A scientific and perspective question
- Thread starter shadowstriker86
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If there is an edge, there would most likely be nothing. But, if its nothing, then it really isn't an edge, is it?
I would argue that you could never find the edge of the universe.
This would be because any tool that you could use to probe the edge of the universe would probably expand the universe: it would create a "something" from the nothing beyond. For instance, shoot a beam of light or a projectile at the edge, it will carry on going and the universe will simply expand to encompass that beam or projectile and the path it takes.
This would be because any tool that you could use to probe the edge of the universe would probably expand the universe: it would create a "something" from the nothing beyond. For instance, shoot a beam of light or a projectile at the edge, it will carry on going and the universe will simply expand to encompass that beam or projectile and the path it takes.
It is thought that the universe is expanding in all directions as a result of matter being 'thrown out' by the Big Bang.
In theory, there is no real 'edge' since the universe exists in three dimensions. However, that is not to say it cannot end in some kind of boundary.
Science has been asking the same question for decades, if not centuries. I don't know if we will ever know.
In theory, there is no real 'edge' since the universe exists in three dimensions. However, that is not to say it cannot end in some kind of boundary.
Science has been asking the same question for decades, if not centuries. I don't know if we will ever know.
Your ignorant so have no opinion on anything.Glefistus said:
An edge of the universe. Surely there would be no light as nothing would exist past it, so we wouldn't be able to see it for a kick off. As there is no thing there it would have to be the blank of space, as if we assume the universe is all known atoms and mass, it would have to be an area where these no longer exist therefore nothing there.
First we have to define the difference between there not being an edge and it existing but not being able to reach it. The fact you could never reach it due to spatial folding and the rate of expansion is neither here nor there. In the same way an object in orbit around a body is always falling towards it, but due to its angular velocity will never get any closer to it. This does not mean that the body that the object is orbiting of does not exist. In all likelihood there is an edge to the universe but to us it would likely seem like nothing, just darkness.
However to add a personal touch id quite like there to be a restaurant with a balcony where you can view the universe, whole or in part and past, present and future through a telescope.
However to add a personal touch id quite like there to be a restaurant with a balcony where you can view the universe, whole or in part and past, present and future through a telescope.
The face of god exept shaved.
Also if you happen to reach it means you puny pawn can be promoted to a higher being like a ninja, yeah thats where they come from.
Also if you happen to reach it means you puny pawn can be promoted to a higher being like a ninja, yeah thats where they come from.
Christians are discriminated against in Science, it's extremely important that more of them share their views.Glefistus said:
Indeed.Kubanator said:
We can't see the wind but we can see it's effects on trees, nor can we see electrons shells but can test for their presence.
My point is: in things which cannot be views as such, but the effects (like a gravitational pull) can be felt and observed, hence, we could test for an edge to the universe as long as it did something. I don't think it does, the edge of the universe is just the furthest point at which matter can be found, beyond it's just empty space.
Reported.Little Duck said:
Oh, come on Glefistus, you're above feeding obvious trolls.Glefistus said:
I don't want to sound like a dick, but that homepage is far from a scientific proving ground. The guy seems to read things and then come up with justifications for his own assumptions.Kubanator said:
At the top of my head, the closest thing I can think of that somehow relates to the whole "the universe will never balance out" is Pauli's Exclution Principle that states that no two identical fermions may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. That's it.
Again, what you are saying are assumptions, not facts. A quick wikipedia search will suffice to clear whatever doubts you may have (yes, wikipedia search, as at least in what comes to math and physics wikipedia is actually a decent resource). It's in layman's terms, and not overtly complicated.
You won't find fancy things relating to the edge of the universe, or the philosophical underpinings of alternate realities and whatnot (which is an interpretation of the theory, mind you, but far from being entrenched in nominal understanding). Again, just read into it.
No harm done, right?
didnt scientists also say way way back that flight was impossible? when it comes to science, damn near NOTHING is impossible, and for me, unless its proven without a shadow of a doubt, it's still up for debateOnichanbura said:
We still don't know what we should refer to as an "edge" in the first place, and people still get their panties in a bunch about the whole "creation" thing. It's safe to say that physics only concerns itself seriously with what it can measure more often than not. To bother beyond that is to be open to pure speculation and motivated reasoning, which is not wrong in itself as long as we refer to it in terms of what it is.shadowstriker86 said:
One thing is to keep an open mind, and another is to keep it so open that your brain falls down.
thats why i think outside the box, but sometimes i think so far out of it that i cant remember where i put it. come to think of it i still havent found itunabomberman said: