Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

What's At The End Of The Universe


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#31    Sun Raven

Sun Raven

    Alpha & Omega

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

  • I am the master of my fate.
    I am the captain of my soul

Posted 15 June 2007 - 02:05 PM

Harte, I am sorry to be so stubborn but the universe and space if you wanna add it has to be somewhere to exist, everything has to be somewhere to exist, that is what exist is, and this place you say that the universe expanded to when the big bang is somewhere, it's ok if you dont agree with me that this somewhere is space but if it is not space than space itself has to be somewhere to then. And this somewhere is unlimited coz its nothing. Just think on it, before the big bang, you say that the universe and including space was compressed in one, well.......... where do you think they where? Well they where in complete emptyness, and in one spot of emptyness wass this huge mass of matter, because this huge mass of matter had to be somewhere for it to be there....... for it to exist, well this somewhere is what I mean by Space.

Posted Image

Sun Raven


#32    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,966 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 15 June 2007 - 05:21 PM

Quote

My mistake on the post not the link though...
What i actually meant to say and didn't was that science had us believing that the universe was expanding 'as fast as' the speed of light 'not faster', hence the reason for me posting the link that states that they now claim that it's actually 'expanding faster' than the speed of light.


Rebel,
Your statement about what science "had us believeing" is unfamiliar to me. Science never "had me believing" this.

The idea that the universe is expanding faster than light is a relative one anyway (no pun intended.) There are portions of the universe moving away from us at this speed based on our observations.  If we were in those areas instead of here, it would be the part of the universe where the Earth is located that would be moving away that fast.  Anywhere between here and there and the observation would show that neither portion of the universe is moving away from that position that fast.

There is no "center" of the universe, so there is no reference point against which to measure the absolute velocity of anything.  In fact, this means that there is truly no such thing as absolute velocity.   What I'm getting at here is that it's really meaningless to say that the "Universe is expanding faster than light" when clearly it depends on the position of the observer which portions are actually traveling at great speed.

The velocity cosmologists attribute to the expansion is cumulative, just like it would be in the balloon or raisin bread examples.  IOW, no single dot on the ballon is traveling any faster than any other dot, as far as the expansion goes.  But from the perspective of one dot that we take to be standing still - like we do the solar system - the further dots appear to us to be moving away at a faster rate.  This is because there is more "space" (balloon surface) to expand between our reference dot and the far dot.

Quote

As you stated on 'the refining & updating of Pluto'...you kind of lost me there.
They either got it right or got it wrong, theres no in between especially if it was taught to us in schools & in text books or whatever etc for many years and then only for them to 're-discover' generations later they had it wrong.

You can word it anyway you want, but what actually happened is that astronomers decided that Pluto was not a planet. They did not "discover" that Pluto was not a planet.  They changed what the term "planet" means.

Quote

Lastly on cosmology(science)basing itself on 'theories'...Don't you think it better they get their theories based on facts before dishing it out to the world and placing it in magazines and text books etc?

No, I don't think this.  And neither do you, apparently, since you posted this message using an electronic device that operates on theory alone.

By this logic, scientists should never publish any theory, and without theories, there is no science.

Absolute fact exists only as data.  Attempts to explain data are what's known as theories.  Once a theory is proposed (published,) scientists manipulate the new theory to see if it can be made to make predictions that, if born out, would provide evidence for the veracity, or at least the usefulness, of the new theory.  If predictions do arise from the new theory, and if what the predictions predicted can be shown to be experimentally verified, then the theory is (usually) accepted.  Until, that is, another theory comes along that explains the data and provides verified predictions that were absent from the first theory.

That doesn't mean that the theory actually explains the data.  It does mean that the theory provides a workable and useful model for what's happening in the real world that resulted in the collection of the original data (facts.)


Quote

Harte-
Awesome, very good explanation of the process.  I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Memphis, TN?
I'm around an hour southeast of you at Ripley MS.

Thanks for the compliment QuickSilver2005.

I'm actually in Southaven.


Quote

Harte, I am sorry to be so stubborn but the universe and space if you wanna add it has to be somewhere to exist, everything has to be somewhere to exist, that is what exist is, and this place you say that the universe expanded to when the big bang is somewhere, it's ok if you dont agree with me that this somewhere is space but if it is not space than space itself has to be somewhere to then.

Ghostkol,
Stubborn is good.  And I actually agree with you. I think we are really discussing what boils down to semantics here.  Remember, I said that if you must insist on imagining what the universe is expanding into, then you're gonna have to imagine higher-dimensions. That's a rather tall order.

Our four-dimensional spacetime has it's origins in the Big Bang.  That does not preclude a "place" in some higher-dimensional manifold of some sort for the cosmic egg to exist in prior to the bang.

Current extensions of string theory (collectively called "M-Theory") provide for exactly this sort of thing.

Harte



I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#33    Raptor

Raptor

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,085 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2007 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE(Harte)


I read through the first twenty posts of this thread and began typing a reply to lots of different ones, then after checking out a few more I saw that you said pretty much everything that was on my mind. Nice posts. thumbsup.gif


#34    Sun Raven

Sun Raven

    Alpha & Omega

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

  • I am the master of my fate.
    I am the captain of my soul

Posted 15 June 2007 - 08:41 PM

To tell you the truth, I actually dont believe in the big bang theory at all, maybe I am wrong but I find it very poorly scientific. How and why could all this matter and energy blast? What was the reason for it to explode? And was alll this matter and energy always there? Or was there something before it? What created all this matter and energy? It had to come from somewhere, or from something... or it had to be created coz when you come to think of it, it is just matter.

This is why I believe the big bang theory is incorrect, it is filled with questions that when you read them, the theory suddenly sounds like a stupidity. Don't get me wrong, I believe all this theories have a good base of facts and scientific data but the big bang theory is too insecure and it sounds more insecure when you ask yourself this questions.

If I were to believe that the big bang theory is true then I would believe that the universe is expanding due to the energy released by the huge blast. But then I would have to say that the universe was all expanding from one place like an explosion behaves but as you said here, that is absurd. Because then there would actually be a center of the universe and I dont think that is true.

The balloon explenation is pretty good, but I quite don't understand.... if the galaxies are the dots then what is inside of the balloon? What would be the air that is in the balloon in the universe?



Posted Image

Sun Raven


#35    signal7

signal7

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2007
  • Location:Middle Tennessee

Posted 15 June 2007 - 08:56 PM

Quote

I found a video on the net that was about the universe. It showed a pic the Hubel Telescope took of the universe 47 billion lightyears away. The end of the uiverse. Yes the universe is 47 billion light years in radius. I always thought there was no end. Now that I know there is an end I wonder, what is at the end? If we flew past the end where would we be? Would we be back at the begining?


That's visible spectra.  If you look at a newer study in the phenomenon of gamma energies, it's quite a bit larger.  Not sure by how much exactly, but it's been termed the "expanse".
These radiations come from some source, and are either amplified or deamplified.  When applying the correct algorithm to, you can estimate the distance between the points, given your relative distance from the closest.
The most interesting right now being star "hatcheries".  Where these energies can even be cast backwards towards us, from an outlying point.
When applying these perceptible phenomenon, right now, as is my argument, no one really knows how expansive the universe is, or can be.  Some estimate no end (infinite), others say in the 100's of trillions.  Quite fascinating.


Questions+EasyAnswers^2==Flop...
Ignorance is Bliss, but knowing is cause..

#36    Essene

Essene

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Joined:31 May 2007

Posted 15 June 2007 - 09:16 PM

Then maybe the link in my previous post may work where its a never ending twist and turns into different dimensions and time the universe is expanding into, This has a picture of this theory.                                                                                                                                                                                                             http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1...Calabi-Yau.jpeg                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Quote

Rebel,
Your statement about what science "had us believeing" is unfamiliar to me. Science never "had me believing" this.

The idea that the universe is expanding faster than light is a relative one anyway (no pun intended.) There are portions of the universe moving away from us at this speed based on our observations.  If we were in those areas instead of here, it would be the part of the universe where the Earth is located that would be moving away that fast.  Anywhere between here and there and the observation would show that neither portion of the universe is moving away from that position that fast.

There is no "center" of the universe, so there is no reference point against which to measure the absolute velocity of anything.  In fact, this means that there is truly no such thing as absolute velocity.   What I'm getting at here is that it's really meaningless to say that the "Universe is expanding faster than light" when clearly it depends on the position of the observer which portions are actually traveling at great speed.

The velocity cosmologists attribute to the expansion is cumulative, just like it would be in the balloon or raisin bread examples.  IOW, no single dot on the ballon is traveling any faster than any other dot, as far as the expansion goes.  But from the perspective of one dot that we take to be standing still - like we do the solar system - the further dots appear to us to be moving away at a faster rate.  This is because there is more "space" (balloon surface) to expand between our reference dot and the far dot.
You can word it anyway you want, but what actually happened is that astronomers decided that Pluto was not a planet. They did not "discover" that Pluto was not a planet.  They changed what the term "planet" means.
No, I don't think this.  And neither do you, apparently, since you posted this message using an electronic device that operates on theory alone.

By this logic, scientists should never publish any theory, and without theories, there is no science.

Absolute fact exists only as data.  Attempts to explain data are what's known as theories.  Once a theory is proposed (published,) scientists manipulate the new theory to see if it can be made to make predictions that, if born out, would provide evidence for the veracity, or at least the usefulness, of the new theory.  If predictions do arise from the new theory, and if what the predictions predicted can be shown to be experimentally verified, then the theory is (usually) accepted.  Until, that is, another theory comes along that explains the data and provides verified predictions that were absent from the first theory.

That doesn't mean that the theory actually explains the data.  It does mean that the theory provides a workable and useful model for what's happening in the real world that resulted in the collection of the original data (facts.)
Thanks for the compliment QuickSilver2005.

I'm actually in Southaven.
Ghostkol,
Stubborn is good.  And I actually agree with you. I think we are really discussing what boils down to semantics here.  Remember, I said that if you must insist on imagining what the universe is expanding into, then you're gonna have to imagine higher-dimensions. That's a rather tall order.

Our four-dimensional spacetime has it's origins in the Big Bang.  That does not preclude a "place" in some higher-dimensional manifold of some sort for the cosmic egg to exist in prior to the bang.

Current extensions of string theory (collectively called "M-Theory") provide for exactly this sort of thing.

Harte




#37    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 15 June 2007 - 10:27 PM

Quote

Rebel,
Your statement about what science "had us believeing" is unfamiliar to me. Science never "had me believing" this.


You may be right Harte, just a little confusion about it all on my part i guess?
Not really my topic of discussion but always interesting topic never the less, we live and learn...

Thanks for the replys.

Later... thumbsup.gif

Expanding Confusion

The Universe, Expanding Beyond All Understanding

A cool link i found on the so called theory, if i could use that word lol! on the center of the universe...

Confusion over the center of the universe?






#38    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,966 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 15 June 2007 - 11:24 PM

Quote

To tell you the truth, I actually dont believe in the big bang theory at all, maybe I am wrong but I find it very poorly scientific. How and why could all this matter and energy blast? What was the reason for it to explode? And was alll this matter and energy always there? Or was there something before it? What created all this matter and energy? It had to come from somewhere, or from something... or it had to be created coz when you come to think of it, it is just matter.

If I were to believe that the big bang theory is true then I would believe that the universe is expanding due to the energy released by the huge blast. But then I would have to say that the universe was all expanding from one place like an explosion behaves but as you said here, that is absurd. Because then there would actually be a center of the universe and I dont think that is true.


Ghostkol,

Believe whatever you want.  You still have to explain why all the galaxies we see in the sky are moving away from us, no matter what direction we look in, and why the further away a galaxy is from ours, the faster it appears to be receding from us.

Imagine it as a videotape, then ask what happens if you run the tape backwards.

The physical fact of galactic receding is only part of evidence for the Big Bang.  The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is probably the single strongest piece of evidence for the Big Bang.  It is the actual energy of the original bang.  Of course it's still out there, where would it go?  It started in the cosmic egg, which is what the universe before the Big Bang is sometimes referred to.(BTW, the phrase "before the Big Bang" shouldn't really be used here, since the Big Bang created not only the universe we live in, but also the time for it to exist in, since space and time are two aspects of the same thing - spacetime.)

We are still in the cosmic egg, it's just bigger now.  Because it's bigger, the energy of the Big Bang is diluted, yet this very same energy can be detected, again in every single direction you look in in space. The detected values associated with this energy - wavelength, frequency, etc. - exactly match the values predicted by the Big Bang theory which were predicted before the radiation had ever been detected.

Not only that, looking very, very closely at the extremely fine variations of the background radiation between one targeted direction and the next reveals a flabbergasting observation about the universe.  It appears that the matter in the universe is concentrated in certain areas, and absent in others, and these areas are actually connected over extremely vast distances, staggeringly vast distances, by strands of matter made up of galaxies. Like an unimaginably huge three-dimensional spiderweb.

Believe or disbelieve the Big Bang.  It is the best theory we have right now.  It explains almost all the observations we have made.  Of course, it is the fate of every theory to be proven wrong eventually.  But usually, there remains in new theories remnants of the older theories.  Like the way Relativity contains Newton's "laws of motion" within it as a special case that is approximately correct to an extremely fine degree at velocities less than around half the speed of light.

Quote

The balloon explenation is pretty good, but I quite don't understand.... if the galaxies are the dots then what is inside of the balloon? What would be the air that is in the balloon in the universe?

Since the surface of the ballon is our universe, and it is also a two-dimensional curved plane, the inside of the balloon, as well as the outside (the area around the balloon that the balloon is expanding "into") would be a higher dimension.  In this case, The Third Dimension!!! (cue scary music)

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

And that's why I prefer the balloon analogy to the raisin bread one - because the "higher dimensions" part remains intact in the analogy and not just the "galaxies moving apart" part.  With raisin bread, this part of the analogy fails because you have 3-d bread expanding into 3-d space.  You have to "pretend" that the area around the bread (that the bread is expanding into) is of some other dimension.  With the balloon's planar surface, it's obviously another dimension.  It's the same reason that even if Snoopy was alive in the comics page, he couldn't possibly see your big old eyes looking at him.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#39    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,966 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 15 June 2007 - 11:29 PM

Quote

You may be right Harte, just a little confusion about it all on my part i guess?
Not really my topic of discussion but always interesting topic never the less, we live and learn...

Thanks for the replys.

Later... thumbsup.gif

Expanding Confusion

The Universe, Expanding Beyond All Understanding

A cool link i found on the so called theory, if i could use that word lol! on the center of the universe...

Confusion over the center of the universe?


REBEL,

Excellent excellent links.

Ghostkol - click on those.  They explain most of this better than me.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#40    The Unseen

The Unseen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male

  • Whats out there?

Posted 15 June 2007 - 11:39 PM

Quote

I found a video on the net that was about the universe. It showed a pic the Hubel Telescope took of the universe 47 billion lightyears away. The end of the uiverse. Yes the universe is 47 billion light years in radius. I always thought there was no end. Now that I know there is an end I wonder, what is at the end? If we flew past the end where would we be? Would we be back at the begining?

"OBLIVION"


#41    Sun Raven

Sun Raven

    Alpha & Omega

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

  • I am the master of my fate.
    I am the captain of my soul

Posted 16 June 2007 - 06:35 PM

Ahh ok , believe it or not harte the balloon explenation cleared most of it for me. original.gif

Just one thing, if every galaxy is moving away from us, then how come the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us? Destined to collide with The Milky Way. Howcome we get galxies colliding if they are all moving away from each other? If the balloon is expanding the dots move away from each other then how are we getting some of the dots colliding and uniting?

Posted Image

Sun Raven


#42    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,966 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 16 June 2007 - 08:00 PM

Quote

Ahh ok , believe it or not harte the balloon explenation cleared most of it for me. original.gif

Just one thing, if every galaxy is moving away from us, then how come the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us? Destined to collide with The Milky Way. Howcome we get galxies colliding if they are all moving away from each other? If the balloon is expanding the dots move away from each other then how are we getting some of the dots colliding and uniting?


The Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way galaxy are both part of what astronomers call the "local group."  This group of galaxies are near enough to each other that they are influenced by each other's gravitational fields.

Remember the thing about space itself expanding.  That includes the space occupied at any given instant by the planet Earth.  If it weren't for the gravitational attraction that the mass of the Earth has for the center of the Earth, the Earth itself would be expanding right along with the universe.

BTW, it also includes the space occupied by you, but the electrochemical bonds in the molecular structures of your body's cellular walls prevents you from expanding, because these forces are greater than that exerted by the universe's expansion.

The force that the expansion of the universe exerts in any given area is small enough to be overcome by relatively weak gravitation.  The mutual gravitational attraction of the "local group" more than overcomes the force exerted by universal expansion.  But the group itself is moving away from all other galxies, corrected for local motion among other galactic "groups" and/or clusters.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#43    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 16 June 2007 - 10:31 PM

And we must remember the Big Bang theory is not a theory of what created the BB itself.  It's a theory of how the universe evolves after the BB happened.  

The earliest period of time of the universe, from t=0 to 10^-43 sec is the Planck epoch.  The physics of the Planck epoch is not well understood, as during this time gravity was united with the other fundamental forces, and a theory of quantum gravity will be needed to explore this first tiny fraction of a second at the beginning of the universe.  Even if we come to some understanding of the physics of the Planck epoch, it will still tell us nothing of what happened at t=0

Perhaps string theory or M-theory will be able to explain what created the BB itself.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
My credentials: http://www.unexplain...ic=87935&st=225

#44    SameerPrehistorica

SameerPrehistorica

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • !! NO SPECIES LASTS FOREVER !!

Posted 17 June 2007 - 06:23 AM

always i wanted to know this answer.but no scientists had found it yet.there is no end.........
  how u r saying

Posted Image

#45    spiral_flare

spiral_flare

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 19 June 2007 - 12:38 AM

I always thought the universe was everything that exists right now, every planet, star, etc. At the end of the universe, there's just space that goes on forever.
Ok maybe what I just said doesn't make sense, but here's a picture of the universe:
linked-image
The universe is the cylinder looking thing expanding, there's black all around it, what could that be? It should be space
but then again, the picture is the big bang theory which not many people believe in so it's very possible that the universe looks nothing like that.
on the other hand, even if it did look different from the picture, i still think that there is space. i don't think space has an end, it goes on forever. it just makes sense to me. because if it ended, then what's after it ends? nothing? that would be impossible because technically, nothing is....well...nothing, its definition is something that doesn't exist. therefore, nothing doesn't exist. there's no such thing as nothing, that's why it's called nothing

Edited by spiral_flare, 19 June 2007 - 02:01 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users