# Ambush got me to thinking.....



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

Ok, because I don't want to hijack String's 3-stage thread, I thought I would start a new one and ask a few questions of those who know more about this stuff than I do (I am no science scholar) I want to avoid Willard's stuff for now, not sure if he hits on this.......

1. Does the universe have limits?
    a. how do we know?

2. If the universe has limits, what do those limits exist within?

3. If the universe has no limits, how could it expand (or contract, for the big-bangers), what is expanding?

4. If the universe must have limits, isn't it logical to assume that those limits exist within another space?

5. If the answer to #4 is correct, isn't it logical to assume that a reality exists beyond what is knowable?


I'm bored today


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

This might get interesting! 

Good thread JB.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

Thanks, String....we'll see if it gets anywhere....


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

All kinds of theories exist about what's outside the universe.  I don't have one.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok, because I don't want to hijack String's 3-stage thread, I thought I would start a new one and ask a few questions of those who know more about this stuff than I do (I am no science scholar) I want to avoid Willard's stuff for now, not sure if he hits on this.......
> 
> 1. Does the universe have limits?
> a. how do we know?
> ...



I just don't know.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> All kinds of theories exist about what's outside the universe.  I don't have one.





bullethead said:


> I just don't know.



Any guesses?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Any guesses?



nope


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Any guesses?





That's what I'm banking on.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> nope





ambush80 said:


>



"God didn't do it" would have been better than those two replies.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

hysterical (ambush)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "God didn't do it" would have been better than those two replies.



saving bandwith


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> saving bandwith



Trying something new I see, you're definitely not one to worry yourself with bandwidth.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "God didn't do it" would have been better than those two replies.



Your turn.  What's out there and how do you know?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Your turn.  What's out there and how do you know?



I don't think any of JB's questions were that broad.

But, I will answer the questions.

God's out there, and I know because, "for the bible tells me so"


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think any of JB's questions were that broad.
> 
> But, I will answer the questions.
> 
> God's out there, and I know because, "for the bible tells me so"




You mean that book with all the talking animals and resurrections, right?  Compelling evidence.

Well.....I'm certainly convinced. (That you don't know)


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

Let's start with the questions, none of them really require speculation.

In fact, often on this board I see folks discussing the ever expaning and contracting universe.....so......



> 1. Does the universe have limits?
> a. how do we know?
> 
> 2. If the universe has limits, what do those limits exist within?
> ...



Etc.....

If your premise is based on gravity causing the universe to expand and contract, and creating life and everything between, then there "must" be an answer to those questions.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I just don't know.



Let's start with #1.

Does the universe have limits, or "edges?"  (it must if it expands and contracts, otherwise there would be nothing to expnad and contract)


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> That's what I'm banking on.



I'm not asking for what's out there.  We are talking tangibles here.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Let's start with #1.
> 
> Does the universe have limits, or "edges?"  (it must if it expands and contracts, otherwise there would be nothing to expnad and contract)



Look it up(please) and let us know.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Look it up(please) and let us know.



You are well aware of the fact that current scientific consensus is that the universe is expanding.  10 seconds on google can prove that.

Then....you are also aware of the fact that the big bang theory demands that it contracts.

So.....the question remains.......or, do I need to post all the links I just encountered with a quick google search of "big-bang theory" and "expanding universe"


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html

Oh, lordy.......



> Think of the universe as a rubber sheet being stretched out. (If you are comfortable with visualization in three dimensions you can imagine a raisin cake expanding instead, but for the purpose of illustration I will stick with the two dimensional case.) Now imagine that there are thumbtacks stuck into the rubber at various points representing galaxies. (In the raisin cake analogy these would be the raisins.) As the rubber (the universe) is stretched (expands), the thumbtacks (galaxies) all get farther apart. Note that I haven't said anything yet about how big the rubber sheet is. For all we know it might be infinite. (This point will be addressed in a later section.) What I mean when I talk about expansion is that the rubber is being stretched out, causing the distances between the thumbtacks to increase.
> 
> To see what this expansion should look like to us, imagine an observer sitting on one of the thumbtacks. This observer imagines himself to be at rest and measures all movement relative to his thumbtack (galaxy). Since the distance between any two thumbtacks is increasing, it will appear to him that all the other ones are moving away from him. How fast will another thumbtack appear to move? That depends in part on how fast the rubber sheet is being stretched out, i.e., how fast the universe is expanding. In addition, however, the apparent speed of the other thumbtacks is also dependent on their positions relative to the observer. The nearby thumbtacks will appear to be moving away very slowly, whereas the distant ones will appear to be moving away much faster. To see why this is so, suppose the rubber sheet doubles in size in one second.
> 
> ...



(I didn't want to use wiki.....)


----------



## Four (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> 1. Does the universe have limits?
> a. how do we know?



This is a really vague question...
Physical limits?... 

Well, it seems there are current boundaries, there is a limit to the visible universe, based on the speed of light.. i suppose the speed of light is also a limit. Also I suppose you could consider the total amount of energy-matter to be a limit, since we've never seen it created or destroyed.

Naturally this is just the current understanding, and is subject to change due to discovery, etc.. (or maybe, my current understandings? lol)




JB0704 said:


> 2. If the universe has limits, what do those limits exist within?



The limits are within the universe. The thing about the universe, is it includes everything, if its not inside the universe we cant really know about it. 



JB0704 said:


> 3. If the universe has no limits, how could it expand (or contract, for the big-bangers), what is expanding?



I guess i'm exempt as i pointed out limits..



JB0704 said:


> 4. If the universe must have limits, isn't it logical to assume that those limits exist within another space?



I think you mean "isn't it reasonable".

I don't think that's a totally unreasonable proposition.. but it does have some issues...

1. Violates Occam's Razor - It adds a variable to a system that might not need it.. doesn't mean its wrong, though. 

2. Infinite regress - Even if we ignored Occam's Razor, there is the infinite regress problem.. because teh questions come up, what are the limits to the space in which the universe is in? if it has limits, what space is the space in?

2. Unverifiable -  Depending on how you use the word, universe is everything.. kind of by definition. It's all space, time, energy, and matter. Even if the universe was really a computer program, and we're all just AI's and the entire universe is simulated, we really couldn't know. 




JB0704 said:


> 5. If the answer to #4 is correct, isn't it logical to assume that a reality exists beyond what is knowable?



I'm having a hard time conceptualizing / understanding what your statement means... but ill still take a shot at answering.

I think i might have covered this in the simulation thought experiment... its impossible to know about something outside your frame of reference. If you're in a box in which light, sound, heat, matter, energy etc cannot pass through then the reality outside the box is unknowable to you, as you're in the box (your frame of reference). Effectively, anything not inside the box does not exist.

Again though, this depends on how you use the word reality.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You mean that book with all the talking animals and resurrections, right?  Compelling evidence.
> 
> Well.....I'm certainly convinced. (That you don't know)


Yes, the bible is certianly not as compelling as your evidence......


ambush80 said:


> I don't have one.


----------



## Four (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then....you are also aware of the fact that the big bang theory demands that it contracts.



I dont think thats true.

The big bang speaks of the beginning (the bang!)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html
> 
> Oh, lordy.......
> 
> ...



That is science's explanation and I don't understand science. (im playing devils advocate here)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is not what the bible says, how could those scientists say such a thing? Do they just not read the bible and GUESS?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is not what the bible says, how could those scientists say such a thing? Do they just not read the bible and GUESS?



Weak....


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, the bible is certianly not as compelling as your evidence......



My evidence leads rightly to my conclusion.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> My evidence leads rightly to my conclusion.



Well then, congratulations, you don't know.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Well then, congratulations, you don't know.



Would it make more sense to you if I said I had a conviction or a revelation?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Weak....



You have got that right string!


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is not what the bible says, how could those scientists say such a thing? Do they just not read the bible and GUESS?



So far, 4 is the only one to attemp a readonable dialog here.  I put one on a tee for you guys with the link I posted.

Anyway, we Christians are constantly put in corners and left with no answer but 'I'm not sure.'  Your team tends to view that as an admission of a weak position when we use it, and strength when you use it 

Four, thanks for the response, when I'm not on my I phone I will give a proper consideration to your points.

I was relieved, as I thought we were going to have to wait for asath to get home before the thread got rolling.  But....to summarize what I am going to post in the next day or so, I am quite certain that I remember that geavity is credited for the expansion and contraction of the universe.

And, in the context of this thread, reality can mean 'anything'. The space between earth and mars exists, and is reality.  Is there a space which contains space?  Who knows, but it is not beyond reason to comprehend such a thing. It is not illogical.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

Oh....fwiw, I think science is a great thing, and I am thankful for scientific advancements.  I'm not in the anti-science camp.  I am going to stick with science in this thread and let's have some fun with it


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Oh....fwiw, I think science is a great thing, and I am thankful for scientific advancements.  I'm not in the anti-science camp.  I am going to stick with science in this thread and let's have some fun with it



I'll just watch..lol...

Y'all are heeelarious!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Anyway, we Christians are constantly put in corners and left with no answer but 'I'm not sure.'  Your team tends to view that as an admission of a weak position when we use it, and strength when you use it



Actually it is rare that "I'm not sure" is ever uttered by Christians. I would be thrilled to hear it more often. Most times Christians are darn sure what the answer is and use(insert verse here) when that doesn't work the good old standby  "God" is used as the only other option.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 5, 2013)

I like to combine science and religion.I'm going to say that  the edge of the universe is the firmament. 
I wonder what is beyond the firmament? The third heaven?
The answer might be in this book:
quote;
This book, written by an evangelical Christian layman for conservative evangelical Christian adherents of Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism (OEC) and Intelligent Design, takes a giant step toward achieving the above goal.

Gordon J. Glover maintains that YECs and OECs are equally wrong in their approach to interpreting Genesis 1 & 2 (and other references to creation in the Bible). His main theme is that Genesis 1 & 2 are not scientific accounts of the origin of the universe and that both YECs and OECs err in trying to interpret it that way. He makes a very good case from the Bible itself that God accommodated his message to what the Israelites of that time could understand, and that God's message was theological, not scientific.

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Firmam...65214744&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+the+firmament

Do you teach people in a way they can understand?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 6, 2013)

Four said:


> Physical limits?...



Or boundaries......which you get into below.....



Four said:


> Well, it seems there are current boundaries, there is a limit to the visible universe, based on the speed of light.. i suppose the speed of light is also a limit. Also I suppose you could consider the total amount of energy-matter to be a limit, since we've never seen it created or destroyed.



These are the boundaries we can logically conceptualize.  I believe there is also a phenomena called "red-shift"  or something like that which lets us know that the universe is in fact expanding......from where to where is what I am discussing.



Four said:


> Naturally this is just the current understanding, and is subject to change due to discovery, etc.. (or maybe, my current understandings? lol)



Yes sir.  We can agree so far......



Four said:


> The limits are within the universe. The thing about the universe, is it includes everything, if its not inside the universe we cant really know about it.



This sentence contradicts the above sentence.  WE do not know if the universe includes everything, and if the universe is expanding physically, the idea that it is contained within more space is not unreasonable....again, from where, and to where is it expanding. 



Four said:


> I don't think that's a totally unreasonable proposition.. but it does have some issues...
> 
> 1. Violates Occam's Razor - It adds a variable to a system that might not need it.. doesn't mean its wrong, though.



First, I am glad you took the thread seriously enough to list these issues out.  I know you thought it through, and I appreciate that.

Second, "need" might not be relevant to a discussion of "is."  There might not need to be anything out there for the system to work as is, but that does not mean there is not anything out there.  The logic would indicate that there is room for grwoth when discussing the universe.....where is it growing to?



Four said:


> 2. Infinite regress - Even if we ignored Occam's Razor, there is the infinite regress problem.. because teh questions come up, what are the limits to the space in which the universe is in? if it has limits, what space is the space in?



I am quite certain one or the other exists.  An OC, or an infinite regress.  OC appears more reasonable to me, which could be conceptualized as the "god particle" for the sake of this discussion.

If everything is infinite, then an infinite regress exists.  If everything is finite, then we have an OC.  I think either or is claimed by skeptics and those of faith.



Four said:


> 2. Unverifiable -  Depending on how you use the word, universe is everything.. kind of by definition. It's all space, time, energy, and matter. Even if the universe was really a computer program, and we're all just AI's and the entire universe is simulated, we really couldn't know.



Hmmmmm.....yes.






Four said:


> I think i might have covered this in the simulation thought experiment... its impossible to know about something outside your frame of reference. If you're in a box in which light, sound, heat, matter, energy etc cannot pass through then the reality outside the box is unknowable to you, as you're in the box (your frame of reference). Effectively, anything not inside the box does not exist.



I would think it is a failure to recognize that the thing outside the box exists mroe than a failure of the thing to exist.  There are many species of critters running around the ocean floor we will never know about.  But they are there.

In this instance we can conceptualize that something may exist beyond what currently exists within the universe (expanding to.....), we know that things exists inside the univers (expanding from).  It seem logical that even if that something is simply more space, then it exists beyond our current reality (as you point out, the universe is everything....our current reality).

When I have a chance, I will get more into the big bang, and the expanding contracting stuff.....gotta run for now.....

Thanks for your input, 4.


----------



## Four (Apr 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> This sentence contradicts the above sentence.  WE do not know if the universe includes everything, and if the universe is expanding physically, the idea that it is contained within more space is not unreasonable....again, from where, and to where is it expanding.



Could you point out the two contradicting statements so i could help clarify what i was saying? Unless it's not helpful.

Well, its how we define universe... You could easily argue that BY DEFINITION, the universe includes everything. I think that was the original definition  / meaning as well.




JB0704 said:


> First, I am glad you took the thread seriously enough to list these issues out.  I know you thought it through, and I appreciate that.
> 
> Second, "need" might not be relevant to a discussion of "is."  There might not need to be anything out there for the system to work as is, but that does not mean there is not anything out there.  The logic would indicate that there is room for grwoth when discussing the universe.....where is it growing to?



I think need is relevant to the issue (maybe..) I think you agreed that there is no way to see / experience anything outside of the universe, so its completely unverifiable, it's as if i claimed there was an invisible unicorn that is on fire jumping on a Pogo stick in you front yard... if it doesn't affect your life and you cant verify it or discount it, even if it DOES exist, for all purposes it doesn't exist. Naturally i agree this could be the case, Occam's razor doesn't speak about what is correct or not, just the order in which you should look. Look for the simplest explanation, then work your way out once you've discounted it. Stick with the simplest explanation that you cannot currently disprove.



JB0704 said:


> The logic would indicate that there is room for grwoth when discussing the universe.....where is it growing to?



I think its just growing, beyond the horizon of the universe is nothingness... It's really hard to conceptualize because as a human we've never experienced anything like it, any example / metaphor I can put down you can point to an "outside".

It's a logical impossibility to get to the "edge" of the universe, although we know we are occupying a relative space that was one outside the boundaries of the early growing universe... kinda trippy to think about. 

But it seems you're pretty determined to model the universe as contained by an outside space.. so why is that? Does the model buy us something? Does it help us predict something? If the model of our universe expanding inside of an infinitely large space pleases you, i don't see any reason why it would be to terrible for you to look at the universe like that, i don't think a universe growing into another large universe is functionality different to us.



JB0704 said:


> I am quite certain one or the other exists.  An OC, or an infinite regress.  OC appears more reasonable to me, which could be conceptualized as the "god particle" for the sake of this discussion.
> 
> If everything is infinite, then an infinite regress exists.  If everything is finite, then we have an OC.  I think either or is claimed by skeptics and those of faith.



First off, OC (original creator) has theological baggage associated with the term... but regardless..

If you assume that the universe is everything. So, no universe inside of a universe type scenario like you've been posturing. And you also assume that the big bang has a discrete start, which is the current understanding i believe. Then i think it does follow that there was an effect that triggered the big bang, which is something that astrophysicists have been feverishly looking for clarification for, and i eagerly await the interesting discoveries they make. 

That being said, if there was a particle, or something that was the trigger, the question is.. why? and what created the particle, if anything? what triggered that?

Fun thing about life, there are always more mysteries and more questions!



JB0704 said:


> I would think it is a failure to recognize that the thing outside the box exists mroe than a failure of the thing to exist.  There are many species of critters running around the ocean floor we will never know about.  But they are there.



You can only say that because you know there is something outside the box, in the thought experiment, if you were in the room, not only would you not know if there was anything outside the box, but you would never be able to know.

As for the sea critter, if it didn't leave fossils, there are no accounts or evidence of it at all of it existing, it functionality didn't/doesn't exist. I could make up any number of animals, plans, objects etc that logically could exist or could have existed, but are unable to be proven, and if i proposed them to you you would say they dont exist, because the functionally don't.

Its like in history, if nobody wrote it down, and there is no account or evidence, then historically it didnt happen... imagine all the types of people, battles, events, etc that have existed that we have no accounts of...



JB0704 said:


> In this instance we can conceptualize that something may exist beyond what currently exists within the universe (expanding to.....), we know that things exists inside the univers (expanding from).  It seem logical that even if that something is simply more space, then it exists beyond our current reality (as you point out, the universe is everything....our current reality).



I agree. I could conceptualize this. 



JB0704 said:


> When I have a chance, I will get more into the big bang, and the expanding contracting stuff.....gotta run for now.....
> 
> Thanks for your input, 4.



good times, cheers.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 8, 2013)

IS Nothingness? How can nothingness - BE?   I'm not saying I know anything better...


----------



## Four (Apr 8, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> IS Nothingness? How can nothingness - BE?   I'm not saying I know anything better...



The absence of anything, non-existence, anti-reality, non-reality, void, null, etc. 

It's a hard concept to convey... Just like cold, cold doesn't actually exist, heat exists.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> IS Nothingness? How can nothingness - BE?   I'm not saying I know anything better...





Four said:


> The absence of anything, non-existence, anti-reality, non-reality, void, null, etc.
> 
> It's a hard concept to convey... Just like cold, cold doesn't actually exist, heat exists.



What do you think is a more odd concept, nothingness or a supreme being and why?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 9, 2013)

Four said:


> Could you point out the two contradicting statements so i could help clarify what i was saying?



Your first sentence indicates that current knowledge is subject to change.  The second indicates that knowledge can't change, or, the description is final.



Four said:


> Well, its how we define universe... You could easily argue that BY DEFINITION, the universe includes everything. I think that was the original definition  / meaning as well.



But, according to our current knowledge, can we define it as such?



Four said:


> I think need is relevant to the issue (maybe..) I think you agreed that there is no way to see / experience anything outside of the universe,



Yes...



Four said:


> ....so its completely unverifiable, it's as if i claimed there was an invisible unicorn that is on fire jumping on a Pogo stick in you front yard... if it doesn't affect your life and you cant verify it or discount it, even if it DOES exist, for all purposes it doesn't exist.



But you lose me here.  This is not an exercise of "what's out there."  Instead, it's how we can all conclude that "out there" is logically possible.



Four said:


> Stick with the simplest explanation that you cannot currently disprove.



Unfortunately, we can't really disprove anything in this situation.  It is a discussion of possibilities.  



Four said:


> I think its just growing, beyond the horizon of the universe is nothingness....



And it may be, but that does not explain what space is it occupying when it gets there.  The universe is a physical thing.  When it grows, it will occupy physical space, much like the gap between mars and earth.  It's "nothing," but it is also "something."




Four said:


> It's a logical impossibility to get to the "edge" of the universe, although we know we are occupying a relative space that was one outside the boundaries of the early growing universe... kinda trippy to think about.



The way you put it, for sure 



Four said:


> But it seems you're pretty determined to model the universe as contained by an outside space.. so why is that?



Not at all.  I am thinking according to current understanding.  The universe is here, and it's growing to there.  My only point in this whole exercise is to point out that our current reality is not the only logical possibility.



Four said:


> i don't think a universe growing into another large universe is functionality different to us.



See above....



Four said:


> First off, OC (original creator) has theological baggage associated with the term... but regardless..



I am using it as "original cause."  Which could be something as simple as a "god particle" for the sake of this discussion.



Four said:


> That being said, if there was a particle, or something that was the trigger, the question is.. why? and what created the particle, if anything? what triggered that?



Yes.  What is the "OC?"  Without which, we have an infinite regress.....or, if the universe is constantly expanding and contracting, then you have an infinite regress with cycles triggered by an OC.



Four said:


> Fun thing about life, there are always more mysteries and more questions!







Four said:


> You can only say that because you know there is something outside the box, in the thought experiment, if you were in the room, not only would you not know if there was anything outside the box, but you would never be able to know.



Yes, but we are theorizing on the possibility that our current reality is not the only one.

I think if we view the universe as "everything," then we hit a wall.  If we view it as a physical thing that expands and contracts (as is the current understanding), then it is not beyond reason to believe it existst within another reality.



Four said:


> Its like in history, if nobody wrote it down, and there is no account or evidence, then historically it didnt happen... imagine all the types of people, battles, events, etc that have existed that we have no accounts of....



It is interesting to consider these things.  What I enjoy, is when a new civilization, or structure, is discovered, there is lots of ideas as to what went on there.  For instance, a large building was recently found in Iraq, and, the article I read said it was a "town center" type place.  Reading through, I could visualize many other possibilities....but, then again, I am not an archeologist.  However, it is fun to consider the possibilities.


----------



## Four (Apr 9, 2013)

You're 100% correct, our current understanding of the universe is not the only logically possible one. The set of logical possibilities is pretty huge. I don't see anything logically inconsistent or impossible about our universe being inside some other space.

I'm not a big fan of that model.. like, what happens if the universe expands into the size of the outside space?  does it hit a wall and stop? if so, what's outside of that? Is there a reality outside the reality outside our universe?

There are also multi-verse theories, which are pretty wild... and i'm not sure i buy into. heck, its even possible we're all a simulation.

The easiest way for me to imagine the universe is a static amount of energy-mass expanding outward. Its not expanding into pre-exiting space, the space doesn't exist until the universe gets large enough. Its like the universe itself is creating space, rather than growing to occupy it.

Duno if its going to collapse again... that's one of the questions, if the expansion is fast enough to hit an "escape velocity" type situation than matter will become to far away for gravity to pull it all back together again. At that point the universe dies a heat death and everything just stops....


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 9, 2013)

Four said:


> I'm not a big fan of that model.. like, what happens if the universe expands into the size of the outside space?  does it hit a wall and stop? if so, what's outside of that? Is there a reality outside the reality outside our universe?



And that's the question which can only be answered with speculation....because we can only see inside our current reality (universe).  Is it something, or nothing?  



Four said:


> There are also multi-verse theories, which are pretty wild... and i'm not sure i buy into. heck, its even possible we're all a simulation.



Yes.




Four said:


> The easiest way for me to imagine the universe is a static amount of energy-mass expanding outward. Its not expanding into pre-exiting space, the space doesn't exist until the universe gets large enough. Its like the universe itself is creating space, rather than growing to occupy it.



But, are you making a large leap by saying the space does not exist until occupied?  That is an interesting thought, but unverifiable.



Four said:


> Duno if its going to collapse again... that's one of the questions, if the expansion is fast enough to hit an "escape velocity" type situation than matter will become to far away for gravity to pull it all back together again. At that point the universe dies a heat death and everything just stops....



I have not had the itme to find it, but I remember an interview when, I think it was Hawkings, said that gravity demands that the universe can not only create itself, but it must.  This is based on the expanding contracting concept.


----------



## Four (Apr 9, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> But, are you making a large leap by saying the space does not exist until occupied?  That is an interesting thought, but unverifiable.



Hmm, I see it as the simplest answer. To my the default is nothing, you need some sort of evidence to assume something.

If you didn't hear a doorbell, you assume nobody is at your front door, just because you've gotten no evidence otherwise.



JB0704 said:


> I have not had the itme to find it, but I remember an interview when, I think it was Hawkings, said that gravity demands that the universe can not only create itself, but it must.  This is based on the expanding contracting concept.



Yea, the question comes down to how far the universe will expand, outside a certain distance, it CANT come back... its like how some asteroids that enter our solar system stay in the solar system and some leave, if they have a high enough velocity, they escape the gravity and don't come back.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 9, 2013)

Four said:


> Hmm, I see it as the simplest answer. To my the default is nothing, you need some sort of evidence to assume something.



Wouldn't the expansion itself be evidence of room for expansion?  We can call that space nothing if you like, but, if it exists, it's something......



Four said:


> If you didn't hear a doorbell, you assume nobody is at your front door, just because you've gotten no evidence otherwise.



No.  But, if I watched a man walk in a door, I would assume he entered something.....I would not assume there was nothing on the other side of the door just because I couldn't see it.  We are watching the universe expand....."to where"




Four said:


> Yea, the question comes down to how far the universe will expand, outside a certain distance, it CANT come back... its like how some asteroids that enter our solar system stay in the solar system and some leave, if they have a high enough velocity, they escape the gravity and don't come back.



Huh....not sure I understand how it could not retract, I thought that was the whole premise of a gravity created universe....it expands, and contracts, and on and on....


----------



## Four (Apr 9, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Wouldn't the expansion itself be evidence of room for expansion?  We can call that space nothing if you like, but, if it exists, it's something......



Well if it is space we're expanding into, we're not seeing anything cross over, it must be empty, a void etc. Or it would add mass/energy to the total universe, right?



JB0704 said:


> No.  But, if I watched a man walk in a door, I would assume he entered something.....I would not assume there was nothing on the other side of the door just because I couldn't see it.  We are watching the universe expand....."to where"



The metaphor falls apart when we consider nothing is actually coming into the universe, merely a growth. Although i do understand you're pointing to growth as proof of a space growing into.




JB0704 said:


> Huh....not sure I understand how it could not retract, I thought that was the whole premise of a gravity created universe....it expands, and contracts, and on and on....



Yea, it retracting is what's called the "big crunch" theory.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#The_future_according_to_the_Big_Bang_theory

_"If the mass density of the Universe were greater than the critical density, then the Universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch.[92]"
_

_"Alternatively, if the density in the Universe were equal to or below the critical density, the expansion would slow down but never stop. Star formation would cease with the consumption of interstellar gas in each galaxy; stars would burn out leaving white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Very gradually, collisions between these would result in mass accumulating into larger and larger black holes. The average temperature of the Universe would asymptotically approach absolute zero—a Big Freeze. Moreover, if the proton were unstable, then baryonic matter would disappear, leaving only radiation and black holes. Eventually, black holes would evaporate by emitting Hawking radiation. The entropy of the Universe would increase to the point where no organized form of energy could be extracted from it, a scenario known as heat death."_


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 10, 2013)

Four said:


> Well if it is space we're expanding into, we're not seeing anything cross over, it must be empty, a void etc. Or it would add mass/energy to the total universe, right?



Is the universe adding or losing mass / energy?   I do't know.  It's all theoretical.  I have read the zero energy theories (which would neutralize any gain or loss), I have read theories which ndicte total energy is slowly diminishing.

Or, it could not be a cross over scenario.....where whatever is in the void becomes compacted as the universe expands.....I really don't know.




Four said:


> The metaphor falls apart when we consider nothing is actually coming into the universe, merely a growth.



See above.



Four said:


> Although i do understand you're pointing to growth as proof of a space growing into.







Four said:


> Yea, it retracting is what's called the "big crunch" theory..
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#The_future_according_to_the_Big_Bang_theory
> 
> ...



Very interesting stuff, for sure.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 11, 2013)

Here is a good video on this subject. It also hits on the age of the universe as well, which goes along with the "Three stage argument for God" thread.

I'm pretty sure I have this episode recorded, can't wait to watch the whole thing.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 15, 2013)

Great post String (I finally got around to watching this).  Interesting points on "infinite."  If the speculation is correct, that the universe cannot be infinite, then that leaves us considering what is the universe contained within.

Now, any guess as to what that is would be speculation.  You and I say "God."  While this exercise does not prove God, it does give the logic to the idea that there is something beyond the knowable.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Great post String (I finally got around to watching this).  Interesting points on "infinite."  If the speculation is correct, that the universe cannot be infinite, then that leaves us considering what is the universe contained within.
> 
> Now, any guess as to what that is would be speculation.  You and I say "God."  While this exercise does not prove God, it does give the logic to the idea that there is something beyond the knowable.



I purposely avoided getting too involved in this thread because "we" absolutely cannot fathom just how BIG the Universe is, let alone try to answer specific questions concerning the entire Universe. It would take approx 4.37 Light Years to get to the next closest star in our Galaxy. Our Galaxy is the Milky Way.

It would take 100,000 Light years to travel from one end to the other in our Galaxy.

 The Milky Way contains  200-400 billion stars, and enough dust and gas to make billions more.

The solar system lies about 30,000 light-years from the galactic center, and about 20 light-years above the plane of the galaxy.

More than half the stars found in the Milky Way are older than the 4.5 billion year old sun.

The most common stars in the galaxy are red dwarfs, a cool star about a tenth the mass of the sun. Once thought unsuitable for potential life-bearing planets because such bodies would have to be too close to meet the criteria, red dwarfs are now considered potential suspects.

As late as the 1920s, astronomers thought all of the stars in the universe were contained inside of the Milky Way. It wasn't until Edwin Hubble discovered a special star known as a Cepheid variable, which allowed him to precisely measure distances, that astronomers realized that the fuzzy patches once classified as nebula were actually separate galaxies.

Our Galaxy is PUNY compared to other galaxies. The Next closest Galaxy is is @ 2.6 MILLION LIGHT YEARS away from us. It is called the Andromeda Galaxy. It contains over TWICE the amount(400-800BILLION) of stars than our own Galaxy. In about 4.5 Billion years our Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy are going to collide.

The number of Galaxies in the !!OBSERVABLE!! Universe is estimated to be over 100 Billion. Galaxies that contain less than 1 Billion stars are considered to be small Galaxies.
There are Galaxies that are 50-60 Times the size of our Milky Way Galaxy and those are found in the parts of the Universe that we can actually observe.

The time and distance and size of each and any of these Galaxies are almost incomprehensible. To total just the ones up (over 100 Billion of them) that are observable is beyond incomprehensible and yet there are more...many more than that out there in the Universe.

We can't scratch the surface of our own Galaxy, let alone the hundreds of Billions of other Galaxies that we know of, let alone the hundreds upon thousands of Billions of Galaxies that beyond what we cannot observe so how can we(on here) even remotely pretend to know any answers about the entire Universe????

I am confident of this. IF something created all of these things and had a blueprint or well thought out plan for each and every speck of dust contained in the Universe, it is not the same thing that is given credit for doing it in any religious handbook and certainly not the Bible. The works cannot be compared.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2013)

Yes, bullet, the universe is very, very big.  And expanding.....

Not sure how the size of the univverse does anything to address the logical position we are discussing, though.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, bullet, the universe is very, very big.  And expanding.....
> 
> Not sure how the size of the univverse does anything to address the logical position we are discussing, though.



Wouldn't someone have to have a fairly decent understanding of the the entire Universe in order to make any logical conclusions about questions 1-5? Being that the experts have been able to observe less than 1% of the Universe and they don't have an understanding of the observable things, I think we are a disadvantage trying to decide limits and such.
To put into perspective we can't understand what is actually in existence let alone link those things to something outside existence.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Wouldn't someone have to have a fairly decent understanding of the the entire Universe in order to make any logical conclusions about questions 1-5? Being that the experts have been able to observe less than 1% of the Universe and they don't have an understanding of the observable things, I think we are a disadvantage trying to decide limits and such.



No.  We are not dealing with size here, we are dealing with facts.  The universe is expanding. Fact.  No matter how big, or small it is, the expansion implies occupying space it did not previously occupy.  

Think about how big you just said it is, the reality remains that we could be the who's down in whoville.  Size is absolutely irrelevant because of the unknown.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> To put into perspective we can't understand what is actually in existence let alone link those things to something outside existence.



In this thread, nobody has done that.  The universe, as 4 implied, is everything.....???? But it is expanding. Which indicates our perception of everything might not be correct as something is occupied during the expansion.

Which leads to my last if/then....it is not illogical to believe a reality (something) exists beyond our current "everything."


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> ......."we" absolutely cannot fathom just how BIG the Universe is



To an amoeba, an ant is big.
To an ant, a human is big.
To a human, a mountain is big.
To a mountain, an ocean is big.
To an ocean a planet is big.
To one planet, a solar system is big.
To a solar system, a galaxy is big.
To a galaxy, the universe is big.........

"BIG" is very relevant.  Is an ant big?  Is the universe big?  How can one know without aleternative perspective?

All we can answer is from our own perspective.  We don't know how "big" the universe is in context of what might be beyond it.  All w can say, with confidence, is that it is expanding......and that's what I am dealing with in this thread.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2013)

I can make sense of the notion that it is expanding into nothing, or into an area made of dark matter.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2013)

JB,Ok then what is the Universe expanding into? If the Universe has edges and we cannot reach those edges plus those edges are constantly getting farther away then whatever is outside of those edges will always be beyond our ability to observe it.
So as the Universe expands it has to expand into other space. Does that other space just get pushed into even more space or does our Universe occupy the space beyond it's borders?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> To an amoeba, an ant is big.
> To an ant, a human is big.
> To a human, a mountain is big.
> To a mountain, an ocean is big.
> ...



How confident are you that the Universe is expanding? Are you looking at it like the center was a small dot and at the Big Bang everything else expanded outwards into a balloon/bubble type of shape and it all just keeps going away?

If the Universe is confidently expanding then why is the Andromeda Galaxy heading towards our milky Way Galaxy instead of expanding away from it?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How confident are you that the Universe is expanding? Are you looking at it like the center was a small dot and at the Big Bang everything else expanded outwards into a balloon/bubble type of shape and it all just keeps going away?



I believe it is called "red shift" where we can tell that systems are moving away based on the light patterns we witness here.

Plus, I am pretty sure a link was posted earlier in this thread explaining how it is expanding.  I am no scientisit, I am just relaying the information I have gleaned over the years.  I believe the idea that it is expanding is pretty common amongst those who study this stuff.



bullethead said:


> If the Universe is confidently expanding then why is the Andromeda Galaxy heading towards our milky Way Galaxy instead of expanding away from it?



No clue.  But, if that is evidence of contraction, the question remains.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So as the Universe expands it has to expand into other space. Does that other space just get pushed into even more space or does our Universe occupy the space beyond it's borders?



Maybe, I dunno.  The point is that it is logically possible that something, even this......



			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> I can make sense of the notion that it is expanding into nothing, or into an area made of dark matter.



....is beyond what our "everything" is.  "Dark matter" would qualify.  But, that is just as speculative as anything else.  The point is that there is no leap of faith in considering another reality exists outside our own.

Then again, it might be a colony of trillions of trolls getting smushed by the minute.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Maybe, I dunno.  The point is that it is logically possible that something, even this......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



After reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

...I think I may have realized that my mental capacity is better suited to the "God did it" camp.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Maybe, I dunno.  The point is that it is logically possible that something, even this......
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Point is, that IF "dark matter" lies beyond everything we "know" then SOMETHING (aka dark matter or whatever) IS beyond and exists outside of the Universe.

Personally I think dark matter exists within our Universe. But if the Universe is expanding it has to be taking up space beyond the Universe therefore it is entirely possible that there are multiple Universes out there beyond our own.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Point is, that IF "dark matter" lies beyond everything we "know" then SOMETHING (aka dark matter or whatever) IS beyond and exists outside of the Universe.
> 
> Personally I think dark matter exists within our Universe. But if the Universe is expanding it has to be taking up space beyond the Universe therefore it is entirely possible that there are multiple Universes out there beyond our own.



Then we are all on the same page now.......as far as this thread goes......


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> After reading this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
> 
> ...I think I may have realized that my mental capacity is better suited to the "God did it" camp.



Yea, I spent about 30 seconds in that link, and thought better of it.

Anywya, it could be dark matter, the point is not "what it is," but more "it could be....." placing something within the logical realm of possibilities.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2013)

What can be included in a logical realm of possibilities?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2013)

I am not so sure there is a defining "edge" to the Universe. There is an edge to what we can see and possibly what we may ever be able to see, but the Universe might very well be infinite or space is full of Universes.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What can be included in a logical realm of possibilities?



Something / anything.  That's the point, we can't rule out alternative existence based on the knowable.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Something / anything.  That's the point, we can't rule out alternative existence based on the knowable.



That is a lot of options.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is a lot of options.



I didn't start the thread to narrow options.  I'm not trying to convert you.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I didn't start the thread to narrow options.  I'm not trying to convert you.



So then is the thread over now that we all are in agreement that whatever is outside (if there is an outside) of the Universe is something/anything?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So then is the thread over now that we all are in agreement that whatever is outside (if there is an outside) of the Universe is something/anything?



It's over when its over.  Kind of out of my hands.

Just glad we can all accept the position that something might exist beyond the knowable as logical.  That's all.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It's over when its over.  Kind of out of my hands.
> 
> Just glad we can all accept the position that something might exist beyond the knowable as logical.  That's all.



Welllllllllllllllll, nothing is concrete about what/where/when the Universe ends and no one is sure if another Universe begins, and no one is sure if space is full of Universes that overlap. Lots of room left before anything is accepted.

Hawking gave a nice speech about the Universe recently:
http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-didnt-god-stephen-hawking-says-180532701.html


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Welllllllllllllllll, nothing is concrete about what/where/when the Universe ends and no one is sure if another Universe begins, and no one is sure if space is full of Universes that overlap. Lots of room left before anything is accepted.
> 
> Hawking gave a nice speech about the Universe recently:
> http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-didn...e universe expanding?  What does science say?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Well, then we are back at the beginning.
> 
> I'll watch the Hawking video, and I saw one a few years back with one of 'your' guys.  I'll have to find it, but the premise is that the laws of gravity mandate the cycles of expansion and contraction. It was basically a scientific explanation of origins....kind-of.
> 
> Anyway, back to the beginning....but let's try this.....is the universe expanding?  What does science say?



Expansion seems to be the most popular answer from the majority of Cosmologists.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2013)

This reply is from here:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=627925
The link the the bottom of this reply goes even deeper into expansion.



> You're misunderstanding what it means for the universe to be expanding. Before I explain, I want to very strongly emphasize a few points.
> 
> 1. The universe has no 'edge'. This is because we model the universe as homogeneous and isotropic. That is, there are no special places. Also, the universe at large is described by general relativity, which describes spacetime as a smooth manifold, which excludes the possibility of an edge.
> 
> ...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 18, 2013)

This seems so illogical... I'm sure it's something that we will understand better in a hundred years... and those people will be looking back at statements like that just like we look back at the world being flat/square.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> This seems so illogical...



Which part?


----------



## mtr3333 (May 6, 2013)

JB I think you know the answer. My thinking on this goes here. If anything has limits, it is limited to and from something else. Therefore, something exists on each side of that limit. "Nothing" is simply something(space)ready to be occupied by something reaching new limits.


----------



## mtr3333 (May 6, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Great post String (I finally got around to watching this).  Interesting points on "infinite."  If the speculation is correct, that the universe cannot be infinite, then that leaves us* considering what is the universe contained within.*
> 
> Now, any guess as to what that is would be speculation.  You and I say "God."  While this exercise does not prove God, it does give the logic to the idea that there is something beyond the knowable.


I responded to your original post before getting this far.


----------

