Can we leave the universe?

ConroD said:
Not too long after that discovery and the discussion we had, the lead physicist in the experiment resigned and the data was deemed misinterpreted. Since then it's been a constant to-and-fro between observing and debunking. Wish they'd just figure it out already haha.
Click to expand...

oh. well then. But yeah, they need to get their act together if that's the case.
 
I think the USA should take Gurw's advice and increase not just the NASA spending but just science spending overall and then we can have warp drives and fusion and whatever else is needed to explore the universe in a century or less
 
ConroD said:
I'll write up an answer to this in depth when I'm sober, all I'll say for now is.. Going purely by the your points of reference and by (what i assume the text infers) what you think the fundamental laws of physic are, you don't really provide enough of a point or explanation of your question to even ask it.

Look in to M-theory, more-so string theory and multiverse theories that are dominating theoretical physics at the moment, you have based your question and arguments on laws of physics bound to our universe, when the latest evidence points toward fundamental laws being random and i quote 'unnatural'.. that is to say each universe is bound by it's own laws, and by simple reasoning we could understand them, or they could be beyond the comprehension of any sentient being that shares the space we occupy (if there is infact free-thinking species outside of our own solar system) due to an infinite pool of variables, of which we have no understanding (due to our understanding being limited by laws of our own universe, and no other).

^Strong tangent, but part of the reason why we can't leave our own universe, atleast by what we currently understand.

I'm pretty drunk atm, so there may be more flaws than viable points in all that^, but meh.. Bare with me :3.

Also, warp technology. I had no idea it could even be possible until patchy dropped a link in a thread last year and my mind was blown. P.s the speed of light isn't a constant, quantum foam and gravitational lensing are both interesting topics, look in to them because brb sleep and no more typing. ♥

Edit: Also, i haven't read any other post apart from OP so sorry if there's any repeats and stoofs.
Click to expand...

What proof is there of multiple universes? It doesn't make sense to me to explain the existence of our own universe by saying that there is a near infinite number of universes we can't even see.

Phat_N_Masks said:
I don't know much about physics, as I'm just getting into it, but i'll offer a thought.

The time dilation is caused by the near infinite mass caused by going faster than the speed of light right? I may have misinterpreted this wrong, but unless your spaceship is a light-second long and affects a huge part of space, couldn't you cover this distance of the universe expanding around you while time expands it? Also going into expansion, if a patch of space say as big as your spaceship were to expand exponentially because of the gravity from your mass, wouldn't something occur? If you keep expanding in that spot as big as your spaceship couldn't you "rip" space, much like ripping the center out of a tissue?

Oh yea, and the speed of light most likely isn't the fastest speed out there. We have just yet to find something faster and we cannot be so foolish to think that what we know now in the 21st century is the truth and will always be right.
Click to expand...

The only thing is that mass doesn't equate to physical size. I don't know, though. I'm not a physics major either, lol. As for making a "rip" in space, I'm not sure if that's possible or not.

Mightythedj23 said:
So like, just got home from 6+ hour shift plus 7+ hours of school, starting from about 5 am to now, so really tired/too lazy to read every post except The opening, so here we go:

My answer? No. We can't reach the end of the universe, therefore we can't "leave the universe" for a number of reasons.

the first being the Expansion theory, which last i checked, is still under debate if it's solid fact or still a theory. Anyway it states that when the universe began, it expanded, no at a singular point, but EVERYWHERE; everything expanded; The Universe is still expanding even as we speak, so to even "reach the edge of the universe" if one such exists as it it still yet to be proven if there is an edge to the universe, we couldn't because it would basically be like, a dog chasing their own tail.


ConroD brought up the multi-verse theory; For those who dunno (i'm not even sure if you explained it ConroD) The multiverse theory states that there is an infinite number of universes that each universe's reality is any; Anything you can imagine/can't comprehend is quite possibly a universe, going by this theory.

Also, Light is not the fastest thing in the universe; Neutrinos are. They were created/studied in a lab, and were reportedly 1-6 times that of the speed of light; I talked with ConroD on this, and here's the basics of how fast that is:

If I were to send Him a text via using neutrinos, he would have received the text before i even started typing it.

So TL;DR, No, no, Neutrinos and A universe where the beings are living giant noses exists.
Click to expand...

Why would the universe being expanding everywhere at an infinite number of points? Doesn't that contradict the big bang theory?

Also, from the little that I have read, the mass of neutrinos has never been measured accurately, and some argue they have no mass at all. If this is the case, then they still wouldn't be breaking the "universal speed limit" because they would be objects with no mass. The universal speed limit applies to objects that have mass. The word "mass" has so many definitions, though, that we'd probably just end up discussing semantics.

EDIT: I just saw ConroD's post on neutrinos. :alien:
 
Serenity595 said:
What proof is there of multiple universes? It doesn't make sense to me to explain the existence of our own universe by saying that there is a near infinite number of universes we can't even see.



The only thing is that mass doesn't equate to physical size. I don't know, though. I'm not a physics major either, lol. As for making a "rip" in space, I'm not sure if that's possible or not.



Why would the universe being expanding everywhere at an infinite number of points? Doesn't that contradict the big bang theory?

Also, from the little that I have read, the mass of neutrinos of has never been measured accurately, and some argue they have no mass at all. If this is the case, then they still wouldn't be breaking the "universal speed limit" because they would be object with no mass. The universal speed limit applies to objects that have mass. The word "mass" has so many definitions, though, that we'd probably just end up discussing semantics.
Click to expand...

If i may bring us off track for a moment, but it does pertain to this thread; Serenity, you're familiar with dark matter correct? It's a form of matter that as far as my knowledge goes, is completely undetectable by anything we've made thus far; to put it in basics, the only reason there are theories about it in the first place is it seems to have some gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. It's not light reactant, so nothing we have can detect it, like i said. A question about the universe was made by some guy who's name i always forget or whatever, but he asked a simple question:

"If there's all these stars out there, why is it dark?" referring to the fact that in space, even with all the stars (and the distances away from them) why is it so dark? Wouldn't it be a very bright universe? that fact alone contradicts the universe in itself.

This pertains to your saying about the universe expanding everywhere at infinite number of points was condradictory to the big bang theory. While yes it is contradictory to the big bang theory, it seems to me you failed to realize that the big bang theory isn't the only theory on how the universe formed; it's just the most popular one/widely accepted.

And even if the big bang theory is the most widely accepted, doesn't mean it doesn't have it's problems, Namely the horizon problem, flatness problem, and the magnetic monopoles.

Back on topic, you also said that mass has a very large amount of definitions, so how could you accurately describe "the universal speed limit" with an object that has mass, when in itself it seems that even if an object were to have no mass, it could break the speed limit, by the varying definitions of mass, as you stated.

Also, i don't consider myself well versed in Science much; i mean i can get into science, but my knowledge of most topics is..basic. so yeah :D
 
Your reply to my post just reinforces it haha. I'm not willing to scan through my books just to give quotes and acknowledgements man, a quick google search should back my points if you are really interested though.

(For serenity^)
 
Mightythedj23 said:
If i may bring us off track for a moment, but it does pertain to this thread; Serenity, you're familiar with dark matter correct? It's a form of matter that as far as my knowledge goes, is completely undetectable by anything we've made thus far; to put it in basics, the only reason there are theories about it in the first place is it seems to have some gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. It's not light reactant, so nothing we have can detect it, like i said. A question about the universe was made by some guy who's name i always forget or whatever, but he asked a simple question:

"If there's all these stars out there, why is it dark?" referring to the fact that in space, even with all the stars (and the distances away from them) why is it so dark? Wouldn't it be a very bright universe? that fact alone contradicts the universe in itself.

This pertains to your saying about the universe expanding everywhere at infinite number of points was condradictory to the big bang theory. While yes it is contradictory to the big bang theory, it seems to me you failed to realize that the big bang theory isn't the only theory on how the universe formed; it's just the most popular one/widely accepted.

And even if the big bang theory is the most widely accepted, doesn't mean it doesn't have it's problems, Namely the horizon problem, flatness problem, and the magnetic monopoles.

Back on topic, you also said that mass has a very large amount of definitions, so how could you accurately describe "the universal speed limit" with an object that has mass, when in itself it seems that even if an object were to have no mass, it could break the speed limit, by the varying definitions of mass, as you stated.

Also, i don't consider myself well versed in Science much; i mean i can get into science, but my knowledge of most topics is..basic. so yeah :D
Click to expand...

I've heard of dark matter, but I hardly know anything about it. :p

As for the question,"If there's all these stars out there, why is it dark?" There is a legit scientific explanation for that. It's know as the Olbers' paradox. If you have the time, this video explains a lot:


The thing is, it's only a paradox if you think the universe is infinite and has always been there. Modern science says that our universe is finite, so it solves the paradox. To quote Wikipedia:

Poet Edgar Allan Poe suggested that the finite size of the observable universe resolves the apparent paradox.[6] More specifically, because the universe is finitely old and the speed of light is finite, only finitely many stars can be observed within a given volume of space visible from Earth. The density of stars within this finite volume is sufficiently low that any line of sight from Earth is unlikely to reach a star.
Click to expand...

The more you know ~ :p

I agree that the big bang theory is just a theory and it isn't flawless (otherwise, it would be considered fact lol). I haven't really done research on its shortcomings, though.

As for the mass thing, it's all about context. In the context of the universal speed limit, the definition of mass is equivalent to energy in the equation E = mc².

ConroD said:
Your reply to my post just reinforces it haha. I'm not willing to scan through my books just to give quotes and acknowledgements man, a quick google search should back my points if you are really interested though.

(For serenity^)
Click to expand...

I don't see how pointing out the logical flaws in the reasoning behind the M-theory reinforces your point, lol. I've already googled it. That's how I found this logical problem in the first place. XD
 
Serenity595 said:
I've heard of dark matter, but I hardly know anything about it. :p

As for the question,"If there's all these stars out there, why is it dark?" There is a legit scientific explanation for that. It's know as the Olbers' paradox. If you have the time, this video explains a lot:


The thing is, it's only a paradox if you think the universe is infinite and has always been there. Modern science says that our universe is finite, so it solves the paradox. To quote Wikipedia:



The more you know ~ :p

I agree that the big bang theory is just a theory and it isn't flawless (otherwise, it would be considered fact lol). I haven't really done research on its shortcomings, though.

As for the mass thing, it's all about context. In the context of the universal speed limit, the definition of mass is equivalent to energy in the equation E = mc².



I don't see how pointing out the logical flaws in the reasoning behind the M-theory reinforces your point, lol. I've already googled it. That's how I found this logical problem in the first place. XD
Click to expand...


If Modern science has "proved" the universe is finite, then the need to even ask this question was redundant in the first place. Furthermore, if Modern Science has proven anything, it's that the origin of the universe is still unknown to man on both accounts, so it seems that "Modern science" is a pretty lame excuse.

Anyway, the biggest thing here that no one else seemed to realise is that the universe, posed in the OP question isn't really suited for discussion; The universe, as we know it is only the part which is Observable; Meaning only the portion that can be viewed from earth.

Past that, past what the Hubble space Telescope and such, we haven't the slightest clue what else is out there; all we know is based on assumptions and theories; Theories, remind you, aren't solid fact, more like an accepted idea.

With that said, it's rather hard to actually form a complete answer to a question where we really only know about half of what we think when it comes to the universe; the Known universe is about 46 billion light years in radius. keep in mind that's only half of it's true size, supposedly.

Also, from Earlier Serenity, YES, in fact, the universe is still expanding everywhere, the observations from supernovae have proven that; Keep in mind when i say everywhere, i mean what is observable to us.

Because we can't see everything.
 
Although this is true, if we cannot reinforce or at least be sure about any theory proposed for the universe, how are we sure to understand anything about it? Albeit, I understand that any idea proposed is based on prior knowledge of how we can better interpret the universe, but what do you think we should do to possibly better perceive the observable and unobservable universe?
 
Mightythedj23 said:
If Modern science has "proved" the universe is finite, then the need to even ask this question was redundant in the first place. Furthermore, if Modern Science has proven anything, it's that the origin of the universe is still unknown to man on both accounts, so it seems that "Modern science" is a pretty lame excuse.

Anyway, the biggest thing here that no one else seemed to realise is that the universe, posed in the OP question isn't really suited for discussion; The universe, as we know it is only the part which is Observable; Meaning only the portion that can be viewed from earth.

Past that, past what the Hubble space Telescope and such, we haven't the slightest clue what else is out there; all we know is based on assumptions and theories; Theories, remind you, aren't solid fact, more like an accepted idea.

With that said, it's rather hard to actually form a complete answer to a question where we really only know about half of what we think when it comes to the universe; the Known universe is about 46 billion light years in radius. keep in mind that's only half of it's true size, supposedly.

Also, from Earlier Serenity, YES, in fact, the universe is still expanding everywhere, the observations from supernovae have proven that; Keep in mind when i say everywhere, i mean what is observable to us.

Because we can't see everything.
Click to expand...

Which question was redundant? The "Can we leave the universe?" or "Why is it dark at night?"

Also, the origin of the universe is still unknown, yes, although I don't see how "modern science" is a lame excuse as a reference for our universe being finite. Do you think it is not finite?

Lol, science is ALL about what is observable. In my opinion, if you can't observe it directly, it's not science in the traditional sense (where you can test it with the scientific method). At the very least, it's a discipline. I think it's logical for us to make assumptions on the unobservable based on what we can observe, but I admit it's technically theoretical.

I'm still stumped on the "expanding everywhere" part. If that's so, then it's expanding at an infinite number of points. This contradicts the big bang theory, so if you believe it's expanding everywhere, you must come up with another explanation for the origin of the universe to go with it. :p I'm confused about your evidence with the supernovae. How do they prove that the universe is expanding everywhere? To me, it just sounds like it proves that stars blow up. XD

Tai_K_Yagami said:
Although this is true, if we cannot reinforce or at least be sure about any theory proposed for the universe, how are we sure to understand anything about it? Albeit, I understand that any idea proposed is based on prior knowledge of how we can better interpret the universe, but what do you think we should do to possibly better perceive the observable and non-observable universe?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, what seems the most logical should be the accepted view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top