Jump to content
Edisonian

Where Does Space End? It Must End Somewhere!

Recommended Posts

when it`s Space it can :)

 

just like a Hole is composed of nothing, in fact the more you take away, the bigger it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a graphic designer' date=' I think i have a good perspective of this topic. When you start a new model, you have a big empty space. You can build this anywhere you could ever want. Space is not limited to where it stops or starts, but to how far we can go into it. Here are some other responses:

1.) Numbers are infinite. How is there a start and an end to them?

2.) If space ended somewhere, wouldn't there have to be something on the other side of it? You see, space is nothing, with something in it. Therefore it doesnt end. Nothing can't end... Because if it did... What would you be left with? Nothing.[/quote']

 

There are two kinds of infinite numbers though. ;)

There's the usual 0 to inifinity.

Then there is an infinte range of numbers, you could spend the rest of eternity counting from 0 to any one of those numbers between 0 and infinity.

 

Who's to say there wasn't an infinite number of big bangs in the original nothingness, then the size of our universe is just a number between 0 to n and the numbers 0 to infinity represent the number of universes??

 

What happens when a universe reaches n in size?? N probably being determined by the amount of energy put into each individual big bang.

When/if the original energy from a univserses big bang dissipates there is no more energy to push space outwards.

 

There are other theories as an example - black holes sucking matter into other smaller universes, our universe was compresed into a really tiny space at the beginning and the size of the atom on the other side of the black hole doesn't matter. Take a 12" ruler and magically put it inside a black hole so it doesn't get destroyed and it no longer measures 12 inches but magically jump in there with the ruler and relative to yourself the ruler does measure 12 inches.

So there's no reason why we can't be "inside" one of these black holes in another universe. 0 to n is then the size of the universe in each black hole and 0 to infinity is the size of the parent universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yourdadonapogos, you asked a rhetorical question on the first page. Along the lines of "what's smaller than a quark?"

Actually, particle physics tests tell us that most quarks are in fact bigger than most electrons, and the smallest things we know about are neutrinos.

I can just see questions for sources flying at me now, so here's one

Of course quarks are highly variable in size and mass, which could account for this average, but I just had to bring it to your attention :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So there's no reason why we can't be "inside" one of these black holes in another universe. 0 to n is then the size of the universe in each black hole and 0 to infinity is the size of the parent universe.
I thought that it was fairly well agreed that we are inside a black hole, or have I been watching too much Discovery channel with my brain in neutral? both? Neither?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well providing the size of the universe is less than 10^10 light years accross (which it proabably is) then the mass of the universe would casue a black hole. We could be expanding quicker than falling into the suingularity though. For a massive black hole the tidal forces are fairly weak as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yourdadonapogos' date=' you asked a rhetorical question on the first page. Along the lines of "what's smaller than a quark?"

Actually, particle physics tests tell us that most quarks are in fact bigger than most electrons, and the smallest things we know about are neutrinos.

I can just see questions for sources flying at me now, so here's one

Of course quarks are highly variable in size and mass, which could account for this average, but I just had to bring it to your attention :)

 

fine, what is more fundamental than a quark? is that better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spit999

Mathmatically when distance goes to infinity space folds in on itself therefore you end up where you started from. This true in any dirrection. This only could mean space is a ball. This ball is a mote in God's eye.

 

This explanation keeps the mathematicians happy.

the physicists happy

the astronomers happy

the religionsts happy

everybody in the universe is happy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space: The universe composed in its most basic is as nothing. Does not begin, does not end for it is nothing.

 

Matter: Its most basic composition is simple light. This light is condensed in many different ways where we perceive the different elements.

 

Time: No beginning, no end. We are little times living in the big time. We had a beginning and we have an end (for now). How we do as a little time in the big time is up to us (if we wish to continue in the big time). Time is only perceived by a thinker

 

God: Like space and time he does exist. How is it possible he is possible I don’t know.

Do we live in the mind of God?

 

(Just a thought: We close our eyes, we see the darkness deep. Yet there is light. We think hard and that light begins to form into shapes. As we sleep it works better.)

 

Is there a true religion? Yes there is. It will be the one that works closely with the scriptures and follows no mortal man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone send an email to a random internet person on the basis of some randomly strung-together sentences, and reasonably expect to get "the answer" to anything important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistical perversity.icon7.gif

 

PS: If anyone likes to take a bet, the two words are either 'Trust God' or 'Love Jesus'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistical perversity.icon7.gif

 

PS: If anyone likes to take a bet' date=' the two words are either 'Trust God' or 'Love Jesus'.[/quote']

Wrong on both counts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would anyone send an email to a random internet person on the basis of some randomly strung-together sentences, and reasonably expect to get "the answer" to anything important?

Can I truly take you seriously...Hmmm..Nah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space: Cannot be nothing, because Quantum Mechanics has showed us that "nothingness" has energy. There is no such thing as nothingness in our universe. Space is not nothing because it can curve, and in a sense it DOES have an end. We think our universe is a 4-sphere(correct me if I'm wrong) so if we tried to reach the end of space it would be like an ant trying to reach the edge of a beach ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I truly take you seriously...Hmmm..Nah!

See, the difference here is that I have invested a great deal of time discussing and debating different philosophies and religions with the members here, as can be seen in the Religion and Philosophy section, whereas you have made three posts (two of which have no relevant content) and provide no reference material or credentials to confirm your ability to provide the information you offer.

 

So comparing me to yourself as a "random internet person" would be fallacious.

 

Good to see that you have removed your e-mail address from your post though. There's no reason to voluntarily feed spam bots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am religious but do not like to debate religion. Experience tells me because of personel agenda and total ignorance that arguments just get nowhere.We all just argue ourselves to death and join the carcasses of the poor man as well as the kings. The crowd of dead, 6000 years old.

 

I see religion as something dying an agonizing death, old ladies in empty churches and pedophile preists and many vultures stand ready to clean up the rest. (Do you know what I mean?)

 

Sorry to invade your pasture. Thank you for the email advice.

 

I enjoyed the first question of this forum. I know who he is and if he reads my message and meditates on it he will understand. If you really look at you will see there is more to then just a few sentences. If you can humble your pride just a bit you might see it to.

 

The best place to go for answers though is to the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, physical laws are the same in every part of the universe. that is an axiom on which almost all physical theories are based. what I am saying is that you cannot tell the size/shape of the universe when you have no clue how much of it you can actually see. we can only see so far. if that is the entire universe, the we must be the center, and i doubt that we are.

An honest message from the heart. I like that. But don't stop thinking, there is yet plenty to discover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, everyone (incl. me I have to say), please don't post in 'Astronomy and Cosmology' threads unless you are going to write about astronomy or cosmology, ta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our space is either finite or infinite, depending on the nature of the curvature of the space-time fabric taken on the average of the whole universe.

 

Remember that if the average density of matter in the universe (normal matter plus dark matter) is greater than the critical density, then we have a closed universe. This means that eventually, the rate of expansion of the universe will eventually slow down as time passes and start to contract, resulting in the Big Crunch in the end. A closed universe has a Riemannian geometry (positive curvature in the space-time fabric), and one characteristic of such geometry is than it has finite volume, meaning the universe is finite. (Imagine a sphere like the earth has positive curvature, and it has a maximum finite volume of 4/3*pi*r^3)

If the total average density of matter in the universe is very much smaller than the critical density, then we have an open universe. This means that eventually, the rate of expansion of the universe will eventually speed up as time passes and continue to expand forever.An open universe has a Lobachevsky geometry (negative curvature in the space-time fabric), and one characteristic of such geometry is that it has infinite volume, meaning the universe is infinite. (Imagine a saddle which has a negative curvature, and its volume increases at a increasing rate as you go farther and farther from the centre without any upper bound. This implies that the rate of expansion of such an open universe will increase with distance (analogous to the Hubble Law) and will continue to expand forever.)

 

However, up till even now astronomers have no idea that our universe is a closed or open one. The average total density of the universe is found to be very close to the critical density, and this is suggestive of the nature of our universe. However, bear in mind that there is highly-likely that we have not taken into account much of the dark matter in the calculation of the total average density of matter. (since dark matter cannot be seen using normal EM radiation/light, so not easy to discover them) But still, some scientists believe that even accounting all the dark matter of the universe, our universe is still a closed universe. This is debatable. Of course, there is the other school of thought that after accounting all the dark matter into the calculation of the total average density of matter, the universe is an open universe. This is much more likely as experimental evidence have shown that even up till now (age of the universe is now xxx billion light years---forgot exactly how much), the universe is still expanding according to the Hubble's law.

 

Any comments are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our space is either finite or infinite, depending on the nature of the curvature of the space-time fabric taken on the average of the whole universe.

 

Remember that if the average density of matter in the universe (normal matter plus dark matter) is greater than the critical density, then we have a closed universe. This means that eventually, the rate of expansion of the universe will eventually slow down as time passes and start to contract, resulting in the Big Crunch in the end. A closed universe has a Riemannian geometry (positive curvature in the space-time fabric), and one characteristic of such geometry is than it has finite volume, meaning the universe is finite. (Imagine a sphere like the earth has positive curvature, and it has a maximum finite volume of 4/3*pi*r^3)

If the total average density of matter in the universe is very much smaller than the critical density, then we have an open universe. This means that eventually, the rate of expansion of the universe will eventually speed up as time passes and continue to expand forever.An open universe has a Lobachevsky geometry (negative curvature in the space-time fabric), and one characteristic of such geometry is that it has infinite volume, meaning the universe is infinite. (Imagine a saddle which has a negative curvature, and its volume increases at a increasing rate as you go farther and farther from the centre without any upper bound. This implies that the rate of expansion of such an open universe will increase with distance (analogous to the Hubble Law) and will continue to expand forever.)

 

However, up till even now astronomers have no idea that our universe is a closed or open one. The average total density of the universe is found to be very close to the critical density, and this is suggestive of the nature of our universe. However, bear in mind that there is highly-likely that we have not taken into account much of the dark matter in the calculation of the total average density of matter. (since dark matter cannot be seen using normal EM radiation/light, so not easy to discover them) But still, some scientists believe that even accounting all the dark matter of the universe, our universe is still a closed universe. This is debatable. Of course, there is the other school of thought that after accounting all the dark matter into the calculation of the total average density of matter, the universe is an open universe. This is much more likely as experimental evidence have shown that even up till now (age of the universe is now xxx billion light years---forgot exactly how much), the universe is still expanding according to the Hubble's law.

 

Any comments are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See' date=' the difference here is that I have invested a great deal of time discussing and debating different philosophies and religions with the members here, as can be seen in the Religion and Philosophy section, whereas you have made three posts (two of which have no relevant content) and provide no reference material or credentials to confirm your ability to provide the information you offer.

 

So comparing me to yourself as a "random internet person" would be fallacious.

 

Good to see that you have removed your e-mail address from your post though. There's no reason to voluntarily feed spam bots.[/quote']

Incorrect,yet again! you do not discuss or debate any subject.Your only input is to slag off other peoples posts,picking incredibely old and boring put downs .You ask for reference material and proof of what are obviously only that persons ideas,yet you offer no proof for your often opinionated stance on subjects.And when you get put in your place by people you kick them,like Spaceman or philbo.why not be mature and let them back into the forum.Which has become boring without them,many people liked reading spacemans posts however ridiculess his claims,many members replied and debated his topics.I noticed ophiolite is still replying to him,how can he ever recieve a reply you booted spaceman.As for flamming and arguments your posts contain more than all posters here put together.I think as admin if you cannot even stay within the rules of the forum yourself you should have the decency to 'rap it in '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See' date=' the difference here is that I have invested a great deal of time discussing and debating different philosophies and religions with the members here, as can be seen in the Religion and Philosophy section, whereas you have made three posts (two of which have no relevant content) and provide no reference material or credentials to confirm your ability to provide the information you offer.

 

So comparing me to yourself as a "random internet person" would be fallacious.

 

Good to see that you have removed your e-mail address from your post though. There's no reason to voluntarily feed spam bots.[/quote']

Incorrect,yet again! you do not discuss or debate any subject.Your only input is to slag off other peoples posts,picking incredibely old and boring put downs .You ask for reference material and proof of what are obviously only that persons ideas,yet you offer no proof for your often opinionated stance on subjects.And when you get put in your place by people you kick them,like Spaceman or philbo.why not be mature and let them back into the forum.Which has become boring without them,many people liked reading spacemans posts however ridiculess his claims,many members replied and debated his topics.I noticed ophiolite is still replying to him,how can he ever recieve a reply you booted spaceman.As for flamming and arguments your posts contain more than all posters here put together.I think as admin if you cannot even stay within the rules of the forum yourself you should have the decency to 'rap it in '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before:

 

If you have to argue then argue about what is right, and not who is right.

 

If one has a problem with a person, PM them or a mod, or something. I'd rather this stuff stays out of actual threads where there is some intellectual thought going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before:

 

If you have to argue then argue about what is right, and not who is right.

 

If one has a problem with a person, PM them or a mod, or something. I'd rather this stuff stays out of actual threads where there is some intellectual thought going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrect,yet again! you do not discuss or debate any subject.Your only input is to slag off other peoples posts,picking incredibely old and boring put downs .You ask for reference material and proof of what are obviously only that persons ideas,yet you offer no proof for your often opinionated stance on subjects.And when you get put in your place by people you kick them,like Spaceman or philbo.why not be mature and let them back into the forum.Which has become boring without them,many people liked reading spacemans posts however ridiculess his claims,many members replied and debated his topics.I noticed ophiolite is still replying to him,how can he ever recieve a reply you booted spaceman.As for flamming and arguments your posts contain more than all posters here put together.I think as admin if you cannot even stay within the rules of the forum yourself you should have the decency to 'rap it in '

 

Have posters been kicked out of the forum for just disagreeing? Geez...I'm afraid to post my thoughts here now. :-(

 

Bettina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have posters been kicked out of the forum for just disagreeing? Geez...I'm afraid to post my thoughts here now. :-(

 

Bettina

Dont be, Sayo only bans trolls, and spamming trolls. I dont think you fit that category :)

Edit*- or rude troll-lings

Share this post


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.