Impossible to answer?

[Patashu]

Re: Impossible to answer?

I'm not reading this whole topic atm but I'd like to point out that the universe is not a sphere as in the 3 dimensional object but is actually a four dimensional surface that wraps back on itself.
Think of how you can fold a two dimensional piece of paper into a three dimensional object, and if you travel along the surface of this object you'll never reach the edge because there IS no edge, and if there is no edge there is nothing beyond. Our universe is equivalent to this, only it is a three dimensional sphere that has been wrapped into a four dimensional manifold, and we're on the three dimensional 'surface' and can't leave it.

[cooke71892]

Re: Impossible to answer?

well, that sounds good.....but ! hole in your explanation......wouldn't that paper be surrounded by air? so is our universe surrounded by a larger universe? answer that.

[Bolth mannn]

Re: Impossible to answer?

in my view, every single theory has holes, christianity, big bang, string theory, evolution, blah blah blah. it is unfair to take one and try to convince everyone it is the right one.

[devonin]

Re: Impossible to answer?

Saying that every theory isn't completely proven is a meaningless statement. The fact that it isn't completely proven is -why- it is a theory and not a law.

[Bolth mannn]

Re: Impossible to answer?

Saying that every theory isn't completely proven is a meaningless statement. The fact that it isn't completely proven is -why- it is a theory and not a law.

yes i understand that, what bothers me is people going around talking about it like its fact.

[Patashu]

Re: Impossible to answer?

well, that sounds good.....but ! hole in your explanation......wouldn't that paper be surrounded by air? so is our universe surrounded by a larger universe? answer that.

No, the paper is the entirety of its two dimensional universe; folding it in a third dimension is more representative of the kind of geometrical/topological transformation it goes through, not an indication of higher space it goes through.

The analogy is imperfect, as are all analogies. Don't take it at its face value but grasp the concept I am trying to convey.

[Shaydow]

Re: Impossible to answer?

No, the paper is the entirety of its two dimensional universe; folding it in a third dimension is more representative of the kind of geometrical/topological transformation it goes through, not an indication of higher space it goes through.

The analogy is imperfect, as are all analogies. Don't take it at its face value but grasp the concept I am trying to convey.

Understanding what your trying to say aside, it's a concept many of us won't be able to identify with. I'm also a firm believer in " always something on the other side ". The original person to ask you seems entirely correct, the folded space must still be sitting in something, even if that something is an infinite nothing.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

[insanefreddy926]

Re: Impossible to answer?

Understanding what your trying to say aside, it's a concept many of us won't be able to identify with. I'm also a firm believer in " always something on the other side ". The original person to ask you seems entirely correct, the folded space must still be sitting in something, even if that something is an infinite nothing.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

You can't say "there's always something on the other side" because, there is no "other side" of the folded space. No matter what direction one travels, they always end up at the point they began at. That was the whole point of the analogy.

If the space was sitting in something, then obviously that space wasn't the entirety of all space, because there is still more space for it to be in. If we take the whole universe, there is no space "beyond" it because there is no "beyond" it, because we define the universe as the entirety of all space.

Also, there is nothing beyond the universe because that literally means that there isn't a beyond the universe. The universe isn't in a vacuum of nothingness, because it is impossible to be inside of something which does not exist.

[devonin]

Re: Impossible to answer?

So that space extends out for an infinite distance in all directions? That means that outside the current outer reaches of where matter actually is, there is just an infinite stretch of void space that the universe's matter is expanding into?

[Patashu]

Re: Impossible to answer?

Understanding what your trying to say aside, it's a concept many of us won't be able to identify with. I'm also a firm believer in " always something on the other side ". The original person to ask you seems entirely correct, the folded space must still be sitting in something, even if that something is an infinite nothing.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

Is anything more north than the north pole?

[customstuff]

Re: Impossible to answer?

There can't be NOTHING. There's no such thing as true nothingness.

You do have a good point, then again, there also can't be everything forever. It has to end at some point.

[devonin]

Re: Impossible to answer?

If it ends, what's on the other side of that border?

[customstuff]

Re: Impossible to answer?

I didn't really mean that it does end. It is just that it seems that somehow it can't end. Here is a universe size comparison video just for further arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FwCMnyWZDg

[Shaydow]

Re: Impossible to answer?

If it ends, what's on the other side of that border?

I don't think they are following it.

You can't say "there's always something on the other side" because, there is no "other side" of the folded space. No matter what direction one travels, they always end up at the point they began at. That was the whole point of the analogy.

If the space was sitting in something, then obviously that space wasn't the entirety of all space, because there is still more space for it to be in. If we take the whole universe, there is no space "beyond" it because there is no "beyond" it, because we define the universe as the entirety of all space.

Also, there is nothing beyond the universe because that literally means that there isn't a beyond the universe. The universe isn't in a vacuum of nothingness, because it is impossible to be inside of something which does not exist.

I understand your folded space analogy, but your talking about it being infinite from OUR point of view. Someone used the universe as a cup analogy before, said yadda yadda yadda its filled with all our stuff and that's it, lets bend it so it becomes a mobius strip or what have you and tada now it's infinite! . . . . ya, to US. However, it's still in existence somewhere, we just can't see that place from our own perspective. Something exists on the outside of that cup, and if we reach the end of that and there is a barrier, then something is on the other side of that.

I know it makes you feel much more insignificant and meaningless when you look at it that way, but I don't see how logic can dictate things just STOP. Logic would dictate to me that things never stop, they go on in all directions for ever.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

[R3t4rd3dSt3pdud3]

Re: Impossible to answer?

Does anyone here belive in multiverse?