What exists outside the universe?

[viper232]

whateverfloats

Common guys. This stuff is by definition unknowable. There's no point in discussing it since anything you say will be meaningless.

No, relativity works with the data quite well, is very well known, and Kaz is the token relativity denier idiot who believes she has a much firmer position than she actually does.

Discussing it could help others who don't understand relativity not be confused as to either it's validity, or it's contents by Kaz's ramblings. She fails to describe relativity accurately, not knowing the difference between its premises and conclusions, nor the derivation, nor any details whatsoever, and so it's eminently possible people will take her ignorant statements as some form of accurate picture of what physicists actually describe relativity as.

Discussing relativity, providing a proper picture of it that isn't composed of blatant misrepresentations and known incorrect statements (see: lies), is quite important.

Discussing relativity with Kaz is like banging a head against a wall, but discussing relativity with people who have some knowledge of it (like Iggy, Morbie, Layra, Vorpal, or, of course, your school's physics professors) is actually quite interesting, even if their knowledge often times goes over our heads ^^;

[Morberticus]

Kaz-Balan

I've provided a basic proposal for re-examining the whole field of study called physics.

Now I have too.

It doesn't mean either of them make sense.

[Melkitty8]

I wish that there are other universes outside of this one. And the multiverse doesn't have to be thought of as the space outside of a balloon that represents our universe. It could be thought of in quantum mechanical terms as alternate histories or alternate quantum states.


Consider: If time travel to the past was possible, then changes made might result in separate timelines, sending the time travelers to alternate versions of history. Also, anything that happens in our timeline could result in other alternate timelines branching out because the future initially exists in all possibilities before an event occurs in the present to change it, thus resulting in a multiverse.
I would think of the multiverse as multiple histories and timelines existing at once.

[whateverfloats]

viper232

whateverfloats

Common guys. This stuff is by definition unknowable. There's no point in discussing it since anything you say will be meaningless.

No, relativity works with the data quite well, is very well known, and Kaz is the token relativity denier idiot who believes she has a much firmer position than she actually does.

Discussing it could help others who don't understand relativity not be confused as to either it's validity, or it's contents by Kaz's ramblings. She fails to describe relativity accurately, not knowing the difference between its premises and conclusions, nor the derivation, nor any details whatsoever, and so it's eminently possible people will take her ignorant statements as some form of accurate picture of what physicists actually describe relativity as.

Discussing relativity, providing a proper picture of it that isn't composed of blatant misrepresentations and known incorrect statements (see: lies), is quite important.

Discussing relativity with Kaz is like banging a head against a wall, but discussing relativity with people who have some knowledge of it (like Iggy, Morbie, Layra, Vorpal, or, of course, your school's physics professors) is actually quite interesting, even if their knowledge often times goes over our heads ^^;

I'm not denying relativity. But what does relativity has to do with things outside the universe?

[II Lilium II]

Just like there is no highest number because you can always add one, there is no end to the universe...

[viper232]

Kaz-Balan

viper232

... relativity works with the data quite well, is very well known ...

Discussing it could help others who don't understand relativity not be confused as to either its validity, or its contents ...

Please do, then.

I have, you simply have chosen to consider it all irrelevant. You have admitted not caring about the evidence, formulation, derivation, or any aspect of the theories, and simply enjoy rejecting the conclusions you disagree with.

Quote:

viper232

... it's eminently possible people will take her ... statements as some form of accurate picture of what physicists actually describe relativity as.

Please do not assume :
. my statements were "some form of accurate picture of what physicists actually describe relativity as"
. people cannot read my statements
. people cannot think by themselves
. people cannot make their own minds on such matters if they are not scientists

People can read your statements, but it'd be good if they understand you have no idea what you're talking about. You're using some words that some people might consider to show you have knowledge, when it's evidently clear you don't.

you

General relativity means space and time, two dimensions extremely basic, historically,
in physics, once completely separate and linear...
...are now linked into some "spacetime", that gets deformed by gravity,
with extreme speeds ( past ~7% of c ) creating noticeable effects on dynamic events,
called "relativistic" effects.

You said this AFTER I corrected you, AFTER I explained why it's not "general relativity" that links them into spacetime, it's special, and AFTER I explained how gravity doesn't distort spacetime. I explained this in detail without the use of any form of math (except an implicit assumption that you know basic geometry, and possibly if you want to start back at the beginning an assumption you can preform basic vector calc... which you might consider 'gasp, that's extreme!' which would be ironic considering the formulation of Maxwell's Equations in classical physics requires vector calc)

Given that you post outright lies about the physics. Yes, I say lie, because I told you right before "that is NOT what the physics says" and in the very next post you make the exact same claims... it's very clear that while one doesn't have to be a scientist to make up their minds, one does have to have at least a tiny understanding of the subject they are discussing.

No, you don't need to be a scientist, but yes, you do need to learn the subject. A 3 year old is no more qualified to comment on the validity of the water cycle as you are to comment on the validity of relativity. It's not that you have to be a scientist, it's that you have to have a tiny tiny understanding of it. You don't have any understanding, at all, even a little, and instead continue to promote false claims when corrected.

Quote:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/pcoquelin/Laura/Explain.jpg

There's a difference between simple, and detailed. Simple gives overviews, but teaches you little about what's really going on. Detailed has the potential to go over many people's heads, but lots more information is provided and to those who can understand it, it is significantly more useful.

It's possible for my prof to explain very simply what the WMAP satellite does, but if I want the details of what it's doing, I'll get a much harder to understand explanation.

whateverfloats

I'm not denying relativity. But what does relativity has to do with things outside the universe?

Considering how we describe the shape of the universe can be done with relativity, it could help answer "outside the universe, does that make sense?"

II Lilium II

Just like there is no highest number because you can always add one, there is no end to the universe...

Evidence needed. No, really, considering it's possible that the universe has a curvature >1, the universe is finite in the sense that the earth is finite. Now, start on any point on the surface of the earth and you can walk around infinitely, but that doesn't mean "there's no end to the earth".

[whateverfloats]

viper232

whateverfloats

I'm not denying relativity. But what does relativity has to do with things outside the universe?

Considering how we describe the shape of the universe can be done with relativity, it could help answer "outside the universe, does that make sense?

Not really...
Describing the structure of the universe describes the universe, not anything outside of it.

[Kenandan1]

The universe is expanding. This is no longer a concept, it's a straight solid fact. We can see this happening. We have the math for this. It was discovered, with Einstein. He didn't want to admit this though.

The universe is actually spreading apart faster and faster, and it aint slowing down. What is doing this is called Dark Energy. The word Dark means we don't have a damn clue what it is.

What is outside of our universe? That is hard to answer, as we will never be able to really truely find out. If your a follower of string theory, one concept is that there is other universes, like, and unlike our own, floating out there. String Theory speaks about the big bang in this type of concept. The idea behind it, is that a universe rubbed up against us, and formed a tube, releasing energy into this universe. Will we ever know? Who knows.

[The REAL easter bunnuh]

theres nothing outside the universe, and we will only expand so far before dark matter pulls us back in.

[Melkitty8]

The REAL easter bunnuh

theres nothing outside the universe, and we will only expand so far before dark matter pulls us back in.

Actually, I believe that scientists have found that the universe is accelerating in it's expansion, not slowing down. The dark energy that is causing this acceleration may rule out the possibility of a Big Crunch. Instead, we are more likely to end up with a heat death of the universe or a Big Rip.

[Fluffz0rs the Wise]

It was said rather eloquently on the first page - the assumption that the universe need expand into something on the outside to allow it to be larger on the inside is not necessarily true. As the spatial planes as we know them only exist within the universe, there's not necessarily even a concept of space to expand 'into' outside of its boundaries. In essence, the interior can 'grow' without the exterior 'growing' proportionally with it.

This actually still applies when dealing with the potential (ever more likely, it seems) for multiverse theory being correct - the exterior 'space' (which it almost certainly isn't, but we'll call it that for simplicity's sake) needn't have spatial dimensions no matter how many universes there are. There could be one or twenty-eight trillion and it wouldn't much matter without spatial dimensions - the very concept that they would need to 'fit' into anything assumes the existence of dimensions that would make no sense even being there.

[shunsui153]

out side of our universe i nothing




(and for the people that think its a Parallel universe its not out side they never actually touch hence the name parallel universe)

[Elden Andel]

Now I have a question, does anything that doesn't pass through the higgs field inside this universe or outside this universe. And if you don't believe that the Higgs field is a correct thoery, just pass on this.