What if the universe is actually finite?
It probably is.
>>7666244
It is and we know it is you dumbass
The space outside the Universe is the real issue
>>7666244
>outside the Universe
Outside our planet, more planets. Outside our solar system, more solar systems. Outside the galaxy, more galaxies. Outside the universe? Hmm i wonder
>>7666266
On the contrary, outside yourself, we haven't been able to find any people as faggy as you.
>>7666262
No, >>7666247
is right.
We have some mathematical models that can explain and predict what we can observe of the universe, but they are imperfect and can't explain if the universe is 'closed' or not. The balance of gravity, dark energy and other forces should either eventually collapse the universe or expand it indeifinatly until only dispersed energy remains, but some models also suggest that the accelerating expansion of the universe will reach faster then light speeds, violating caustically and perhaps destroying the universe, or changing it into something we would not recognize.
It's also possible our universe is a simulation. If it's possible to simulate a universe within another universe then simulated universes should greatly outnumber non-simulated universes.
That said, we really don't know. Our ideas of the universe can't explain many things about it yet.
>>7666271
What about OP?
>>7666262
Isn't space the concept of the stretching reality since big-bang? How can you refer to something outside the concept of everything?
What do you mean by space outside space? How there can be an outside since space already stretches in all dimensions filling everything
>>7666307
Space-time. Space doesn't exist independently.
>>7666244
The universe is finite in size but not in time. Existence can't come from complete non-existence.
>>7666316
this...
people need to learn to stop applying proofs for the third dim. 1:1 to the fourth dim.
It has to be. We were created from nothing so it must be able to continually do so.
>>7666244
The universe you mean as all there is? Impossible
The universe you mean as the post big bang thing we see? Maybe, but any point you claim to be the end of the universe would be arbitrary.
>>7666316
>What's the Big-Crunch.
>>7666316
>Existence can't come from complete non-existence.
[citation needed]
>>7666316
>Existence can't come from complete non-existence.
We don't fucking know you pretentious undergrad
>>7666341
No, we were created from the debris of some exploded stars. Get your fucking facts straight.
>>7666244
literally who cares
nice b8 op
>>7666316
>Existence can't come from complete non-existence
hot word soup coming up
>>7666316
>Existence can't come from complete non-existence.
What a stupid dumbfuck just kill yourself
>>7666316
>Existence can't come from complete non-existence.
You don't know that.
You base that assumption on knowledge of the universe you live in, a universe in which cause must precede effect, and where every effect has a cause, each cause itself having a cause etc.
You cannot extrapolate the workings of this Universe to things which are outside this Universe. Doing that would be like me assuming that because (almost) all people speak French in my country, (almost) all people speak French. It's a perfectly valid assumption to make that if I meet someone in my country they will speak French, it's just not a valid assumption outside of France.
The truth is, nobody knows if time is infinite or finite, or if existence must precede existence.
>>7666316
Where are you getting that the universe has a finite spatial extent? The observable universe is finite, but that is because light has only been able to propagate for a finite amount of time. The flatness condition allows for an infinite universe as does the model of metric expansion.
>>7666244
Then there's an "edge" where space-time ceases to be relevant.
>>7667212
Then there's an "edge" where this thread ceases to be relevant.
>>7666244
I know this may seem like one of Those retarded "troll thread" kinda questions but I am legitimately wondering, since objects in higher dimensions wouldn't be seen in our dimension is it possible that the mysterious dark matter than holds galaxies together is in fact the gravitional influences of those other dimension objects?
>>7666244
I'd be surprised at the inverse.
The notion of infinity is unfalsifiable and unprovable though. You can only evidence it indirectly, so it' a fairly worthless position to hold.
It's probably like in Pac-Man where you pop up from the other side when you go off the edge.
>>7666278
Well said. We actually have no idea how large the universe is. When we speak of the observable universe, what we mean is how far the Hubble telescope can see.
Infinite in size, finite in time.
Cosmological constant
>>7666311
Also, something like eleven dimensions exist, and we only interact with four of them.
>>7667158
I just came.
>>7667444
This could be true, trips for interest
>>7666316
>Existence can't come from complete non-existence
I don't understand this statement, is it just him trying to sound smart or am I dumb?
>>7667531
Typical aristotle-tier logic suggests you cant get something from nothing. Yet in recent years we have started to quantify what nothing actually is. Many scientists have begun redefining nothing.
To say you need something to make something is also creationist tier garbage. Our universe exhibits the characteristic of a universe that arose from nothing.
>>7667446
Thats a theory, only 11 dimensions in stuff like string theory, as far as we know there are only 3 or 4
>>7667444
>black holes are the result of time space collapse and byproduct a layering of multiverse
TIME TO RESEARCH THIS SHIT MOTHERFUCKERS
>>7666316
>Existence can't come from complete non-existence.
Or that's exactly what happened, has happened before, and will happen again.
>>7666262
>It is and we know it is you dumbass
No we don't.
>>7666244
It's all fucked up already then.
>>7667570
But I swear science also defends to the death that you can't make energy from nothing? If the Big Bang arose from nothing then clearly it was a stupendously huge violation of the first law of thermodynamics?
What if the big bang was god? You know the first page of the Bible. (Never actually read the Bible but I imagine that's the first page Creation) But then that leaves the question out of all the galaxies and planets why Earth. Unless life elsewhere also has the Bible (imagine?).....
Life is crazy yo! We may never find out the truth. But I would rather enjoy my time on Earth doing the shit that i love than live the rest of it wondering.
>>7668480
so you don't know the first thing about religion and you don't know the first thing about cosmology and yet you feel the need to spew your opinion on both
is /sci/ just a place for you to shitpost when you're stoned? do you even study STEM? genuinely curious
>>7666244
And therein lies the difference between mathematics and physics, I like to think otherwise, but I suppose there is a chance, a probability based on the current information we have, that the universe is finite and will end.
>>7666244
>What if the universe is actually finite?
Nothing changes, we can't discover anything outside observable universe anyway.
>>7667137
clearly the cameraman (probably big neil) was just backing away from those galaxies
We dont know if its infinite or finite, a sim or real or a hologram. I keep reading here and the phys sites to find out.
>>7666244
Then Black Holes are literally Universes being cooked up
Simple as that.
>>7669215
>multiverse generators created by eyyy lmao's
>kek
>>7666244
If it is in fact infinite, it will look finite from every point of view except one.
Spatially infinite? Maybe. Temporally infinite? Nah
>>7667137
A theory from the 80's that went out with the Hubble telescope, that people think still might be a thing, because all their education in cosmology comes from watching Cosmos.
The universe is flat. All available data and analysis has pointed to this since 2002, not just hubble, but the background radiation as well. No one in the field worries about the Big Crunch anymore.
...and something can come from nothing, but that involves me linking a silly hour long atheist masterbation video to explain.
>>7670667
No, the universe is nearly flat. I study this at my university, the universe has very low curvature, but as far as we know, it isn't flat.
>>7669231
Ever read the book Contact by Carl Sagan? He envisioned a civilization capable of creating galaxies.
>>7666244
Sixty Symbols just had a video on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJsFsjSWYx0
tl;dw No.
If you want a word for everything you should use 'reality' or 'existence'. Universe has never explicitly meant everything known and unknown.
>>7666271
fucking rekt
>>7670692
The range of error is around 0, and 0 is 100% flat. So no, you can't say it's not flat with absolute certainty...
Sure, it could be open/closed with a very low degree of curvature.
>>7670917
>If you want a word for everything you should use 'reality' or 'existence'.
>Reality.
Is potentially ambiguous, and can be confused with "personal reality" or a personal frame of experience. I started to prefer "actuality" instead. It's not that which seems real, it's that which is actually real with or without you.
>existence
A good deal of people will call you pretentious, or not know exactly what you're referring to. Not good for communication. The other side of that i someone who thinks in the way I described is probably not worth talking with to begin with, so maybe a good heuristic, depending on how you want to look at it.
>Universe has never explicitly meant everything known and unknown.
Universe tends to refer to one whole. The everything.
>>7666244
would probably be a good thing
its still pretty damn big either way
>>7667158
good post
What happens to light which travels to the end of the universe?
>>7666244
So is there any evidence to support that we may be in a multiverse?
Is there even ANY way to find evidence of that if each suniverse is separated from each other.
>>7667212
>The universe is finite, therefore it has an edge.
>The surface area of the Earth is finite, therefore it has an edge.
>>7673056
Both are true. The surface of the Earth IS its edge and the surface of time is the Universe's edge with respect to space.
If I remember my topology, all finite sets must be bounded by edges (though the edge does not necessarily exist within the set).
>>7673010
PacMan rules.
>>7666278
indefinitely*
>>7673021
Things that are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light effectively don't exist to each other. Lest, of course, we find some way to go even faster.
The only evidence I've heard of is a bit of a stretch, but some think there is "bruising" in the cosmic radiation background, indicating that, during its early years, our universe may have been one of many clumped together.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421999/astronomers-find-first-evidence-of-other-universes/
All I'm seeing ITT is people claiming to know shit about something beyond our comprehension.
We'll never know, deal with it.
>>7670892
Cosmological constant.
Its in the post, look it up.
>>7673460
>We'll never know, deal with it.
If everyone shared your mentality we'd still be grunting in caves banging stones together.
IF?
well it has to be... it is made up of finite things, which are quantifiable and thus the sum would have to be quantifiable and thus finite.
but what's beyond the border of our universe? would that be called the megaverse and outside it? maybe the omniverse? obviously if something is contained, there must be a container. and a contain must exist in something and we keep going bigger, giving new names. but the levels would seem to be infinite. and therefore whatever you call it is infinite. ultimately there has to be some unbound "X-verse". usually when i talk about this, i call the infinite part "Eternity" and it encompasses all the layers up to and including itself as the whole of everything. how to truly conceive of such a thing?
>be God. who IS eternal and Creator of eternity and all that is in it.
>>7673668
The observable universe is finite, and the universe as a whole probably has a finite amount of matter and energy in it. That does not necessarily mean that the universe itself is finite.
>>7670662
And the universe, by definition, is "temporally" infinite. Time exists, because the universe does, it's a function of the universe. So time will last, however long the universe does, even if there's no solid matter left in it.
Wait how can it be finite? Isn't the motion of arrow of time and other forces caused by the actual stretch of universe?
What If OP is actually not a faggot?
Wait, It's OP so that can't happen.
>>7673741
What if ops gay autism is infinite?
>>7673737
So many assumptions in that post
>>7668480
get the fuck out
>>7668483
Not him but I'm similar here.
I'm a wagekek but I'm also that "wow duuuuude, scienceeeeee" guy. I come here to read all of your faggots thoughts. Not actually shitposting.
I wish I were smart enough to study physics or mathematics. I was in physics major but during my first semester I quickly realized how fucking dumb I am and that I am just unable to understand all of this. Tried my best but I just fucking couln't.
Now I'm here on /sci/ and try to fit in.
>>7674497
Jesus christ you embody the reddit science fan boy that /sci/ hates above all.
>>7673668
How can you be sure of what you've said?
