also add, a good many feel BBT, is not only wrong but ill conceived and certainly lacks explanation. however the outline is articulate, a quality i dearly lack....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.