What is outside our universe? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

420 · 03-23-2015, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

When I try to think about it.... It boggles my mind. Think about this - you can travel forever and never ever ever find the end. That's fucking mind blowing.

Hi rochy. I can only travel for something like 100 years max before my organs fail and I die. But, I see your point. Humans have limitations while the universe doesn't have to.

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

Hi rochy. I can only travel for something like 100 years max before my organs fail and I die. But, I see your point. Humans have limitations while the universe doesn't have to.

The universe is finite. Infinite is used only in mathematics as an abstract concept.

If infinite expansion was a reality, then so would be infinite contraction.

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

The universe is finite. Infinite is used only in mathematics as an abstract concept.

If infinite expansion was a reality, then so would be infinite contraction.

math is what explains the Universe though. and infinity is a limit in math, it's not actually infinity.

420 · 03-23-2015, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

The universe is finite. Infinite is used only in mathematics as an abstract concept.

If infinite expansion was a reality, then so would be infinite contraction.

You're right. Our universe is thought to be 27.4 billion light years across. They never say it is infinite light years across.

Can infinite expansion happen for billions of years before infinite contraction starts to shrink the universe back into a small point? Perhaps both are happening simultaneously where the outer parts are expanding while the center is collapsing on itself.

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

math is what explains the Universe though. and infinity is a limit in math, it's not actually infinity.

Infinity is a mathematical abstract to define endless. 10 X infinity is still infinity. Like 20 X 0 is still 0. So if infinity is a limit in math what is medium infinity? What is average infinity?

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Infinity is an abstract to define endless. 10 X infinity is still infinity. Like 20 X 0 is still 0. So if infinity is a limit in math what is medium infinity? What is average infinity?

the boffins can figure that out! seriously!

but i seem to remember having to prove infinity limits. lemme see if i can dig something up. not saying you are not right, just chatting because it does all boil down to math.

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

You're right. Our universe is thought to be 27.4 billion light years across. They never say it is infinite light years across.

Can infinite expansion happen for billions of years before infinite contraction starts to shrink the universe back into a small point? Perhaps both are happening simultaneously where the outer parts are expanding while the center is collapsing on itself.

This is another proof that infinite is only abstract as there would be to center to infinity, it's endless, no beginning, no end, no middle.

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 11:29 AM

Blade, take a gander at this and let me know if i am misunderstanding it/not recollecting my math right. it's been a while since i've had to really apply myself to math.

Pauls Online Notes : Calculus I - Limits At Infinity, Part I

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

the boffins can figure that out! seriously!

but i seem to remember having to prove infinity limits. lemme see if i can dig something up. not saying you are not right, just chatting because it does all boil down to math.

∞ × ∞ = ∞
-∞ × ∞ = -∞
x + ∞ = ∞
x + (-∞) = -∞

and on and on lol

The Porn Nerd · 03-23-2015, 11:33 AM

The "Universe" is truly universal. There's no outside, there's no inside, it's all the same endless loop. The Universe stretches and bends inside itself yet morphs and twists outside itself.

Is there an inside and outside to air? Nope.

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

∞ × ∞ = ∞
-∞ × ∞ = -∞
x + ∞ = ∞
x + (-∞) = -∞

and on and on lol

oh, i'm with ya, but -∞ shows that infinity has a value, i.e. a limit.

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

oh, i'm with ya, but -∞ shows that infinity has a value, i.e. a limit.

∞ = endless
-∞ = without endless
0 = the absence of quantity, the smallest number

CaptainHowdy · 03-23-2015, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

The "Universe" is truly universal. There's no outside, there's no inside, it's all the same endless loop. The Universe stretches and bends inside itself yet morphs and twists outside itself.

Is there an inside and outside to air? Nope.

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 11:55 AM

Blade, doesn't E=mc2 require a limit on infinity? as i understand it, that's the problem with the BB theory, which cannot account for the universe being contained within a singular infinitely dense spot and that's why the theory stops dead in its tracks right there.

MakeMeGrrrrowl · 03-23-2015, 11:57 AM

in·fi·nite
ˈinfənət/
adjective
1.
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

fi·nite
ˈfīnīt/Submit
adjective
1.
having limits or bounds.
"every computer has a finite amount of memory"
synonyms: limited, restricted, determinate, fixed
"there is a finite amount of water in the system"

Don't confuse me Tom!

420 · 03-23-2015, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

The "Universe" is truly universal. There's no outside, there's no inside, it's all the same endless loop. The Universe stretches and bends inside itself yet morphs and twists outside itself.

Is there an inside and outside to air? Nope.

Humans see and understand in 3-D. The universe either has more dimensions than that or it has an outside. It could be an infinite loop but should still have boundaries.

"Air" is contained within earth's atmosphere. This is what's outside of it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...osphere-en.svg

--------

I guess if outer space is a void and the universe is expanding, my question would be; Where did all the empty space come from? What the hell are we growing inside of?

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Blade, doesn't E=mc2 require a limit on infinity? as i understand it, that's the problem with the BB theory, which cannot account for the universe being contained within a singular infinitely dense spot and that's why the theory stops dead in its tracks right there.

E=mc2 deals with massless particles and infinite light travel. It's a theory using abstracts like infinity.

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

E=mc2 deals with massless particles and infinite light travel. It's a theory using abstracts like infinity.

i was under the impression the equation was the keystone to the theory of relativity, which explains and accounts for the BB.

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i was under the impression the equation was the keystone to the theory of relativity, which explains and accounts for the BB.

A scientific theory isn't a scientific fact.

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

A scientific theory isn't a scientific fact.

i understand that. in fact, that's why i made sure to include in my post that it's the theory of relativity.

it also why i rail against *the science is settled* school of thought that's pervasive around here. science isn't fact, math is and that's why infinity can be defined by limits.

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i understand that. in fact, that's why i made sure to include in my post that it's the theory of relativity.

it also why i rail against *the science is settled* school of thought that's pervasive around here. science isn't fact, math is and that's why infinity can be defined by limits.

Ok when you find the limit of infinity let me know.

lakerslive · 03-23-2015, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

Humans see and understand in 3-D. The universe either has more dimensions than that or it has an outside. It could be an infinite loop but should still have boundaries.

"Air" is contained within earth's atmosphere. This is what's outside of it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...osphere-en.svg

--------

I guess if outer space is a void and the universe is expanding, my question would be; Where did all the empty space come from? What the hell are we growing inside of?

yeah, but if you can see that "loop" from a distance then, you must be outside of it... so there must be an outside of an outside of the room you are observing that room from. And that too has an outside

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Ok when you find the limit of infinity let me know.

in an earlier post in this thread, i provided a link and screencap of the math proving limits at infinity and asked you if you could let me know if my thinking correctly aligned with it.

420 · 03-23-2015, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakerslive

yeah, but if you can see that "loop" from a distance then, you must be outside of it... so there must be an outside of an outside of the room you are observing that room from. And that too has an outside

This is true. But there must be some sort of edge that we can't see. There is an estimated distance across. So, even if there's nothing outside of the universe there should be a boundary. Even if that boundary is expanding and getting further away from us, it should still exist.

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 01:19 PM

btw, Blade, i wasn't challenging your thinking, i was challenging mine.

you seem to know wtf you are talking about and have an articulated view.

The Porn Nerd · 03-23-2015, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

Humans see and understand in 3-D. The universe either has more dimensions than that or it has an outside. It could be an infinite loop but should still have boundaries.

"Air" is contained within earth's atmosphere. This is what's outside of it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...osphere-en.svg

--------

I guess if outer space is a void and the universe is expanding, my question would be; Where did all the empty space come from? What the hell are we growing inside of?

Yes of course, but what I am talking about is the Universe is air ITSELF. Therefore limitless, edgeless, etc.

Imagine if air, or a chemical, HAD no container? Then what?

Or am I blowing your mind? LOL I do have Dark Side Of The Moon playing in the background....:D

(In this example, dark matter would be the air.)

420 · 03-23-2015, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Yes of course, but what I am talking about is the Universe is air ITSELF. Therefore limitless, edgeless, etc.

Imagine if air, or a chemical, HAD no container? Then what?

Or am I blowing your mind? LOL I do have Dark Side Of The Moon playing in the background....:D

(In this example, dark matter would be the air.)

I'm getting: The universe isn't a container to hold all the stuff. It IS all the stuff (mostly air or empty nothingness). I dunno, I'm pretty high now so I might be missing the point entirely.

Bladewire · 03-23-2015, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

the problem with there being something outside this universe is that leads to what's outside of that, then what's outside that = infinity.

that's a big problem.

Yes, and this is the paradox you run into and why infinity only exists in mathematical theory, it's not real. At the end of the day you either believe a line can go on so far into forever that it passes over itself, or you don't. Infinite vs finite outside of theory.

In reference to using limits @ infinity in math. Infinity is still as endless, and the limit is used to stop there and say endlessness continues. Infinity is still endless.

Think about it logically, do you think and endless limit really exists? No

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Yes, and this is the paradox you run into and why infinity only exists in mathematical theory, it's not real. At the end of the day you either believe a line can go on so far into forever that it passes over itself, or you don't. Infinite vs finite outside of theory.

In reference to using limits @ infinity in math. Infinity is still as endless, and the limit is used to stop there and say endlessness continues. Infinity is still endless.

Think about it logically, do you think and endless limit really exists? No

like most miscommunications, we are on the same page, just coming at it from different angles.

here, see

you stated that

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

The universe is finite. Infinite is used only in mathematics as an abstract concept.

If infinite expansion was a reality, then so would be infinite contraction.

I expanded on that here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

math is what explains the Universe though. and infinity is a limit in math, it's not actually infinity.

my point being the the real limit in our understanding is math. and that's the math we (Einstein(s)) use to try and explain the Universe. Along those lines, it also is the limit that does not allow the math to explain the singularity prior to the BB. The reason for that is the math doesn't sort out infinity enough.

Here's an article that better states it:

Quote:

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago. All the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity. This tiny fireball then exploded and gave rise to the early universe.

The singularity comes out of the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes how mass warps space-time, and another equation (called Raychaudhuri's equation) that predicts whether the trajectory of something will converge or diverge over time. Going backward in time, according to these equations, all matter in the universe was once in a single point ? the Big Bang singularity.

But that's not quite true. In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached. But scientists extrapolate backward as if the physics equations still hold, said Robert Brandenberger, a theoretical cosmologist at McGill University in Montreal, who was not involved in the study.

"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.

There are other problems brewing in physics ? namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled.

Quantum mechanics says that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein's general relativity, which is deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the future is completely predetermined by the past, Das said.

And neither theory explains what dark matter, an invisible form of matter that exerts a gravitational pull on ordinary matter but cannot be detected by most telescopes, is made of.

Quantum correction

Das and his colleagues wanted a way to resolve at least some of these problems. To do so, they looked at an older way of visualizing quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics. In it, a hidden variable governs the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles. Unlike other formulations of quantum mechanics, it provides a way to calculate the trajectory of a particle.

Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time. [8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life]

The upshot? In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old.

A way to test the theory

One way of interpreting the quantum correction term in their equation is that it is related to the density of dark matter, Das said.

If so, the universe could be filled with a superfluid made of hypothetical particles, such as the gravity-carrying particles known as gravitons, or ultra-cold, ghostlike particles known as axions, Das said.

One way to test the theory is to look at how dark matter is distributed in the universe and see if it matches the properties of the proposed superfluid, Das said.

"If our results match with those, even approximately, that's great," Das told Live Science.

However, the new equations are just one way to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. For instance, a part of string theory known as string gas cosmology predicts that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other theories predict there was once a cosmic "bounce," where the universe first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began expanding, Brandenberg said.

Either way, the universe was once very, very small and hot.

"The fact that there's a hot fireball at very early times: that is confirmed," Brandenberg told Live Science. "When you try to go back all the way to the singularity, that's when the problems arise."

The new theory was explained in a paper published Feb. 4 in the journal Physical Letters B, and another paper that is currently under peer review, which was published in the preprint journal arXiv.

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 03:35 PM

i thought this a humorous explanation,

Quote:

The Big Bang theory envisions the universe beginning from a singularity - a mathematical concept of infinite temperature and infinite density packed into a single point of space. But scientists don't think this is what actually happened.

"It wouldn't really be infinite," explained physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., and another architect of inflation. "Infinity just means a mathematical breakdown. It's a statement that you shouldn't have extrapolated your equations back that far because they just blew up in your face."

The Big Bang: Solid Theory, But Mysteries Remain

The Porn Nerd · 03-23-2015, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

I'm getting: The universe isn't a container to hold all the stuff. It IS all the stuff (mostly air or empty nothingness). I dunno, I'm pretty high now so I might be missing the point entirely.

Put on Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wizard Of Oz. Sync 'em up. Right around 18:36 it will all become crystal clear to you.

PS: Maybe The Bible was right when it said God had no beginning and no end....?

SilentKnight · 03-23-2015, 04:22 PM

Although not directly related to the OPs topic of 'What is outside our universe' - but since the thread has digressed somewhat anyways:

I always liked Carl Sagan's mathematical ending in his novel 'Contact' - whereby the creator of the universe (not necessarily a 'god' - as Sagan was an agnostic) - left their signature (so to speak) within the digits of Pi - way downstream in base 11 math where the seemingly randomized Pi digits become 0's and 1's and eventually form another perfect circle when rastorized in a square algorithm.

I read the book years before the movie came out - and actually drew a diagram on the last blank page of the book to help myself visualize the concept of the ending.

I was always disappointed the novel's ending wasn't used in the movie.

/end digression

dyna mo · 03-23-2015, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

Although not directly related to the OPs topic of 'What is outside our universe' - but since the thread has digressed somewhat anyways:

I always liked Carl Sagan's mathematical ending in his novel 'Contact' - whereby the creator of the universe (not necessarily a 'god' - as Sagan was an agnostic) - left their signature (so to speak) within the digits of Pi - way downstream in base 11 math where the seemingly randomized Pi digits become 0's and 1's and eventually form another perfect circle when rastorized in a square algorithm.

I read the book years before the movie came out - and actually drew a diagram on the last blank page of the book to help myself visualize the concept of the ending.

I was always disappointed the novel's ending wasn't used in the movie.

/end digression

i;ve got to read that fucking book now!

here's the nutty part- i wasn't planning on mentioning this because of how nutty it would come across if i just threw it in this thread but the recent theory that suggests the universe may be forever/infinity got me contemplating it also suggests a creator. i can't explain the leap in thought but it would be absolutely mind blowing if math does ultimately reveal and prove a higher fucking power, a creator if you're open to that term.

and I am.

FUck, Sagan was a complete genius! we watched the original COsmos series several months ago after being completely let down with neil tyson degrasse's watered down silly remake of it.

i remember when it first aired!

yeah, sagan, he kicks ass man!

SilentKnight · 03-23-2015, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i;ve got to read that fucking book now!

here's the nutty part- i wasn't planning on mentioning this because of how nutty it would come across if i just threw it in this thread but the recent theory that suggests the universe may be forever/infinity got me contemplating it also suggests a creator. i can't explain the leap in thought but it would be absolutely mind blowing if math does ultimately reveal and prove a higher fucking power, a creator if you're open to that term.

and I am.

FUck, Sagan was a complete genius! we watched the original COsmos series several months ago after being completely let down with neil tyson degrasse's watered down silly remake of it.

i remember when it first aired!

yeah, sagan, he kicks ass man!

Definitely take the time to read it. Obviously it's fiction...but throughout the story you can see Sagan injecting fact-based ideas that could be plausible - if proven. I love some of the online discussions that the ending generated as to it being possible.

Without spoiling it - Sagan walked a tightrope between suggesting the universe was created by an unseen, omnipotent 'god'...or an advanced race of alien 'architects and builders'. He was a wise man - not wanting to piss off both the creationists and the evolutionists with his novel.

ilnjscb · 03-23-2015, 07:31 PM

I just see a lot of mismatched socks and pens out here.

Struggle4Bucks · 03-24-2015, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

math is what explains the Universe though. and infinity is a limit in math, it's not actually infinity.

Math doesn't explain the Universe... it (at most) describes the Universe... from a human perspective...

Math is a game.... in which the game exists to start with certain sequences of symbols (axioms) to generate, with the help of a set of rules called "inference rules", new sequences of symbols.
Within this system and set of rules one could "proof" this or that... But it's human... all too human to think that a system of subjectivity (yes... math is as subjective as anything else) could proof anything as being objective or "real" or "thruth"...

Language is a motherfucker... the fact that we have words/concepts like "truth", "infinity", "finity", etc... does that mean that these concepts are relevant or even according to "reality"? Or does it expose the character of human nature...

In my opinion "infinity" says more about human nature then it says about "infinity".... ooopssss
In my opinion "infinity" says more about human nature then it says about anything else...

The Porn Nerd · 03-24-2015, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

Definitely take the time to read it. Obviously it's fiction...but throughout the story you can see Sagan injecting fact-based ideas that could be plausible - if proven. I love some of the online discussions that the ending generated as to it being possible.

Without spoiling it - Sagan walked a tightrope between suggesting the universe was created by an unseen, omnipotent 'god'...or an advanced race of alien 'architects and builders'. He was a wise man - not wanting to piss off both the creationists and the evolutionists with his novel.

Sounds a bit like Ancient Aliens.

TeenCat · 03-24-2015, 05:12 AM

drugs man, that is why nobody returned back from there

420 · 03-24-2015, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Put on Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wizard Of Oz. Sync 'em up. Right around 18:36 it will all become crystal clear to you.

PS: Maybe The Bible was right when it said God had no beginning and no end....?

If there's nothing outside our universe then where is heaven?

dyna mo · 03-24-2015, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Struggle4Bucks

Math doesn't explain the Universe... it (at most) describes the Universe... from a human perspective...

Math is a game.... in which the game exists to start with certain sequences of symbols (axioms) to generate, with the help of a set of rules called "inference rules", new sequences of symbols.
Within this system and set of rules one could "proof" this or that... But it's human... all too human to think that a system of subjectivity (yes... math is as subjective as anything else) could proof anything as being objective or "real" or "thruth"...

Language is a motherfucker... the fact that we have words/concepts like "truth", "infinity", "finity", etc... does that mean that these concepts are relevant or even according to "reality"? Or does it expose the character of human nature...

In my opinion "infinity" says more about human nature then it says about "infinity".... ooopssss
In my opinion "infinity" says more about human nature then it says about anything else...

yes, describe is a better choice of word than explain. not sure what other perspective than the human perspective we could have though.

420 · 03-24-2015, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yes, describe is a better choice of word than explain. not sure what other perspective than the human perspective we could have though.

Isn't that part of the dilemma? We can only understand in our own human perspective. We've created tools to help us describe and try to explain things but would any other being understand our concepts?

We take many things for granted as humans. We're taught that certain things are factual so we tend to accept them as true facts.

Harmon · 03-24-2015, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakeMeGrrrrowl

I am a small fish.

No, your crotch just smells like fish. There IS a difference.

Harmon · 03-24-2015, 09:36 AM

Have you ever watched a video of a time lapse, of say, a plant growing from seed to sprout to full grown flower and then it wilts and dies?

Have you ever understood or comprehended that an insect or animal, such as a dog (we'll use dog) perceives it's 10-15 year lifespan as we do say 60-80? It's relative to what you are. At least that is the way I look at it.

Everything that is happening all around us, be it 14.5 billion years (to us) is happening in an instant on the grand scale of things. The entire universe is just BOOM. There it is, and it's gone. We are just lucky enough to experience it. God? Doubt it, but who the fuck am I to say? I can not answer that with any certainty. Nor can you.

We will never understand it. It is happening slow, to us. If there is something, someone or something higher looking in it? It was a sneeze. That quick. Over and done with. We are just caught in the middle.

dyna mo · 03-24-2015, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

Isn't that part of the dilemma? We can only understand in our own human perspective. We've created tools to help us describe and try to explain things but would any other being understand our concepts?

We take many things for granted as humans. We're taught that certain things are factual so we tend to accept them as true facts.

i've never looked at it as a dilemma in this case. we have to start somewhere right? math is as precise a language as it gets and in many ways, universal. i bet if there were technologically advanced beings elsewhere in the Universe that they too speak the language of math.

but s4b makes good points, inifinity is simply a word for shit that we haven't figured out the math for, math = more human than human.

CDSmith · 03-24-2015, 09:43 AM

Assuming big bang--->>>ever-expanding-universe holds true, then...

Our universe as we know it is actually a snot-bubble growing from a giant's nose. A really big giant. In HIS universe time is infinitely slower. In about 10 trillion of our Earth years that snot bubble will burst, sending everything in our universe into a freefall down to the floor of the giant's hovel, a trip that will take another 19 trillion years (our time).

The giant dust mites and carpet beetles, microscopic to the giant but massive beyone measure to us, will feed on what remains of our pitiful 'universe'. The giant will then sneeze (next big-bang) causing another snot bubble to form, and universe II is born.

Hey, it's as plausible a theory as anything else posted in this thread.

CDSmith · 03-24-2015, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Have you ever watched a video of a time lapse, of say, a plant growing from seed to sprout to full grown flower and then it wilts and dies?

Have you ever understood or comprehended that an insect or animal, such as a dog (we'll use dog) perceives it's 10-15 year lifespan as we do say 60-80? It's relative to what you are. At least that is the way I look at it.

Everything that is happening all around us, be it 14.5 billion years (to us) is happening in an instant on the grand scale of things. The entire universe is just BOOM. There it is, and it's gone. We are just lucky enough to experience it. God? Doubt it, but who the fuck am I to say? I can not answer that with any certainty. Nor can you.

We will never understand it. It is happening slow, to us. If there is something, someone or something higher looking in it? It was a sneeze. That quick. Over and done with. We are just caught in the middle.

You've been making some kickass posts lately.

Harmon · 03-24-2015, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

You've been making some kickass posts lately.

I have my moments.

420 · 03-24-2015, 09:58 AM

@Harmon excellent comment. I also believe you can't currently prove or disprove any god. I'm not against the idea of god or gods. But, I'm more willing to believe god is a force rather than any kind of personification.

@Dyna I mostly agree. All humans can understand math regardless of their spoken language. I guess if advanced beings make it to earth they have to understand mathematics.

@CD You're right in that it could be anything imaginable or unimaginable to humans. Just because there is a popular school of thought on the subject doesn't make it the correct explanation. Even if the mathematical formulas are universally accurate, there are a lot of assumptions and estimates made. Much like in economics.

dyna mo · 03-24-2015, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Have you ever watched a video of a time lapse, of say, a plant growing from seed to sprout to full grown flower and then it wilts and dies?

Have you ever understood or comprehended that an insect or animal, such as a dog (we'll use dog) perceives it's 10-15 year lifespan as we do say 60-80? It's relative to what you are. At least that is the way I look at it.

Everything that is happening all around us, be it 14.5 billion years (to us) is happening in an instant on the grand scale of things. The entire universe is just BOOM. There it is, and it's gone. We are just lucky enough to experience it. God? Doubt it, but who the fuck am I to say? I can not answer that with any certainty. Nor can you.

We will never understand it. It is happening slow, to us. If there is something, someone or something higher looking in it? It was a sneeze. That quick. Over and done with. We are just caught in the middle.

your comment reminded me of 2001, space oddity. this is one of the major themes of the movie for me, expanding on it, here's a blurb from kubrick's playboy interview on the film:

Quote:

I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God. I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of God, once you accept the fact that there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, that each star is a life-giving sun and that there are approximately 100 billion galaxies in just the visible universe.

Given a planet in a stable orbit, not too hot and not too cold, and given a few billion years of chance chemical reactions created by the interaction of a sun's energy on the planet's chemicals, it's fairly certain that life in one form or another will eventually emerge. It's reasonable to assume that there must be, in fact, countless billions of such planets where biological life has arisen, and the odds of some proportion of such life developing intelligence are high.

Now, the sun is by no means an old star, and its planets are mere children in cosmic age, so it seems likely that there are billions of planets in the universe not only where intelligent life is on a lower scale than man but other billions where it is approximately equal and others still where it is hundreds of thousands of millions of years in advance of us.

When you think of the giant technological strides that man has made in a few millennia—less than a microsecond in the chronology of the universe—can you imagine the evolutionary development that much older life forms have taken? They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities—and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans.

the book actually tells this part of the story much better even, it's a great read.

dyna mo · 03-24-2015, 10:35 AM

?We?re standing on the threshold of a completely new view of the Universe,? says Tara Shears, a particle physicist at the University of Liverpool, UK.

LHC 2.0: A new view of the Universe : Nature News & Comment

The Large Hadron Collider is back online, ready to shift from the “what” of reality to “why” | Is Nerd

and the JWST coming soon!
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/pul...rtain-universe

it's all really exciting

03-23-2015, 11:33 AM	#60
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,501	The "Universe" is truly universal. There's no outside, there's no inside, it's all the same endless loop. The Universe stretches and bends inside itself yet morphs and twists outside itself. Is there an inside and outside to air? Nope. __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Skype: peabodymedia

03-24-2015, 05:12 AM	#88
TeenCat Too lazy to set a koala Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: CZ/EU forever! Posts: 16,139	drugs man, that is why nobody returned back from there __________________ 6bot / Coming again very soon! Svit Zlin Radio 24/7!

03-24-2015, 09:36 AM	#93
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 20,000	Have you ever watched a video of a time lapse, of say, a plant growing from seed to sprout to full grown flower and then it wilts and dies? Have you ever understood or comprehended that an insect or animal, such as a dog (we'll use dog) perceives it's 10-15 year lifespan as we do say 60-80? It's relative to what you are. At least that is the way I look at it. Everything that is happening all around us, be it 14.5 billion years (to us) is happening in an instant on the grand scale of things. The entire universe is just BOOM. There it is, and it's gone. We are just lucky enough to experience it. God? Doubt it, but who the fuck am I to say? I can not answer that with any certainty. Nor can you. We will never understand it. It is happening slow, to us. If there is something, someone or something higher looking in it? It was a sneeze. That quick. Over and done with. We are just caught in the middle. __________________ [email protected]

03-24-2015, 09:43 AM	#95
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	Assuming big bang--->>>ever-expanding-universe holds true, then... Our universe as we know it is actually a snot-bubble growing from a giant's nose. A really big giant. In HIS universe time is infinitely slower. In about 10 trillion of our Earth years that snot bubble will burst, sending everything in our universe into a freefall down to the floor of the giant's hovel, a trip that will take another 19 trillion years (our time). The giant dust mites and carpet beetles, microscopic to the giant but massive beyone measure to us, will feed on what remains of our pitiful 'universe'. The giant will then sneeze (next big-bang) causing another snot bubble to form, and universe II is born. Hey, it's as plausible a theory as anything else posted in this thread. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

03-23-2015, 11:29 AM	#58
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,913	Blade, take a gander at this and let me know if i am misunderstanding it/not recollecting my math right. it's been a while since i've had to really apply myself to math. Pauls Online Notes : Calculus I - Limits At Infinity, Part I

03-23-2015, 11:55 AM	#64
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,913	Blade, doesn't E=mc2 require a limit on infinity? as i understand it, that's the problem with the BB theory, which cannot account for the universe being contained within a singular infinitely dense spot and that's why the theory stops dead in its tracks right there.

03-23-2015, 11:57 AM	#65
MakeMeGrrrrowl Grrrrrrrrr Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Dreamland Posts: 4,974	in·fi·nite ˈinfənət/ adjective 1. limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate. fi·nite ˈfīnīt/Submit adjective 1. having limits or bounds. "every computer has a finite amount of memory" synonyms: limited, restricted, determinate, fixed "there is a finite amount of water in the system" Don't confuse me Tom!

03-23-2015, 01:19 PM	#75
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,913	btw, Blade, i wasn't challenging your thinking, i was challenging mine. you seem to know wtf you are talking about and have an articulated view.

03-23-2015, 04:22 PM	#82
SilentKnight Megan Fox's fluffer Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: shooting pool in Elysium Posts: 24,818	Although not directly related to the OPs topic of 'What is outside our universe' - but since the thread has digressed somewhat anyways: I always liked Carl Sagan's mathematical ending in his novel 'Contact' - whereby the creator of the universe (not necessarily a 'god' - as Sagan was an agnostic) - left their signature (so to speak) within the digits of Pi - way downstream in base 11 math where the seemingly randomized Pi digits become 0's and 1's and eventually form another perfect circle when rastorized in a square algorithm. I read the book years before the movie came out - and actually drew a diagram on the last blank page of the book to help myself visualize the concept of the ending. I was always disappointed the novel's ending wasn't used in the movie. /end digression

03-23-2015, 07:31 PM	#85
ilnjscb Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,790	I just see a lot of mismatched socks and pens out here.

03-24-2015, 09:58 AM	#98
420 cuck Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 11,571	@Harmon excellent comment. I also believe you can't currently prove or disprove any god. I'm not against the idea of god or gods. But, I'm more willing to believe god is a force rather than any kind of personification. @Dyna I mostly agree. All humans can understand math regardless of their spoken language. I guess if advanced beings make it to earth they have to understand mathematics. @CD You're right in that it could be anything imaginable or unimaginable to humans. Just because there is a popular school of thought on the subject doesn't make it the correct explanation. Even if the mathematical formulas are universally accurate, there are a lot of assumptions and estimates made. Much like in economics.

03-24-2015, 10:35 AM	#100
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,913	?We?re standing on the threshold of a completely new view of the Universe,? says Tara Shears, a particle physicist at the University of Liverpool, UK. LHC 2.0: A new view of the Universe : Nature News & Comment The Large Hadron Collider is back online, ready to shift from the “what” of reality to “why” \| Is Nerd and the JWST coming soon! https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/pul...rtain-universe it's all really exciting