Question What are we expanding into?

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
IG, you are using a living creature breathing as an analogy so, whilst I like your idea, I do not accept that "space tries to fill it up" is a valid comparison, and therefore do not accept it as a logical conclusion.

Fine as a flight of fancy, but not a scientific conclusion :) :)
But I understand that "Nature abhors a vacuum, to which I would add that Nature abhors a singularity. But that is a different question.


Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and IG2007

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
621
695
1,760
For me the distinction goes to our ability to form questions. If, however, something is beyond the purview of science, then no science question can be asked. So we can't even ask if it exists without being hermetically sealed in imagination. :)
So, do you mean to say that reality is unscientific? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
IG, to me the question is simple. The Universe is said to be expanding. Go back to my flatlander analogy. The expansion is seen by the flatlander (n) as he perceives the area of his world is increasing. To the observer (n + 1) the expansion of the radius is noted. The radius is beyond the comprehension of (n). Thus the expansion cannot be perceived in that dimension by (n) but is perdectly understandable by (n + 1).

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
621
695
1,760
IG, to me the question is simple. The Universe is said to be expanding. Go back to my flatlander analogy. The expansion is seen by the flatlander (n) as he perceives the area of his world is increasing. To the observer (n + 1) the expansion of the radius is noted. The radius is beyond the comprehension of (n). Thus the expansion cannot be perceived in that dimension by (n) but is perdectly understandable by (n + 1).

Cat :)
You can't have more than a total of four dimensions, Cat, three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. You can't have less than that. Because, the Universe won't work at all if you have less or more than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
IG, I am not proposing a scientific theory. I am going on a flight of fancy which, yet, yields me a very valuable idea. If we could perceive in one higher dimension (entirely theoretical) we would understand that expansion not perceived by (n). In this case n = us. :)

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
621
695
1,760
How do you know that?
Try to imagine a two-dimensional universe or a one-dimensional universe if you can. And you can't have more than three space dimensions, because three dimensions do the work. And you can't have more than one time dimension, because that would literally change the way time works.

Even if you have more than a total of four dimensions in a universe, that universe will not work like our Universe. That would have a totally different set of laws of Physics.
 

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
IG,
"Even if you have more than a total of four dimensions in a universe, that universe will not work like our Universe. That would have a totally different set of laws of Physics."

How do you know what would work, and what not? Maybe their Physics would be different. In fact, I think it would have to be different.

Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
Don't forget that was only my analogy. The point I am making (only from an analogy) is that (n + 1) would understand the expansion whereas (n) would not.

Cat :)
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
621
695
1,760
Don't forget that was only my analogy. The point I am making (only from an analogy) is that (n + 1) would understand the expansion whereas (n) would not.
That (n+1) can not imagine the Laws of Physics of our Universe, just like we don't know the Laws of Physics of their universe. (Note the usage of "U/u") :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
That (n+1) can not imagine the Laws of Physics of our Universe, just like we don't know the Laws of Physics of their universe. (Note the usage of "U/u") :)
Yes, you can have theoretical alternatives and 'u' is correct. For each inhabitant theirs would have a capital 'U'.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts