Question will we ever be able to go in a different galaxy?

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

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
I would very much like to see posts #47 and #50 answered.

In particular, when time jumping, I would like to know how you take personal possessions with you, including the clothes you are wearing ;) and what time your watch reads after the jump.

However, failing that, I would like to politely ask why the above (Posts #39 and #51) are any more relevant here than in other threads. See post below.

Cat :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Search the opening sentence and compare:

  1. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
    ...Every single one (sic) of an infinity of points of the infinite Universe is the exact center point of the infinite Universe (thus 'c' will measure 'c' at every point of the compass). But never betwixt and between (c = '0' ('uncertainty')). ----------------------------- It's a Multiverse...
  2. A
    Question will we ever be able to go in a different galaxy?
    ...Every single one (sic) of an infinity of points of the infinite Universe is the exact center point of the infinite Universe (thus 'c' will measure 'c' at every point of the compass). But never betwixt and between (c = '0' ('uncertainty')). ----------------------------- It's a Multiverse...
  3. A
    Why is the speed of light the way it is?
    ...Every single one (sic) of an infinity of points of the infinite Universe is the exact center point of the infinite Universe (thus 'c' will measure 'c' at every point of the compass). But never betwixt and between (c = '0' ('uncertainty')). ----------------------------- It's a Multiverse...
Are irrelevant repetitions allowed by the rules?

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Aug 14, 2020
702
124
1,060
In answer to #53 . . . my response is relevant to all three threads. All three threads interrelate.

My cosmological model is built up from exactly the same ground base, the same base premise, as computing is. I simply apply it to a far greater reach of cosmology. Anyone who really knows that base knows it's reach up through every dimensionality above it built upon it. Bottom up and top down, one and the same.

It first struck me I was on to something enormously greater when I first read Gerard K. O'Neill's 'The High Frontier' at the same I was seeing and beginning to deal in micro-frame system computing alongside of the macro-mainframe systems I had been working with for a couple of decades. It was easy for me, already identified a "visual mathematician" by testing and experience (though no more than average at mathematics), to see the information and communication systems I worked with to be a form of modeling what O'Neill, and Heppenheimer among others, following him, was envisioning on a solar systemic scale. If I could see that so clearly, I could see more than that, realization growing the more I read such books as 'Relativity' and 'A Brief History of Time', and such other authors as Michio Kaku and Brian Greene.

I already understood space and time warping just seeing my mind's eye and understanding what was happening when I drove my car at speed and saw and read about supersonic planes crashing into the side of mountains while pilots thought the mountain still some distance away. They not only couldn't process fast enough . . . they literally couldn't see fast enough. Warping space and time, relatively speaking, is something we do in just moving. Warping them on a hyper-scale of space and time is something we are going to do if and when . . . .

I've seen the how, what and why from just dealing in a non-magical base (bottom up and top down). Two animations and another illustration, none of them mine, have helped me show what I talk about. I alluded to articles in fields I consider related, that practically do my modeling for me (like the field I worked in did). I can see my own modeling of Universe in what they are doing, especially in their animations and illustrations that I have particularly, pointed to. Thus, I know I'm not alone, though they don't know how far up the line their own more local works might model. To me, again, it's continuing -- growing -- local confirmation. The bottom and top (the farthest reaches) have local representation, exactly as I've pointed out more than once.
----------------------------
It's a Multiverse Universe.

"From a drop of water . . . ."

Mod Edit
 
Last edited:
Jun 14, 2021
23
9
15
No, the human race will never reach any Galaxy outside the Milkyway. Also, it is extremely difficult to visit the edge of the Milkyway.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,246
1,822
5,060
It's worth mentioning that we are still about 3 years away from the centennial of the discovery (Hubble) that there are other galaxies besides the MW. Before that it was assumed that universe was comprised of stars and nebulae in the MW and that it was a static universe.

Perhaps another mere hundred years we will have some advancements that will allow at the least the possibility of going to another galaxy. But the MW will surely be far more feasible choice for centuries to come.
 
Dec 3, 2021
1
0
10
theres not a chance we would ever be able to go to another galaxy, we dont even know whats underneath the ocean, the ONLY way to really travel is if some alien race takes you.

Mod Edit - Off Topic
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nov 18, 2021
17
8
15
Wait there is another plant about 325 light-years from Earth? Really that's awesome!!!!
 
Nov 18, 2021
17
8
15
True but we can't go bottom of the ocean because it will crush us and in space, it doesn't right so there is a difference but yes we don't know for a different galaxy it might crush us but we need to go at least 8,000,000,000 kilometers pr hour right.
 
Aug 14, 2020
702
124
1,060
True but we can't go bottom of the ocean because it will crush us and in space, it doesn't right so there is a difference but yes we don't know for a different galaxy it might crush us but we need to go at least 8,000,000,000 kilometers pr hour right.
You are talking two different planes of universe . . . probably. Probably two very different universe environments. You shouldn't, and we probably one day won't, measure interstellar, intergalactic, and even inter-universe, speeds by the same measures and instruments of measurement we use for Earth surface ground speeds. We will not deal in any absolutes of space out there just as we do not deal in absolutes of time.

You may not realize you were dealing in a strict absolute of space's portion of space-time with your 8,000,000,000 kilometers per hour, when in fact the two, space and time, are actually as equivalent as mass and energy are equivalents (as mass-energy isn't anything more nor less than two sides of one inseparable (indivisible) coin). Elastically contract the time, elastically contract the space. Elastically expand the time, elastically expand the space. If you don't believe me, think about the look itself of the universe. That [non-elastic space - elastic time] mistake will continue to be made until we've been out there for decades to centuries moving among planets and stars, and galaxies and even universes (which means any effective loss and gain of relativities (which in turn means we, as 4-d travelers in 4-d conveyances, will be moving among -- in an environment of -- countless more or less discrete 4-d space-times (not a single one observable before arrival in and to it))) in continuously powered conveyances . . . we hopefully will acquire as we go out.

What I'm trying to say is you should try to stop thinking 2-dimensionally. You should try to stop thinking flat universe "flatland" when it comes to 4-dimensional space-times (4-dimensional universes). Or rather you should think in more dimensionalities than one or two. You manage it, you manage true elasticity as far as space-time and relativity are concerned. You manage space-times within space-times: universes within universes (think the physical reality we already know, and deal in, of QM within QM (of micro-verses within, alongside, intermingled and intermingling with, micro-verses . . . discrete . . . discrete . . . big time(!) (as some say, including me, the stuff of Alice in Wonderland / Through the Looking Glass existing in reality). A real territory and map down and in that effectively maps a real territory up and out . . . a "Great Unknown" frontier, eventually to be realized).
--------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:
You are talking two different planes of universe . . . probably. Probably two very different universe environments. You shouldn't, and we probably one day won't, measure interstellar, intergalactic, and even inter-universe, speeds by the same measures and instruments of measurement we use for Earth surface ground speeds. We will not deal in any absolutes of space out there just as we do not deal in absolutes of time.

You may not realize you were dealing in a strict absolute of space's portion of space-time with your 8,000,000,000 kilometers per hour, when in fact the two, space and time, are actually as equivalent as mass and energy are equivalents (as mass-energy isn't anything more nor less than two sides of one inseparable (indivisible) coin). Elastically contract the time, elastically contract the space. Elastically expand the time, elastically expand the space. If you don't believe me, think about the look itself of the universe. That [non-elastic space - elastic time] mistake will continue to be made until we've been out there for decades to centuries moving among planets and stars, and galaxies and even universes (which means any effective loss and gain of relativities (which in turn means we, as 4-d travelers in 4-d conveyances, will be moving among -- in an environment of -- countless more or less discrete 4-d space-times (not a single one observable before arrival in and to it))) in continuously powered conveyances . . . we hopefully will acquire as we go out.

What I'm trying to say is you should try to stop thinking 2-dimensionally. You should try to stop thinking flat universe "flatland" when it comes to 4-dimensional space-times (4-dimensional universes). Or rather you should think in more dimensionalities than one or two. You manage it, you manage true elasticity as far as space-time and relativity are concerned. You manage space-times within space-times: universes within universes (think the physical reality we already know, and deal in, of QM within QM (of micro-verses within, alongside, intermingled and intermingling with, micro-verses . . . discrete . . . discrete . . . big time(!) (as some say, including me, the stuff of Alice in Wonderland / Through the Looking Glass existing in reality). A real territory and map down and in that effectively maps a real territory up and out . . . a "Great Unknown" frontier, eventually to be realized).
--------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.
Just a brain teaser but what if the universe is just endless fluctuation with formed bubbles (our universe) (all the endless others) just as bubbles in it?
Cause of fluctuation just a potential energy of nothing or instability of nothing.
Fluctuation can build it all as it sets to balance it's energy in particle creation until it balances then only temp creation of particles.(conservation of energy mechanism),
Universe not as we see/think but endless fluctuation with built up energy sections (us just 1)

No start, no end, no reason other than a property of nothing.
JMO
 
Aug 14, 2020
702
124
1,060
VPE, I enjoy your take on things, but you aren't going to change the way I read you concerning your element of "nothing."

Here is how I read you:
"Cause of fluctuation just a potential energy of nothing or instability of nothing."
How I read you: Cause of fluctuation just a potential energy of everything-ness or instability of everything-ness.

"No start, no end, no reason other than a property of nothing."
My reading of you: No start, no end, no reason other than a property of everything-ness.

It works both ways at once as one and the same coin of negative (-) || positive (+).
 
Last edited:
VPE, I enjoy your take on things, but you aren't going to change the way I read you concerning your element of "nothing."

Here is how I read you:
"Cause of fluctuation just a potential energy of nothing or instability of nothing."
How I read you: Cause of fluctuation just a potential energy of everything-ness or instability of everything-ness.

"No start, no end, no reason other than a property of nothing."
My reading of you: No start, no end, no reason other than a property of everything-ness.

It works both ways at once as one and the same coin of negative (-) || positive (+).
It's a problem of a universe that is filled with something.
Expansion and conservation of energy would be at war filling in something from?
Nothing on the other hand that has either potential energy as it's property or is just unstable has the ability to expand and fill in and conserve as it goes.
At some smallest scale the universe will have nothing between it's smallest things so it's not a giant leap to think that at some point it was endless nothing and what we see is just it's property.

IMO the reason for everything was just the boundless nothing occupying boundless space.
It was sure to have a potential energy or nature didn't like nothings occupation of forever.

Nothing and infinity great topics and great food for thought :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts