What's at the edge of the universe?
Is the edge of the universe penetrable?
Does it even have an edge?
What's even the geometry of the universe? Is it spherical?
There is no edge, it's infinite, and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.
This is the problem with a finite universe, you can't imagine it. What's outside the edge, then what's outside of whatever that is?
It's illogical to think it's finite.
>>8192480
Could you elaborate more?
>>8192469
>What's at the edge of the universe?
Don't know.
>Is the edge of the universe penetrable?
Don't know if it can bridge like a typical physical space.
>Does it even have an edge?
Don't know.
>What's even the geometry of the universe? Is it spherical?
It's thought to be flat, which doesn't necessarily imply infinity of any sort.
Infinity vs finity is largely feels. The notion that it isn't finite seems nonsensical to me, however. Improbable and almost disjointed with everything else the universe appears to be.
>>8192481
It's either infinite, or it curves in on itself. Having an edge fucks everything up in physics as we know it, so we generally assume that it's no it.
>>8192491
Why does having an edge fuck everything up?
>>8192495
How should I know? Why does 2+2=4? Using the mathematical model of the universe based on our well established physical laws we calculate that the math just doesn't add up when we add an edge. The only other option is that we have the wrong idea about our other laws of physics, but since they are all well experimentally tested, that is out of the question.
>>8192481
If it's infinite, does that mean there is no size difference between the universe now and how it was like 10 billion years ago?
>>8192501
Not to sound hostile, but these statements sound a bit inane when you don't know anything about the edge to begin with.
>>8192505
What edge?
>>8192505
We know that general relativity is the most accurate model of spacetime in existence, and we know that it makes experimentally false predictions when a bounded universe is imposed. I haven't studied it (yet), so I can't personally tell you how.
>>8192511
>We know that general relativity is the most accurate model of spacetime in existenc
Considering time doesn't even exist, no.
>>8192515
time or Time?
>>8192516
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvpbW7JRu0Q
>>8192518
That is one shmexy accent
>>8192511
Simply being "bounded" is irrelevant, again, if you don't know anything about the nature of the edge. In what way is it an "edge", how does it behave. Is it simply a wall, is it passable to certain things, is it passable to anything. Are there novel force carriers almost like a membrane that act as translation bridges.
I get very tired of us not knowing shit but acting otherwise. Just admit it and move on. Who even cares, it's not like you'll ever have the means to prove anything is infinite to begin with nor will you or our species likely explore even a fraction of the finite observable universe.
It's all very childish.
the edge of the universe is made up of concentrated space-time foam and strings
it feels soft like silk, but also damp and spongy
i'm not sure what its youngs modulus is or if anyone has measured it yet, but i'd assume its deformable (it has to be)
>>8192526
You're the one that's being childish m8. Look, the current laws of physics, as we know them, predict the universe that is either infinite, or curves in on itself. Most of us are in an agreement on this. Not sure where you hang around, but nobody is claiming to know everything about everything. You either take it the way it is, or you don't.
>>8192532
>nobody is claiming to know everything about everything.
>You either take it the way it is, or you don't.
>No one is claiming to know everything
>Take it the way it is
Take a look at what you just said.
Think you gotta make up your mind m8. Like I said, infinity and finity is all about the feels. You have to be realistic and epistemologically sound when brandishing these big ol' opinions of yours.
>>8192530
Or you can just accept this mighty fine and detailed story as a headcanon. Sure beats worrying about it for no reason.
>>8192539
I...what...are you...on... about?
>>8192526
>if you don't know anything about the nature of the edge.
Please stop speaking as if there definitively is an edge.
>In what way is it an "edge", how does it behave. Is it simply a wall, is it passable to certain things, is it passable to anything.
I am suggesting that there ISN'T one, but if there WAS, no one knows.
>I get very tired of us not knowing shit but acting otherwise.
No one is acting like we know anything. We're telling you what is consistent and what is inconsistent with our most accurate models of prediction. For obvious reasons, we lean towards what is consistent as more accurate models of the universe will be similar to current models in many ways.
>Just admit it and move on.
Wise words for yourself -- you don't know either. I can only tell you the facts which entirely have to do with mathematical equations that we find to be very accurate for many of the testable parts of the universe. My mistake for assuming that's what you wanted to hear.
>>8192543
I think you ought to finish your undergrad before you around using words like "us". At least then you've sort of earned the group security.
>>8192546
>before you around using
I think you should take up your own advice and finish high school first.
>>8192545
>Please stop speaking as if there definitively is an edge.
I have done no such thing. I only demand a lack of near religious dogmatic thinking. Stop acting like you're hoping you'll be initiated into the tribe.
>>8192549
>I only demand a lack of near religious dogmatic thinking. Stop acting like you're hoping you'll be initiated into the tribe.
I've explained to you that it is not dogmatic, it is the most consistent with our mathematical models. Only an idiot would claim it is irrefutable fact about the universe itself. You are either acting like a child, or baiting.
>>8192548
People resorting to picking out mental typos, or word duplication / omission as errors has a beautiful sort of irony to it. It says you're too stupid to fill in the blank.
Human logic demands dualisms, and they can be pretty great.
>>8192554
I'm communicating with a degenerate who has ignored what I've said, multiple times. It's as though you don't have the means to understand, it slips through a logical blind spot.
Too bad there Mr. Man.
>>8192555
I believe you just might be retarded. Is there an edge to you retardedness or is it infinite? If so, where would you put said edge? In what way is it an edge? And most importantly does anything get through it, such as reason and logic?
>>8192469
Do you expect a brick wall?
>>8192556
Bait it is.
>>8192561
Humans are machines of finite mind. Therefore, relative "retardation", with a well defined metric, can be quantized and is most certainly finite.
>>8192495
What happens when you blast the edge with a massive projectile? Does the entire universe shift?
>>8192564
I think he was expecting some kind of energy barrier.
The universe is probably shaped like a bubble and beyond it is probably other spherical shaped universes. What's in between? I dunno.
I have to ask, is everyone on this board so hostile?
>>8192575
Kind of.
>>8192575
Depending on which buttons you push.
>>8192590
You should make a thread about a stationary object.
>>8192575
Which side are you talking to? OP became an angry child because responses were against his pet theory. Others did not like that.
>>8192593
I'm not the OP, and I'm also not the one wandering around hanging my everything on next to nothing while claiming to know much of anything about everything. Especially edges.
>>8192598
You didn't read my posts itt if you think that scientists claim to know the truth. Reasons against it due to our current models were given. They are not infallible, but there is good reason to care about them.
>>8192605
It's actually you who isn't reading my posts proper, so you know.
>>8192608
Not that guy but I agree you're not really being coherent. Care to try again?
>>8192608
Didn't realize I was still responding to the idiot. Clarify what you think I missed clearly, since obviously it wasn't communicated well, or fuck off with your bait.
>>8192481
>It's illogical to think it's finite.
How do you go from a point to infinity in a finite amount of time? When did universe became so big, that it's infinite? Was it quarter of infinity ten seconds after Big Bang and half of infinity in eleven?
>>8192629
If the universe is infinite, it was always infinite, an infinite universe can still expand.
That is not the only way the universe can be unbounded.
>>8192635
>If the universe is infinite, it was always infinite
>retards actually believe this
>>8192635
>it was always infinite
A point is infinite?
>>8192610
The main problem with the guy (presumably) I've been talking to is he's consistently trying to reframe what I'm saying into a variant of the "we don't veritably know everything, therefore, we don't know anything" type of argument. He then loops back on himself to rephrase is initial position in a way that pretends to be a response relative to what I've said, but it actually does little to connect in any way to the substance of the conversation. Little is added from the last iteration, all of these "cycles" are just as compartmentalized as the last. It's an obvious indication of some form of dissonance or intellectual dishonesty.
Ignoring that poster, I'm more or less saying you can't factor a local system (which is the "edge") into a calculation without knowing anything about it. Is every single point the "edge", as the universe just loops back on itself and if you travel far enough you'll go back roughly where you started? Is it a true edge, that delineates what we would call our "universe" (which make no mistake, is not a term that is able to be well defined) from something "else"? Is our possibly flat universe completely self contained, or is it in some manner "open"? Does it interface with other universes in some way, or other entities we likely haven't the means or faculty for thought to think up. Is the outer of the universe a membrane. Can energy slip or be transported through, how about "dark matter". Do the effects of any other force carriers do anything, are there novel forces present.
Use logic, honesty + imagination. List goes on. You can't speak of calculating for an edge without implicitly assuming you have reasonably specific parameters for it, and can prove your base axioms.
It's a waste of time. I'm fine with people coming out with probability based opinions, I'm not fine with undergrads (or less) running around, and running their mouths, so they can feel secure fitting in with the tribe and prevailing ideas of the time.
>What's at the edge of the universe?
On the inside of the edge, it'll just be space. On the outside of the edge, it'll be whatever lies outside of the universe, or it might not even be that, the universe might have no edges and just loops.
>Is the edge of the universe penetrable?
No because ftl methods require teleporting to a place in space in addition to going at or near light speed, and since the universe expands at light speed, it is impossible to penetrate it.
>Does it even have an edge?
This is currently unknown.
What's even the geometry of the universe? Is it spherical?
Honestly, just look it up, you'll see diagrams that I have no idea how to describe lol.
>>8192642
Also, I ran out of characters. But don't forget what Planck said.
"Science progresses one funeral at a time." There isn't a single goddamn reason he should be right, but he was, and he still is. There are reasons for this, and the behaviors, feedback loops, and support structures that form and layer around otherwise obvious stupidity. The human species is biased towards terrible dynamics.
Time to grow up.
>>8192469
>What's at the edge of the universe?
No edge. You eventually return to same place you started. Look it up. That's the established theory.
>>8192642
>Ignoring that poster, I'm more or less saying you can't factor a local system (which is the "edge") into a calculation without knowing anything about it. Is every single point the "edge", as the universe just loops back on itself and if you travel far enough you'll go back roughly where you started? Is it a true edge, that delineates what we would call our "universe" (which make no mistake, is not a term that is able to be well defined) from something "else"? Is our possibly flat universe completely self contained, or is it in some manner "open"? Does it interface with other universes in some way, or other entities we likely haven't the means or faculty for thought to think up. Is the outer of the universe a membrane. Can energy slip or be transported through, how about "dark matter". Do the effects of any other force carriers do anything, are there novel forces present.
Half of these suggested concepts overlap or repeat each other which gives me the impression you are utterly uneducated in this topic.
>I'm fine with people coming out with probability based opinions
Which is what I did.
> I'm not fine with undergrads (or less) running around, and running their mouths, so they can feel secure fitting in with the tribe and prevailing ideas of the time.
Maybe you should take your own advice and stop "consistently trying to reframe" my words.
>>8192649
>"Science progresses one funeral at a time."
I completely agree.
>There isn't a single goddamn reason he should be right,
I completely disagree.
>The human species is biased towards terrible dynamics.
Also known as the human condition.
>Time to grow up.
Time to read the posts of who you're arguing with instead of being more interested in argument for the sake of argument.
>>8192657
Your above posts speak for themselves.
Pretend you didn't write them, and never spoke to me. Go back and re-read our conversation.
You'll likely find you're at the least, equally obnoxious.
>Half of these suggested concepts overlap or repeat each other which gives me the impression you are utterly uneducated in this topic.
This statement doesn't make sense and gives me the impression your manner of thinking is probably pretty broken.
0/10, Anon, Mr. Man.
Good night.
>>8192661
>I completely disagree.
We're too different to bother having a conversation. Even saying the same thing we would argue because we happen to be speaking about different things from the same angle. Different mindset. Very incompatible theory of mind. Very different heuristics. Probably different interests as well.
Who cares.
Good night.
>Is the edge of the universe penetrable?
my dick say yes
>>8192663
>This statement doesn't make sense and gives me the impression your manner of thinking is probably pretty broken.
>Is every single point the "edge", as the universe just loops back on itself and if you travel far enough you'll go back roughly where you started?
This is called unbounded but finite.
> Is it a true edge, that delineates what we would call our "universe"
This is called bounded.
>from something "else"?
This is not necessary.
>Is our possibly flat universe completely self contained
This is tangential.
> or is it in some manner "open"?
This would be finite and bounded with a ~permeable boundary~ and is still tangential.
>Does it interface with other universes in some way, or other entities we likely haven't the means or faculty for thought to think up.
Finite and bounded, tangential.
>Is the outer of the universe a membrane.
No one knows, tangential.
>Can energy slip or be transported through, how about "dark matter".
No one knows, tangential.
>Do the effects of any other force carriers do anything, are there novel forces present.
Tangential, tangential.
Read a textbook instead of pop science or scifi.
>>8192673
Way to focus on one line and flounce. I think agreeing on the fact that the quote IS right shows that with different mindsets we come to a similar conclusion, you are insisting on being argumentative.
>>8192682
>This is called
>This is
Your entire problem. You're rigidly stuck in a logical framework you feel is safe and familiar, so you try to force the dialogue onto your terms. Still just more framing and reframing, and unfortunately, this is a case where there's no real utility or greater meaning in doing so.
Whether you think you're here to educate, or you're not capable of anything else, things like:
>No one knows
must naturally follow, despite being disjointed. You're not willing to consider anything you don't already have neatly filed away, and mask it pretty pathetically. I translate to, if not bother to speak, at least understand your language. You're incapable of unwilling to do the same, which makes you intellectual gutter trash.
I'm in a lot of pain. You're not outputting anything of value (your terms aren't unfamiliar).
Night Anon, and grow up. Don't spend your whole life an educated moron.
Because we can see back in time, the farthest we can see is the big bang. The universe is a 4d sphere, as we can tell by the expansion of the universe.
>>8192697
>you tell me the commonly accepted terminology for discussing these ideas, that is IMPOSING YOUR LOGIC ONTO ME
>you're not WILLING TO CONSIDER my tangential ideas or multiple methods of describing a concept I do not realize are equivalent
I'd have been willing to be more accommodating if you weren't such a hostile brat at every opportunity. I end on this note: anything is possible, but it's worth reading up on what those who have spent decades thinking about these ideas have to say about it. I absolutely do consider weird shit, but I generally run into contradictions that have already been discovered by others. They can't tell you what is true, but they can give you some advice about what appears to have problems and why.
Goodnight.
>>8192710
>if you weren't such a hostile brat at every opportunity.
And yet you're the same way from my perspective. What does this tell us?
>anything is possible
I kind of agree. I'd say the universe resembles a finite state machine. Some things can be deemed mechanically impossible relative to a given system, starting state, and window of time.
>but it's worth reading up on what those who have spent decades thinking about these ideas have to say about it.
Yes.
>They can't tell you what is true, but they can give you some advice about what appears to have problems and why.
True, but ultimately you usually recreate large portions of the avenue that they traveled down either way, only as a different machine in a different context. That's just how it pans out.
If you are fortunate to have relationships like these in your life, they can provide a lot.
>>8192503
Yes that's correct.
>>8192469
the edge of OUR universe is the outer regions of the singularity of an outside black hole.
>>8192888
well it would seem like a singularity from the outside
As a renowned astrophysicist I can confirm that the universe is infinite and not finite as I've personally travelled through space far enough to determine this shit has no end.
>>8192480
Got any scientific data to back it up?
>>8192914
some day you're gonna die :(
>What's at the edge of the universe?
the universe
>>8192469
>What's at the edge of the universe?
Some guys with a Hubble-level space telescope doing an ultra deep field study, and pointing at our primordial Milky Way galaxy, saying, "Dude...see this teeny, insignificant speck? It's an early galaxy only a HALF BILLION YEARS OLD!"
I don't know about the shape of the universe but I know anyone who repeats the "imagine dots on the surface of an expanding baloon" meme hasn't the slightest idea what they are talking about. Yeah, you sound cool, here is your medal, go home
This solves nothing
your death
with your dad's cock
yes
no its FrAcTaL
Do you guys think that, following the big bang, the universe instantly started moving outward faster than the speed of light?
If so, wouldn't this mean it would be (theoretically) possible for us to see light as arbitrarily close to the moment the big bang happend as we want?
>>8192914
deez nuts
>>8192518
>science man
what the fuck, is this a joke?
>>8192481
It can be finite without having an edge
>>8192505
>don't know anything about the edge to begin with
What is there to know? It doesnt exist
>>8193009
In <
>>8192639
yes
There's literally nothing outside of the universe. You will never penetrate the edge of the universe, because it's impossible to reach it. Even if you get teleported a few miles away from it in a ship that's moving with the speed of light, you will still be unable to reach it, because of how fast the universe is expanding.
Is in this, we say the universe if infinite.
>>8192635
>>8192639
>>8192637
>>8192629
You're just talking past each other.
The expansion of the universe is measured by the rate at which objects move away from each other. So a finite amount of matter is expanding into an infinite amount of space.
I guess the edge of the universe is empty space beyond all matter contained in the big-bang.
The truth is postulating 'matter' that exists independent of our perception of it is just bad science. We know at the very least perception exists. And we perceive matter. To then say that matter exists outside of our perceptions is making additional unnecesarry assumptions. Occam's Razor.
>outside
>universe
does not compute
>>8192744
lol moron
>>8192469
I like this picture
>>8192950
ya freekn nell'd it dewd
>>8192469
My ass.
>>8193352
It's possible to increase your perception 90x times beyond but most have died doing this. There's a level of stability that needs to be achieved. Hence you can"t just "become" anything you want and like. There's a natural order of things, a balance so to speak. Anyways...won't say much here. Aliens and robots may use this conversation againt us by means of time travel so be aware.
+++ fixing the planet +++
fixing co2 and methan (number 1 greenhousegas)
by fixing overpopulation. helping the nature to rebuild.
1) send rocket to asteroid-belt
2) rocket has robot who equips asteroids with little rocket engines
3) send asteroids to earth and let it crash on India & co
pros:
+ they would never figure out what or who hit them
+ maximum devastation
+ no radioation
+ its bio
cons:
?
any cons /sci?
>>8192469
We don't know. It's only hinted at with the Planck telescope but other universes may be beyond our universe. If true something would have to be controlling that so other universes don't invade our own. A unified field theory of administrating multiple universes perhaps.. What shape is the universe? Apparently everything is circles.
>>8192469
The Universe have no edge.
It's infinite or It's expanding infinitely.
Who fucking cares
>>8192469
if you start running a marathon and the finish line moves faster away from you than you can imagine, how could you descibe what is behind the finish line? you are trapped on the track and all you can do is run
>>8193352
>So a finite amount of matter is expanding into an infinite amount of space.
No. Space was finite and contained in one point at the Big Bang. Get your theories straight.
>>8193367
Needlessly unkind.
>>8192575
>I have to ask, is everyone on this board so hostile?
pic related
>>8193801
Obviously everyone that talks about it, and asks questions about it. If you weren't aware, different people have different interests. That's the fun thing about opinions: everyone can have them, regardless how shitty. Hence your opinion.
Please think before you post.
>>8193331
>Im fractal bitch
>>8193331
Isn't that contradictory?
>>8193432
>be beyond our unive
If you could fly out of our universe and eventually land on another one, wouldn't it just be "more galaxies in our universe" ?
>>8192503
The size of the observable universe changes, as does the distance between stuff, but the size of the total universe is infinite. Our universe is probably something like a giant sphere. So humongous it appears flat to us.
>>8193422
Wiping out all life?
if we dont discover FTL travel, then yes, the universe is finite for us. Objects farther than approx 2.5 times the current radius of the observaable universe can never have a causal connection with us. If the universe is negatively curved, it may be possible for one to travel in a direction, and get back to the starting spot. However it would take the observer to travel at least 18 times the size of the observable universe, only if the universe froze for the intire duration.
Here's a good video explaining it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwwIFcdUFrE
>>8194479
No. As an analogy, a hollow sphere (which is a 2-dimensional surface) is finite, but doesn't have an edge. The universe could be e.g. a 4-dimensional space analogous to a sphere (if you know a bit of maths, a closed 4-dimensional manifold, or a product of a 3-dimensional closed manifold with R, representing time).
