Impossible to answer?

[Reach]

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.

Really need to correct this misconception.

The differentiation between a theory and a law has nothing to do with how correct it is. They're only two different ways of formulating a model. Theories have explanatory power and laws have descriptive power. That's really the only difference.

Laws can be wrong, certainly. Newton's law of universal gravitation was, in some respects, wrong, and was replaced by Einstein's *theories*. The difference here is meaningless, except that Newton's law is a mathematical description of planetary motion where as the theories of relativity have explanatory power in that they explain how gravity works.

I could give another example - if I formulated a mathematical description of energy production within a call, showing it is proportional to some constant times whatever, I would call it a law, though if I formulated a model describing the electron chain and transport mechanisms involved I would refer to it as a theory and a not a law.

As such, models such as the big bang or evolution will always be theories.

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

It depends. If the universe is the totality of everything that can and does exist, then there is nothing on the other side of that border. This could be the case, but it could not be the case as well.

Also, the idea of a border to the universe is a bit of a fuzzy concept. I mean, sure, there's a limit to the universe we can actually see because of how fast light travels, but the actual 'border' of the universe would be a very fuzzy thing indeed. I explained one possible scenario in my first post I think.

[insanefreddy926]

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?

Ehhh, not exactly. The universe is all the space and matter and everything else that exists, and it is expanding. It does not expand into anything, it just expands.

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.

If there is something on the other side of this hypothetical barrier, than obviously that barrier was not the edge of the universe, since the universe is everything that exists. If things go on forever, than there is no barrier anyway, which was what I was saying. It's impossible to go beyond infinity.

[Shaydow]

Re: Impossible to answer?

ehhh, not exactly. The universe is all the space and matter and everything else that exists, and it is expanding. It does not expand into anything, it just expands.



If there is something on the other side of this hypothetical barrier, than obviously that barrier was not the edge of the universe, since the universe is everything that exists. If things go on forever, than there is no barrier anyway, which was what i was saying. It's impossible to go beyond infinity.

OUR Universe is everything WE know to exists, not everything that exists, that can't be known.

Your under the impression that the universe can't be a bubble of space time expanding and existing in something else, that also could house other bubbles of similar types. The expanse of this other stuff universes sit in is either infinite, or is housed in something else, that is either infinite, or . . . . . etc etc etc.

Why are you so quick to dismiss this highly likelly scenario?

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

[insanefreddy926]

Re: Impossible to answer?

OUR Universe is everything WE know to exists, not everything that exists, that can't be known.

Your under the impression that the universe can't be a bubble of space time expanding and existing in something else, that also could house other bubbles of similar types. The expanse of this other stuff universes sit in is either infinite, or is housed in something else, that is either infinite, or . . . . . etc etc etc.

Why are you so quick to dismiss this highly likelly scenario?

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay

From Wikipedia:

The Universe comprises everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

There may be many universes, but our universe still wouldn't be inside of something else. It's an easy way to visualize the idea of multiple universes but it isn't what would really happen. There isn't any *space* between universes.

[cooke71892]

Re: Impossible to answer?

is it at all possible that our entire universe is just being pulled by a super-mega-massive black hole that is still trillions of light-years away?? i realize the chances are quite slim, but hey, i don't see any other definitive answers.

[Shaydow]

Re: Impossible to answer?

From Wikipedia:



There may be many universes, but our universe still wouldn't be inside of something else. It's an easy way to visualize the idea of multiple universes but it isn't what would really happen. There isn't any *space* between universes.

Again your failing to realize, even that wiki quote, is from OUR perspective. All matter space time and energy we KNOW to exist. This is known knowledge, not all knowable knowledge.

If our universe is it, then how can you claim that other universes can also exist? Where are they if there is nothing outside of eveything we know?

Remember, we don't know, and never will know everything about everything. It's not possible.

Just a thought.

Peace,
SHay

[insanefreddy926]

Re: Impossible to answer?

I'm not sure I understand why it needs to be "known knowledge." Just because we don't know something exists doesn't mean it isn't there. We define the universe as all the spacetime and forms of matter, energy, and momentum which exist. If the universe includes all the possible space, no matter if we know of it or not, then there is no space beyond it.

If the many-worlds interpretation is true, then all possible events will occur, in a possibly infinite number of universes. These universes aren't "in different places," but rather sort of "overlap." For us, there is just this one universe, it's impossible to get to another universe, because they technically don't exist, since our universe does. I guess your thought of it all being from our perspective is kind of true, because for us, our universe is all that exists, but for those of a parallel one, theirs is the only one. For those of the other universe, ours does not really exist, just as theirs does not for us. Ahhh, that's really confusing. I'm going to bed now. :P

[Shaydow]

Re: Impossible to answer?

I think the biggest difference we have in opinion is this :

You think the Universe is everything that exists. Period.

I think the Universe is everything we know to exist in our Universe. It is not everything that exists, only everything that exists for US.

Like I said before, logically I can't comprehend how things can just stop being. There can be no end point to everything, ever. Infinity has to exist, and since the Universe as far as we know is NOT actually infinite, since it is expanding, then there must be something that continues after that point, and so on. I can't grasp a point that all things just stop and that's it.

So we hit the finer point of our arguement, and one I don't think we will sway the other to, so how about we just agree to disagree?

Just a thought.

Peace,
Shay