Sphereicle Space

[danyopizzle]

Space is a huge ball with no exits but walls that get you to the other side of space, never ending, infinit, for the most part this is how i see space in my own words. <br />But whats outside of space? a complex demensional existence of a different life? <br />My theory is that outside of space is another space like ours but much bigger and our space is another planet that connects with more and our whole freaking universe is just another small star to a big galazy, sounds crazy? go figure all theories are craz

 

[danyopizzle]

Space is a huge ball with no exits but walls that get you to the other side of space, never ending, infinit, for the most part this is how i see space in my own words. <br />But whats outside of space? a complex demensional existence of a different life? <br />My theory is that outside of space is another space like ours but much bigger and our space is another planet that connects with more and our whole freaking universe is just another small star to a big galazy, sounds crazy? go figure all theories are crazy

 

[sunforged]

Outside, bears. Don't go outside.

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"But what's outside of space?"</i><br /><br />It's just not possible to describe an "Outside" to the universe which has any real meaning. This concept is a null set.<br /><br />The universe started out as an infinitely small and dense point -- a <i>Singularity!</i> New time and space is constantly being created within this singularity, but the universe itself remains an infinitely small singularity (note that the singularity itself is not expanding; space and time are being newly created wholly within the singularity)!<br /><br />This view of the universe is due to the ramifications of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.<br /><br />So your question; "But what's outside of space?", is really trying to ask; "But what's on the other side of the singularity?" -- and you can't get there from here...<br /><br />Of course there's Brane theory, and other multiple universe ideas, but I don't think we'll ever be able to find evidence to support these fanciful ideas... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[sunforged]

But no, seriously, I thought about this a very long time ago. What if we are smaller than what we can find. If we magnify to an infinitely small amount will we find another whole dimension of mass? No. This thought crossed my mind before I knew about science what so ever. I dont know much compared to 99% of people on this site but.....well I dont really know where I was going with this. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[qso1]

What Harmonicaman describes is the currently accepted scientific theory on the Universe. But scientists generally do not address whats outside the Universe. Especially in the model described in the Universe as beginning as a singularity. Scientists do not generally address what exists beyond the singularity because they do not have any kind of observable evidence. I have seen several theories on the Universe origin in my lifetime and although I'm not a scientist myself. I tend to look at it as something in which it makes no sense to me to have a singularity, a singularity surrounded by what at the time of the big bang?<br /><br />Mathematics deals with infinity in that one can take a number and put an infinite amount of zeros behind it. What I'm getting at here is that we see back about 14 billion years or so. But what happened 4 trillion years ago?<br /><br />I'm kind of leaning towards a "Steady State" model of an endless void which is occupied by endless Universes coming and going, ours being but one of them. Optical physics, particularly redshifting of light prevents us from ever seeing these endless Universes or measuring the endless immeasurable void.<br /><br />But thats just me and I'm sure a big bang proponent will call me wrong and thats okay too. IMO, the scientific process is a sound one. But one day scientists might find evidence for something along the lines as to what I'm proposing here.<br /><br />BTW, this could well apply to the microscopic world as well, as in going inside atoms, and I mean way way inside. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Seems I saw this thread somewhere else but in case I didn't or got it confused with another. IMO, any theory is as good as the next partly because we will probably never really know what lies beyond the observable boundries of the Universe we currently know.<br /><br />Your theory is similar to mine in that I tend to think we are one Universe within an endless void and that other Universes lie beyond. They are too far for current optical physics to detect due to redshift limits. That is, our Universe is a collection of the galaxies, one of which is the one we reside in. Another collection of galaxies may lie 960 billion light years away, too far to detect. Another might be banging into existence 30 trillion light years away and another might be ceasing to exist 394 quadrillion light years out.<br /><br />But as I'm not a scientist, I don't have evidence to back this up so its complete theory based on speculation, conjecture.<br /><br />Current science accepts the big bang theory which states the Universe began as a singularity banging into existence. My question would be...and this question is by no means mine by origin. What came before, or surrounded the singularity and mathematics being theoretically infinite, that is...a number can be followed by an infinite amount of zeros. It stands to reason that whatever surrounds our Universe could extend into infinity by definition of something as simple as being able to ask...what exists 23 quintillion light years away?<br /><br />Mainstream science has some mathematical, even some observational evidence to support BB but as with science on the cutting edge, dealing with theoreticals. This model will give way if and when better mathematical models show otherwise. And that can only come if and when something beyond the BB evidence is observed or calculated out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

"...what exists 23 quintillion light years away?" <br /><br />That is a great question to ask. It has to be something.<br /><br />ofcourse if the BB operates in truth as it does mathematically, then it is all to deal with geometry of space itself- a singularity and the properties of space itself within it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But whats outside of space? a complex demensional existence of a different life? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>that's not a valid question, if I was a computer operating system, I'd pop up error notice muttering something about stack overflow and I would freeze up promptly not responding to further questions...<br /><br />space includes everything, all existence, there is no 'outside' when you talk about space. <br />thing is that once you allow yourself pondering something outside of space (really outside of existence), then there is nothing stopping you pondering what's outside of that space which is just outside our space and then again what is outside of the outside of the outside space that is outside of our space... and that soon leads to that stack overflow and collapse to which normal humans are so mercifully impervious in the denseness of their thought process <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />If we were more critically designed, more fault intolerant, there would be tons of collapsed people around the country requiring reboot or hard reset by special medical crews dedicated to just such task. I dare say such crew would find most of their work not on universities grounds but in residential neighbourhoods where budding scientists dwell.<br /><br />we are existentially dependent on space meaning physically dependent on it, if we allow ourselves to ignore this dependence when it comes to our thought processes we are necessarily comitting logical falacy, that is our thinking becomes invalid. <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Space is a huge ball with no exits but walls that get you to the other side of space, never ending, infinit, for the most part this is how i see space in my own words. <br />But whats outside of space? a complex demensional existence </font><br /><br />When looking outside of our 3 dimensional space (space where the BB has not yet expanded into), what your looking at is the inside of our 3 dimensional space. Both "outside" and "inside" are space dimensions with no energy fields or time. So, outside space = inside space, and we're stuck in the middle! That's my interpretation from the various String Theory books that I've read. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />"...what exists 23 quintillion light years away?" </font><br /><br />A space dimension where the so called BB has not yet expanded into. It's a 2 dimensional space with no energy fields, and no time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

good answer. best i've heard. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I tend to think we are one Universe within an endless void and that other Universes lie beyond.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> it never occurs to you that you are contradicting yourself??<br /><br />'universe' is all that there is including even that we didn't discover yet, that's the meaning of that word. It would automatically include that 'beyond' you talk about. plural of this word is nonsense in this context.<br /><br />instead of the term 'universe', you should perhaps use the word 'system'<br /><br />vanDivX<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Thanks, I might also add, that this 2 dimensional space with no energy fields, and no time, is infinite. As opposed to our 4 dimensional space-time which is not infinite, but is continually striving to become infinite (Newton's 1st Law: Objects (or universes) tend to stay in motion, unless an outside force acts upon them). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[hummingbird69]

qso1<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm kind of leaning towards a "Steady State" model of an endless void which is occupied by endless Universes coming and going, ours being but one of them. Optical physics, particularly redshifting of light prevents us from ever seeing these endless Universes or measuring the endless immeasurable void. <br /><br />But thats just me and I'm sure a big bang proponent will call me wrong and thats okay too. IMO, the scientific process is a sound one. But one day scientists might find evidence for something along the lines as to what I'm proposing here. <br /><br />BTW, this could well apply to the microscopic world as well, as in going inside atoms, and I mean way way inside. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Your talking smaller than the subatomic level and passed the flavors mentioned as super forces? Which makes me think of a process in a body and equilibrium trying to stay stable in a process of ever changing dimensions.<br /><br /><b>Harmonicaman </b>actually help me see what it is about this singularity theory that I was missing. Our dimension is a singularity possibly, but our dimension is not the only dimension in existance, IMO><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Kind of like the individual swimming in the ocean.