What exists outside the universe?

[viper232]

viper232

Kaz-Balan

viper232

Scientists and "curious minds" will consider this when you can actually describe what it means in precise terminology as well as give them a reason to consider it instead of a theory that works rather well with the evidence and current understanding of the universe.

I'm pretty sure ancient Aegyptian priests produced quite the same answer...
  ...to anyone trying to formulate any other hypothesys than :
  "The Sun-god Râ travels on His sacred chariot across the sky every day,
   leaving the night to His twin sister Bast".
It worked rather well with the evidence and understanding of the universe
  this extremely evolved civilization had.

And yet just because they were wrong does not mean we are nearly as wrong with our description today. This analogy is, like both you and creationists often do, making a mockery of the relativity of wrong.

If you can't explain what you're even saying in precise terminology, how are "scientists and curious minds" supposed to take it seriously? It's meaningless babble, nothing more.

Quote:

viper232

Scientists and "curious minds" however don't often usually care about crackpot ideas, they don't care about the time cube, they don't care about creationism, and they don't care about the idea that magical unicorns are shitting sea shells onto the sea shore. Until such descriptions have a reason to be investigated, shouting random ideas and saying "it explains X!" when it fails to even describe the current body of evidence... are usually, and rightfully, ignored.

But a FEW curious minds will SOMETIMES ( as what happened to Einstein ) ...
  ...have doubt and uncertainty enough about the official theories
  to have real reflexions about them all, and try and develop other hypothesis.

Einstein came about his ideas because of very glaring flaws with the current interpretation of physics. All he did was say "hey, lets try to re-derive this from a simpler postulate, that the laws of physics remain consistent in different reference frames as no reference frame seems to be special", and lo and behold, he succeeded in re-deriving the transformations that we already had from a simpler set of postulates.

There's a very big difference between proposing a very real set of postulates that would fix flaws with the current interpretation (such as the apparent constant measurements of the speed of light marking a fairly big nail in the coffin for ether theory), and proposing nonsense that is poorly worded based on complete misinterpretations of the physics from someone who doesn't understand the physics, has never derived the physics, has no concept on any of the flaws of the current model and has proposed nothing that would fix any of the flaws and still be consistent with current measurements.

Einstein knew the physics, and his ideas both fixed problems AND explained current data... and were very real very precise statements... his papers were not idle babble, they were substantial.

You... don't know the physics. Your ideas do not seem to fix current problems, but rather they fix what you perceive as problems despite what the evidence indicates. They do not explain the current data. They are not precise, they are open, vague, and I can't even remotely figure out how to build a substantial model from them.

You are no einstein... you don't understand what it means to be a "curious mind" in science. You really are the physics equivalent of a creationist, and you're too blind to see that.

http://xkcd.com/
I believe the new xkcd is incredibly relevant to anyone who believes that Kaz has shown gaping flaws in Einstein's theory of relativity. I read it and couldn't think of anyone else.

Edit: I really do love xkcd.

[Melkitty8]

Viper, what do you think exists outside the known universe?

[18th Century Rock Star]

rescue_me364

uggh
I get brain farts when ever i think about this.

You are just ******** stupid.

[viper232]

Melkitty8

Viper, what do you think exists outside the known universe?

I can't really attribute the concept of "outside" to the universe, the universe is all that exists, and perhaps is curved on itself, perhaps not, but "outside" would imply the universe being "inside" something, which I could only imagine requires a higher dimensional multi-verse which has no empirical justification.

[-Veletzi Dun-]

viper232

Melkitty8

Viper, what do you think exists outside the known universe?

I can't really attribute the concept of "outside" to the universe, the universe is all that exists, and perhaps is curved on itself, perhaps not, but "outside" would imply the universe being "inside" something, which I could only imagine requires a higher dimensional multi-verse which has no empirical justification.

Have you considered the points to a bubble universe theory?

[VorpalNeko]

Chaotic inflation has different 'universes' only in a very loose sense; properly speaking, there is only one connected spacetime, just with vastly different conditions in different regions.

[ty12345]

whateverfloats

ty12345

You know what? I say that if we were to make it to the edge of the universe, we would break the surface and on the other side would be a huge-a** sign that says "Game Over. You Win." lol

No, no. There's a restaurant at the end of the universe.

NO. At the egde of the universe.... there is...a Starbucks.
But wait, not just a Starbucks, across from it is... another Starbucks.
oooooooooooooooooh.

[Melkitty8]

viper232

Melkitty8

Viper, what do you think exists outside the known universe?

I can't really attribute the concept of "outside" to the universe, the universe is all that exists, and perhaps is curved on itself, perhaps not, but "outside" would imply the universe being "inside" something, which I could only imagine requires a higher dimensional multi-verse which has no empirical justification.

Why does the multi-verse theory have no empirical justification? Just because we can't currently prove a multi-verse exists doesn't mean that it can't exist or that it's not real. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.

BTW, has anyone been able to prove that string theory or loop quantum gravity are valid theories? Has anyone been able to prove that either of them or both of them work? Just a thought.

[VorpalNeko]

Melkitty8

Why does the multi-verse theory have no empirical justification? Just because we can't currently prove a multi-verse exists doesn't mean that it can't exist or that it's not real.

Melkitty8

Why does the multi-verse theory have no empirical justification?

Why?

Melkitty8

... because we can't currently prove a multi-verse exists ...

That's why--or to be more specific, we don't even have any empirical evidence that it does. If you don't find this obvious, then I think you're confused as to what the word 'empirical' means.

Melkitty8

BTW, has anyone been able to prove that string theory or loop quantum gravity are valid theories? Has anyone been able to prove that either of them or both of them work?

No to all of the above so far, unfortunately.

[Melkitty8]

VorpalNeko

Melkitty8

Why does the multi-verse theory have no empirical justification? Just because we can't currently prove a multi-verse exists doesn't mean that it can't exist or that it's not real.

Melkitty8

Why does the multi-verse theory have no empirical justification?

Why?

Melkitty8

... because we can't currently prove a multi-verse exists ...

That's why--or to be more specific, we don't even have any empirical evidence that it does. If you don't find this obvious, then I think you're confused as to what the word 'empirical' means.

Melkitty8

BTW, has anyone been able to prove that string theory or loop quantum gravity are valid theories? Has anyone been able to prove that either of them or both of them work?

No to all of the above so far, unfortunately.

Ah, now I get the meaning of thew word empirical, thanks for clearing that up.
As for not being able to prove that string theory or loop quantum gravity work, it looks to me as if current physics has hit a wall or a major obstacle in our understanding of the universe or multiverse. It seems to me that the reason we can't find evidence for string theory, loop quantum gravity or a multiverse is just that our technology isn't that advanced yet. Not that bringing theology or metaphysics into the current search for a unified theory would help, though.

[bolee]

Nothing. Every thing in existence is the Universe. It is simply expanding into itself.

[Melkitty8]

bolee

Nothing. Every thing in existence is the Universe. It is simply expanding into itself.

Nobody knows that for sure.

[bolee]

Melkitty8

bolee

Nothing. Every thing in existence is the Universe. It is simply expanding into itself.

Nobody knows that for sure.

That's what I've always been taught.
What are the other theories?
I'm too lazy to read about 7 pages of arguing.

(pm me please)

[Datenshi-san]

I've spent the last two months thinking over this question when I have the time and I've come up with some ideas. If you don't follow me or see some gapping flaws, go ahead and PM me with questions.
First of all, I want to say that any theory, no matter how accepted it is by science, can be disproved. I'm going to say right now, that I believe the laws of conservation of matter and energy aren't correct. By this, I mean that matter can be created and destroyed and the same of energy. Now what do I have to explain this? Something pretty simple that I believe has already been discovered but is doing something else right now. "Dark energy" is the literal "god-particle" of the universe. I believe that under certain conditions, maybe the infinite vacuum of a black hole, that dark energy can be transformed into matter or light energy. But, if those conditions aren't correct, then the dark energy is just absorbed into space-time creating more of it. Also, dark energy is the thing outside the universe, it doesn't technically have an existence because you could say it IS nothing. Just like you say that air is nothing even if something is there but you can't see or really interact with it much. The universe expands by absorbing this energy as it rolls on through it.
This also means that the creation of matter will increase the general pull on everything in the universe (gravity) and prevent matter from being ripped apart by expansion forces.
As for "rips" in space-time, its difficult to say whether or not they are possible or not, but if they happened, they would surely be quickly repaired by dark energy because it creates more space. All space is really is "programed" nothing so to speak. Think of a computer program, when it doesn't run, the math involved in making the program execute isn't being active, but when you activate the program, math orders everything and defines parameters and other things for the program. If you increase what the program controls on the hard drive, more space is formatted and ordered. A rip would be like saying that the program stopped effecting a certain area, and its hard to say whether or not something like that could happen.
Anyone who has questions on this can ask me over PM, anything goes, even criticism. Just if you want to call me a hack or a no-nothing, be aware that I really haven't learned the mathematics behind physics or all of the laws involved in physics so this is really just novice speculation. Try and be nice when you do it though, because I will not reply or even completely read violent PMs.

[Project Light]

Layra-chan

The universe doesn't necessarily have to be expanding into anything. It can simply be expanding on the inside, whereby expanding means that the concept of distance is changing, not that the universe as a whole is actually moving outward.
Consider a road. On day 1, we declare this road to be 1 kilometer long and define a kilometer thusly, and define everything that mentions distance in terms of this notion of a kilometer.
On day 2, we declare the road to be 2 kilometers long, and redefine everything accordingly. The road hasn't actually gotten any bigger, but from the point of view of those having to deal with distances, everything is now farther apart.
This analogy is terribly flawed in that it doesn't extend past the idea of redefining distances, but the important part is there: just because the inside of the universe considers itself to be expanding doesn't mean that the universe as a whole is actually getting bigger.

I think what you're trying to say is that the universe isn't getting bigger, but everything within it is getting smaller.