The Edge of the Universe

[Rob Oplawar]

Okay, I'm going to present this argument as clearly and logically as I can. As far as I can tell my logic is sound and I'm fairly certain that my conclusion is correct,
however I may be wrong, so please do your best to poke holes in my logic so I can solidify this argument so I can get people to shut up about this once and for all.

I'll put the bulk of it in spoilers to make it easier to read.

Ok, what I'm talking about here is the edge of the universe. Physicists tend to ponder about whether space (that's 3 dimensional space that we can perceive) is infinite or finite.

When most people hear physicists talk about the edge of the universe, they wonder "well then, what's beyond the edge of the universe?" "if the universe has a boundary, what's outside it?"

I'm saying that this question is really stupid. I'm saying that while people call me narrow minded for saying there's no beyond the edge of the universe, they are the ones being narrow minded because they refuse to see that there is no such thing.

Look. What we're talking about when we say the "universe" is three dimensional space. Numbers are abstract, yes, but they do have physical meaning in terms of their application, in this case, 3 dimensional space. You can represent any point in 3 dimensional space using three coordinates along arbitrary axes, assuming the axes are not parallel. So, we can conclude that any location in space corresponds to a certain combination of those three coordinates. But that's a backwards way of saying it- what we've really done is mapped those numbers to represent those locations, not the other way around.

So: the edge of the universe. What physicists are talking about when they say the edge is the end of physical three dimensional space; that is, some unknown, perhaps arbitrary surface beyond which there is no location.

It's hard to talk about this because up to the point where English reached its modern form, humans have had absolutely no conception of finite space. Not finite area, finite space. There are literally no words appropriate to describe the limits of existence. I said "beyond" above but that is incorrect as there is no such thing as beyond.

The common counter argument to this is:
"Say one edge of space is a plane at the arbitrary distance d along the x-axis from the center of the universe. Well, what if there is something at the distance d+1? How can you say conclusively that there is nothing?"

This argument is bunk. Return to what I stated above- the numbers are mapped to the locations in space. Therefore, by the way we define it, if the three dimensions of space are finite in some way, then the set of numbers we picked to represent that, while infinite in precision, have finite boundaries. A simplified (and slightly wrong) way of saying this is that along the x-axis, in terms of three dimensional space, all meaningful numbers x are between a and b. But that's assuming any boundary to the 3 dimensions is planar. A better but harder to grasp way of saying it is that, when we define space to be finite, we define a set of vectors that represent every point possible. And since we just said it was finite, this set of vectors has finite bounds.

We're not used to sets of numbers with finite bounds. I'm hardly used to it at all, but I am aware of a couple of examples:

Most people think of numbers as the set of "reals", that is, everything from negative infinity to infinity. Another set of numbers is "imaginary" numbers, that is, the set of reals plus the number i (i is the square root of negative one). If space is infinite, it is still completely meaningless to talk about the coordinate (0,0,i) because i is outside the range of real numbers that describe infinite space. Therefore, if space is finite, the numbers that represent locations are also finite, so space is represented as a subset of all reals. You can't pick a number in our familiar "real" number system that doesn't exist in our subset and wonder what it means. By definition, it has no meaning.

To reiterate, by definition there is no such thing as beyond the edge of the universe, because if we defined the universe as finite, it is fucking finite. We just fucking defined that there is no such thing as beyond it!

I'll say it one more time, with less frustration: when we define that 3 dimensional space (the set of all possible locations for an object to inhabit) to be finite, we are defining that all possible locations are within that set, ie, that there are no locations outside of that set. There is no such thing as outside of 3 dimensional space. It does not exist. All possible space is inside the boundary that we define; the term "outside of space" is meaningless because outside of refers to locations, and there is no such thing as location except what is included in the set.

QED.

Jesus Christ, why is that so hard for people to grasp?!

Heh, well, probably because it took me so long to demonstrate my point.


EDIT: By the way, I am NOT arguing that nothing exists beyond the universe that we perceive. I'm saying that when we define location as something we can perceive, and there are limits on what we perceive, then there are limits on location, that is, there is no such thing in terms of our definition of location as "outside of" those limits. Location IS what is inside those limits!


EDIT EDIT:
Ok, huzzah for Texrat, who has a much better vocabulary than I:

So entities limited to 3 dimensional space can only effectively discuss and describe locations bound within and relative to that milieu.
That sums up what I've been saying. We cannot talk about "location" that is "beyond" the edge of our universe, if such a thing exists, for there is no "location" "beyond" the edge, for the reason that Texrat so eloquently stated.

[Bad Waffle]

nope, you're a narrow minded fool :downs:

[DaneO'Roo]

interesting, but my feeble mind can't understand alot of it.

[Syuusuke]

Besides, it would contradict the statement that there is something ahead the "finite" edge of the universe.

=D

[Bad Waffle]

You see rob, you keep on trying to make sense of the universe from our feeble knowledge of it instead of trying to grasp larger concepts. Why use physics when it cant prove most things out there?

[Rob Oplawar]

and you keep trying to make the problem broader than it is.

read: "I am NOT arguing that nothing exists beyond the universe that we perceive."

Look, in terms of location, there may well be locations in other universes. but it's meaningless to talk about a location in another universe in terms of this universe. So, when I say location, I mean location in this universe, and if this universe has an edge, has finite space, then it has finite locations, and there is no such thing as location in this universe outside of this universe! Look at how paradoxical it is to say location in this universe outside of this universe.

It is completely logically sound: if location is only in the universe, then location is not outside the universe. There is no such thing as beyond the universe in terms of location! It is a meaningless argument!

[teh lag]

Every time I read something like this, my mind goes insane. Thinking about an end of existance or the boundaries of existances scares me.

[Emmzee]

I see your argument, but you're still wrong.

[Rob Oplawar]

^ please tell me why

[Rob Oplawar]

/doublepost

God, it's like arguing with the Flat Earth Society. I know I am right. I am completely 100% certain that I am right. But for some reason I cannot present a complete, bulletproof argument to them to make them see what is so blindingly obvious to me.

[Emmzee]

^ please tell me why
You're assuming that because we say the universe is finite, therefore it is finite, when we really have no fucking clue. Your theory contradicts itself by assuming because someone says something is, it is.

Basically, humans, as a whole, aren't as smart as we think we are.

[LlamaMaster]

Every time I read something like this, my mind goes insane. Thinking about an end of existance or the boundaries of existances scares me.
Same.

Also, you completely lost me with that post rob. Unless somebody physically finds the alleged "limit", I will just continue to believe this entirely theoretical concepts based on our limited knowledge of the universe from the mind of an individual who over thinks life.

Edit: Holy shit Emmzee made an intelligent post.

[Emmzee]

/doublepost

God, it's like arguing with the Flat Earth Society. I know I am right. I am completely 100% certain that I am right. But for some reason I cannot present a complete, bulletproof argument to them to make them see what is so blindingly obvious to me.
It's because you're so set in your beliefs, you refuse to see any other side.

Just like the Flat Earth Society... :raise:


Okay, I'm going to present this argument as clearly and logically as I can. As far as I can tell my logic is sound and I'm fairly certain that my conclusion is correct,
By believing you are right and you're being "logical" is proof that you're not.

[Rob Oplawar]

You're assuming that because we say the universe is finite, therefore it is finite, when we really have no fucking clue. Your theory contradicts itself by assuming because someone says something is, it is.

Basically, humans, as a whole, aren't as smart as we think we are.

no no no that's not what I said.

Physicists say "maybe the universe is finite."
people respond "omg in that case what's outside it?"

so, for the purpose of the hypothetical question "if the universe is finite then what" we are assuming that the universe is finite. That's how hypothetical questions work. So, if we assume the universe is finite, then it is absolutely meaningless to talk about what lies beyond the finite range. "Beyond" itself is defined within the range, and has no meaning "beyond" the range. It's a frustratingly recursive statement, because we have no word for "the non-thing that anything you can define, tangible or intangible, is defined to not be." But I mean there you go. There is no such thing as beyond it.


By believing you are right and you're being "logical" is proof that you're not.
A false statement. That's what's wrong with layman's science. The layman generally does not know what constitutes proof. It may be strong evidence, but it is not proof. Proof is very *very* hard to come by.
Oh, and I'm not intending any insult by implying that you are a layman, Emmzee (and I took care to spell it right this time =P )

[Emmzee]

no no no that's not what I said.

Physicists say "maybe the universe is finite."
people respond omg in that case what's outside it?

so, for the purpose of the hypothetical question "if the universe is finite then what" we are assuming that the universe is finite. THat's how hypothetical questions work. So, if we assume the universe is finite, then it is absolutely meaningless to talk about what lies beyond the finite range. "Beyond" itself is defined within the range, and has no meaning "beyond" the range. It's a frustratingly recursive statement, because we have no word for "the non existence that existence is defined to not be." But I mean there you go. There is no such thing as beyond it.
The way your argument was presented, you assumed the hypothetical was the truth.

Also,

/doublepost

God, it's like arguing with the Flat Earth Society. I know I am right. I am completely 100% certain that I am right. But for some reason I cannot present a complete, bulletproof argument to them to make them see what is so blindingly obvious to me.

I get it. This hypothesis, which is a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. You're treating this "suggested explanation," which really means "not proven," as the absolute truth.

Your logic is infallible.

[Rob Oplawar]

The way your argument was presented, you assumed the hypothetical was the truth.
No, you did. You assumed hypothetical was truth. When I wrote this, I was completely aware that I was talking about a hypothetical situation; I have absolutely no idea whether the universe is finite or not.

edit to avoid the doublepost:
Here is a metaphor to help represent what I'm apparently having so much trouble relating to you:

Think of train tracks as our universe. We define location as a point in our universe, that is, a point on the train tracks. The train tracks are all that exist as far as we can tell. Therefore, to us, points not on the train tracks are imperceptible, and are not included in our definition of location. Again, our definition of location is a point in the universe, that is, on the train tracks, that is, not off the train tracks. You guys are saying that there may well be something beyond the end of the line. And in terms of our metaphor, we exist in higher dimensions beyond the tracks, so our literal definition of location includes what's not on the train tracks, so yes, in real life we can say that there is stuff beyond them. But in the metaphor, when we are defining location, we can only define what's on the tracks.

So back to our real universe, maybe the "tracks" end. And that's it, the end of the line, to quote Syuusuke (http://www.h2vista.net/forums/member.php?u=81). Anything that can possibly exist that we can perceive must be inside our universe, and so our definition of location is tailored to suit our universe. If our universe ends, well, there may be stuff outside of our universe, but in terms of what we can perceive and location, there is no point in wondering what is beyond, because there is no beyond. There may be something "outside of" our definition of the universe, but there is no location outside of our universe.

[Emmzee]

No, you did. You assumed hypothetical was truth. When I wrote this, I was completely aware that I was talking about a hypothetical situation; I have absolutely no idea whether the universe is finite or not.
Really now.

To reiterate, by definition there is no such thing as beyond the edge of the universe, because if we defined the universe as finite, it is fucking finite. We just fucking defined that there is no such thing as beyond it!
Golly, sure sounds like you're assuming a hypothetical is the truth.

[Rob Oplawar]

Yes I just said for the sake of the hypothetical that's what you do! For the sake of the argument you assume something to be true, whether it is or not; otherwise, you can't have a hypothetical argument!

In terms of the thing you are talking about, there is no such thing as beyond it. In terms of locations on a ruler, there is no such thing as 13 inches. Or if you prefer a meterstick, there is no such thing as 1.1 meters. If you're talking about locations on the meterstick, there is no such thing as the location 1.1 meters. When you're talking about our universe, it is meaningless to say a "location" (which is a point in our universe) that is not in our universe.

I don't know how I can possibly be more clear about this.

[Emmzee]

Yes I just said for the sake of the hypothetical that's what you do! For the sake of the argument you assume something to be true, whether it is or not; otherwise, you can't have a hypothetical argument!
The fact is, you didn't take into account that the hypothesis may be wrong, and didn't base your argument to defend against it.

[n00b1n8R]

I consider the "universe" (all of 3D space) to be infinite. the "edge" of the universe is the furthest point from the "core" that matter has traveld since the big bang.

[Texrat]

Yah, it's like zero. I mean, what the fuck. If I say you have nothing, then dammit, I just caused you to have Something. The set of all Nothings is a set nonetheless, and that's something, too. So the bottom line is you can never have nothing, because once you put a boundary around it, you screwed the beauty of the whole goddam thing and created something.

Maybe that's how God did it. We can blame Him for this logical shitstorm.

I'd say this was a post about nothing, but as you can plainly see, I fucked that up, too.

[Rob Oplawar]

you didn't take into account that the hypothesis may be wrong, and didn't base your argument to defend against it.

Sigh.
*speaks very slowly and clearly*
I didn't take into account the fact that the hypothesis may be wrong because I was discussing the hi-poh-theh-tic-al situation in which is is correct.


The set of all Nothings is a set nonetheless
No, a nothing is nothing, so the set of all nothings is an empty set- is, er, a set of nothing. Nothing is defined as not something- we can perhaps think about "nothing" but that doesn't make it something, because by definition it's not.

But I'm not saying there's nothing beyond the edge of our universe, I'm saying there is no such thing as beyond the edge of our universe. It's not saying there's nothing, it's just limiting what something (our universe) is.

[Zeph]

Space is infinite. There's just nothing out there past a certain point.

[Texrat]

no no no that's not what I said.

Physicists say "maybe the universe is finite."
people respond "omg in that case what's outside it?"

so, for the purpose of the hypothetical question "if the universe is finite then what" we are assuming that the universe is finite. That's how hypothetical questions work. So, if we assume the universe is finite, then it is absolutely meaningless to talk about what lies beyond the finite range. "Beyond" itself is defined within the range, and has no meaning "beyond" the range. It's a frustratingly recursive statement, because we have no word for "the non-thing that anything you can define, tangible or intangible, is defined to not be." But I mean there you go. There is no such thing as beyond it.


A false statement. That's what's wrong with layman's science. The layman generally does not know what constitutes proof. It may be strong evidence, but it is not proof. Proof is very *very* hard to come by.
Oh, and I'm not intending any insult by implying that you are a layman, Emmzee (and I took care to spell it right this time =P )

Umm... seriously, not true.

Think about Georg Cantor's work with sets. He's the guy who went nuts trying to complete a proof that Infinity mucked up. But before he did, he gave us the lovely gift of set theory and critical to this mess, boundaries.

[The part of God will now be played by Texrat, unpaid and unprofessional actor]

Let's say I create a universe. I have to bind it somehow (really, the thought of an infinite universe is asinine). In order to bind it, there HAS to be an outside. Okay, maybe the topology is mobius-like, and the outside is also the inside. Fair enough. But I still have a contained object, even if it's self-contained. It stands to reason that if I have one I have many. A set of universes. Contained in... something. Universal petri disk jelly or somesuch shit. So what's outside of MY universe? The medium hosting the whole friggin' set. The superuniverse. I don't think it's meaningless to talk about that. Maybe understanding it helps us make the breakthrough required for interuniversal travel. After all, we need conductance or conveyance of some sort, and it helps to know the environment. You don't go space-snorkeling without your big shiny suit, right?

So there.

[Emmzee]

Sigh.
*speaks very slowly and clearly*
I didn't take into account the fact that the hypothesis may be wrong because I was discussing the hi-poh-theh-tic-al situation in which is is correct.
Now you're just using circular logic. Give it up already.

[Texrat]

No, a nothing is nothing, so the set of all nothings is an empty set- is, er, a set of nothing. Nothing is defined as not something- we can perhaps think about "nothing" but that doesn't make it something, because by definition it's not.

I was of course writing tongue-in-cheek, but in all seriousness, binding a Nothing does indeed create a Something.

Let's flash back to the Big Bang. Theorists are getting close to figuring out its emergence. They envision a primordial soup wherein bubbles of Nothing occasionally appear and fizzle back into the Nothingness from which they came. But occasionally, 1 will fail to collapse and somehow (here's the magic part) manifest into Something.

Point is, from our perspective, we can't really get a handle on what Nothing is. The damn thing may not even exist. Try to picture Nothing ever being in existence. Try it. Nothing EVER comes into being. How the hell can THAT happen? :XD:

I'm thinking it can't. Sooner or later, SOMEthing comes into existence.

Whoa. Sorry, head rush. I gotta lie down on Something...

[Warsaw]

What is "beyond" the edge of the universe? Another universe, of course :downs:.

[Archon23]

........I just read through the thread........I think my brains going to explode........

Oh and Texrat THANKS for that last post. I need to lie down too........

[Texrat]

What is "beyond" the edge of the universe? Another universe, of course :downs:.

One where the BeeGees are all still alive and jamming, you betcha.

[Zeph]

What is "beyond" the edge of the universe? Another universe, of course :downs:.
There cant be an edge.

[Rob Oplawar]

A set of universes. Contained in... something. Universal petri disk jelly or somesuch shit. So what's outside of MY universe? The medium hosting the whole friggin' set. The superuniverse. I don't think it's meaningless to talk about that.

...

Point is, from our perspective, we can't really get a handle on what Nothing is. The damn thing may not even exist. Try to picture Nothing ever being in existence. Try it. Nothing EVER comes into being. How the hell can THAT happen?

Yes and hell yes.

I'm not talking about nothing, and I'm not talking about the universes container. That guy you're quoting makes a valid point, that the universe may and perhaps probably is part of something greater, BUT when he says container, he's speaking metaphorically, because you cannot contain the universe in the physical literal sense of the word. Sure in terms of the superverse there is something outside the universe. What I'm saying is way the hell simpler than that: in terms of our universe, there is nothing but our universe. I mean, dur. When you're only talking about our universe, that's all you're talking about. So, when you're only talking about location, which is part of our universe, then you're only talking about our universe so it's ridiculous to talk about what's not in our universe in terms of location. Ok? It's meaningless to talk about what exists "beyond" the edge of the universe because there is no such thing as beyond the edge of the universe. K?

And @Emmzee: all this is assuming there is an edge, but there may well not be one. I'm just saying that if there is, there's no such thing as outside it.


Now you're just using circular logic. Give it up already.
Now I have no idea what you're talking about. What part of what I said is circular logic?

[Rob Oplawar]

Lol, what we have here is a failure to communicate.


[T]he characters in these books and plays and so on, and in real life I might add, spend hours bemoaning the fact that they can't communicate. I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up.

So, without further ado,

[Texrat]

There cant be an edge.

Of course there is.

The reason our space isn't really infinite is because it has a known beginning. Beginnings imply ends. Neither plays nice with Infinity. Both are bounds. Infinity knows no bounds. It lurks maliciously between discrete elements and wreaks havoc on advanced math stuffs.

Our universe is expanding into... something. That means it's probably displacing something (the region outside that Rob doesn't want to think exists :p). It also has to have a farthest expanse, ie, edge.

Our universe is defined, ergo contained. You sure can't do that with a Nothing. Once you do, you get-- well, we've already beaten that unicorn to death.

[Con]

I love these threads...they make you think...

IMO there is no edge, I don't think any dimension can have an end except what we define.

mb texrat's superuniverse is one of the dimensions, and we are only seeing one part of it just like we can only see one slice of time, and how 2d people would theoretically only see slices of 3d objects.

[Texrat]

If there's no "edge", then there was no Big Bang. :p

Oh crap, I couldn't leave it at that.

Look: if our universe had infinite mass in it, it couldn't expand. We know this. It's fundamental to Relativity. Since it IS expanding (and we even know the rate) then we know it contains a finite mass. That, boys and girls, means it has a life expectancy. That then means it has an end. Which means an edge. The one that is still being pushed by the remnants of the Big Bang (which as was said didn't happen if said edge does not exist).

...

The hell with Emmzee. You can't discuss this without getting circular! <3 anyway.

[Con]

:o well then mb the expansion of one universe means the collapse of another in your superuniverse >_>

[Warsaw]

There cant be an edge.

Please note the smiley.

Also, if there was no Big Bang, then there is no end of the universe as well, because it cannot end if it did not begin.

[Texrat]

:o well then mb the expansion of one universe means the collapse of another in your superuniverse >_>

BINGO! Johnny, what does Connie win?

Johnny: well, he wins the entire set of Nothing encyclopedias, a year's supply of flubber and a one-way trip through Dante's Inferno.

Here's some more stuff to mess with ya. If our universe WAS infinite, then perpetual motion machines would work. And since the mass in our universe is finite, and by all rights infinite mass should surely be the case in toto, then doesn't that mean an infinite number of universes all containing finite mass?

[Bad Waffle]

You're assuming that because we say the universe is finite, therefore it is finite, when we really have no fucking clue. Your theory contradicts itself by assuming because someone says something is, it is.

Basically, humans, as a whole, aren't as smart as we think we are.

Yayy texrat for taking time to explain his theory because im way too lazy to say anything!


Well, let me toss in what i think the edge of the universe is.

Basically, we cannot define it as a space because as soon as we box it in with three dimensions it ceases to be nothing and becomes something 'empty'.

This is where black holes come into play. They relatively pinpricks of whatever antimass or whatever it is, and somehow it just compounds everything into a small force. My guess is that the big bang blew these holes out in a spherical formation, along another dimension and arranging so that we are in a large space that would, due to entropy, form a large sphere. The boundaries of this sphere would be the black hole matter, insteald of a single pinprick it would be a definite wall of this stuff. This would indefinitely pull all of the material in the middle of the sphere outwards, explaining how the universe "expands". In a few trillion years, stuff will begin to get sucked into the abyss until everything is gone, the universe loses energy, and the sphere starts collapsing into a smaller sphere until the three dimensions we define right now collapse into a zero volume--leaving it in another dimension we do not understand. Due to some event, this will once again explode, causing another big bang--in a repitition of the universe. Somewhere in there is where the new dimensions fit. The mesh of time and space is there, we have just yet to find how to manipulate it for our benefit. That is why rob is having such problems with this, because he's trying to reason the universe on our logic that is mostly incomplete. We dont know whats at the center of our planet, we dont know whats at the bottom of our oceans, but we think we can comprehend the COSMOS? balls to that.

[Texrat]

I have a LOT of fun where science and philosophy intersect. :D

O and nice work Wavey.

[Kybo_Ren]

I personally believe that there is no real edge to the universe. The big bang can simply be attributed to matter occupying the space in the universe. As matter 'explodes' outward, it occupies a new space in the universe which was previously unoccupied. There is no 'edge' as one would normally think with an explosion. I believe the universe is truly infinite; it may have a boundary beyond which no matter exists, but it is impossible to reach that boundary -- going there would occupy that space and therefore expand the universe.

Also, under that theory the universe's boundaries must be expanding at the speed of light. As such, there is no possible way that we could reach the edge of the universe.

Basically, I think:
-There is no end to the universe, only an end to space that is occupied
-It is impossible to reach these ends with normal matter (less-than-light-speed travel).

[Rob Oplawar]

we cannot define it as a space because as soon as we box it in with three dimensions it ceases to be nothing and becomes something 'empty'.
But there is no space to put the box. There is no space period. No location, unless you're inside the universe.


The reason our space isn't really infinite is because it has a known beginning. Beginnings imply ends. Neither plays nice with Infinity. Both are bounds. Infinity knows no bounds. It lurks maliciously between discrete elements and wreaks havoc on advanced math stuffs.

Our universe is expanding into... something. That means its probably displacing something (the region outside that Rob doesn't want to think exists). It also has to have a farthest expanse, ie, edge.

Dammit, I can't stay shut up for long.

At the first part: you're talking about time. Who the fuck knows what time is anyway? I'm talking about location here.

At the second part: no, no, no! Sure our universe is expanding, as far as we can tell. I'll buy that. But the universe is existence. Ok? We're talking about location, and location is defined within our universe. Ok? Sure there may be other stuff, "containing" the universe. But I'm not talking about that! That's outside the universe! The universe being defined as what we can perceive, what's not in the universe is imperceptible to us so I'm not talking about it! You say it's displacing something. Sure, maybe displacing something, but that would be in the superverse. Expanding into a region into the superverse perhaps. But for god's sake, that region does not exist within our universe! If 3 dimensional space is expanding, then it must be finite in some sense, and if that means it has an edge, then that means there is no such thing as 3 dimensional location after 3 dimensional space ends. There is nothing beyond the edge of the universe. There is no region in terms of our universe, because the universe is the region.

Dammit, I've said the same things so many times in so many different ways, I have no idea what to say anymore. Like I said before I am just failing to communicate a blindingly obvious logical fact because to me it is blindingly obvious and therefore I struggle to find a way to communicate it, having never felt it needed communication.



To all subsequent posts:

Location is defined in terms of the universe; a location is somewhere inside the universe.
"Beyond" is defined in terms of location. Without location, there is no beyond.
If there is an edge to the universe, that means the universe doesn't exist except in itself. Location doesn't exist except in the universe. Beyond doesn't exist except in the universe. THEREFORE: If the universe has an edge, "beyond the edge" is meaningless.

QED, the horse's meat is thoroughly tenderized now, my throat is hoarse, ok we get it you can stop now.

If you disagree with me, look closer at what I am saying, at what I am really saying. Look really, really close if you still disagree with me. Don't make any assumptions about my meaning except what I explicitly state. If you still don't believe me, I'll just smile and nod, and perhaps chuckle a little bit,
unless
you can give me a really really good counter argument. But I mean, at this point, it has to be reaaally good.

No more big words, no more assumptions, no more angry or frustrated posts, no more personal attacks, no more points tangent to what we're really discussing, and no more false or incomplete statements. No physics, cause physics may be wrong. No more big bang, because pretty solid and domonstrable as it may be, it's still just a theory. No religion, no time, none of that. Just logic. We're down to "I think, therefore I am", except for the sake of the argument let's assume the universe is too, and also for the sake of the argument let's assume it has an edge, and if you like, sure perhaps something other than the universe exists in some way not defined by our conventional terms.

[n00b1n8R]

Of course there is.

The reason our space isn't really infinite is because it has a known beginning. Beginnings imply ends. Neither plays nice with Infinity. Both are bounds. Infinity knows no bounds. It lurks maliciously between discrete elements and wreaks havoc on advanced math stuffs.

Our universe is expanding into... something. That means it's probably displacing something (the region outside that Rob doesn't want to think exists :p). It also has to have a farthest expanse, ie, edge.

Our universe is defined, ergo contained. You sure can't do that with a Nothing. Once you do, you get-- well, we've already beaten that unicorn to death.

the matter that makes up the known universe has a point of origen, but it may expand into infinate space of nothing. there is nothing in the space unless matter is put there (which originated from the origen), but you can send matter for eternity and not hit a boundry.

[Rob Oplawar]

oh and also, at wol:

The boundaries of this sphere would be the black hole matter, insteald of a single pinprick it would be a definite wall of this stuff. This would indefinitely pull all of the material in the middle of the sphere outwards, explaining how the universe "expands".

Sorry for this, but you have to make assumptions somewhere, and I think we can safely assume calculus is mostly right; after all, you're assuming gravity and math and all that for your pulling outward argument

ANYWAY

you can use calculus to prove that the net gravitational field resulting from a uniform hollow sphere is 0. It's a bit complicated, but you can look it up. Sorry bud, but your sphere of mass theory is bunk because if it is perfectly unifrom then it results in absolutely no net change in gravitational force on anything within it, and it it's not, then the universe would be collapsing towards the center of mass.

[Texrat]

the matter that makes up the known universe has a point of origen, but it may expand into infinate space of nothing. there is nothing in the space unless matter is put there (which originated from the origen), but you can send matter for eternity and not hit a boundry.

Um... no. There are numerous forces that will prevent that matter for moving out for an eternity. Sooner or later proton decay or some other aspect of entropy is gonna do it in. That, folks, IS a boundary.

I think maybe some are getting bogged down on classical definitions of boundary. Maybe you're thinking wall or something else solid. No. In this parlance a boundary is merely an effective limit. And, I'm sorry to say, the mere fact that our particular universe faces an eventual end at SOME point means it has an expansion limit and thus an "edge". One day it's gonna reverse thrust and collapse. Poof.

http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/cosmol.htm

Oh, and Rob: at the level we're talking, no real difference between space and time. Call it space-time, like Einstein did. ;) Smile and chuckle as you please, but your position (pun intended) seems to be getting into some sort of Superrelativity and with that I get the true import of Emmzee's circular logic allegation (smile and nod at this point).

Side note: click http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55001&page=3 for some real fun. Check out the silliness of usp8triot and c7ityi_. Man, the other posters HAD to be going insane!

[n00b1n8R]

that would be a boundry in the 4th dimension that affects matter in the 3rd.

[Bad Waffle]

what is a boundary of space, when something so simple as a mobius loop exists in plain sight? the curving in on itself happens on such a large scale that it just doesnt exist as we know it. Eventually the dimensions as we know it (height, width, length) are going to have to be expanded or even trashed for a more clear one.

[Texrat]

that would be a boundry in the 4th dimension that affects matter in the 3rd.

A boundary upon us nonetheless.

And it makes sense that the 4th dimension measures (and thus limits) our 3 dimensional universe, right?

EDIT: Oh, and consider this-- it isn't matter at the edge of the known universe... it's LIGHT. Matter can't keep up with photons. They define the frontier.

[n00b1n8R]

Toche'

[Texrat]

I should have thought of the LIGHT aspect from the beginning. I am such a doof. The boundary is where the farthest photons are. Of course, farthest is... relative. ;)

Along those lines, I was half-teasing Rob about Superrelativity, but there might be something to that. Our universe of course has its own allegiance to Relativity. Same would extend to other contained universes outside our jurisdiction. So in that sense Rob is correct that talking about locii outside our comprehension is pointless. BUT-- what if we discover the Superuniverse is real and with it, Superrelativity? Then it's a whole new ballgame. We could refer to points of interest across universes! So a prototypical home address is now 123 WTF Lane, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe 1 (aren't WE egostistical!).

Man I love these exercises! :lol:

Aw crap... my term is already used: http://www.superrelativity.org/ :(

[Random]

The edge of the Universe is just the inside of a locker, everyone knows that.

[Bad Waffle]

Wave of Lag (7:51:07 PM): you're such a nub
Rob Oplawar (7:51:06 PM): lol
Rob Oplawar (7:51:11 PM): you still don't agree with me?
Rob Oplawar (7:51:16 PM): after seeing my last post?
Wave of Lag (7:51:31 PM): i think that you're trying to reason out the universe from an arcane point of view
Rob Oplawar (7:51:40 PM): i have tried as hard as i could to punch a hole in my argument, and i only made it even stronger
Rob Oplawar (7:51:47 PM): i'm doing nothing of the sort
Rob Oplawar (7:51:52 PM): i keep saying that
Wave of Lag (7:51:56 PM): yeah, i was talking inside the universe when i said "space"
Wave of Lag (7:51:59 PM): silly goose
Rob Oplawar (7:51:59 PM): so
Rob Oplawar (7:52:04 PM): you admit it then
Wave of Lag (7:52:16 PM): uhh, no
Rob Oplawar (7:52:13 PM): there is no such thing as "beyond" the edge of the universe
Rob Oplawar (7:52:22 PM): there IS NO SUCH THING
Wave of Lag (7:52:27 PM): i was talking about inside of the universe
Wave of Lag (7:52:32 PM): lol, silly rob
Rob Oplawar (7:52:35 PM): well fuck yes dur inside the universe it keeps going
Rob Oplawar (7:52:39 PM): until it hits the end
Rob Oplawar (7:52:42 PM): and then what?
Wave of Lag (7:52:51 PM): so right now i could hit a wall because thats the end of the universe?
Rob Oplawar (7:52:48 PM): well, there is no then
Rob Oplawar (7:52:55 PM): there is no such thing as after the edge
Wave of Lag (7:53:10 PM): an invisible wall calculated by imaginary numbers reasoned inside our heads?
Rob Oplawar (7:53:15 PM): if the universe ends then who knows what the fuck will happen if you reach it
Rob Oplawar (7:53:26 PM): it is not an invisible wall
Wave of Lag (7:53:30 PM): you're right, nobody knows, but something happens
Rob Oplawar (7:53:30 PM): it is the end of the dimensions
Wave of Lag (7:53:38 PM): its not like since we dont know what it is that its not there
Rob Oplawar (7:53:34 PM): if there is such a thing
Rob Oplawar (7:53:41 PM): but i don't give a rats ass if there is or not
Wave of Lag (7:53:48 PM): so what, its the end of the three dimensions
Rob Oplawar (7:53:55 PM): it's just that if there is, there is no fucking "beyond" the edge
Wave of Lag (7:54:00 PM): you think there are only three (or four) dimensions?
Rob Oplawar (7:53:59 PM): because the universe is it
Rob Oplawar (7:54:06 PM): no no no
Wave of Lag (7:54:21 PM): do you want me to bring up the teapot flying around uranus?
Rob Oplawar (7:54:25 PM): if a dimension ends, then in terms of that dimension there's no such thing as beyond it
Wave of Lag (7:54:35 PM): for that dimension
Rob Oplawar (7:54:34 PM): yes
Wave of Lag (7:54:43 PM): but you see our dimensions are subdimensions
Rob Oplawar (7:54:41 PM): for other dimensions, perhaps not
Wave of Lag (7:54:48 PM): partial to our universe
Rob Oplawar (7:54:47 PM): you don't know that
Rob Oplawar (7:54:49 PM): they may be
Wave of Lag (7:54:55 PM): oh really?
Rob Oplawar (7:54:51 PM): they may not be
Rob Oplawar (7:54:54 PM): but LOCATION
Rob Oplawar (7:54:56 PM): IS DEFINED
Rob Oplawar (7:54:59 PM): IN TERMS
Rob Oplawar (7:55:05 PM): OF THE DIMENSIONS THAT WE PERCIEVE
Wave of Lag (7:55:13 PM): then why are you saying theres nothing beyond the universe if you just said that we dont know that
Wave of Lag (7:55:17 PM): can you do that with your math?
Rob Oplawar (7:55:14 PM): god dammit
Rob Oplawar (7:55:19 PM): look
Wave of Lag (7:55:29 PM): rob, your arguement is flawed
Rob Oplawar (7:55:29 PM): location is defined in terms of the dimensions we percieve
Wave of Lag (7:55:35 PM): go get a sammich, bitch
Wave of Lag (7:55:42 PM): o rly, i did not NO DAT
Rob Oplawar (7:55:42 PM): if the dimensions end, there is no such thing as location after the end
Wave of Lag (7:55:56 PM): duh?
Wave of Lag (7:56:05 PM): a location in 3rd space, as i want to call it
Rob Oplawar (7:56:02 PM): THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!
Rob Oplawar (7:56:09 PM): shit man
Rob Oplawar (7:56:12 PM): it's so obvious
Wave of Lag (7:56:18 PM): it becomes a location in a different way
Rob Oplawar (7:56:17 PM): that's what i have been saying all along
Rob Oplawar (7:56:32 PM): well, if you create a new definition for location then yes
Wave of Lag (7:56:40 PM): what if all time blended together outside that wall, that its handled by the 4th dimension
Rob Oplawar (7:56:44 PM): but i'm just saying that in terms of our current definition of location
Rob Oplawar (7:56:54 PM): in terms
Wave of Lag (7:56:58 PM): what if time itself was a new way to define location
Rob Oplawar (7:56:58 PM): of our current definition of location
Rob Oplawar (7:57:06 PM): our current definition
Rob Oplawar (7:57:21 PM): then there is no such thing as location outside of the universe
Wave of Lag (7:57:35 PM): what if people started saying be at 4:30 by my room, instead of be at my room at 4:30?
Rob Oplawar (7:57:34 PM): because our current definition of location
Rob Oplawar (7:57:41 PM): is defined in terms of the limits of the universe
Rob Oplawar (7:57:44 PM): finite or infinite
Rob Oplawar (7:57:46 PM): who cares
Wave of Lag (7:58:00 PM): our current knowledge is so limited that we cant define anything past the fact that the universe is slowly dying
Rob Oplawar (7:58:02 PM): god dammit I am not talking about time
Rob Oplawar (7:58:07 PM): you are just messing with my head now
Rob Oplawar (7:58:09 PM): jesus
Wave of Lag (7:58:17 PM): but time is just another dimension, rob
Wave of Lag (7:58:30 PM): you arent grasping as much as you could
Rob Oplawar (7:58:27 PM): you're just going in circles cause you know it pisses me off
Rob Oplawar (7:58:29 PM): well i am not talking about that dimensoin, now am i?
Wave of Lag (7:58:45 PM): im not going in circles, just saying the same thing different ways
Rob Oplawar (7:58:41 PM): how many trimes have i said i'm talking about 3 dimensional space?!
Rob Oplawar (7:58:48 PM): and so am i
Wave of Lag (7:58:58 PM): maybe one way will go into your narrow mind and crack you open like a nut
Rob Oplawar (7:58:55 PM): you're not talking about the same thing as i am
Rob Oplawar (7:59:07 PM): we are talking about two different things
Wave of Lag (7:59:12 PM): and then you'll have a glorious epiphany
Rob Oplawar (7:59:14 PM): and i see what you're getting at
Rob Oplawar (7:59:18 PM): but i'm not talking about that
Wave of Lag (7:59:27 PM): thats what you would like to think, that we're talking about two different things
Rob Oplawar (7:59:28 PM): i'm trying to get you to talk about what i'm talking about
Wave of Lag (7:59:35 PM): but what if they're just two sides to the same face?
Rob Oplawar (7:59:32 PM): ok
Rob Oplawar (7:59:33 PM): shut up
Rob Oplawar (7:59:37 PM): be quiet for a minute
Rob Oplawar (7:59:37 PM): ok
Wave of Lag (7:59:43 PM): open up
Rob Oplawar (7:59:39 PM): wait
Rob Oplawar (7:59:52 PM): Location is defined in terms of the universe; a location is somewhere inside the universe.
Rob Oplawar (7:59:56 PM): ok?
Rob Oplawar (7:59:59 PM): do you accept this?
Wave of Lag (8:00:11 PM): inside it, of course
Rob Oplawar (8:00:10 PM): yes, good
Rob Oplawar (8:00:16 PM): "Beyond" is defined in terms of location. Without location, there is no beyond.
Wave of Lag (8:00:23 PM): but it still exists outside of it
Rob Oplawar (8:00:19 PM): how bout this?
Rob Oplawar (8:00:24 PM): no
Rob Oplawar (8:00:25 PM): no
Rob Oplawar (8:00:32 PM): beyond does not exist without location
Rob Oplawar (8:00:36 PM): if location ends, so does beyond
Rob Oplawar (8:00:41 PM): beyond becomes meaningless
Wave of Lag (8:00:51 PM): as long as there is no centerpoint, a dimension will always exist
Rob Oplawar (8:01:03 PM): not necessarily
Wave of Lag (8:01:15 PM): oh really?
Rob Oplawar (8:01:18 PM): what I'm talking about is the end of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:01:31 PM): the hypothetical surface at which the dimensions end
Wave of Lag (8:01:52 PM): how about this
Wave of Lag (8:02:17 PM): have you ever seen a REAL mobius loop? its only got one side.
Rob Oplawar (8:02:18 PM): yes
Wave of Lag (8:02:27 PM): yet it is supposed to have two
Rob Oplawar (8:02:35 PM): i'm not talking about infinite dimensions; i'm talking about finite ones
Wave of Lag (8:02:57 PM): that bending of the dimensions happens on a cosmic scale, buddy
Rob Oplawar (8:03:02 PM): how do you know?
Rob Oplawar (8:03:15 PM): you don't
Rob Oplawar (8:03:19 PM): but it doesn't matter
Rob Oplawar (8:03:35 PM): because we're not talking about whether or not the universe loops back in on itself
Rob Oplawar (8:03:48 PM): i'm talking about the hypothetical situation in which it just ends
Rob Oplawar (8:03:54 PM): the edge of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:04:26 PM): you with me still?
Wave of Lag (8:04:36 PM): mmhmm
Rob Oplawar (8:04:38 PM): ok
Rob Oplawar (8:04:40 PM): so
Rob Oplawar (8:04:50 PM): is there anything else, or shall i continue?
Wave of Lag (8:04:59 PM): no, go for it
Rob Oplawar (8:04:59 PM): ok
Rob Oplawar (8:05:12 PM): the universe does not exist except where it exists
Rob Oplawar (8:05:28 PM): that's obvious, but it's the only way of saying something which is otherwise impossible to say
Wave of Lag (8:05:50 PM): k
Rob Oplawar (8:05:57 PM): something along the lines of our universe doesn't exist outside of itself
Rob Oplawar (8:06:09 PM): but i get hung up on the word outside
Rob Oplawar (8:06:18 PM): so i have to state the obvious that the universe is what it is
Rob Oplawar (8:06:24 PM): so
Rob Oplawar (8:06:31 PM): if location only exists in the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:06:41 PM): and if beyond only has meaning in terms of location
Rob Oplawar (8:06:48 PM): and if the universe has an edge
Rob Oplawar (8:06:49 PM): then
Wave of Lag (8:07:02 PM): its only getting translated across the threshold
Rob Oplawar (8:07:12 PM): the universe only exists in itself, location only exists there, beyond only has meaning there
Rob Oplawar (8:07:28 PM): so beyond has no meaning when it comes to the edge of the universe
Wave of Lag (8:07:36 PM): explain to me how black holes work, by sucking in planets, stars, light, but they are smaller than a grain of salt
Rob Oplawar (8:07:39 PM): no location, no existence, nothing, except in the universe
Wave of Lag (8:07:46 PM): in this system of location
Rob Oplawar (8:07:46 PM): if we're speaking in terms of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:08:02 PM): that has nothing to do with it, but alright
Wave of Lag (8:08:10 PM): yes it does
Rob Oplawar (8:08:11 PM): ok
Wave of Lag (8:08:17 PM): because it is contained within the universe
Wave of Lag (8:08:25 PM): black holes are INSIDE known volumes
Rob Oplawar (8:08:27 PM): well cherries are also inside the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:08:32 PM): you want me to talk about them too?
Rob Oplawar (8:08:35 PM): mmm maraschino
Wave of Lag (8:09:15 PM): explain how a cherry can devour mass and compress planets larger than our solar system into a molecule of propane (under normal 1atm)
Rob Oplawar (8:09:21 PM): er, it doesn't
Wave of Lag (8:09:30 PM): size-wise
Wave of Lag (8:10:11 PM): explain why such a large thing can spontaneously cause atoms to split just due to its existance
Wave of Lag (8:10:26 PM): and while we're on that subject
Wave of Lag (8:10:29 PM): what is an atom?
Wave of Lag (8:10:40 PM): we dont even know exactly what makes up that
Wave of Lag (8:10:47 PM): perhaps we have to go smaller to get bigger
Rob Oplawar (8:10:44 PM): so?
Rob Oplawar (8:10:48 PM): we're talking about location
Rob Oplawar (8:10:52 PM): location is abstract
Rob Oplawar (8:11:07 PM): it has nothing to do with the elements of which it is a property
Wave of Lag (8:11:18 PM): perhaps a whole universe is inside an atom, and the energy we release when we crack it is a whole new "big bang" for a new universe?
Wave of Lag (8:11:29 PM): rob, you got my started on one of my favorite subjects
Rob Oplawar (8:11:37 PM): inside an atom, inside an infinite volume, who cares
Rob Oplawar (8:11:43 PM): that's still not the universe
Wave of Lag (8:11:48 PM): who cares about anything?
Wave of Lag (8:11:52 PM): care is an emotion
Rob Oplawar (8:11:49 PM): if the whole universe is an atom in another
Rob Oplawar (8:12:06 PM): what i mean is, it is irrelevant to this argument
Wave of Lag (8:12:15 PM): it is not something that can be given a scientific classification, what in your head defines what happens?
Wave of Lag (8:12:24 PM): what says to not care about something?
Wave of Lag (8:12:29 PM): or to care about something?
Rob Oplawar (8:12:26 PM): sigh
Wave of Lag (8:12:39 PM): maybe in our own head we have yet another world
Rob Oplawar (8:12:37 PM): can we please not get sidetracked?
Rob Oplawar (8:12:46 PM): i've gone over this one for days on end
Rob Oplawar (8:12:52 PM): and i'm not even exaggerating
Wave of Lag (8:13:04 PM): but i digress with such passion, johnny boy!
Rob Oplawar (8:13:07 PM): yes
Rob Oplawar (8:13:15 PM): but you're sidestepping the main point
Wave of Lag (8:13:31 PM): oh am i?
Wave of Lag (8:13:34 PM): sidestepping what?
Rob Oplawar (8:13:31 PM): and for whatever it's worth, i personally desire to bring some conclusion to the main point
Rob Oplawar (8:13:38 PM): the edge of the universe
Wave of Lag (8:13:47 PM): there is nothing to sidestep because your arguement hasnt been thought out
Rob Oplawar (8:13:43 PM): that's what we're talking about here
Rob Oplawar (8:13:49 PM): yes it is
Rob Oplawar (8:13:54 PM): *has
Rob Oplawar (8:13:57 PM): believe me, it has
Wave of Lag (8:14:07 PM): how long have you been pondering this
Rob Oplawar (8:14:14 PM): since i brought it up a few hours ago
Wave of Lag (8:14:22 PM): HAH
Rob Oplawar (8:14:26 PM): but i've had this argument in my head for some time
Wave of Lag (8:14:34 PM): texrat has been pondering this ever since he was your age
Wave of Lag (8:14:44 PM): ive had this in my head ever since i looked up at the skies
Rob Oplawar (8:14:45 PM): every time i ever heard someone say "what's beyond the edge of the universe" i cringed a bit inside
Rob Oplawar (8:14:53 PM): dude
Wave of Lag (8:15:01 PM): its gotta be wonderful
Rob Oplawar (8:14:58 PM): let's not start this, ok?
Rob Oplawar (8:15:02 PM): this is a personal argument
Wave of Lag (8:15:09 PM): shit, im getting passionate
Wave of Lag (8:15:10 PM): lol
Rob Oplawar (8:15:09 PM): i'm not interested in personal attacks
Wave of Lag (8:15:14 PM): ahh the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:15:25 PM): tell me why my argument is not well thought out and maybe i'll buy it
Wave of Lag (8:15:39 PM): what, i wasnt personally attacking, just saying that the amount of time you put into this isnt that much compared to the people that contradict you
Rob Oplawar (8:15:40 PM): but just tell me that you've thought about it longer, and i won't buy it for one second
Rob Oplawar (8:15:57 PM): just because they've spent more time on it doesn't make them right
Wave of Lag (8:16:02 PM): but texrat? he's fucking older that marty
Rob Oplawar (8:16:02 PM): tell me why they're right
Rob Oplawar (8:16:09 PM): tell me why
Wave of Lag (8:16:17 PM): tell me why you're right
Rob Oplawar (8:16:16 PM): i did
Rob Oplawar (8:16:23 PM): one more time:
Rob Oplawar (8:16:31 PM): Location is defined in terms of the universe; a location is somewhere inside the universe.
"Beyond" is defined in terms of location. Without location, there is no beyond.
If there is an edge to the universe, that means the universe doesn't exist except in itself. Location doesn't exist except in the universe. Beyond doesn't exist except in the universe. THEREFORE: If the universe has an edge, "beyond the edge" is meaningless.
Wave of Lag (8:16:48 PM): im saying texrat and i are more open to different possibilities, im sure all of us have read up on everybodie's theories etc
Rob Oplawar (8:16:48 PM): now tell me why that's wrong
Rob Oplawar (8:16:56 PM): there is no different possibility
Rob Oplawar (8:17:03 PM): that is my argument
Wave of Lag (8:17:12 PM): because you're thinking a location is the sole purpose of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:17:12 PM): i'm not saying all other arguments are false
Rob Oplawar (8:17:22 PM): i'm saying that my argument is that there is no other possibility
Rob Oplawar (8:17:28 PM): also, don't tell me what i'm thinking
Rob Oplawar (8:17:29 PM): ok?
Wave of Lag (8:17:34 PM): bastard!
Wave of Lag (8:17:36 PM): lol
Rob Oplawar (8:17:33 PM): i'm tired of hearing that
Wave of Lag (8:17:45 PM): man, i gotta get to my freakin spanish
Rob Oplawar (8:17:48 PM): how the fuck do you know what i'm thinking? you obviously don't or we wouldn't be arguing
Wave of Lag (8:17:54 PM): we'll continue this on the forum, my man
Wave of Lag (8:18:00 PM): i dont know

[Texrat]

The "beyond" is meaningless from the perspective of a party whose comprehension is limited to the known universe.

It is not meaningless to any party able to scale above that.

[Bad Waffle]

Rob Oplawar (8:18:15 PM): you haven't told me what i'm thinking yet
Rob Oplawar (8:18:19 PM): and, er, i would know
Rob Oplawar (8:18:58 PM): my argument is that there is not and cannot be, by definition, a physical, 3-dimensional "beyond" the edge of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:19:12 PM): i would love to see you prove that wrong
Wave of Lag (8:20:01 PM): of course i cant
Wave of Lag (8:20:10 PM): because theres more than 3 dimensions out there
Wave of Lag (8:20:11 PM): duh
Rob Oplawar (8:20:09 PM): i would like to see you convince me i'm wrong
Rob Oplawar (8:20:17 PM): you cannot prove that
Wave of Lag (8:20:26 PM): oh really?
Rob Oplawar (8:20:25 PM): i don't want to hear about other dimensions
Rob Oplawar (8:20:32 PM): time or otherwise
Wave of Lag (8:20:38 PM): and you can prove that theres ONLY three dimensions?
Rob Oplawar (8:20:37 PM): no
Wave of Lag (8:20:41 PM): oh?
Wave of Lag (8:20:43 PM): why not?
Rob Oplawar (8:20:39 PM): but i don't care
Rob Oplawar (8:20:44 PM): cause i'm only talking about 3
Rob Oplawar (8:20:45 PM): jeez
Wave of Lag (8:20:51 PM): do they not exist if you dont want to hear about em?
Rob Oplawar (8:20:57 PM): perhaps they do exist
Rob Oplawar (8:21:03 PM): it is irrelevant to this argument
Wave of Lag (8:21:10 PM): no its not
Rob Oplawar (8:21:13 PM): because we're talking about traditional 3 dimensional location
Wave of Lag (8:21:51 PM): thats only inside the universe, when it crosses the threshold this dimension is crushed into one dimension and becomes a subdimension to others
Wave of Lag (8:22:24 PM): when things get trapped in a black hole they all funnel down to ONE POINT, ie one dimension
Rob Oplawar (8:22:22 PM): maybe so
Rob Oplawar (8:22:24 PM): we don't know
Rob Oplawar (8:22:28 PM): but that is not the argument
Rob Oplawar (8:22:35 PM): i am talking on a lower level than that
Wave of Lag (8:22:40 PM): so bam, i just totally proved you wrong due to scientific theory and hypothesis
Rob Oplawar (8:22:42 PM): no
Rob Oplawar (8:22:48 PM): you did not just prove me wrong
Rob Oplawar (8:22:53 PM): how the fuck does that prove me wrong?
Wave of Lag (8:23:08 PM): the lower level is just as important at the one above it as long as the above is used to provide evidence
Wave of Lag (8:23:19 PM): because you just said taht i was 'perhaps right'
Wave of Lag (8:23:30 PM): which due to your logic means that theres a possibility

[Bad Waffle]

The "beyond" is meaningless from the perspective of a party whose comprehension is limited to the known universe.

It is not meaningless to any party able to scale above that.

Ebony and Ivory...
Live together in perfect harmony...


god texrat, you and me think alike.

[Texrat]

Personally I don't get the point of "the argument".

So entities limited to 3 dimensional space can only effectively discuss and describe locations bound within and relative to that milieu.

...and???

[Bad Waffle]

Rob Oplawar (8:24:46 PM): a possibility of something i have repeatedly said is completely unrelated
Wave of Lag (8:25:01 PM): k.
Wave of Lag (8:25:06 PM): why is it unrelated again?
Rob Oplawar (8:25:27 PM): because it is not. what i mean by that is that i can think of no reason that it is related
Wave of Lag (8:25:45 PM): k.
Rob Oplawar (8:25:43 PM): it is unrelated by lack of, er, relevance
Rob Oplawar (8:25:47 PM): nothing is nothing
Wave of Lag (8:25:57 PM): how is it not relevant, again?
Rob Oplawar (8:25:53 PM): it's a recursive definition
Rob Oplawar (8:25:57 PM): sigh
Wave of Lag (8:26:29 PM): its only not relevant because your braincells havent made that nerve connection
Rob Oplawar (8:26:53 PM): ok
Rob Oplawar (8:26:57 PM): tell me why it's relevant
Rob Oplawar (8:27:00 PM): i am listening
Wave of Lag (8:27:25 PM): because that is the explanation that gives reason to the statement i provided
Rob Oplawar (8:27:37 PM): can you restate that?
Wave of Lag (8:28:12 PM): because i assume people understand the logic i use because it makes use of more allusion to different topics
Rob Oplawar (8:28:24 PM): different topics?
Rob Oplawar (8:28:29 PM): hold on
Rob Oplawar (8:28:32 PM): wait a moment
Rob Oplawar (8:28:38 PM): let me try this one last time
Wave of Lag (8:28:50 PM): if i said, here eat a hot dog, would it be relevant to you if you didnt know that a hot dog was a food instead of a steamy puppy?
Rob Oplawar (8:28:47 PM): then i'ma get a sammich and come back to this later
Rob Oplawar (8:29:04 PM): that's irrelevant
Rob Oplawar (8:29:18 PM): that is an unrelated argument
Wave of Lag (8:29:56 PM): no its not
Rob Oplawar (8:29:53 PM): authors too often make some clever metaphor and apply it even though the metaphor is essentially inapplicable
Wave of Lag (8:30:10 PM): its proving that because you do not have allusion to what im talking about you are completely lost in my logic
Wave of Lag (8:30:33 PM): thats why you have to learn algebra before trigonometry, because it builds upon itself and alludes to previous matter
Rob Oplawar (8:30:45 PM): ok, so what you're saying is that your argument is relevant because it illustrates or perhaps enumerates our failure to communicate?
Wave of Lag (8:30:53 PM): a metaphor is not an allusion, silly goose
Rob Oplawar (8:30:58 PM): if i said, here eat a hot dog, would it be relevant to you if you didnt know that a hot dog was a food instead of a steamy puppy?
Rob Oplawar (8:31:01 PM): this is a mataphor
Rob Oplawar (8:31:08 PM): ah my font =(
Wave of Lag (8:31:25 PM): no, thats an allusion, because a hotdog is a food and you wouldnt know that unless you had previous knowledge of that
Rob Oplawar (8:31:30 PM): sigh
Rob Oplawar (8:31:31 PM): ok
Wave of Lag (8:31:37 PM): rofl
Rob Oplawar (8:31:35 PM): we're getting sidetracked
Wave of Lag (8:31:43 PM): mmhmm
Rob Oplawar (8:31:42 PM): let me go back to what i was saying just now
Rob Oplawar (8:31:47 PM): here it is
Wave of Lag (8:31:52 PM): and i need to write about tacos en espanol
Wave of Lag (8:31:54 PM): ON THE BOARDS
Wave of Lag (8:31:57 PM): NOT ON AIM
Rob Oplawar (8:32:00 PM): no
Rob Oplawar (8:32:04 PM): i'm mad at the boards
Rob Oplawar (8:32:05 PM): well
Rob Oplawar (8:32:06 PM): ok
Rob Oplawar (8:32:09 PM): i'ma go get a sammich
Rob Oplawar (8:32:11 PM): brb

[Bad Waffle]

I say we conclude this mental brouhaha by saying that we're all right, but at the same time we're all wrong. Insert link to teapot around uranus.

[Sever]

This is where black holes come into play. They relatively pinpricks of whatever antimass or whatever it is, and somehow it just compounds everything into a small force. My guess is that the big bang blew these holes out in a spherical formation, along another dimension and arranging so that we are in a large space that would, due to entropy, form a large sphere. The boundaries of this sphere would be the black hole matter, insteald of a single pinprick it would be a definite wall of this stuff. This would indefinitely pull all of the material in the middle of the sphere outwards, explaining how the universe "expands". In a few trillion years... :words:

WRONG!

Black holes are just normal matter, but condensed to an extremely high density. Their gravitational force just distorts surrounding matter within a certain proximity in a different fashion than most instances of matter. If our sun were to become a black hole (which it won't, due to its size, or lack thereof), our planet would still orbit it just as usual. Any matter passing close to the sun, such as a comet, would still orbit it, and the debris would still be attracted to it, and would still be gravitationally pulled into its core, just as any other debris would (think of meteors/meteorites). If you want to know more about the physics of black holes, PM me. No bullshit PM's, please.

[LlamaMaster]

This is the most fuckingly pointless argument I've ever seen. When will you people learn that the human race isn't as smart as we think we are? If we were smart, we would realize this. Jesus Christ (my theory, but I'm keeping religion out of this) people, we have no way, and NEVER WILL know the answer. Unless people somehow find a way to break the laws of physics (although the laws of physics are created by humans, and therefor are flawed) and travel faster then the speed of light, billions and billions of light years away, we will NEVER KNOW. This argument is so fucking stupid I can't wrap my head around it, NONE OF YOU ARE RIGHT BECAUSE NONE OF YOU KNOW ANYTHING PAST THEORETICAL CONCEPTS BASED OFF OF OUR LIMITED KNOWLEDGE! Arg....

[Texrat]

I can assure you there is no teapot around my anus.

[Sever]

LlamaMaster has the right (yet not humble at the moment) opinion. Yes, opinions can be right.

[Texrat]

This is the most fuckingly pointless argument I've ever seen. When will you people learn that the human race isn't as smart as we think we are? If we were smart, we would realize this. Jesus Christ (my theory, but I'm keeping religion out of this) people, we have no way, and NEVER WILL know the answer. Unless people somehow find a way to break the laws of physics (although the laws of physics are created by humans, and therefor are flawed) and travel faster then the speed of light, billions and billions of light years away, we will NEVER KNOW. This argument is so fucking stupid I can't wrap my head around it, NONE OF YOU ARE RIGHT BECAUSE NONE OF YOU KNOW ANYTHING PAST THEORETICAL CONCEPTS BASED OFF OF OUR LIMITED KNOWLEDGE! Arg....

Man you're no fun. :p

But in all seriousness, no, man did not create the laws of physics. Either God or Nature did and all we've done is codify them.

And also, this thread is not just pure theory, either. There's a great deal of sound logic in it from many parties. That's what's made it interesting to some of us. But no one forces anyone else to be bored or frustrated here. :lol:


Yes, opinions can be right.

When they're well informed. Some of Llama's rant was very careless and half-cocked.

[Bad Waffle]

god damn it tex, stop defeating my logic :lol:

Yea sever, i dont know much about black holes---but i do know that they suck up matter and compress it to abnormally high densities. my arguement still stands, just now im sure that its not some odd material but just the same old highly compressed atoms that somehow collapse things beyond our own knowledge!

[LlamaMaster]

I didn't mean "create" the laws of physics, I meant our interpretation of them.

[Texrat]

I didn't mean "create" the laws of physics, I meant our interpretation of them.

I'll split that hair, too! There is no "interpretation" where classical physical LAWS are concerned. Theories, yes, and Principles, perhaps. Laws are immutable.

[Sever]

They don't "somehow collapse things". Look at our planet. It stays in orbit. If it were to change trajectory and arc more towards the sun, we would eventually collide with it and contribute to its now combined mass. Black holes do the same thing, but just with a smaller focal point. This does create some odd particle physics and distortions in the gravitational force around the event horizon (point of no return), but all physics outside of this man-defined yet fully-existent region remain normal. planets can still orbit their former stars-turned-black-holes. That is if they aren't consumed when the stars expand to their GIANT pre-black-hole state.

[Rob Oplawar]

The "beyond" is meaningless from the perspective of a party whose comprehension is limited to the known universe.
...
So entities limited to 3 dimensional space can only effectively discuss and describe locations bound within and relative to that milieu.
And there it is. That is exactly what I have been trying to say. It's a simple concept. Way too many people refuse to understand that when I get frustrated with them for saying "beyond the edge of the universe" I'm trying to say that there is no such thing in terms of our definition of location, because our definition of location is in terms of the universe.

At least Texrat gets it. And so eloquently put.
/golf clap
+rep again.

[Bad Waffle]

wtc, thats not what you started off saying rob. you edited your first post D:

[Rob Oplawar]

lol. i guess somebody wasn't reading it well enough. read it again. i edited it, but just to fix the spoiler tags.

[Texrat]

I changed my mind. In fact I--

wait, what was the question?

[Bad Waffle]

about gay niggers exploding the world with the power of their anuses, duh

[Kybo_Ren]

Wave of Lag (7:51:07 PM): you're such a nub
Rob Oplawar (7:51:06 PM): lol
Rob Oplawar (7:51:11 PM): you still don't agree with me?
Rob Oplawar (7:51:16 PM): after seeing my last post?
Wave of Lag (7:51:31 PM): i think that you're trying to reason out the universe from an arcane point of view
Rob Oplawar (7:51:40 PM): i have tried as hard as i could to punch a hole in my argument, and i only made it even stronger
Rob Oplawar (7:51:47 PM): i'm doing nothing of the sort
Rob Oplawar (7:51:52 PM): i keep saying that
Wave of Lag (7:51:56 PM): yeah, i was talking inside the universe when i said "space"
Wave of Lag (7:51:59 PM): silly goose
Rob Oplawar (7:51:59 PM): so
Rob Oplawar (7:52:04 PM): you admit it then
Wave of Lag (7:52:16 PM): uhh, no
Rob Oplawar (7:52:13 PM): there is no such thing as "beyond" the edge of the universe
Rob Oplawar (7:52:22 PM): there IS NO SUCH THING
Wave of Lag (7:52:27 PM): i was talking about inside of the universe
Wave of Lag (7:52:32 PM): lol, silly rob
Rob Oplawar (7:52:35 PM): well fuck yes dur inside the universe it keeps going
Rob Oplawar (7:52:39 PM): until it hits the end
Rob Oplawar (7:52:42 PM): and then what?
Wave of Lag (7:52:51 PM): so right now i could hit a wall because thats the end of the universe?
Rob Oplawar (7:52:48 PM): well, there is no then
Rob Oplawar (7:52:55 PM): there is no such thing as after the edge
Wave of Lag (7:53:10 PM): an invisible wall calculated by imaginary numbers reasoned inside our heads?
Rob Oplawar (7:53:15 PM): if the universe ends then who knows what the fuck will happen if you reach it
Rob Oplawar (7:53:26 PM): it is not an invisible wall
Wave of Lag (7:53:30 PM): you're right, nobody knows, but something happens
Rob Oplawar (7:53:30 PM): it is the end of the dimensions
Wave of Lag (7:53:38 PM): its not like since we dont know what it is that its not there
Rob Oplawar (7:53:34 PM): if there is such a thing
Rob Oplawar (7:53:41 PM): but i don't give a rats ass if there is or not
Wave of Lag (7:53:48 PM): so what, its the end of the three dimensions
Rob Oplawar (7:53:55 PM): it's just that if there is, there is no fucking "beyond" the edge
Wave of Lag (7:54:00 PM): you think there are only three (or four) dimensions?
Rob Oplawar (7:53:59 PM): because the universe is it
Rob Oplawar (7:54:06 PM): no no no
Wave of Lag (7:54:21 PM): do you want me to bring up the teapot flying around uranus?
Rob Oplawar (7:54:25 PM): if a dimension ends, then in terms of that dimension there's no such thing as beyond it
Wave of Lag (7:54:35 PM): for that dimension
Rob Oplawar (7:54:34 PM): yes
Wave of Lag (7:54:43 PM): but you see our dimensions are subdimensions
Rob Oplawar (7:54:41 PM): for other dimensions, perhaps not
Wave of Lag (7:54:48 PM): partial to our universe
Rob Oplawar (7:54:47 PM): you don't know that
Rob Oplawar (7:54:49 PM): they may be
Wave of Lag (7:54:55 PM): oh really?
Rob Oplawar (7:54:51 PM): they may not be
Rob Oplawar (7:54:54 PM): but LOCATION
Rob Oplawar (7:54:56 PM): IS DEFINED
Rob Oplawar (7:54:59 PM): IN TERMS
Rob Oplawar (7:55:05 PM): OF THE DIMENSIONS THAT WE PERCIEVE
Wave of Lag (7:55:13 PM): then why are you saying theres nothing beyond the universe if you just said that we dont know that
Wave of Lag (7:55:17 PM): can you do that with your math?
Rob Oplawar (7:55:14 PM): god dammit
Rob Oplawar (7:55:19 PM): look
Wave of Lag (7:55:29 PM): rob, your arguement is flawed
Rob Oplawar (7:55:29 PM): location is defined in terms of the dimensions we percieve
Wave of Lag (7:55:35 PM): go get a sammich, bitch
Wave of Lag (7:55:42 PM): o rly, i did not NO DAT
Rob Oplawar (7:55:42 PM): if the dimensions end, there is no such thing as location after the end
Wave of Lag (7:55:56 PM): duh?
Wave of Lag (7:56:05 PM): a location in 3rd space, as i want to call it
Rob Oplawar (7:56:02 PM): THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!
Rob Oplawar (7:56:09 PM): shit man
Rob Oplawar (7:56:12 PM): it's so obvious
Wave of Lag (7:56:18 PM): it becomes a location in a different way
Rob Oplawar (7:56:17 PM): that's what i have been saying all along
Rob Oplawar (7:56:32 PM): well, if you create a new definition for location then yes
Wave of Lag (7:56:40 PM): what if all time blended together outside that wall, that its handled by the 4th dimension
Rob Oplawar (7:56:44 PM): but i'm just saying that in terms of our current definition of location
Rob Oplawar (7:56:54 PM): in terms
Wave of Lag (7:56:58 PM): what if time itself was a new way to define location
Rob Oplawar (7:56:58 PM): of our current definition of location
Rob Oplawar (7:57:06 PM): our current definition
Rob Oplawar (7:57:21 PM): then there is no such thing as location outside of the universe
Wave of Lag (7:57:35 PM): what if people started saying be at 4:30 by my room, instead of be at my room at 4:30?
Rob Oplawar (7:57:34 PM): because our current definition of location
Rob Oplawar (7:57:41 PM): is defined in terms of the limits of the universe
Rob Oplawar (7:57:44 PM): finite or infinite
Rob Oplawar (7:57:46 PM): who cares
Wave of Lag (7:58:00 PM): our current knowledge is so limited that we cant define anything past the fact that the universe is slowly dying
Rob Oplawar (7:58:02 PM): god dammit I am not talking about time
Rob Oplawar (7:58:07 PM): you are just messing with my head now
Rob Oplawar (7:58:09 PM): jesus
Wave of Lag (7:58:17 PM): but time is just another dimension, rob
Wave of Lag (7:58:30 PM): you arent grasping as much as you could
Rob Oplawar (7:58:27 PM): you're just going in circles cause you know it pisses me off
Rob Oplawar (7:58:29 PM): well i am not talking about that dimensoin, now am i?
Wave of Lag (7:58:45 PM): im not going in circles, just saying the same thing different ways
Rob Oplawar (7:58:41 PM): how many trimes have i said i'm talking about 3 dimensional space?!
Rob Oplawar (7:58:48 PM): and so am i
Wave of Lag (7:58:58 PM): maybe one way will go into your narrow mind and crack you open like a nut
Rob Oplawar (7:58:55 PM): you're not talking about the same thing as i am
Rob Oplawar (7:59:07 PM): we are talking about two different things
Wave of Lag (7:59:12 PM): and then you'll have a glorious epiphany
Rob Oplawar (7:59:14 PM): and i see what you're getting at
Rob Oplawar (7:59:18 PM): but i'm not talking about that
Wave of Lag (7:59:27 PM): thats what you would like to think, that we're talking about two different things
Rob Oplawar (7:59:28 PM): i'm trying to get you to talk about what i'm talking about
Wave of Lag (7:59:35 PM): but what if they're just two sides to the same face?
Rob Oplawar (7:59:32 PM): ok
Rob Oplawar (7:59:33 PM): shut up
Rob Oplawar (7:59:37 PM): be quiet for a minute
Rob Oplawar (7:59:37 PM): ok
Wave of Lag (7:59:43 PM): open up
Rob Oplawar (7:59:39 PM): wait
Rob Oplawar (7:59:52 PM): Location is defined in terms of the universe; a location is somewhere inside the universe.
Rob Oplawar (7:59:56 PM): ok?
Rob Oplawar (7:59:59 PM): do you accept this?
Wave of Lag (8:00:11 PM): inside it, of course
Rob Oplawar (8:00:10 PM): yes, good
Rob Oplawar (8:00:16 PM): "Beyond" is defined in terms of location. Without location, there is no beyond.
Wave of Lag (8:00:23 PM): but it still exists outside of it
Rob Oplawar (8:00:19 PM): how bout this?
Rob Oplawar (8:00:24 PM): no
Rob Oplawar (8:00:25 PM): no
Rob Oplawar (8:00:32 PM): beyond does not exist without location
Rob Oplawar (8:00:36 PM): if location ends, so does beyond
Rob Oplawar (8:00:41 PM): beyond becomes meaningless
Wave of Lag (8:00:51 PM): as long as there is no centerpoint, a dimension will always exist
Rob Oplawar (8:01:03 PM): not necessarily
Wave of Lag (8:01:15 PM): oh really?
Rob Oplawar (8:01:18 PM): what I'm talking about is the end of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:01:31 PM): the hypothetical surface at which the dimensions end
Wave of Lag (8:01:52 PM): how about this
Wave of Lag (8:02:17 PM): have you ever seen a REAL mobius loop? its only got one side.
Rob Oplawar (8:02:18 PM): yes
Wave of Lag (8:02:27 PM): yet it is supposed to have two
Rob Oplawar (8:02:35 PM): i'm not talking about infinite dimensions; i'm talking about finite ones
Wave of Lag (8:02:57 PM): that bending of the dimensions happens on a cosmic scale, buddy
Rob Oplawar (8:03:02 PM): how do you know?
Rob Oplawar (8:03:15 PM): you don't
Rob Oplawar (8:03:19 PM): but it doesn't matter
Rob Oplawar (8:03:35 PM): because we're not talking about whether or not the universe loops back in on itself
Rob Oplawar (8:03:48 PM): i'm talking about the hypothetical situation in which it just ends
Rob Oplawar (8:03:54 PM): the edge of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:04:26 PM): you with me still?
Wave of Lag (8:04:36 PM): mmhmm
Rob Oplawar (8:04:38 PM): ok
Rob Oplawar (8:04:40 PM): so
Rob Oplawar (8:04:50 PM): is there anything else, or shall i continue?
Wave of Lag (8:04:59 PM): no, go for it
Rob Oplawar (8:04:59 PM): ok
Rob Oplawar (8:05:12 PM): the universe does not exist except where it exists
Rob Oplawar (8:05:28 PM): that's obvious, but it's the only way of saying something which is otherwise impossible to say
Wave of Lag (8:05:50 PM): k
Rob Oplawar (8:05:57 PM): something along the lines of our universe doesn't exist outside of itself
Rob Oplawar (8:06:09 PM): but i get hung up on the word outside
Rob Oplawar (8:06:18 PM): so i have to state the obvious that the universe is what it is
Rob Oplawar (8:06:24 PM): so
Rob Oplawar (8:06:31 PM): if location only exists in the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:06:41 PM): and if beyond only has meaning in terms of location
Rob Oplawar (8:06:48 PM): and if the universe has an edge
Rob Oplawar (8:06:49 PM): then
Wave of Lag (8:07:02 PM): its only getting translated across the threshold
Rob Oplawar (8:07:12 PM): the universe only exists in itself, location only exists there, beyond only has meaning there
Rob Oplawar (8:07:28 PM): so beyond has no meaning when it comes to the edge of the universe
Wave of Lag (8:07:36 PM): explain to me how black holes work, by sucking in planets, stars, light, but they are smaller than a grain of salt
Rob Oplawar (8:07:39 PM): no location, no existence, nothing, except in the universe
Wave of Lag (8:07:46 PM): in this system of location
Rob Oplawar (8:07:46 PM): if we're speaking in terms of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:08:02 PM): that has nothing to do with it, but alright
Wave of Lag (8:08:10 PM): yes it does
Rob Oplawar (8:08:11 PM): ok
Wave of Lag (8:08:17 PM): because it is contained within the universe
Wave of Lag (8:08:25 PM): black holes are INSIDE known volumes
Rob Oplawar (8:08:27 PM): well cherries are also inside the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:08:32 PM): you want me to talk about them too?
Rob Oplawar (8:08:35 PM): mmm maraschino
Wave of Lag (8:09:15 PM): explain how a cherry can devour mass and compress planets larger than our solar system into a molecule of propane (under normal 1atm)
Rob Oplawar (8:09:21 PM): er, it doesn't
Wave of Lag (8:09:30 PM): size-wise
Wave of Lag (8:10:11 PM): explain why such a large thing can spontaneously cause atoms to split just due to its existance
Wave of Lag (8:10:26 PM): and while we're on that subject
Wave of Lag (8:10:29 PM): what is an atom?
Wave of Lag (8:10:40 PM): we dont even know exactly what makes up that
Wave of Lag (8:10:47 PM): perhaps we have to go smaller to get bigger
Rob Oplawar (8:10:44 PM): so?
Rob Oplawar (8:10:48 PM): we're talking about location
Rob Oplawar (8:10:52 PM): location is abstract
Rob Oplawar (8:11:07 PM): it has nothing to do with the elements of which it is a property
Wave of Lag (8:11:18 PM): perhaps a whole universe is inside an atom, and the energy we release when we crack it is a whole new "big bang" for a new universe?
Wave of Lag (8:11:29 PM): rob, you got my started on one of my favorite subjects
Rob Oplawar (8:11:37 PM): inside an atom, inside an infinite volume, who cares
Rob Oplawar (8:11:43 PM): that's still not the universe
Wave of Lag (8:11:48 PM): who cares about anything?
Wave of Lag (8:11:52 PM): care is an emotion
Rob Oplawar (8:11:49 PM): if the whole universe is an atom in another
Rob Oplawar (8:12:06 PM): what i mean is, it is irrelevant to this argument
Wave of Lag (8:12:15 PM): it is not something that can be given a scientific classification, what in your head defines what happens?
Wave of Lag (8:12:24 PM): what says to not care about something?
Wave of Lag (8:12:29 PM): or to care about something?
Rob Oplawar (8:12:26 PM): sigh
Wave of Lag (8:12:39 PM): maybe in our own head we have yet another world
Rob Oplawar (8:12:37 PM): can we please not get sidetracked?
Rob Oplawar (8:12:46 PM): i've gone over this one for days on end
Rob Oplawar (8:12:52 PM): and i'm not even exaggerating
Wave of Lag (8:13:04 PM): but i digress with such passion, johnny boy!
Rob Oplawar (8:13:07 PM): yes
Rob Oplawar (8:13:15 PM): but you're sidestepping the main point
Wave of Lag (8:13:31 PM): oh am i?
Wave of Lag (8:13:34 PM): sidestepping what?
Rob Oplawar (8:13:31 PM): and for whatever it's worth, i personally desire to bring some conclusion to the main point
Rob Oplawar (8:13:38 PM): the edge of the universe
Wave of Lag (8:13:47 PM): there is nothing to sidestep because your arguement hasnt been thought out
Rob Oplawar (8:13:43 PM): that's what we're talking about here
Rob Oplawar (8:13:49 PM): yes it is
Rob Oplawar (8:13:54 PM): *has
Rob Oplawar (8:13:57 PM): believe me, it has
Wave of Lag (8:14:07 PM): how long have you been pondering this
Rob Oplawar (8:14:14 PM): since i brought it up a few hours ago
Wave of Lag (8:14:22 PM): HAH
Rob Oplawar (8:14:26 PM): but i've had this argument in my head for some time
Wave of Lag (8:14:34 PM): texrat has been pondering this ever since he was your age
Wave of Lag (8:14:44 PM): ive had this in my head ever since i looked up at the skies
Rob Oplawar (8:14:45 PM): every time i ever heard someone say "what's beyond the edge of the universe" i cringed a bit inside
Rob Oplawar (8:14:53 PM): dude
Wave of Lag (8:15:01 PM): its gotta be wonderful
Rob Oplawar (8:14:58 PM): let's not start this, ok?
Rob Oplawar (8:15:02 PM): this is a personal argument
Wave of Lag (8:15:09 PM): shit, im getting passionate
Wave of Lag (8:15:10 PM): lol
Rob Oplawar (8:15:09 PM): i'm not interested in personal attacks
Wave of Lag (8:15:14 PM): ahh the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:15:25 PM): tell me why my argument is not well thought out and maybe i'll buy it
Wave of Lag (8:15:39 PM): what, i wasnt personally attacking, just saying that the amount of time you put into this isnt that much compared to the people that contradict you
Rob Oplawar (8:15:40 PM): but just tell me that you've thought about it longer, and i won't buy it for one second
Rob Oplawar (8:15:57 PM): just because they've spent more time on it doesn't make them right
Wave of Lag (8:16:02 PM): but texrat? he's fucking older that marty
Rob Oplawar (8:16:02 PM): tell me why they're right
Rob Oplawar (8:16:09 PM): tell me why
Wave of Lag (8:16:17 PM): tell me why you're right
Rob Oplawar (8:16:16 PM): i did
Rob Oplawar (8:16:23 PM): one more time:
Rob Oplawar (8:16:31 PM): Location is defined in terms of the universe; a location is somewhere inside the universe.
"Beyond" is defined in terms of location. Without location, there is no beyond.
If there is an edge to the universe, that means the universe doesn't exist except in itself. Location doesn't exist except in the universe. Beyond doesn't exist except in the universe. THEREFORE: If the universe has an edge, "beyond the edge" is meaningless.
Wave of Lag (8:16:48 PM): im saying texrat and i are more open to different possibilities, im sure all of us have read up on everybodie's theories etc
Rob Oplawar (8:16:48 PM): now tell me why that's wrong
Rob Oplawar (8:16:56 PM): there is no different possibility
Rob Oplawar (8:17:03 PM): that is my argument
Wave of Lag (8:17:12 PM): because you're thinking a location is the sole purpose of the universe
Rob Oplawar (8:17:12 PM): i'm not saying all other arguments are false
Rob Oplawar (8:17:22 PM): i'm saying that my argument is that there is no other possibility
Rob Oplawar (8:17:28 PM): also, don't tell me what i'm thinking
Rob Oplawar (8:17:29 PM): ok?
Wave of Lag (8:17:34 PM): bastard!
Wave of Lag (8:17:36 PM): lol
Rob Oplawar (8:17:33 PM): i'm tired of hearing that
Wave of Lag (8:17:45 PM): man, i gotta get to my freakin spanish
Rob Oplawar (8:17:48 PM): how the fuck do you know what i'm thinking? you obviously don't or we wouldn't be arguing
Wave of Lag (8:17:54 PM): we'll continue this on the forum, my man
Wave of Lag (8:18:00 PM): i dont know
tl;dr

[Rob Oplawar]

I am shocked and slightly embarrassed that this became such a big deal of an argument due to my failure to properly communicate my point. But then, that is the root of nearly all societal problems, isn't it? If communication were ideal, there would be no arguments of this nature to begin with.

[rossmum]

Congrats guys, you've lost me.

[jahrain]

If beyond the edge of the universe is nothing, does nothing exist? :downs:

[n00b1n8R]

no, but you can put something there.

[jahrain]

no, but you can put something there.So nothing doesn't exist?

[n00b1n8R]

correct.

it exists in the sense you can put a point there in 3D space, but at the time that it is nothing, there is nothing at that point of 3D space.

does that make sense? I think it does..

[jahrain]

Wait are you saying that there no such thing as empty space until something is put in it or that nothing exists for something to be placed there? Make up your mind.

Also as something fun to think about, what if the universe is collapsing while it expands at the same time? What if you kept traveling out into space faster than the rate of the expansion of the universe, but you won't be able to escape the dimension of time as that expands as well and thus you will end up heading towards the same place you originally started only going backwards through time?

[DaneO'Roo]

Heres what I think, If I were to bother to think about such futile things.

We are microscopic matter within tiny cells and electrons of a much larger creation. The empty space we refer to as space is just the space within our atom (universe)

To ants, the world is to scale as they see it. A grain of salt is naturally to them, as big as a house.

So, maybe, just maybe, our perception is skewed by just that, our perception. We lack the ability to imagine that which is bigger than us, because we may possibly be too tiny to see it.

We may very well be, fuckingly tiny particles inside but 1 atom, in a whole other realm.

You thought thinking about how big the universe is was mind numbing. Imagine thinking that our universe is just 1 atom, inside some piece of dirt on the ground of some larger world.


*edit* jahrain, :gonk: my head just got melted.

[jahrain]

lol dano, thats the men in black universe inside a marble theory (what I like to call it). If we wanted to, we could contemplate as many ridiculous theories about whats outside of the universe that are impossible to disprove while at the same time impossible to prove leaving their only source of validity as to how good of an argument holds it.In the end its all completely meaningless and won't buy you lunch to feed yourself as you get slapped back in the face by reality.

[DaneO'Roo]

^ :-3

Still though, I like your theory the best :P

[kungpow]

Infinite number of dimensions ZOMG.

(I heard that somewhere i totaly forget where)


Edit: After reading this whole thread my head started to hurt so i listened to some Nessun Norma by Luciano Pavarotti. Fat lot of good that did me because he made me wonder what happens after you die and if a persons consciousness can really go into "Nothingness" after we die. now if you will excuse me i'm going to buy myself a straight jacket from eBay.

[n00b1n8R]

Wait are you saying that there no such thing as empty space until something is put in it or that nothing exists for something to be placed there? Make up your mind.

I didn't say "there is no such thing as an empty space", I said that that empty space is empty untill matter is placed there.

but then, one peice of matter cannot occupy the same space as another peice of matter so obviously if you were to place something somewhere, you needed emtpy space to put it in.

[jahrain]

Infinite number of dimensions ZOMG.

(I heard that somewhere i totaly forget where)
From me? I once came up with the totally crazy random idea that if there exists some dimention n, there exists some dimension n + 1. I babbled about it long ago on gbx forums on the thread about the 10 dimension thing.


I didn't say "there is no such thing as an empty space", I said that that empty space is empty untill matter is placed there.
Then you missed my question then. Which was rhetorical btw. I didn't ask if empty space is empty. If empty space is 'nothing' and empty space exists, therefore I can conclude that 'nothing' exists. But wait! :downs:

[kungpow]

From me? I once came up with the totally crazy random idea that if there exists some dimention n, there exists some dimension n + 1. I babbled about it long ago on gbx forums on the thread about the 10 dimension thing.


Nah i think it was my old science professor when me and him were talking about this stuff.

[Texrat]

I am shocked and slightly embarrassed that this became such a big deal of an argument due to my failure to properly communicate my point. But then, that is the root of nearly all societal problems, isn't it? If communication were ideal, there would be no arguments of this nature to begin with.

I disagree.

[nooBBooze]

philosophy>physics in this case.
My theory: Bread.
No arguments against it. :-3

[Emmzee]

Rob, in your hypothetical, you assumed that everybody in this situation believed that the universe was finite. You're forgetting that, in this hypothetical situation, there are some people who believe that the universe is not finite, and you didn't describe a hypothetical situation for them.

[Texrat]

Rob, in your hypothetical, you assumed that everybody in this situation believed that the universe was finite. You're forgetting that, in this hypothetical situation, there are some people who believe that the universe is not finite, and you didn't describe a hypothetical situation for them.

That's a hanging offense, too, right?

[Gamerkd16]

Nah, the universe wraps around like in the game Pac-Man. :P lol

[Rob Oplawar]

/me smiles and nods.

[Chewy Gumball]

We see in black and white and the world is made of water.

[Rob Oplawar]

I keep hearing these abstract metaphysical philosophical things when what I'm trying to talk about is cold hard logic.

[Chewy Gumball]

Its saying we can only think in ways that do not do justice to the universe.

Also, just cause we say its finite, doesn't mean it actually IS finite, just that there is no way for us to comprehend the other stuff.

[Texrat]

I keep hearing these abstract metaphysical philosophical things when what I'm trying to talk about is cold hard logic.

Guess which is more fun.

Plus, failing at logic is a hanging offense (see above).

[Rob Oplawar]

are you implying that I fail at logic?
>=O

[Emmzee]

I keep hearing these abstract metaphysical philosophical things when what I'm trying to talk about is cold hard logic.
You're talking about logic in a hypothetical sense, so therefore it's an abstract metaphysical philosophical thing.

[DaneO'Roo]

Holy shit Emmzee is SMAT.

[Rob Oplawar]

smiles and nods


Holy shit Emmzee is WRONG.
ftfy

[Texrat]

are you implying that I fail at logic?
>=O

That, or teasing. I forgot.

[Emmzee]

smiles and nods


ftfy
No, you're wrong for dealing in hypotheticals. There is nothing worse than someone who comes to a conclusion that the universe is finite based on something that does not have enough evidence to fully support it.

[Rob Oplawar]

look, I'm going to say this just one more time, and then I won't say it again:

I am NOT concluding that the universe is finite. I have said that multiple times now. I humbly implore you to reread some of my previous posts and pay attention to the point I really am making.

[Rob Oplawar]

Ha, you know, when I was a little kid I was a snooty little dork. I read a book on Quantum mechanics and I did get a lot of it, but not nearly as much as I pretended to. Now I just don't pretend to understand the specifics behind theories and nonsense anymore. I stick to the abstract high level, the only thing I know can be demonstrably either right or wrong: logic. I like logic because it is infallible, but the person using it is not, so I can attempt to make a logical argument and if I'm wrong someone can complete my logic to show me where I messed up.

But as fallible as I am, I have not seen one logical counterargument to my logical argument, so I rest my case.

But then, if I'm sticking to completely undeniable logic, the only thing I can definitively conclude is that I think, therefore I am. So I guess it breaks down any way you look at it.

=( Somebody please logically prove to me that you exist. I'm lonely now.

[Chewy Gumball]

Your logic that arguing that the universe is finite with the argument "but whats on the other side" when it has been proven that the universe is, indeed, finite is infallible, but its not proven so, therefore, it is a silly thing to post in the first place! \

EDIT: i accidentally made the first finite infinite :O

[Rob Oplawar]

I'm not going to argue with you anymore if that is your idea of "logic"

[Chewy Gumball]

I just agreed with you...

[Rob Oplawar]

But that's not what I was arguing...

edit: lol, having my sig be "sigh" has some undesirable side effects: when I post a lot, it just comes out as pretentious and snooty. I'ma fix my sig now.

oh yeah,
That, or teasing. I forgot.:ssh:

I hope I didn't piss off anybody too much by arguing too fervently. I'm not looking to lose any friends. :hug:

[Texrat]

I'm just here for the popcorn.

[Pooky]

Basically, humans, as a whole, aren't as smart as we think we are.

I like you a lot more now. I don't think we really have any business arguing about this like any of us knows what we're talking about. I just don't think it's within our grasp to understand things beyond our perception. Really, we're all just spewing bullshit straight out of our individual imaginations, while one argument or another seems more "logical" to a majority of people... according to their individual beliefs about the universe.

[Con]

I like you a lot more now. I don't think we really have any business arguing about this like any of us knows what we're talking about. I just don't think it's within our grasp to understand things beyond our perception. Really, we're all just spewing bullshit straight out of our individual imaginations, while one argument or another seems more "logical" to a majority of people... according to their individual beliefs about the universe.
We have no business talking about this stuff? Then who the hell does? We'll talk about whatever we want. You speak as if every theory is impossible to be proven. Of course you know that a long time ago, people used to think the world was flat. Are you going to say those who said it was round were just "spewing out bullshit" from their imaginations to appear logical? And look, we've proven the earth is round. If you don't want to partake in this discussion, leave.

[Pooky]

We have no business talking about this stuff? Then who the hell does? We'll talk about whatever we want. You speak as if every theory is impossible to be proven. Of course you know that a long time ago, people used to think the world was flat. Are you going to say those who said it was round were just "spewing out bullshit" from their imaginations to appear logical? And look, we've proven the earth is round. If you don't want to partake in this discussion, leave.

Business was probably the wrong word. I'm saying I don't think anyone can really prove whether the universe is infinite or not, so this talk is all just theory and imagination. The Earth is round is a pretty poor comparison though, as the Earth obviously exists completely within our zone of perception.

[Con]

But to flat-earth believers, a round earth was out of their perception. The further you go back, the less we can comprehend and perceive. And you say, "well right now we can't perceive that!" I disagree, there's a lot of good reasons why there has to be an end.

[Pooky]

They couldn't imagine a round earth, but that doesn't mean it was beyond their ability to percieve it. None of us has the ability to travel to the theoretical edge of the universe and observe it... so it's out of our perception

[Con]

You're right, bad comparison. How about cavemen trying to perceive the idea of the solar system or something... All they care about is grunting and hunting amirite? A monkey maybe? I damnwell know my cat can't comprehend anything higher than the idea of eating and sleeping. It's a matter of intelligence.

[Pooky]

While I'm sure you're right that humanity's getting smarter... I still don't think we'll ever be able to understand anything outside of our own universe. Our brains already put such a huge drain on our bodies, I think by the time we could understand such things, we would collapse under the weight of our own heads. Which brings up another topic. Assuming that a species becomes extinct when it is no longer suited to survive in its environment, is it possible that humanity as a species is evolving its way right into extinction? Other species on this planet have survived for far longer than we have without this abstract need to understand things with no bearing on our survival... why do we need to? I'd rather focus on things with real importance.

[jahrain]

Like earth, the universe is round, not straight and flat. There is no "edge", you keep going far enough, eventually you will end up in the same place you started. Like traveling around a sphere, but in the 4th dimension.

[Con]

We don't learn these things to survive, we just do because it's human nature. There's a difference. I don't think humanity will go extinct for a long long time. Our technology will help keep is here. No matter what we do to this planet, we won't simply give up. No matter what survival means, we'll take that offer simply because we want to survive as a race.

[Pooky]

Just because it's human nature doesn't make human nature the correct nature.

You ever notice how we always end up arguing over these sort of things? I have a tendency to authoritatively declare everything when all I really want to do is throw in my two cents... in this case that the discussion is rather senseless by nature. It's a flaw which I'm constantly trying to remove from my writing, and forums are good practice. I concede that any of us could be right given the abstract context of our discussion, and I'll end my argument there.

[DaneO'Roo]

Jahrain dammit stop winning threads >:[

[Con]

Just because it's human nature doesn't make human nature the correct nature.

Who said anything about it being correct? Hell, what is correct? There's no rules.

[Pooky]

Who said anything about it being correct? Hell, what is correct? There's no rules.

Should have clarified... correct in the sense of being the best nature for survival

[Con]

Oh. Well, I believe that a better understanding of the universe and physics can lead to a better understanding of technology. We're going to need our technology to survive, no doubt about it. But hell, we're just forumers discussing the nature of the universe because we want to. The same trait that makes is discuss this is also what's pushing our technology along.

[bitterbanana]

Like earth, the universe is round, not straight and flat. There is no "edge", you keep going far enough, eventually you will end up in the same place you started. Like traveling around a sphere, but in the 4th dimension.
That's a pretty big statement. Care to write a formal proof?

[jahrain]

That's a pretty big statement. Care to write a formal proof?Why should I write a proof? Its pretty damn obvious.

lol jk. That was actually just a random statement with little thought put behind it prior to post stated to create as much mind boggling thoughts as possible. But then again, if I sit down and think about it, I could come up with a logical argument to support it. This could prove to be fun!

If we assume that the dimension of time is just another part of the dimension of space, and we know that the universe is expanding outwards in a 3 dimensions in radial motion, we could conclude that time itself must also be expanding outwards in that same radial motion. Thus you can think of the universe as an expanding hypersphere. We have no way of controlling our position in time, yet we can control our position in space therefore we are slaved to the path which time expands in. If anything, we can slightly distort our position in time, for example the presents of mass distorts the dimension of time which created the force of gravity. A way to think about it is to imagine yourself stuck in boat in a river with very high current; you can freely control your position across the river (how you can control your self in 3d space), but you can't control the direction your boat flows in (you can't control the direction or position you are in time).

So could you conclude that the universe is round, in such that if you travel out into space in a linear direction in 3 dimensions, you will eventually reach back at the same place you started? Think back to the expanding hypersphere. To make a hypersphere more easy to visualize, lets just look at it in 3 dimensions, were 2 dimensions of the sphere is space and the 3rd is time. This would just be a simple sphere. Your 2 dimensional location on that sphere would basically be just like your 2 dimensional location on earth in such that you can't move up or down, but just north south east or west. Because you are on a sphere, and you can only perceive 2 dimensions of space, that sphere would seem like an infinite plane in such that you could travel out in a straight direction, but not being able to see the 3rd dimension (which is being referred to as time if your lost in this concept) never notice that you are traveling along a circular path nor have any way to avoid reaching the same position if maintaining a linear movement in a 2 dimensional direction. Eventually, you will end up reaching the same place you started because it is a circular path and because you have no control over that 3rd dimension of time.

Now lets go back to space-time and 4 dimensions. Just like being on that 3 dimensional sphere in 2 dimensions of space, think of yourself as being on that hypersphere but in 3 dimensions of space. If you continued traveling in a linear direction, helpless to control your 4th dimensional position in time, this would validate the possibility that you could end up going in a circular loop if you travel far enough in any 3 dimensional linear direction and be back at the same place you started at.

Now the problem is that the universe is expanding, as much as it is in 3 dimensions as it is in 4 dimension, therefore that distance you would need to travel to end up back in the same place you started is continuously increasing. So you must travel at a rate that is faster than the rate of the universe expanding in order to make an entire loop through the universe. But another conclusion we could make based on this assumption is that the universe, as it expands in outwards in a radial motion, it would be expanding into itself because it is heading towards the same position it is currently at both in time and in space and in any other dimensions as well therefore the universe is collapsing into itself at the same time it is expanding. This would explain why there exists evidence that the universe originates from an infinitely small point because that infinitely small point is just the universe expanding out from itself as it collapses into itself after going through that loop in 3 dimensions. :o <this smiley is a good example of something expanding into itself.

[n00b1n8R]

reading crap like that puts me to sleep.

It's really interesting, but all the thinking to visualise it is rather relaxing..
that's a good thing btw.

[Kybo_Ren]

Why should I write a proof? Its pretty damn obvious.

lol jk. That was actually just a random statement with little thought put behind it prior to post stated to create as much mind boggling thoughts as possible. But then again, if I sit down and think about it, I could come up with a logical argument to support it. This could prove to be fun!

If we assume that the dimension of time is just another part of the dimension of space, and we know that the universe is expanding outwards in a 3 dimensions in radial motion, we could conclude that time itself must also be expanding outwards in that same radial motion. Thus you can think of the universe as an expanding hypersphere. We have no way of controlling our position in time, yet we can control our position in space therefore we are slaved to the path which time expands in. If anything, we can slightly distort our position in time, for example the presents of mass distorts the dimension of time which created the force of gravity. A way to think about it is to imagine yourself stuck in boat in a river with very high current; you can freely control your position across the river (how you can control your self in 3d space), but you can't control the direction your boat flows in (you can't control the direction or position you are in time).

So could you conclude that the universe is round, in such that if you travel out into space in a linear direction in 3 dimensions, you will eventually reach back at the same place you started? Think back to the expanding hypersphere. To make a hypersphere more easy to visualize, lets just look at it in 3 dimensions, were 2 dimensions of the sphere is space and the 3rd is time. This would just be a simple sphere. Your 2 dimensional location on that sphere would basically be just like your 2 dimensional location on earth in such that you can't move up or down, but just north south east or west. Because you are on a sphere, and you can only perceive 2 dimensions of space, that sphere would seem like an infinite plane in such that you could travel out in a straight direction, but not being able to see the 3rd dimension (which is being referred to as time if your lost in this concept) never notice that you are traveling along a circular path nor have any way to avoid reaching the same position if maintaining a linear movement in a 2 dimensional direction. Eventually, you will end up reaching the same place you started because it is a circular path and because you have no control over that 3rd dimension of time.

Now lets go back to space-time and 4 dimensions. Just like being on that 3 dimensional sphere in 2 dimensions of space, think of yourself as being on that hypersphere but in 3 dimensions of space. If you continued traveling in a linear direction, helpless to control your 4th dimensional position in time, this would validate the possibility that you could end up going in a circular loop if you travel far enough in any 3 dimensional linear direction and be back at the same place you started at.

Now the problem is that the universe is expanding, as much as it is in 3 dimensions as it is in 4 dimension, therefore that distance you would need to travel to end up back in the same place you started is continuously increasing. So you must travel at a rate that is faster than the rate of the universe expanding in order to make an entire loop through the universe. But another conclusion we could make based on this assumption is that the universe, as it expands in outwards in a radial motion, it would be expanding into itself because it is heading towards the same position it is currently at both in time and in space and in any other dimensions as well therefore the universe is collapsing into itself at the same time it is expanding. This would explain why there exists evidence that the universe originates from an infinitely small point because that infinitely small point is just the universe expanding out from itself as it collapses into itself after going through that loop in 3 dimensions. ;)
tl;dr

[Dr Nick]

If the universe is anything, I think it's a freeform blob.

[p0lar_bear]

I think that the Big Bang didn't create the space known as the universe, but rather it created and dispersed the CONTENTS of the universe.

[n00b1n8R]

^IAWTP

[Tweek]

is it really that hard to imagine infinity for you people?

i must be special or something.

[Reaper Man]

philosophy>physics in this case.
My theory: Bread.
No arguments against it. :-3
But how does one define 'bread'? Is bread simply baked flour and water? When does bread stop becoming bread and becomes, for example, a tortilla? Is a tortilla not just cornflour (which is still classed as flour) and water too?

[Texrat]

is it really that hard to imagine infinity for you people?

i must be special or something.

Yes... special is certainly a word that comes to mind. :lol:

In other news, dark energy gets an update:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-10-01-dark-energy_N.htm?csp=1

[Texrat]

Business was probably the wrong word. I'm saying I don't think anyone can really prove whether the universe is infinite or not, so this talk is all just theory and imagination.

No. I proved it quite handily earlier in this thread, as have many professional scientists.

Finite quantity of mass = finite universe.

Beginning implies end = finite universe.

Entropy = finite universe.

It really, really is just that simple.

[bitterbanana]

Why should I write a proof? Its pretty damn obvious.

lol jk. That was actually just a random statement with little thought put behind it prior to post stated to create as much mind boggling thoughts as possible. But then again, if I sit down and think about it, I could come up with a logical argument to support it. This could prove to be fun!

If we assume that the dimension of time is just another part of the dimension of space, and we know that the universe is expanding outwards in a 3 dimensions in radial motion, we could conclude that time itself must also be expanding outwards in that same radial motion. Thus you can think of the universe as an expanding hypersphere. We have no way of controlling our position in time, yet we can control our position in space therefore we are slaved to the path which time expands in. If anything, we can slightly distort our position in time, for example the presents of mass distorts the dimension of time which created the force of gravity. A way to think about it is to imagine yourself stuck in boat in a river with very high current; you can freely control your position across the river (how you can control your self in 3d space), but you can't control the direction your boat flows in (you can't control the direction or position you are in time).

So could you conclude that the universe is round, in such that if you travel out into space in a linear direction in 3 dimensions, you will eventually reach back at the same place you started? Think back to the expanding hypersphere. To make a hypersphere more easy to visualize, lets just look at it in 3 dimensions, were 2 dimensions of the sphere is space and the 3rd is time. This would just be a simple sphere. Your 2 dimensional location on that sphere would basically be just like your 2 dimensional location on earth in such that you can't move up or down, but just north south east or west. Because you are on a sphere, and you can only perceive 2 dimensions of space, that sphere would seem like an infinite plane in such that you could travel out in a straight direction, but not being able to see the 3rd dimension (which is being referred to as time if your lost in this concept) never notice that you are traveling along a circular path nor have any way to avoid reaching the same position if maintaining a linear movement in a 2 dimensional direction. Eventually, you will end up reaching the same place you started because it is a circular path and because you have no control over that 3rd dimension of time.

Now lets go back to space-time and 4 dimensions. Just like being on that 3 dimensional sphere in 2 dimensions of space, think of yourself as being on that hypersphere but in 3 dimensions of space. If you continued traveling in a linear direction, helpless to control your 4th dimensional position in time, this would validate the possibility that you could end up going in a circular loop if you travel far enough in any 3 dimensional linear direction and be back at the same place you started at.

Now the problem is that the universe is expanding, as much as it is in 3 dimensions as it is in 4 dimension, therefore that distance you would need to travel to end up back in the same place you started is continuously increasing. So you must travel at a rate that is faster than the rate of the universe expanding in order to make an entire loop through the universe. But another conclusion we could make based on this assumption is that the universe, as it expands in outwards in a radial motion, it would be expanding into itself because it is heading towards the same position it is currently at both in time and in space and in any other dimensions as well therefore the universe is collapsing into itself at the same time it is expanding. This would explain why there exists evidence that the universe originates from an infinitely small point because that infinitely small point is just the universe expanding out from itself as it collapses into itself after going through that loop in 3 dimensions. :o <this smiley is a good example of something expanding into itself.

:o <-- this simultaneously represents your theory and my bewilderment

All of that made sense, you explained it really well. It's funny how much truth came out of that random theory of your's. :XD:

[Patrickssj6]

Actually we can define our position in time or maybe I'm thinking of what you called the "distortion".

[Emmzee]

look, I'm going to say this just one more time, and then I won't say it again:

I am NOT concluding that the universe is finite. I have said that multiple times now. I humbly implore you to reread some of my previous posts and pay attention to the point I really am making.
Read your first post again.

[Chewy Gumball]

But that's not what I was arguing...

edit: lol, having my sig be "sigh" has some undesirable side effects: when I post a lot, it just comes out as pretentious and snooty. I'ma fix my sig now.

oh yeah, :ssh:

I hope I didn't piss off anybody too much by arguing too fervently. I'm not looking to lose any friends. :hug:

I accidentally put infinite instead of finite. I have edited it if you care to reread it.

[Rob Oplawar]

I QUIT. there is no point arguing this anymore. Texrat is the only one who even got what I was trying to argue. Everybody else keeps talking about different things and what's worse is they're using completely invalid logic. You keep saying "we can assume that, and therefore this" even though this does NOT follow directly from that. This and that may both be correct, but you can't just say that therefore this. I throw Latin at you! It is a non-sequitur!

Yeah. Whatever. Somebody please lock this thread. I'm sorry I ever started it.

[Neuro Guro]

tl;dr

[LlamaMaster]

tl;dr
You don't have time to, your to busy telling kids to crap down slides....

[Texrat]

Texrat is the only one who even got what I was trying to argue.

I did? :eek:

It was an accident, I swear. I'll try not to let it happen again.

[bitterbanana]

Rob, you clearly understand the format of a correct proof. But don't be offended by people who don't understand "correct logic." There is some truth in what they're saying, intentional or not. Using a contradiction to attack the hypothesis shows a measure of human doubt. Don't take it as a blatant attack on logic.

[Rob Oplawar]

ino, i just hate to have people throw some garbage in my face and say "proof there now shut up"

[Neuro Guro]

You don't have time to, your to busy telling kids to crap down slides....

That and "Mr. Chew's Asian Beaver".

[jahrain]

Everybody else keeps talking about different things and what's worse is they're using completely invalid logic. You keep saying "we can assume that, and therefore this" even though this does NOT follow directly from that. This and that may both be correct, but you can't just say that therefore this. I throw Latin at you! It is a non-sequitur!

There is a difference between concluding a true statement based on implication, and deriving a true antecedent based on the assumption that the antecedent is true (which is your logical fallacy). If you assume the antecedent is true and conclude that the consequent of the statement would be true based on the assumption, that is a perfectly valid statement, even if the assumption turns out to be false. The only thing is if the assumption turns out to be false, you don't know if the consequent of the statement is true or false but the statement is still valid.

[Pooky]

No. I proved it quite handily earlier in this thread, as have many professional scientists.

Finite quantity of mass = finite universe.

Beginning implies end = finite universe.

Entropy = finite universe.

It really, really is just that simple.

Since when has it been conclusively proven that the universe even had a beginning... a lot of things people take for granted aren't really that thoroughly proven

[Skiiran]

Since when has it been conclusively proven that the universe even had a beginning... a lot of things people take for granted aren't really that thoroughly proven
If you look in any given direction you are looking back in time.

So there.

[Texrat]

Since when has it been conclusively proven that the universe even had a beginning... a lot of things people take for granted aren't really that thoroughly proven

Fine. Take that line out if it makes you feel better.

You still have finite mass and entropy. Good luck with those! :neckbeard:

[Pooky]

Fine. Take that line out if it makes you feel better.

You still have finite mass and entropy. Good luck with those! :neckbeard:
I'm no scientist and I'm no mathematician, I was just pointing out a bit of common sense. So good luck with your completely abstract arguments :\

[Texrat]

I'm no scientist and I'm no mathematician, I was just pointing out a bit of common sense. So good luck with your completely abstract arguments :\

:lol:

You say you're no scientist or mathematician, then surmise that my arguments are completely abstract.

:lmao:

Sorry, there's no common sense in rash judgments or outright denial.

Come on. Mass is not an abstract. Entropy is not an abstract. These are measurable, observable knowns. You can quibble over the Big Bang because it wasn't observed. Great. But denying the observable events and effects is just plain silly.

[DaneO'Roo]

Jesus christ, Jahrain, I struggle to understand half the shit you say, but I somehow know it's right. With all those huge words, someone that smart has to be right :D

I got lost at the "exploading while imploding" part. :suicide:

[Pooky]

:lol:

You say you're no scientist or mathematician, then surmise that my arguments are completely abstract.

:lmao:

Sorry, there's no common sense in rash judgments or outright denial.

Come on. Mass is not an abstract. Entropy is not an abstract. These are measurable, observable knowns. You can quibble over the Big Bang because it wasn't observed. Great. But denying the observable events and effects is just plain silly.

I can see there's no common sense in continuing to argue with you either, have fun.

[p0lar_bear]

I QUIT. there is no point arguing this anymore. Texrat is the only one who even got what I was trying to argue. Everybody else keeps talking about different things and what's worse is they're using completely invalid logic.

From what I was gathering, you were basically taking the scenic route to "Why is it that whenever someone says 'The universe has an end,' someone has to ask, 'Well what's beyond that?' SHUT UP FFS!"

[Rob Oplawar]

^ty

[Texrat]

I like how discussions like this go: someone argues from an ill-conceived basis, and the guy who points that out gets -rep.

That's okay. I didn't see this as a popularity contest. :lol:

[Emmzee]

I like how discussions like this go: someone argues from an ill-conceived basis, and the guy who points that out gets -rep.

That's okay. I didn't see this as a popularity contest. :lol:
No, I didn't get -rep, so you're wrong.

Let's argue about this abstractly for 19 pages, ok?

[Texrat]

No, I didn't get -rep, so you're wrong.

Let's argue about this abstractly for 19 pages, ok?

You don't see my rep, do you? :p

And why stop at 19? I think I can find enough fuel for 20 or 21. I'm switching to dilithium snot.

[p0lar_bear]

Obligatory combo-breaker post that sums up everything in half a sentence.

[Pooky]

I like how discussions like this go: someone argues from an ill-conceived basis, and the guy who points that out gets -rep.

That's okay. I didn't see this as a popularity contest. :lol:

You got -rep for being rude, not because of what you said. The least you can do is be polite, especially when you're an adult arguing with a teenager. Odds are you have more education than anyone else here, but you're not exactly showing the wisdom that comes with experience.

[Chewy Gumball]

Its not like this is the pretty frilly be polite please thread. I see no reason why he should be nice to you just because he is older than you. Within reason of course.

[Pooky]

Its not like this is the pretty frilly be polite please thread. I see no reason why he should be nice to you just because he is older than you. Within reason of course.

It's not like this is the be a stick-up-the-ass jerk thread either. I never asked anyone to be nice to me, I asked him not to be rude. This post is polite for example, and this is an example of a rude post


Its not like this is the pretty frilly be polite please thread. I see no reason why he should be nice to you just because he is older than you. Within reason of course.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

you're so stupid if you actually think that

[Texrat]

You got -rep for being rude, not because of what you said. The least you can do is be polite, especially when you're an adult arguing with a teenager. Odds are you have more education than anyone else here, but you're not exactly showing the wisdom that comes with experience.

I wasn't rude. Facetious? Yes. I just wasn't aware that was a crime here.

But, hey, I needed a teenage wisdom judge. Thanks for stepping up to the role!

oops... :XD:

[Chewy Gumball]

I haven't seen him post a rude comment yet. He was blunt, yes, but not rude.

You state your post is polite, yet you call me stupid in it... such contradiction. By that standard there is nothing even close to rudeness in tex's posts.

[Texrat]

It's a sad, sad internet when wry humor and terse sentences come across as rude. :p

[Flyboy]

This is exactly how I believe "time" works. It is only there because we defined it, there is no space time, just space. Time is not stored or put in a stream, it's just something we created so we can get to dunckin' donuts on time before the cute cashier ends her shift.

[Texrat]

This is exactly how I believe "time" works. It is only there because we defined it, there is no space time, just space. Time is not stored or put in a stream, it's just something we created so we can get to dunckin' donuts on time before the cute cashier ends her shift.

And we're back on topic! Sort of.

Actually, time is a dimension. Time is that unseen aspect that makes hypercubes look normal... well, not in OUR universe of course...

But here's some perspective: to those 2d critters in Flatland, the 3rd dimension is time...

[Pooky]

I haven't seen him post a rude comment yet. He was blunt, yes, but not rude.

You state your post is polite, yet you call me stupid in it... such contradiction. By that standard there is nothing even close to rudeness in tex's posts.

You didn't even read my post did you? I said, here's an example of a rude post, and posted one. But I ignored Texrat, so I don't have to worry about his attitude anymore.

[Texrat]

I feel so loved.

[Emmzee]

You got -rep for being rude, not because of what you said. The least you can do is be polite, especially when you're an adult arguing with a teenager. Odds are you have more education than anyone else here, but you're not exactly showing the wisdom that comes with experience.
I used to think you were cool.

[rossmum]

Wow, and here was me thinking this thread couldn't possibly go any further downhill. I check the last couple of pages for more intelligent discussion, only to discover everyone bitching at each other.

[Texrat]

Wow, and here was me thinking this thread couldn't possibly go any further downhill. I check the last couple of pages for more intelligent discussion, only to discover everyone bitching at each other.

I'm sorry-- did you want to join in? :lol:

[rossmum]

Yes. :smith:

[Texrat]

Then feel free to flame me, Ross-baby. I have shields at maximum!

[rossmum]

Not at 2AM. Maybe tomorrow. <3

e:

Uh... later today, rather.

[Texrat]

I'm starting without you then.

Uh... you suck.

[Emmzee]

I'm starting without you then.

Uh... you suck.
HOW DARE you say that to my Rossie!
<:mad:>

[rossmum]

I'm starting without you then.

Uh... you suck.
You'd know all about sucking, wouldn't you?

Oh, I went there.

[Emmzee]

You'd know all about sucking, wouldn't you?

Oh, I went there.
And I went there on your mom last night!

[n00b1n8R]

rossmum.

owned.

[rossmum]

And I went there on your mom last night!
You're that desperate?

[Texrat]

You're that desperate?

He said your dad bet him $50 he wouldn't.

[rossmum]

Oh ouch.

[Rob Oplawar]

dude, where are the admins?

[Emmzee]

dude, where are the admins?
At your house doing your mom.

[Con]

wow this thread went down the drain fast..

[jahrain]

Its funny, astronomers fight like this when discussing things like dark energy.

[Skiiran]

Its funny, astronomers fight like this when discussing things like dark energy.
We fight like this when discussing your mom.
That's right, I fucking joined the bandwagon.

[Rob Oplawar]

I refuse debase myself by jumping on the bandwagon YOUR MOM!





...owait

edit: srsly, :lock:

[Con]

k its not funny anymore :lock:

[Rob Oplawar]

owait, can I lock this?