space ends

[vandivx]

at the outskirts of universe there is I believe gravitational repulsion away from the edge of space, if you attempted to travel that way you would encounter ever increasing grav. repulsion (but you couldn't tell if it was simply increasing grav. attraction of the stars/galaxies you left behind)<br /><br />eventually the repulsion would get so strong that you would be stopped in your tracks (the distance btw you and galaxies you left behind would stop increasing) and you couldn't go any farther, it would be like trying to speed up to c which at some speed you couldn't go any faster and you could never get to c itself, same here you couldn't get to the edge of universe itself (and likely you could never even come close same as with coming close to speed of light)<br /><br />I am not saying that there is gravitationally repulsive matter out there at all, its just that space conditions would be like that at the edge of universe<br /><br />the edge of space would be the cause of the repulsion on account of its structure due to there being close to the edge if that makes sense <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />observe that it is really the same thing as Einstein's curved space that curves upon itself at the edge bringing you back someplace in the universe if you attempted to get to the edge - what we talk about then is finite universe but which still won't allow us to travel to its edge never mind getting out of it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />that talk about coming back where you started from or seeing the back of your head are sort of flipping answers that get attention and illustrate the point in ultimate like way but it wouldn't happen like that in reality<br /><br />originally when I was figuring it all up I didn't know that in the end I would get the same results as Einstein had got with his curved space conditions at the edge of universe but while the results may be identical my theory that lead me up to that view is thoroughly physical (which Ein <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow">that talk about coming back where you started from or seeing the back of your head are sort of flipping answers that get attention and illustrate the point in ultimate like way but it wouldn't happen like that in reality. </font><br /><br />But, and it is a big but, we cannot disprove that model yet. Neil Cornish and his group used matching circle analysis, where they looked at the WMAP data for matching regions of space in opposite directions and found none.<br /><br />The reason they were looking was this: If the whole universe was <i>smaller</i> than the observable universe, light would have already had time to circumnavigate the universe and we would see the same thing in opposite directions. But they found no matching circles.<br /><br />The conclusion was that the whole universe <b>must</b> be larger therefore, than the observable universe, and they set a <i>lower</i> bound on the size of the whole universe of 78 billion light years in radius.<br /><br />Their paper also concludes that space is within 2% of being flat, but they cannot say it is completely flat. They can only say the radius of curvature is larger than our observable universe. This means a straight line through space may indeed be a closed loop, but one that is a lot larger than our observable universe! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Finite but unbounded.

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />that talk about coming back where you started from or seeing the back of your head are sort of flipping answers that get attention and illustrate the point in ultimate like way but it wouldn't happen like that in reality </font><br /><br />Ohhhhhh......, I don't know about that. I think it does occur in reality. How about the space beneath the Event Horizon of a Blackhole? That would almost have to be the case, because of the infinite curvature of space.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

reason I see that as figurative or easy pictorial illustration is because it shows you as you see yourself in mirror while shaving but after any jurney in space light spreads as inverse square relationship, it doesn't travel as coherent and compact laser beam preserving picture perfect image (such illustration just show the principle what happens in idealized way), that's what I meant, not that it couldn't come back<br />however I am not any expert on this<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If the whole universe was smaller than the observable universe, light would have already had time to circumnavigate the universe and we would see the same thing in opposite directions.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />what if the light circumnavigated around universe couple or more time already, wouldn't that smear the data to make it look like the light didn't come back yet because we couldn't see any matching patterns?<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

If they were looking at galaxies that might be the case. In that scenario we would likely observe multiple images of the same region of space, but viewed during different epochs.<br /><br />But Cornish et al were searching the data from WMAP, looking for repeated patterns in the CMBR, so I'm not sure the same thing applies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I think you might mean the singularity. Only thing special about the event horizon is the escape velocity and that all paths beyond the event horizon inevitably lead to the singularity.<br /><br />With that said, I don't think a singularity works either. With infinite curvature, there is no straight line to be travelled and there's nowhere to travel to <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I don't think a singularity works either. With infinite curvature, there is no straight line to be travelled and there's nowhere to travel to </font><br /><br />I was talking about the space beneath the Event Horizon, and above the singularity of a <i>rotating </i> black hole. A straight line is curved in a <i>rotating </i>black hole, and will intersect the <i>rotating </i>singularity, or a worm hole:<br /><br /> http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1446.html<br /><i><br /> If it is rotating, you get some version of the 'Kerr Black Hole' and the singularity is deformed into a ring, and for some paths entering the black hole, this kind of singularity is avoidable.<br />The full mathematical description of this space-time geometry has the entry and exit through the ring plane sending a traveler from one space-time into another space-time. These may be parts of our own universe but shifted in time</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[arunkagg]

The world is deterministic i.e. it is predetermined but with uncertainties at each step. At each step a no. of variables are produced of which one survive in one world while other may survive in a different other world to produce more variables and out of which again one survive and this process continue. Thus we should have many worlds. Today what we are looking at our universe including our surroundings, ourselves etc depend upon a definite structure we possess. If my size is reduced to subatomic level or more appropriately if I am observing universe at subatomic level than I would have no existence of present form and there will be no difference between any sturcture whether animate or inanimate according to our terminology. Then at what level are we thinking about all these? <br />