The Universe, what exactly is it?

[Bobthebeast666]

Im just wondering how the universe is infinite.

[Donkey]

That's what everyone wants to know, but doesn't.

[Commander Thor]

Im just wondering how the universe is infinite.

The Universe itself is finite.
It's expansion, however, is infinite.

[Bobthebeast666]

That's what everyone wants to know, but doesn't.

True. Hopefully someone will come along with the answer

[Donkey]

I don't think VT will be the first place where someone will prove the existence, creation or their understanding of the universe.

[Iceman]

I don't think VT will be the first place where someone will prove the existence, creation or their understanding of the universe.

He has no hope for us:(. But its true:P

[Quahog]

Why wouldn't the universe be infinite? I don't want the world to end anytime soon. I love this planet.

[Magus]

Why wouldn't the universe be infinite? I don't want the world to end anytime soon. I love this planet.
Are we talking about space... or are we talking about time?

Spacewise, I'd say finite.

Timewise, finite, too. We are also facing redshift(stuff coming closer), it is one of the things that supports big crunch.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/big-crunch-theory-big-bounce.jpg

So, yes. Sorry to say this to fellow transhumanists, we might have escaped the biological death, but we cannot escape the cosmic death.

[Amnesiac]

The universe is not infinite, not at all.

Also, you should read my explanation of the Big Bang theory (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1132618&postcount=1701).

[Peace God]

redshift(stuff coming closer)
You mean "blue"shift I think.
We are also facing , it is one of the things that supports big crunch.

Image (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/big-crunch-theory-big-bounce.jpg)

So, yes. Sorry to say this to fellow transhumanists, we might have escaped the biological death, but we cannot escape the cosmic death.
I'm open to any evidence you provide, but as I've said before it think that the big crunch is unlikely for these reasons...
Actually i dont think the "big crunch" will happen. This universe is still expanding at an exponential rate and Its been discovered recently that the universe is actually flat...because of this the fate of the universe is most likely expansion forever.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and heres some sources for my view on the shape(flat) and fate(expanding forever) of the universe.

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

WMAP- Shape of the Universe (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)

Absent dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching a fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. ~ Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Flat_universe)

[Magus]

You mean "blue"shift I think.
Yes, yes - my bad. :whoops:

I'm open to any evidence you provide, but as I've said before it think that the big crunch is unlikely for these reasons...
That's interesting. Changed my views a bit on universe.

But I never understood the shape of the universe. Some says it is flat, some says it is ovoid, some says it is interlinking-donuts shaped. Really confusing me.

So, if universe expands forever, that means the space of the universe in infinite?

And according to the Hubble law, each galactic body will have a gap almost infinitely from one another if the universe is expanding forever?

[Peace God]

But I never understood the shape of the universe. Some says it is flat, some says it is ovoid, some says it is interlinking-donuts shaped. Really confusing me.
Those are just hypothesis as far as I know.
So, if universe expands forever, that means the space of the universe in infinite?
No. If i'm not mistaken the universe is more like a balloon in that it has a border (wall, limit edge, etc...). This means that it can never be infinite. I'm pretty sure it works like xbox360922 said... "The Universe itself is finite. It's expansion, however, is infinite".

And according to the Hubble law, each galactic body will have a gap almost infinitely from one another if the universe is expanding forever?
I'm not familiar with Hubble Law, but yeah that seems like it would make sense. Contrary to the "Big Crunch" theory in which the huge imbalances in gravity(like black holes) eventually overpower any expansion, a continually expanding universe would eventually overcome even the strongest gravitational forces(like black holes).

Yes, yes - my bad. :whoops:
Nah, it's cool yo. :P
I was just finding out which one you meant exactly.

[Magus]

No. If i'm not mistaken the universe is more like a balloon in that it has a border (wall, limit edge, etc...). This means that it can never be infinite. I'm pretty sure it works like xbox360922 said... "The Universe itself is finite. It's expansion, however, is infinite".

This is how I understand the universe.
http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=1487&pictureid=16061

If there is no big crunch, then that means the cycle of death and rebirth never happened?

Or, perhaps - like a balloon, it has a limit. Burst, and all the gravity stuff pull everything together... wait.. I thought two black holes negate each other.

I am confused again. :confused:

[Peace God]

This is how I understand the universe.
Image (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=1487&pictureid=16061)

I think we need to look at it without anything outside. Nothing exists past the wall, not even empty space.
If there is no big crunch, then that means the cycle of death and rebirth never happened?
Probably. Unless there's another way for a universe to be reborn without having to recompress everything into a singularity, I don't see how it can happen.

... wait.. I thought two black holes negate each other.

I am confused again. :confused:
Whuh? Really?
Now I'm confused too lol.

[Bluesman]

For all we know it could have an end... but we'll never know :)

[Magus]

I think we need to look at it without anything outside. Nothing exists past the wall, not even empty space.
Why shouldn't we? I am pretty much curious of what's outside the walls.

Btw, if there is a wall. That means, universe is an isolated system. So, is my diagram accurate?
Probably... happen.What's the other way?
Whuh? Really? Now I'm confused too lol.
Nothing here. I just got that from some silly Chinese cartoon documentary.

[brandon.t]

I look at the universe like a bunch of dirt and pebbles planets.........

[Peace God]

Why shouldn't we? I am pretty much curious of what's outside the walls.
Like I said, I don't see what can possibly exist outside of our universe.
That means, universe is an isolated system. So, is my diagram accurate?
I'd make it an oval shaped .gif if I were you.
like dis!...
http://www.rubyart.com/oldsite/mosaics/oval/oval.gif


What's the other way?
That's my point, I don't think there is any other way.

[Magus]

Like I said, I don't see what can possibly exist outside of our universe.
Another universe?
nZiROWO6iVs

I'd make it an oval shaped .gif if I were you.
like dis!...
Image (http://www.rubyart.com/oldsite/mosaics/oval/oval.gif)I thought mine is oval...

That's my point, I don't think there is any other way.
Shame on universe. :judge:

[Alaph]

True. Hopefully someone will come along with the answer

Not possible.

[embers]

All I know about the word 'multiverse' is that Terry Pratchett uses it a lot.

But surely if there were more universes outside of our own, and they were all expanding, they'd overlap or crush each other?

[Magus]

But surely if there were more universes outside of our own, and they were all expanding, they'd overlap or crush each other?
I think that's what M-Theory is about. Overlapping universes propagated this universe.

[embers]

I think that's what M-Theory is about. Overlapping universes propagated this universe.

Ah, even the explanation of M-Theory on the simpler version of wikipedia baffles me. But I've heard of the whole string thing (though not in detail) from a book that explained the science behind Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy.

[gingeylover14]

scientist say the universe is constantly expanding and will infinitivly... based on my religion and pensonal belifes i think it is expanding but that space and time will eventualy come 2 an end (see the book of revalations in the christian bible) i also belive that once the end of the world comes earthly time will cease and we will not have time nor space to be concerened about due to the fact that you will be eternialy (infinitivly) in heaven or hell

[Magus]

scientist say the universe is constantly expanding and will infinitivly... based on my religion and pensonal belifes i think it is expanding but that space and time will eventualy come 2 an end (see the book of revalations in the christian bible) i also belive that once the end of the world comes earthly time will cease and we will not have time nor space to be concerened about due to the fact that you will be eternialy (infinitivly) in heaven or hellPlease guys, don't start on her. It's her believes!

Sorry sis. This thread isn't about believes, it is about scientific hypothesis which are loosely based on actual empirical evidences.

God, I love that word 'empirical'. In metaphysics, I am a sceptic. But in Science, I am an empiricist -- I don't trust in mathematical models only.

[Amnesiac]

scientist say the universe is constantly expanding and will infinitivly... based on my religion and pensonal belifes i think it is expanding but that space and time will eventualy come 2 an end (see the book of revalations in the christian bible) i also belive that once the end of the world comes earthly time will cease and we will not have time nor space to be concerened about due to the fact that you will be eternialy (infinitivly) in heaven or hell

Why do you trust the Bible, a 2000-year-old book with dubious authorship and translation issues, over modern scientific studies that are backed up with enormous databases of evidence?

[Magus]

Why do you trust the Bible, a 2000-year-old book with dubious authorship and translation issues, over modern scientific studies that are backed up with enormous databases of evidence?Why u no listen?
Please guys, don't start on her. It's her believes!
But it is awww-right.

[Amnesiac]

Why u no listen?

But it is awww-right.

Sorry Faris, but the urge was too strong.

[Deathwingo0o]

How do you define finite? Can be contained? If that is so, I don't think(I cannot) understand what is bigger than the universe. Best guess, we are all in a marble that is a toy of aliens. Credits to MiB.

[ponygon101]

The universe expands outwards, in all directions, constantly and eventually, the universe will eventually go back into it self and we will all go back to how it was in the beginning as an unimaginably tiny, dense space.

[Deathwingo0o]

The universe expands outwards, in all directions, constantly and eventually, the universe will eventually go back into it self and we will all go back to how it was in the beginning as an unimaginably tiny, dense space.

Okaaay but if you expand outwards, what is beyond that?

[Magus]

Okaaay but if you expand outwards, what is beyond that?Teh Void.
http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=1487&pictureid=16061

[Peace God]

...the universe will eventually go back into it self and we will all go back to how it was in the beginning as an unimaginably tiny, dense space.
You didn't read the thread.
Teh Void.

There is no void Faris.

http://www.rubyart.com/oldsite/mosaics/oval/oval.gif

[Magus]

There is no void Faris.
Image (http://www.rubyart.com/oldsite/mosaics/oval/oval.gif)Stop hotlinking, man! :P And, I don't see any difference between my home brewed universe and that hotlinked ellipses.

Okay, if there is no void. Then what's there?

[Peace God]

I don't see any difference between my home brewed universe and that hotlinked ellipses.
Yours has space outside of the universe...mine doesn't. Excluding possible parallel universes, nothing can exist outside of our universe...not even empty space.
Okay, if there is no void. Then what's there?
I don't know, I haven't been to the edge of the universe in a while.:rolleyes:

[Deathwingo0o]

Yours has space outside of the universe...mine doesn't. Excluding possible parallel universes, nothing can exist outside of our universe...not even empty space.

I don't know, I haven't been to the edge of the universe in a while.:rolleyes:

Then it is not unlimited as no one can prove that it is not. It is within something. 4th dimension anyone?

[Peace God]

Then it is not unlimited
That's right the universe isn't infinite. (as ive said several times already)

If I'm not mistaken, physicists don't even like dealing with the concept of infinity...because it doesn't really make sense at all in the physical(real) world.

[embers]

If I'm not mistaken, physicists don't even like dealing with the concept of infinity...because it doesn't really make sense at all in the physical(real) world.

That's just being pussy though, isn't it? Not liking dealing with infinity because it's such a baffling concept?

Meh, I love the idea of infinity. Like Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel).

[Peace God]

That's just being pussy though, isn't it? Not liking dealing with infinity because it's such a baffling concept?
Actually, I think that one could argue the opposite. Accepting something as extremely large but still finite is much more work than saying it's infinite.

You can't really do much with infinity in the real world...try finding the density of something whose volume is infinity feet squared or whose mass is infinity grams. It would also be impossible prove anything as infinite. Basically, it's just a concept that doesn't work out very well for physicists.

[embers]

Actually, I think that one could argue the opposite. Accepting something as extremely large but still finite is much more work than saying it's infinite.

You can't really do much with infinity in the real world...try finding the density of something whose volume is infinity feet squared or whose mass is infinity grams. It would also be impossible prove anything as infinite. Basically, it's just a concept that doesn't work out very well for physicists.

True. But infinity is useful in quite some hypothetical situations, right?

[Magus]

True. But infinity is useful in quite some hypothetical situations, right?Teh Golden Ratio - for the fractals.
http://makingsenseofmaths.com.au/wp-content/photos/orig_phi_spiral.jpg

[Alaph]

True. But infinity is useful in quite some hypothetical situations, right?

Yes, a lot of science is worked out like that.

[Name]

My theory i call it the tipped glass theory haha. Pour a glass of water on a table and watch it expand outward, the amount of water doesn't change, just how thinly its spread out on the table... this question arises, if the universe is the water... who or what was the glass, and who or what is the table

[Deathwingo0o]

Lol. The problem is always with the table.

[Deathwingo0o]

I hope I'm not bumping old threads.

If we use an orange as the sun and a small rubber ball as an object traveling at constant velocity, what happens when we roll it across the table is it will roll straight ahead. However, this is not the real case. Therefore, space is not a table (2D).
It will roll inwards towards the sun instead, beyond the x and y axis into the z axis, which can also be called curvature of space.
Now, as we all may know Einstein proved that on a stronger gravity, time passed slower. Hence, time around the sun decreases and the space increases since conservation of space and time must be maintained.
If we take into account amount of black holes appearing, time passes slower in a lot of regions since they are collapsing stronger and stronger, hence space increases more and more. This causes space to become larger and larger.
Until we can find time, we cannot find the space as if (e=mc2), we cannot travel at a speed faster than light. The furthest are observed takes light 250 million years to arrive. Hence proving space is impossible but can be deduced assuming it does not even expand.
Please correct me and allow me to modify if I'm wrong.

[Peace God]

True. But infinity is useful in quite some hypothetical situations, right?
RF Frequencies
I hope I'm not bumping old threads.

If we use an orange as the sun and a small rubber ball as an object traveling at constant velocity, what happens when we roll it across the table is it will roll straight ahead. However, this is not the real case. Therefore, space is not a table (2D).
It will roll inwards towards the sun instead, beyond the x and y axis into the z axis, which can also be called curvature of space.
Now, as we all may know Einstein proved that on a stronger gravity, time passed slower. Hence, time around the sun decreases and the space increases since conservation of space and time must be maintained.
If we take into account amount of black holes appearing, time passes slower in a lot of regions since they are collapsing stronger and stronger, hence space increases more and more. This causes space to become larger and larger.
Until we can find time, we cannot find the space as if (e=mc2), we cannot travel at a speed faster than light. The furthest are observed takes light 250 million years to arrive. Hence proving space is impossible but can be deduced assuming it does not even expand.
Please correct me and allow me to modify if I'm wrong.
Well first of all the universe does expand...we know its expanding now because of Hubble and red shift and we know that its fate seems to be expanding forever (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1161317#post1161317).
I do like this explanation but I think it starts to fall apart when you employ the "conservation of space and time" thing. Technically since time moves slower around objects of higher mass I think the time would be increasing rather than decreasing.

Im don't really see how you got to the conclusion at all either:

"Until we can find time, we cannot find the space as if (e=mc2), we cannot travel at a speed faster than light. The furthest are observed takes light 250 million years to arrive. Hence proving space is impossible but can be deduced assuming it does not even expand."

I get what you were saying in the first parts but the ending seems to be a jump and is confusing.

[Spook]

Agreed.

I don't really think that the universe is INFINATE, it seems impossible, but I can't be correct no matter how long I ponder it.

There is a theory that the universe is still expanding, that the big bang started this expansion, and it's going from there.

But if you drop something into water and watch the circular ripples move out from the source, it eventually ends, right? Well, I wonder if it is the same with the universe. That one day the expanding will end, and it won't be infinate.

I also wonder about black holes, and worm holes. Theres another theory that if you put your finger in one your finger will appear somewhere else lightyears away.

One of my own wonderings is that when we explored the universe, we were just going around in a big circle, and it was alot smaller than we thought, but I guess we will never know.

Wow, this thread got me thinking. :D

[anonymous.john]

The theory that I accept is the Big Bang Cosmological Origin theory, but my ideas are:

1: The universe is undergoing constant expansion to the point where it will contract ("Crunch") into singularity, then it will expand ("bang") again, and expand again, and so on. The universe "oscillates" in this manner.

2. The universe is finite but unbounded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

3. There is only one universe that matters for our universe. Until there is evidence of another universe, I will consider the existence of such absolutely irrelevant.

[Deathwingo0o]

Then may I ask if universe is finite what would be it's range? Nothingness. Then the equation would not be valid.

[ManyPearTree]

Then may I ask if universe is finite what would be it's range? Nothingness. Then the equation would not be valid.

What is the equation if I may ask?

[AnnaxSanity]

Then may I ask if universe is finite what would be it's range? Nothingness. Then the equation would not be valid.

What is that supposed to mean?

The universe is finite because an infinite universe is not consistent with the Big Bang theory, which is the best, most scientific theory we have that is supported by the evidence.

[slappy]

Space and time my friend
Space is un ending

[Magus]

But if you drop something into water and watch the circular ripples move out from the source, it eventually ends, right? Well, I wonder if it is the same with the universe. That one day the expanding will end, and it won't be infinate. Not really; Newton's First Law of Motion: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Unless another force is applied on any other object, that object will keep on moving, infinitely.

Plus, the water is a bad analogy of waves. Light waves moves indefinitely(not infinitely) and do not diminish. That's only if they move in uniform mediums; in non-uniform, they diminish and stuff happens to them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Plane_Wave_3D_Animation_300x216_255Colors.gif

[Continuum]

Plus, the water is a bad analogy of waves. Light waves moves indefinitely(not infinitely) and do not diminish. That's only if they move in uniform mediums; in non-uniform, they diminish and stuff happens to them.

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Plane_Wave_3D_Animation_300x216_255Colors.gif)

Like, opaque objects blocking the way of a ray of light?

[Magus]

Like, opaque objects blocking the way of a ray of light?To be honest, I have no idea. I haven't studied about opaque objects blocking the ray of light.

But what I do know is that the ray can be absorbed, reflected, refracted and passes through normally.

[Continuum]

To be honest, I have no idea. I haven't studied about opaque objects blocking the ray of light.

But what I do know is that the ray can be absorbed, reflected, refracted and passes through normally.

I think have an idea. If light was passed through a pure vacuum, it would not diminish sooner or later. So, if done in vice versa (In regions of pure consistency) It would not do so either. So if it hits something that's different from its medium, something else will happen. Also, opaque objects are just that. They don't let light to pass through, it's either the light is reflected or absorbed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't know much of the mechanics of light.

[Deathwingo0o]

This is space we're talking about. Until we can prove it is really finite and what's coming next, "multi-verse" then we have to accept it is unlimited in size. Unlimited as in physically and mentally impossible to reach.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

I think have an idea. If light was passed through a pure vacuum, it would not diminish sooner or later. So, if done in vice versa (In regions of pure consistency) It would not do so either. So if it hits something that's different from its medium, something else will happen. Also, opaque objects are just that. They don't let light to pass through, it's either the light is reflected or absorbed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't know much of the mechanics of light.

Light travels at roughly 3,000,000 meters every second in a vacuum however if passed through another medium it will be refracted causing it to change direction and other factors will cause it to slow down. Light is a transverse wave and can be polarized which means that because of how light moves it can be blocked from passing through certain objects. If light is shone on certain objects it will illuminate them and can be converted into heat energy. If a light ray is passed through a vacuum like space it will never stop unless an external force acts upon it. Light cannot escape a black hole and gravity can act upon it to change it's path. However without any external force in a vacuum a light ray will theoretically never increase or decrease its speed. Likewise it will never stop or change direction.

[Deathwingo0o]

Okay, i have a new idea. Universe is finite but it has no edge.

we could have a universe with a finite volume. That means if I ask "How many cubic miles of space are there?" the answer is not "infinity" but some definite number. It might be a big number. Say 63 kazillion cubic miles. But it is still a definite number, so that if you started to count off the cubic miles in space, you would eventually come to an end.
At the same time it is asking if this finite universe could have no edge. An edge is just what you think. It is a place you get to where you run out of space.
Can both be possible at the same time? Can you run out of space in the sense that you count off all the cubic miles--but you never come to an edge?

Both can indeed happen in a more restricted way in a very familiar example. Consider motions on the surface of the earth. If you start in Pittsburgh, choose any direction you like and keep moving straight ahead, you will eventually come back to where you started. There will be no edge for you to fall off. So the surface of the earth has the sort of properties we are looking for. It is finite in area. It just 196,000,000 square miles. But it has no edge.



Of course the example seems strained. While we come back to where we started, we are really not going in a straight line, but in a big circle. While the two dimensional surface of the earth is finite without edge, it gets these properties because it is really curved into a third dimension.

Does that fact really make such a difference to the possibility of a surface of finite area but no edge? What if we were flat beings trapped in the two dimensional surface of the earth, unable to sense the existence of this third dimension. All we know about the surface of the earth was what can be read off our two dimensional maps. Then all we would know was that we lived in a finite two dimensional space with no edge. That a third dimension might have something to do with this, to us would be speculation of little practical importance. We would have no way of accessing this third dimension.
Could the analogous thing happen for a three dimensional space? One of the big discoveries of 19th century geometry was that this is entirely possible. To get us started, imagine that there is a fourth dimension of space into which our three dimensions curve. Then we might end up with a three dimensional space which has finite volume but no edge. No matter which way you voyage in a spaceship, you will eventually come back to where you started, without hitting an edge.


We satisfied ourselves that this is possible by imagining a fourth dimension of space. How seriously should we take this fourth dimension? Our two dimensional surface dwellers could ignore the possibility of a third dimension in doing their geometry. All that mattered to them were the geometrical facts of the earth's surface that they could measure. In the three dimensional case, it is the same. All that matters are the geometrical facts about our three dimensional space that are accessible to us three dimensional beings. In the end, this fourth dimension of space becomes a comfortable fable to help us get used to the idea that a finite three dimensional space without edge is entirely possible.
In the 19th century, this sort of space was an interesting mathematical curiosity. In 1917, shortly after Einstein had completed his general theory of relativity, he proposed that our cosmic space was really like this. This was the first relativistic cosmology. Whether space has this structure remains one of the most interesting of the open questions of modern cosmology. In Einstein's original universe, space had a finite volume:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic light years
That's a one followed by 30 zeros. But there is no edge.


My friend and I shot through the net and came up with this hypothesis. I did not write them but only summarized the ideas we searched for.

[RoseyCadaver]

Are we talking about space... or are we talking about time?

Spacewise, I'd say finite.

Timewise, finite, too. We are also facing redshift(stuff coming closer), it is one of the things that supports big crunch.

image (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/big-crunch-theory-big-bounce.jpg)

So, yes. Sorry to say this to fellow transhumanists, we might have escaped the biological death, but we cannot escape the cosmic death.

the crunch theory makes sense to me O.o I'm more of a biologist so this kinda new to me xD!But very interesting,but the philosopher in me thinks if it's and endless cycle,doesn't that make it infinite?It never dies,for it rebuilds itself(not identical)?Or does it only crunch a couple times then turns into interdimensional poo xD?I believe that we live in a multiverse,no GaGa joke intended. Some could be like our universe but in different time and position,and some could make no sense to us.

[Deathwingo0o]

This is space we're talking about. Until we can prove it is really finite and what's coming next, "multi-verse" then we have to accept it is unlimited in size. Unlimited as in physically and mentally impossible to reach.

@secretsalt I think i mentioned multi-verse probable do exist before :) And non-living objects do not die. Universe is a space which is made up of spacetime continuum not cells. It may be endless cycle but finite because it may be a sphere. A perfect sphere allows endless cycles assuming http://planetsave.com/2011/05/07/nasa-confirms-einsteins-theory-in-epic-space-time-experiment/ is taken into account and the spacetime force is strong enough to maintain it. Beyond the boundaries may be multi-verse which time exist as a parallel line instead of a growing line.

[Zazu]

Whatever we choose to perceive it to be.

[Deathwingo0o]

Whatever we choose to perceive it to be.

The funny thing is Einstein said it can be done that even a rat changes the moon however 1 electron can't do anything but still an electron is released.

[Magus]

The funny thing is Einstein said it can be done that even a rat changes the moon however 1 electron can't do anything but still an electron is released.To eject an electron from a surface, you need a light frequency greater than the surface's threshold frequency.

[RoseyCadaver]

Quite frankly ,know one knows,and more then likely ever no:rolleyes:.We can always dream,can't we?

Whatever we choose to perceive it to be.

amen :yes:

Please do not double post. If you wanna add more use the "edit" button. It's not there to make the post look pretty!! ~ Michael (H.Scorpio)

[Malcolm Tucker]

For those of you open to the theory of Multiverses, then there's a fantastic book I read a year ago on that topic. It's tough going but really good. It's called "Parallel Worlds" by a String Theorist, Michio Kaku.

[Magus]

For those of you open to the theory of Multiverses, then there's a fantastic book I read a year ago on that topic. It's tough going but really good. It's called "Parallel Worlds" by a String Theorist, Michio Kaku.I think there is a whole documentary on parallel world and string theory, featuring Michio Kaku. But I will definitely check that book -- Michio Kaku has an amazing style explaining long and boring materials.

[Continuum]

Michio Kaku has an amazing style explaining long and boring materials.

Stephen Hawking already did that on his Brief explanation of time.

[Perseus]

Stephen Hawking already did that on his Brief explanation of time.

Michio Kaku has a cooler personality. Just sayin'. I've read A Brief History of Time, and it was a really simple read and explained things where you don't have to be an astro-physicist to understand it, but Michio Kaku is just so much interesting. His theories and the way he explains them are a lot more interesting.

[Peace God]

Michio Kaku has a cooler personality.
That's not really fair to Hawking it is though? I mean, he can't really move or talk. :P

[Magus]

That's not really fair to Hawking it is though? I mean, he can't really move or talk. :PYeah, that's kind of true. But we need a human that knows how to communicate to with the normal people.

However, Stephen Hawking does well communicating with fellow scientists, uber science Nerds, and people with Asperger S. who are interested in science.

[Continuum]

However, Stephen Hawking does well communicating with fellow scientists, uber science Nerds, and people with Asperger S. who are interested in science.

:(

I'm an asspie. And I like science too.

[Magus]

I'm an asspie. And I like science too.
Don't go negative on me, now. I didn't say anything wrong, now, did I?

[Continuum]

Don't go negative on me, now. I didn't say anything wrong, now, did I?

Nothing, really. It didn't affect me in a negative way. :P

[Infidelitas]

Well, I think we have no way of knowing

[deadpie]

I did not write them but only summarized the ideas we searched for.

You mean you copied every single word you posted from this (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Questions/index.html) site to pretend to be some psuedo-intellectual person that knows what he's talking about. Don't try to impress people on this site. It's pointless.

[Magus]

You mean you copied every single word you posted from this (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Questions/index.html) site to pretend to be some psuedo-intellectual person that knows what he's talking about. Don't try to impress people on this site. It's pointless.At least you could have paraphrased the things you "searched".

[Deathwingo0o]

Okay I did not take credit for anything did I? I said I did not write them but summarized them. U can say I copied or whatever. If you don't like it then don't read books and write it in exam because you also did NOT take credit and simply used it for personal gains.
I'm not pretending because I already said I did not wrote them, u low iq low life organism that resides on mars if there are even life on there.

And BTW dead pie, nice "googling" skills :)

Reason for mod: appraisal of certain people

[Deathwingo0o]

To eject an electron from a surface, you need a light frequency greater than the surface's threshold frequency.

Erm I know but that is what he said lol