Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The edge of space      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 26
The edge of spacePage 2 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Please excuse my warped sense of humor tonight but...
The Edge of Space~ sounds like a soap opera that meets technology~
complete with it's own space station.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 27
The edge of space
Posted: 2/15/2010 8:34:41 PM

The Edge of Space~ sounds like a soap opera that meets technology~
complete with it's own space station.


Sadly, it's being done, only the series is called "Defying Gravity" and, of course, it's astronauts schtupping at the drop of a hat between one inconvenient crises after the next.

*yawn!*
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 28
The edge of space
Posted: 2/18/2010 1:14:17 PM
You can't "visually perceive" anything unless there is something there to actually see.
 LAdoc
Joined: 1/2/2009
Msg: 29
The edge of space
Posted: 2/19/2010 6:11:22 PM
The Universe is indeed finite as you've stated, however it's capability of creation is what makes it infinite. You see, everything withing the Universe at any given point, has at one time or another existed as something else. In simple terms everything recycles itself over and over again.
Now, edge of space, there really isn't an edge to space because as odd as this might sound now, contradicting my previous statement, space is infinite. In order to really see how things look from outside, one has to alter time and thought, the two building blocks, so that in turn the exodimension lying between the multiverses would open up. Once in there you would still be withing any given Universe, however because of this alteration which has taken place, you wouldn't really exist that is until the process is re-altered or reversed so that you could go back into being within a Universe. Now where you might think that there is nothing, you're wrong, because that's where everything is.

Now I'm sure you might have questions for me in regards to my response but to clarify some things, what I meant by time and thought is that without time, there would be no infinity to aid the thought of creation.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 30
The edge of space
Posted: 2/19/2010 6:27:43 PM
If space has an edge
Chances are it has a centre
Think I may invest in a tom tom gps thingie
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 31
The edge of space
Posted: 2/19/2010 6:45:30 PM
I dont think I feel so bad being a space cadet these days.
I mean if there isnt an edge to live on I cant fall off.
Cool beans!
 TheGuy902
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 32
The edge of space
Posted: 2/21/2010 2:47:45 PM
I like to think we are in a finite bubble. the outside of the bubble is another universe, that may not have things like matter and light, as we know it. the bubble grows and shrinks, but always contains the exact same amount of matter and energy. we cannot reach the edge of the bubble becuase it is growing at near the speed of light....as far as we know, thats the fastest possible speed in our universe....so if we cannot travel faster then the speed of light, we will never be able to make up any ground on the universe's expansion and edge. it wouldn't matter anyway, as we require a few things, for instance, if we were to get to the edge of the universe somehow, we would have to be traveling at the same speed as the edge, which is the speed of light. if we are traveling at the speed of light, then light could not reflect off our eyes(same speed, no reflection) and we would not see things the way we normally do, we may just experience complete darkness, i'm not sure....its all theoretical, but those are some of my thoughts on the matter, pun intended ....
...i personally believe the area outside the bubble is god's domain. I see god as a carpenter that built a house....how could the carpenter be from inside the house if he built it, he must have lived somewhere outside the house before he built it....that outside is where god is from, i believe....and i don't necessarily see god as an entity or peronsality, god could be an it, like a force.....i basically call this force god because I believe it is the cause to the effect which is life in the universe.....all life requires a parent, science proves that....so at one point the original life had to be inserted into the universe, and its parent is the cause to that insertion, god. i have further theories on all this, but i'll leave it at that. oh, and I'm not a christian, i'm not anything, i'm just a person who believes he has encountered enough scientific proof that god exists....i don't attach a story to that god, thats not my game.
 FyzxsGeek
Joined: 8/3/2009
Msg: 33
The edge of space
Posted: 2/21/2010 2:56:24 PM
The edge of space is a tricky question. Physics treats all points in space [in the same frame of reference] as identical. For there to be a point in space where there is nothing on one side creates a point in space where the physics of it is not the same.
From that point of view, space must be infinite, or physics must be re-written; generally accepted that physics isn't THAT wrong, so space is infinite.
What type of infinite?
Could it be a 'flat plane' [I'm reducing dimensions for visualizing] that extends in every direction forever?
Could it be a 'ball' that connects to itself so you would return to your original position?
These are the two I remember - I think there was one more.

IIRC - Current theoretical work suggests that it is a 'flat plane' that has no end. The universe is truely infinite. If our mammalian brains can comprehend it or not - The best science we have on it points towards this.
What we see [our observable bubble] is pretty much what any point's observable bubble would contain.

Again - Space is huge; It's theoretical. Until we get to a 'what is the universe' answer, I don't think edge is a question that will be answerable.
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 34
The edge of space
Posted: 2/21/2010 5:36:57 PM
It would be funny if the farther out you went, the faster you got, until you just jumped to one of many probably universes(is that even a word, I don't know). Universes that may or may not exist, depending on how long your hair was and what shoe size you were wearing when you made the jump.

And it will looka a little somethin like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUIa9dKFMx4
^ That was a well done special effect. :D
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 35
view profile
History
The edge of space
Posted: 3/3/2010 2:39:36 AM
I googled and found this cute answer;

I have yet to read the "membrane" theory. When I do I will certainly have more insight, but as for the Big Bang, all four basic forces of nature were united in what is sometimes called a Super Force. Gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak interactions (forces) were all thought to be one thing. Time did not exist yet, nor did space. So time didn't start until the Big Bang.

If we had the faintest clue what time was we could have a slightly educated guess!! But as time is slowed by gravity, (relativity) and if all the mass in the universe was at one quantum point before the big bang, there would be far too much gravity for time to exist. in theory of course it doesn't even exist in a common or garden black hole, as it's directly related to the speed of light, and light has n0 speed in a black hole.


So time, space, and stuff, are only as far as the universe has expanded at the moment, is what I'm thinken, and beyond that doesn't exist.
 Worbug
Joined: 4/23/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
History
The edge of space
Posted: 12/7/2010 4:31:14 PM
Love the topic OP. Your opening thread is almost verbatum to the question I have. Unfortunately, the only time the conversation would ever come up was when me and a friend of mine were drinking. LOL The same friend and I would get on many topics with each other. One day he was talking about our soul and religion so while in that debate he kepts talking about man, so I asked, according to his religion, would an Ant that you stepped on go to heaven, he said no, I then asked, if we have a soul, why wouldn't all of God's creature's. Along that thought, I feel it is pretty arrogant to think that we are the only intelligent life form in existance, not saying we are being visited, LOL, But it is sad to think we are the only life form in the universe(s).

If the universe is constantly expanding, then, what is it expanding into. Kind of like the can of pop freezing in the refrigerator, eventualy the can will burts from the frozen soda expanding "Into" the freezer. Is it possible our universe is bordered by other universes like countries border each other?

I have but a simple mind compared to most here in the forums, but for some reason, this topic has always interested me. I understand, it is a question that can never be answered, at least in my "Lifetime". Hopefully people are correct concerning the after life of our soul, and we get to ask some really neat questions to the creater.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 37
The edge of space
Posted: 12/7/2010 9:31:03 PM
The question you raised, OP, in the OP, plagued my own faternal aunt's husband. He had another question as well: what happens if some cowboy rides a photon, and shoots his pistol in the direction of his travel; won' t the bullet exceed the speed of light? That's the sort of man Uncle Stevie was.

He had another question, which he posed this way: "If a space rocket goes in space, and it goes very-very far, then where does it stop? When it gets to the end, or it goes on beyond the end?

I used to love Uncle Stivie coz he was the only man who gave me the gift of life, some gold for gift: He gave me a gold pendant, with a green four-leaf clover on it in emeralds. He wasn't even Irish!! But he WAS a Christian, which, in our family, counted as much as being Irish.

Uncle Stivie had two daughters, both finished university like him, but they were not nearly as stupid as he was. His wife, my aunt, died of Alzheimers, and she was sorely wept for; when he died, I wrote a letter of condolescence to his two daughters, and my brother, hearing about this, scolded me, Andrew, are you out of your mind? The girls hated their father like the plague.

So the circle comes to a close (thank goodness): The plague. We need more of it, for goodness' sakes.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 38
The edge of space
Posted: 12/8/2010 1:33:28 AM
If the universe is constantly expanding, then, what is it expanding into.

It isn't expanding into anything. It's not really very easy to wrap your head around that because that doesn't follow what you would infer from everyday experience, but if you think about it, it makes even less sense to ask about what it is expanding into. If you try to answer that question, then you have to ask the same question about what the universe is expanding into and so on, ad infinitum.

Kind of like the can of pop freezing in the refrigerator, eventualy the can will burts from the frozen soda expanding "Into" the freezer.

Since both the can and the refrigerator are in the universe, that works fine for the can and refrigerator. However, by definition, the universe is all there is.

Is it possible our universe is bordered by other universes like countries border each other?

This question does not actually make sense either when you're talking about the universe. The universe is all of space and time. Although you can hypotheize about the existence of other universes, you could not give any meaning to notions of ``where they are'' or even ``when they are.'' Space and time might not even have any meaning in a hypothetical ``other universe.''

One reason it doesn't make sense to think of something bordering our universe is that our universe has no boundary. An analogy in 2 dimensions is the surface of a sphere, in which case space is the surface of the sphere. You can never reach an edge by moving along the surface because no edge exists. You need 1 more spatial dimension to describe the spatial part of the universe, which is harder to picture. However, for a 3-dimensional spherical surface, if you started along some path and traveled far enough, you would end up where you started.
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 39
view profile
History
The edge of space
Posted: 12/8/2010 1:37:39 AM
There is enough matter (mass) in the universe to know that the curviture of space is enough so that space 'wraps' itself around back on itself. Such an idea is counterintuitive because from inside the universe one cannot see what this warping of space looks like. We can only imagine the curvature of space visually using 3 dimensional model representations of 4 dimensional spacetime. As pointed out earlier its akin to imagining what an as of yet undiscovered color looks like.

The best we do is imagine 3 dimensional space as the two dimensional surface of a sphere. If its a perfect sphere (unlike earth which is pearshaped) no matter what compass direction you head off in you will eventually arrive back at the same point. Since you can travel endlessly this way you will never come to an 'edge' of the universe. The edge doen't exist. Everything is contained within curved spacetime.

One consistant error ordinary observers make is to equate the empty vacuum of space with the nothing that the big bang expanded into. They aren't the same thing. The vacuum of space is what man explored on his way to the moon etc. "Nothing" however, has never been observed. By definition it is unobservable.


Some say that it's meaningless to speak of universes that don't have any life to witness them.


Some say flying spaghetti monsters created all sentient life. Adding perception as a requirement of meaningfulness is an idea that has pretty well died out with early 20th century philosophers. ie "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it does not make a sound". The idea back then was that perception itself should be included as an additional dimension to spacetime. Broken down it just means that some believe there are more than one realities, in fact as many realities as there are sentient beings, each reality altered by the perception of each individual.
 Worbug
Joined: 4/23/2009
Msg: 40
view profile
History
The edge of space
Posted: 12/8/2010 7:13:12 AM
I did say I have a simple mind. LOL
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 41
The edge of space
Posted: 12/11/2010 2:51:06 PM
Father, I enjoyed reading the historical account about perception as a dimension.

Yes, the twentieth century gave birth to lots of physics theories that were on one hand counter-intuitive, on the other hand nonsensical, and on the third hand, incongruous with the third hands of other theories that explained the same thing just as well, in a wholly different way.

It's not "my head hurts more if the apple that drops on it travels from furhter up" any more. It's all math, an a potential Nobel prize lurks for those who say "Because of this math, under such and such circumstances a pinggggg will occur." If the pinggggg occurs, the soothsayer gets a noble prize. The only edge scientists have over soothsayers is their ability to work with math, having a creative mind, be positive about themselves, gather enough publishers who will be willing to publish his theory based on his findings and his ensuing findings based on his theory.

So what we have now is quantum mechanics, which is confoundingly confusing, incomprehensible and counter-intuitive, but the math supports it. I started to like it, emotionally, and am devoted to QM now, though I don't understand it, like to some powerful love partner. I find QM to be a bit like myself: irreverent, funny, many dislike it, yet nevertheless brilliant and above all else completely unique, something that truly hasn't been seen before. A Broadway show that has the masses in its grip, although only a few can fathom its math, and even they can't conceptualize the reality behind the math.

OP, do not call yourself names. When viewed from the proper angle, everyone else is just as ignorant about some secrets of life; knowledge is not attainable, it only seems to man that it is.

The art of science states that one of its fundamental guiding principles is tha tknowledge is attainable, for the world operates on a set of unforgiving rules, and man can master this set.

This is what fuels scientific research. Unfortunately scientists don't hear their own selves when they say to the media, "For each questions we answer, a hundred times more new questions come up.
 hemanmachostudlovegod
Joined: 11/28/2010
Msg: 42
The edge of space
Posted: 12/13/2010 4:23:00 PM
If the universe was finite it would not be the universe. You're asking what would happen the moment after the last moment of time, assuming time ever ends. As soon as time ends so does the possibility of there being a moment afterward of time. Whether you conceive space as distance or whether you hop on the space-time bandwagon, finiteness violates the concept necessary to validate itself. At that point since you are posing an imaginary question you mights as well pick any imaginary answer you like. My vote goes for the edge of space being made of heavy canvas, and once you peek behind it you see a naked woman. This may be influenced by an experience I had at a campground when I was young. Time seemed to stop. There seemed to be nothing beyond what I was seeing.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 43
The edge of space
Posted: 12/17/2010 7:30:33 AM

So what we have now is quantum mechanics, which is confoundingly confusing, incomprehensible and counter-intuitive, but the math supports it.

It's only that way if you insist on picturing the world classically and you also don't look to deeply at what your classical picture implies. The classical concept of a particle collision, for example, cannot succed in describing any sort of fundamental matter. It becomes totally nonsensical. Quantum mechanics might be weird, but it's not that weird. It's actually very intuitive. Your rant on math vs physical things is misguided. Mathematics is just a way to represent what we call physical things in a concise and concrete way which is ammenable to logical analysis. Mathematics also makes it easier to elminate personal bias due to human perspective.

For example, Galileo realized that velocities were relative yet it took Newton to come up with three laws that followed from that idea. Using mathematics we know today, it's straight forward to start with nothing but the Galilean invariance that Galileo proposed and rigorously derive everything Newton proposed and more in just a page of algebra.

Newton didn't even state his three laws very concretely. The first law states that absent an external force, objects at rest remain at rest and objects in motion remain in motion and travel in straight lines. This is actually circular, since there is an implicit assumption that one can define a straight line in some other way than the path that an object travels. In this case, you really are putting the math ahead of the physics, since, a priori, nothing connects the mathematical concept of a straight line to anything physical. Newton's second law describes the motion of an object subject to a force, but again, it doesn't pin down the meaning of force. Einstein came up with special and (especially) general relativity by realizing the the circularity in those two ``laws'' and eliminating it. That's why gravity is no longer considered a force in general relativity. Nature doesn't use coordinate systems, so no real force can be made to vanish by transforming coordinates. Since gravity can be made to vanish by choosing coordinates in which it does vanish, it cannot be a force. (Einstein realized that objects that fall freely in gravitational fields experience no forces.) The mathematics just makes that statement very precise. Mathematics is just a very precise and concise language for stating what would be much more vague if stated in lengthy paragraphs using standard English, Chinese, whatever.
 thetrick123
Joined: 7/16/2010
Msg: 44
The edge of space
Posted: 12/20/2010 4:53:40 AM
Fractal Cosmology, very interesting thought. It makes sense!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 45
The edge of space
Posted: 12/20/2010 7:36:04 PM

in that my fact scenario wasn't one with Roy Rogers on a Photon shooting his gun, but a person traveling at .5 the speed of light, and this person points a laser, or flash light in the direction he is traveling, and turns it on............. The light from the flashlight is traveling at the speed of light from the point of view of the person, but it is actually going 1.5 the speed of light from the point of view of where the person was traveling from.

Or is it?


It isn't.

Everyone forgets time dilation. The speed of light is constant. Therefore, in order to make the books balance, something has to give. Hence, time slows down the closer to the speed of light you go relative to a stationary observer.

So basically, the fellow traveling in his spaceship at half the speed of light turns on his flashlight and sees the beam recede from him at the speed of light. Someone on the ground measures that beam and...it's traveling at the speed of light. However, he sees that the traveler appears to be moving a lot slower.

Indeed, even if the traveler manages to increase his speed to 99 per cent of the speed of light and turn on his headlights, those beams are still going to shoot out at the speed of light and he will still measure the same speed. At this point, his frame of reference is so time dilated, he would almost appear not to be moving at all.

Good old Relativity!
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 46
The edge of space
Posted: 12/20/2010 8:03:17 PM

I 've posed this question before, but Foshies fraternal uncle and I must have similarly warped minds, in that my fact scenario wasn't one with Roy Rogers on a Photon shooting his gun, but a person traveling at .5 the speed of light, and this person points a laser, or flash light in the direction he is traveling, and turns it on............. The light from the flashlight is traveling at the speed of light from the point of view of the person, but it is actually going 1.5 the speed of light from the point of view of where the person was traveling from.


v' = (v_1 + v_2)/(1 + (v_1 v_2/c^2))

v_1 = 0.5 c
v_2 = c

v' = (0.5 c + c)/(1 + ((0.5c)(c)/c^2)))

v' = (1.5 c)/(1.5) = c
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 47
The edge of space
Posted: 12/20/2010 9:02:03 PM
So what part of...


v' = (v_1 + v_2)/(1 + (v_1 v_2/c^2))

v_1 = 0.5 c
v_2 = c

v' = (0.5 c + c)/(1 + ((0.5c)(c)/c^2)))

v' = (1.5 c)/(1.5) = c


...didn't you understand?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 48
The edge of space
Posted: 12/21/2010 6:43:42 AM

Help me here just a little bit........

What I wrote was the way you add two velocities in special relativity.


v = velocity
v_1 = velocity of initial speed....
v_2 = velocity of the second.... would this be the velocity of the light emiting from the flash light?
c = speed of light?
v' = ?

More generally, v' is the sum of the two velocities, v_1 and v_2. c is the speed of light. If you let c->infinity, then you recover the Galilean result, v' = v_1 + v_2.

It's better to understand that this is purely a geometric result. In ordinary Euclidean space, one rotates from one reference frame to another via the coordinate transformation:
x' = x cos(A) + y sin(A) = cos(A) (x + y tan(A))
y' = y cos(A) - x sin(A) = cos(A) (y - x tan(A))

tan(A) is just the slope of the line that makes an angle A with the line connecting the points (x, y) in the original frame. If you perform rotation A and a second rotation B, the slope of the line,
tan(C) = tan(A+B) is given by:
tan(C) = tan(A+B) = (tan(A) + tan(B)) / (1 - tan(A) tan(B))

In special relativity, space and time are treated on equal footing, so the geometry is more apparent if we measure time and distance using the same units, e.g., meters. In that case, c just converts meters to secconds and has no more physical significance than, for example, a constant that converts meters to inches. So, we define the velocity as v/c, so that it it is dimensionless and has the range -1 to 1. v = 1 and v = 1 are the velocities of light in the positive and negative spatial directions. A velocity is the slope of a line in the x-t plane, which is then just a rotation of a line through some angle in the x-t plane. However, in special relativity, the geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, so that the transformation of the x-t coordinates are not given by the circular functions, sine and cosine, but by the analogous hyperbolic functions sinh and cosh:

t' = t cosh(A) - x sinh(A) = cosh(A) (t - x tanh(A))
x' = x cosh(A) - t sinh(A) = cosh(A) (x - t tanh(A))

The addition of two velocities is then analogous to adding the slopes of two lines, i.e.,
tanh(C) = tanh(A+B) = (tanh(A) + tanh(B)) / (1 + tanh(A) tanh(B))

if we go back to writing velocities as v/c = tanh(X), then we get:

v_1/c = tanh(A)
v_2/c = tanh(B)
v'/c = tanh(A+B) = tanh(C)
and,

v'/c = (v_1/c + v_2/c) / (1 + (v_ 1)(v_2)/c^2)

or, after cancelling the common factor of c on both sides:

v' = (v_1 + v_2) / (1 + (v_ 1)(v_2)/c^2)
The edge of space
Posted: 7/10/2013 3:58:50 PM
^ Well, the idea, so far, is that thinking of the universe expanding into something doesn't make sense because there is nothing until the universe expands. Nothing is there. There isn't even a there. I don't just mean a complete vacuum, I mean that there is no kind of existence of any kind, not even a where for nothing to be. It's the universe which creates existence, as it grows and expands.

And, we have a very good idea by now how life starts.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 50
view profile
History
The edge of space
Posted: 7/11/2013 3:34:16 AM
Maybe the universe is both expanding and being.... sucked. Into a black hole where all the light and matter are compressed into a very small ball. Once this "ball" reaches a point of saturation it then is expelled, or explodes into another universe and the cycle repeats. Just another flaky idea.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The edge of space