What exists beyond the known universe?

[alxian]

i found it funny in star trek that all ships that meet in space are always traveling on the same flat plain, later science said pretty much the same thing the spin of universes generally causes the safe navigable zone to be very narrow and flat, outside of that zone you start to get weird stuff like dust vorticies on the scale of the galaxy etc..

 

but aren't galaxies visible in every direction even at perpendicular vectors from us? wouldn't that make soace infinitely volumetric and not subject to rationalization on a planar type field..

 

like this quadrant idea.. wouldn't stellar quadrants be equally volumetric i.e. 8 cubes were you to define any vector from an arbitrary origin like earth?

where it would be confusing to put 5-6-7-8 being the points below the origin and 1-2-3-4 being above the origin... the only way i can figure only 4 quadrants is if 0 was the lowest point.. i.e. below 0 and you are not longer within the galaxy..

 

i suppose i assume the in ST that the quadrant are based on our own milky way.? i was never clear on that.. or dose the quadrant system center around some one elses home.. i.e. completely arbitrary centering around the center of the know universe of the alien species capable of seeing the furthest within the federation.. lesson is separating sci-fi from reality helps to avoid headaches..

 

 

...........|..../

.....1....|../..2

______ |/______

3......../|...4

....... /..|

....../....|

 

What exists beyond the known universe? simple answer more of the same.. just much more of it. like infinite volumetrically not in any planar bending back onto itself sillyness, just infinite as far as you can go in any vector.

 

according to star trek crystal space, fluidic space.. probably other massive areas of space that have distiguishing characteritics.. but would a fluid in space at its center have incredible crushing pressures? bah ST stupidities.. good ideas but too much marketing fudging up the science.

[alxian]

adam asked god one day what were the limits of the term beyond, and kept asking god whats beyond like a 2 year old and god eventually gave up creating things to answer adams question and ran away.

[pgrmdave]

What exists beyond the known universe? simple answer more of the same.. just much more of it. like infinite volumetrically not in any planar bending back onto itself sillyness, just infinite as far as you can go in any vector.

 

 

But if space is infinite in every direction with no bending, how would you explain the expansion? Is infinity itself getting bigger?

[Aki]

Here I found this:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994250, a very interesting article. Also read the "Identical Pentagon" section, it would be creepy if that's really true about our universe

[adamntm]

Couldn't the universe be finite but have no boundries? Like the earth, you can move along its surface infinitly, but it is a finite plane.

 

I think that is a good point. I was reading this Time magazine and i really wish i had the article for you all to read, but basicaly what it was saying was taht this guy a lawyer in montana i THINK, had a theory that at every black hole opened a new universe, and it talks about the uniqueness of life and how everything in this universe is perfectly insync. i mean if one thing were to be changed like the strenght of gravity or just anything the conditions on earth would drastically change and become very unfriendly to life.

 

i really didnt think the whole balckhole thingy and new universes was legit, but alot of scientists liked the idea, i mean personally i dont think that a blackhole creates any tear in space, i think its a place just where the escape velocity is greater then the speed of light and thats that. now i dont no what happens to the matter in a blackhole like if the intense pressure of gravity changes the matter maybe crushes it into sometype of quark soup, but i think giving space the property to 'tear' is not our place, because we dont have ANY proof of that, and it all kind of changes the laws of physics and basically is saying "harness the power of gravity and your outta hear" as if some intense gravity can get you out of the universe, HAH.

what do u think, sounds crazy to me, and maybe the black holes are the reason for the missing mass, because we know theres room for there to have been alot of black holes, and it could add up.

[pgrmdave]

i mean if one thing were to be changed like the strenght of gravity or just anything the conditions on earth would drastically change and become very unfriendly to life.

 

 

Life evolved to those conditions and in some cases even caused those conditions. It isn't that the conditions are perfect for life, it's that life became perfect for those conditions.

[pgrmdave]

i think its a place just where the escape velocity is greater then the speed of light and thats that. now i dont no what happens to the matter in a blackhole like if the intense pressure of gravity changes the matter maybe crushes it into sometype of quark soup, but i think giving space the property to 'tear' is not our place, because we dont have ANY proof of that, and it all kind of changes the laws of physics and basically is saying "harness the power of gravity and your outta hear" as if some intense gravity can get you out of the universe, HAH.

 

Here's how black holes' gravity was explained to me. The strength of gravity is dependent on how much it bends space. A measure of an objects gravity can be considered akin to measuring the slope of the sides of a hole. A steeper slope will give you a deeper hole and more gravitational strength. A black hole occurs when that slope becomes parallel, and there is no bottom.

[Aki]

i mean if one thing were to be changed like the strenght of gravity or just anything the conditions on earth would drastically change and become very unfriendly to life.

 

That's very true, if gravity were a little bit stronger, then our universe would collapse into the Big Crunch, or if gravity were a little bit weaker, then all the matter in the universe would fly apart. The present strength of gravity is perfect; our universe is expanding at a reasonable rate.

I think this is called the anthropic principle.

[lindagarrette]

Anthropic principle implies to me that there might be a reason for our existance. I don't think so. Our existance and the space/time coincidences that allow it to be were inevitable and natural, not arranged in any way.

[TINNY]

Our existance and the space/time coincidences that allow it to be were inevitable and natural, not arranged in any way

I say it is equally valid to claim the existence of an underlying template that leads matter to develop as balancedly as it is.

[Freethinker]

I say it is equally valid to claim the existence of an underlying template that leads matter to develop as balancedly as it is.

Sorry Tinny, but just stating it does not make it so. For it to be VALID, much less equally so, would require that you could show at least a requirement for it's existence if not proof of it's existence in the first place.

[TINNY]

You dont have to be sorry. I was referring to linda's statement and just wanted to point out the fallacy.

[Freethinker]

You dont have to be sorry. I was referring to linda's statement and just wanted to point out the fallacy.

I'll try to not let my female side out in the future Tinny! :-)

 

And what have we come to if Tinny is poining out fallacies to Linda? (Again, note my avitar for this one!)

[pgrmdave]

Sorry Tinny, but just stating it does not make it so. For it to be VALID, much less equally so, would require that you could show at least a requirement for it's existence if not proof of it's existence in the first place.

 

While I agree that our existance was random and occured because of natural, scientific forces, why is the existance of an underlying template automatically wrong? Why do you assume that if we cannot detect it yet, it must not exist? There were many things that existed long before we could detect them, yet they still existed. I don't think that there is an underlying template, but I wouldn't know how to detect it so I don't deny the possibility.

[TINNY]

Why do you assume that if we cannot detect it yet, it must not exist?

to be fair, FT did not state that. I think what he had in mind was that Pink Unicorn joke. :D

I don't think that there is an underlying template, but I wouldn't know how to detect it so I don't deny the possibility

Even if you can't detect it, you should opt for the most likely possibility. The balance that was mentioned hinted at an underlying template which I call the Grand Cosmic Plan :P

And such is the complexity of humans that it was unlikely evolution could arrive at humans randomly in such a short time. That's why I say it is likely that we are at the end of an unfolding of the grand cosmic plan.

[pgrmdave]

Even if you can't detect it, you should opt for the most likely possibility.

 

 

Occam's Razor, the least complex theory is most often true.

[alxian]

Sorry Tinny, but just stating it does not make it so. For it to be VALID, much less equally so, would require that you could show at least a requirement for it's existence if not proof of it's existence in the first place.

 

 

i was just thinking the same thing about string theory..

 

it doesn't matter if its correct but once they start exploting the physical universe based on the absolute correctness of string thoery, what does it matter what the nature of sub atomic partical really is, as long as scientific calculations based on the theory are 100% right?

 

6 or more dimensional tiny itty bitty bits of stuff.. how wuold you better describe them?

 

i still have a question though.. do strings move around or is the universe made up of information passed alongs as vibrations on stationary strings? like ripples on a pond?