Does space ever end?

[T_G]

Well, I hope this thread does not retract to itself until there is only a tiny ball of non matter which will be banned by me because I am the Grandmaster of the Idiot Guide Order and MY argument carries twice the weight (4 times in the bubble universe, 5,7 in the Spagetti Bolognese one)).
I say the universe (if there is one which has not been proved yet, has anybody ever seen one himself??) is like woman, completly incomprehensible illogical and one will never be able to fully understand it (and her mother as well) so no point trying just let her (and the universe) be and watch football! ^-J :-Jumbo ^-J :-Jumbo ^-J :-Jumbo ^-J :-Jumbo ^-J :-Jumbo ^-J :-Jumbo

 

[Sir Bronking]

There is no space. The earth is flat, swimming on top of the deep ocean and at the edge there are vicious sea dragons killing everything. The sky is a huge glass dome and the sun is a ball of fire spewed out of a dragons mouth.
And when you die, you find out that all your life you have been worshipping the completely wrong thing, as will be told you by a small half naked amazonian tribesman on the gates of heaven.

TG ,
can you send me some of whatever your smoking please :-Loop

 

[spiney]

JTA, there IS a difference ...........

Bubble universes are entirely independent, there's no possible connection! Presumably, in each different one, the Higgs field "froze" in a different state, giving very different physical laws. (Asimov's The Gods Themselves, etc ...).

Whereas, parallel universes are constantly "branching off" from this one, with each wavefunction collapse, and - in theory - CAN be reached, under certain very special conditions, as discussed above.

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

 

[JTA]

Ah yes, I see your point, it's like the universe-innerverse discussion. Parallel universes can be more or less explained using the quantum uncertainty principle, whereas the bubble universes are completely seperated from each other. I don't see myself jumping from one reality into another parallel reality yet, but it makes me wonder ..... what if ?

 

[JTA]

since nobody is asking : an explanation of "innerverse" :

Our universe expands from the tiniest particle known, the string, up to the infinity of space. We can call our universe infinitely big, as we know no limit to it. Indeed, no matter how big something gets, you can allways make it bigger by miltiplying it by 10. The laws of physics in our universe are well known and universally valid (as long as we don't get into extreme situations such as inside a black hole). On quantum-levels however, things begin to break down and strange things happen which cannot be fully explained yet. Vibrating strings are supposed to be the very basis of our universe, indeed they make up the 10-dimentional universe in M-space itself. These vibrating strings manifest themselves in 3-dimentional space as quarks, the building blocks of all matter. Strings are round, and are very small indeed (1.16x10(-35) m).
From a GUT point of view, it is perfectly possible to create another universe which is located inside the vibrating string circle, going to infinite 0. Why 'infinite' 0 ? because no matter how small you make something, you can allways make it smaller by dividing it by 10, without ever getting to the "edge". This is called the "innerverse", with the string itself being the boundary between the innerverse (inside the string) and the universe (outside the string).
Now it's getting wearder : you can apply all the known laws of physics in both universes. Things get "bigger" the further you move away from the string boundary. In the innerverse this means that things get bigger the closer you get to 0, to get infinitely big at infinite 0, just like in the universe. From an observer's point of view, it would be impossible to tell if he is sitting in the innerverse or in the universe, as all known tests and observations would give him the same result in both verses. As such, it is impossible to say if the world we know around us is situated inside or outside the boundaries of the vibrating string space, it might well be that we all live in the innerverse, which is stretching out to infinite 0.

how about that ! Does space ever ends - both ways ?

 

[Salty25]

why does that not sound like a good idea:

"On August 20, 2006 it was reported that Japanese physicists are working on a project, based on the established phenomenon known as the Higgs field (involving false vacuums and Z bosons) to create a baby universe." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

You dont really want a universe expanding in your own, do you O-Ha?!

 

[spiney]

Er, ........ yeah!

Trouble is, although there's at least some evidence quarks exist, strings are just pure speculation. A theory might be nice, but that doesn't mean it's true!

As a possible alternative, there's twistors ......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory .

Remember, the baby universe - if real! - isn't "inside" ours (topologically speaking), and anyway, it's unreachable!

 

[T_G]

TG ,
can you send me some of whatever your smoking please :-Loop

Marlboro lights...

 

[spiney]

Reality is strange enough! Really, honest! You don't need any hallucinatory substances .....

 

[JTA]

yes indeed, a portion of Channel 4 will do the trick also.

 

[2cvbloke]

I think that as we only use about 10-15% of our brains (blondes only 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% ) we have the answers already, but we just don't have the capability to unlock the secrets we hold within ourselves, so we already know where the universe begins and where it ends, but we just can't access that information....

 

[Salty25]

I think that as we only use about 10-15% of our brains (blondes only 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% ) we have the answers already, but we just don't have the capability to unlock the secrets we hold within ourselves, so we already know where the universe begins and where it ends, but we just can't access that information....

this is probably closer to the truth than you realise (no, seriously ). I think the mind is way more powerful than we believe it to generally be.

 

[spiney]

Well, there are people who make a living by claiming they can "boost our brains", then selling this idea in various books, management courses, etc. For instance, Tony Buzan (mind mapping), Edward De Bono (lateral thinking), Harry Lorraine (super power memory) .....

(I'm ignoring the recent neurolinguistic programming fad, which is more of a pseudoscience cult, with some nasty aspects ........ ).

For my money, the best is Harry Lorraine, who's invented a mnemonics system that really does work, if you put the effort in, possibly useful for businessmen (much better than Bruno Furst's earlier rather over complicated system, you know, that newspaper ad that goes "do you keep forgetting faces ... ?)

(all these these techniques can useful, under certain conditions, eg, having to remember long lists, passing exams, etc. But, despite what De Bono says, I don't think there's any "foolproof system" that will instantly turn ordinary people - like you and me - into geniuses!).

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking .
http://www.12manage.com/methods_mind_mapping.html .
http://stepanov.lk.net/mnemo/lorayn/contents.html .
http://www.daveyp.com/hitchcock/wik...mnemonics_ends_Memory_Man's_unforgettable_run .

And let's not forget old fashioned Pelmanism, still going strong:
http://pelmaninstitute.com/ .

(IMPORTANT NOTE, some of above live links are to commercial websites, selling stuff! I'm not endorsing or recommending anything - despite the above remark about Lorraine - this is all just for information!).

More generally, here's a REALLY EXCELLENT wiki article on mnemonics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic .

There's nothing new under the sun, it all goes back into pre-history, with many different "mind training systems" down the ages, for instance see:
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Mnemonics .

In fact, De Bono's (fairly) recent "Po" system - of random juxtapositions to generate new "starting point" ideas - is uncannily similar (!) to the ideas of Raymond Lull, 700 years earlier!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lull .

Fascinating stuff to experiment with, free Lullian downloads at:
http://lullianarts.net/ .

Talking about blondes, do they really have more fun? Dunno, but surely they're less likely to get run over at night!

 

[T_G]

: Diiiiiiiiiiiihhhd I ever see a case of criminal thread Hyjacking ...

 

[Likvid]

The galaxies are divided in bubbles, as of now we can't get out of our bubble to the next bubble(galaxy), the reason to be able to do that we need to travel faster than light.

But in the future we might be able to travel to the edge of our galaxy, but to pass the edge we need to go faster than light.

I saw a documentary on TV some months ago about this where scientists told everything.

 

[spiney]

sorry, likvid, but at risk of "being rude", that's pure gibberish!

The speed of light is an absolute limit, but there's no "barrier", nothing to stop us going to anywhere else in the universe!

 

[Likvid]

sorry, likvid, but at risk of "being rude", that's pure gibberish!

The speed of light is an absolute limit, but there's no "barrier", nothing to stop us going to anywhere else in the universe!

First you say sorry and then you insult me.

Who is the idiot here?

So you say the scientists in the documentary was wrong?

Speed of light is no limit and there are barriers at the edge.

You are like the stupid people who once thought the earth was flat.

 

[Topper]

Please try to keep things civil here guys we don't want to see this on open forum

 

[Saturlight]

I saw a film on a French movie channel, a sci-fi creepy about these guys who land on Mars and bring back some green slime to earth. Anyway, the slime turns into loads of 5 feet high green Yetties, and well...you know...usual stuff from the late 1950s.

Anyway, despite its age, the film showed a cool shot of what it would be like looking out from Mars, standing on Mars, and it made me think, I wonder what the other lifeforms on other planets see when they look up at the stars...

 

[Saturlight]

....

....You are like the stupid people who once thought the earth was flat.

I don't think those people were stupid, just naive and they didn't have the means to think otherwise. If you consider the world on which you walk and travel by sea, how else can you possibly come to another conclusion unless you're the first person to consider the idea we may be a globe.

It's just like the Romans weren't "stupid" because they didn't have mobile phones and ipods...

But they made great central heating and baths...

So, each to their own relevan to time...