Page 1 of 6
#1
Not that we can confirm anything with observation or experiment, but logical deduction can help us at least rule out things that are logically inconsistent.

Things we generally see to be logically consistent...

- We know that inside the universe we see three dimensions, x, y, z, and feel the effect of time, t, as it moves through space, or as space moves through it.

- We know that black holes are exit points out of the universe

- We know that the universe has a shape.

- We know that the universe is spinning, but we don't know which way / how it is spinning. It could be spinning in and through itself... >_>

- We know that the universe is expanding. By expanding I mean that it is literally creating new space where there was none.

- We don't know if time exists outside this universe. We don't know if matter exists outside this universe.

(feel free to add more observations)

So...

Whatever I've listed so far urges me to think that outside the universe is three-dimensional in spatial structure, but a universe can only be seen spinning if time is in effect outside the universe as well. Does that mean space and time exist (perhaps not with the same rules as in here) outside of the universe?

Keep in mind I'm not talking about parallel universes, multiverses, string theory, etc. This discussion is strictly about what's on the other side of this universe, and how it could be structured like.
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#2
Pretty sure outside the Universe isn't a thing.
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
#5
There is no outside the universe because the universe is made up of matter and outside of it is nothing.

Honestly, you're thinking to hard on a question that doesn't need an answer because common sense has already given you an answer and told you to stop thinking about it and worry about something more important.
#6
Quote by darkstar2466
Not that we can confirm anything with observation or experiment, but logical deduction can help us at least rule out things that are logically inconsistent.


- We know that black holes are exit points out of the universe



And "we" found this out when?
#8
Anyone in this thread have a degree in physics?

Anyone in this thread over 12?

No?

Don't mind me, carry on.
Hahahahahahahahahah hahahaha har har har
#9
This is what we're talking about today? Must be a slow day in the Pit.
Quote by WCPhils
My prayers are with you and your balls TS


Quote by jetfuel495
I ran out of chicken nuggets.

When will this misery end.
#10
watch through the wormhole, if you haven't already. It will make you understand how little we actually know. If not, it'll definitely blow your mind anyway.

OT: no idea, pretty sure there's nothing there. (btw Through The Wormhole is narrated by Morgan Freeman so that alone is reason to watch it)
Quote by lockedandlogan
Let me get this straight. You're asking a bunch of people who are sitting at their computers, likely due to boredom, what to do for fun.



Quote by GaijinFoot
Old chinese proverb says: Man goes to bed with itchy bum, wakes up with smelly finger

Wise words
Last edited by Flipje at Mar 23, 2012,
#11
Quote by chriscobonham
This is what we're talking about today? Must be a slow day in the Pit.
Define a fast day in the pit without using the words 'sex' or 'anal'.
ggg1 ggg3

.
#12
Quote by ethan_hanus
There is no outside the universe because the universe is made up of matter and outside of it is nothing.


You don't know that. There could be multiple universes, so there's nothing wrong with wondering what else could be out there. It's possible that black holes could be an entrance to another universe. We just don't know yet.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#13
Quote by CodeMonk
And "we" found this out when?


Aw don't take the "we" literally. Information disappears in a black hole, and there's not escaping that (ba-dum-pish). Hawking thinks that information lost through black holes is reintroduced elsewhere in other universes - the parallel universe theory is what mathematically satisfies conservation of information.
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#14
Assuming Einstein was right, the outside of the Universe (if there is such a thing) has no dimension.

The first three dimensions are properties of space and from there it becomes properties of time and then combination of the two. Space and time (commonly refered to as spacetime since when you dig deeper they are intricately related) are only defined within the Universe.

Quote by darkstar2466
Aw don't take the "we" literally. Information disappears in a black hole, and there's not escaping that (ba-dum-pish). Hawking thinks that information lost through black holes is reintroduced elsewhere in other universes - the parallel universe theory is what mathematically satisfies conservation of information.


That's only one of hawkings theories. he allso wrote an extensive publication on Black Hole Radiation. Energy radiates rapidly and powerfully from the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, so much so that the only explanation is that it is actually the ejection of consumed matter in the form of energy. A leading theory regarding Black Holes is that the matter that enters a Black Hole doesn't get ejected elsewhere, it gets ejected from the same Black Hole in the form of X Rays and Gamma Rays, and it will continue to do so until the Black Hole "evaporates" and loses all the matter at its core.
Last edited by Seref at Mar 23, 2012,
#15
Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
You don't know that. There could be multiple universes, so there's nothing wrong with wondering what else could be out there. It's possible that black holes could be an entrance to another universe. We just don't know yet.


No, but so what? You can't find out, mankind will be extinct before we get the technology to even get close to making an accurate assumption, and who cares? We have better things to worry about, like when someone is gonna make me my friken flying car!
#16
Quote by darkstar2466
- We know that inside the universe we see three dimensions, x, y, z, and feel the effect of time, t, as it moves through space, or as space moves through it.


Hmm, kind of.

- We know that black holes are exit points out of the universe


No, they aren't - in any way.

- We know that the universe has a shape.


Indeed.

- We know that the universe is spinning, but we don't know which way / how it is spinning. It could be spinning in and through itself... >_>


No.

- We know that the universe is expanding. By expanding I mean that it is literally creating new space where there was none.


Yes.

- We don't know if time exists outside this universe. We don't know if matter exists outside this universe.


Nothing exists outside the universe, at least not to our current knowledge.

Whatever I've listed so far urges me to think that outside the universe is three-dimensional in spatial structure, but a universe can only be seen spinning if time is in effect outside the universe as well. Does that mean space and time exist (perhaps not with the same rules as in here) outside of the universe?

Keep in mind I'm not talking about parallel universes, multiverses, string theory, etc. This discussion is strictly about what's on the other side of this universe, and how it could be structured like.


The universe doesn't spin, because that would imply motion relative to something else - and seeing as that something else doesn't exist, it cannot be said to be spinning.

And space and time don't exist outside of the universe, as if parts did then it would, by definition, be part of the universe.

Nothing is on the 'other side' because there isn't one.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#17
Quote by darkstar2466

- We know that black holes are exit points out of the universe

- We know that the universe is spinning, but we don't know which way / how it is spinning. It could be spinning in and through itself... >_>

citation needed.
#18
Quote by darkstar2466
Aw don't take the "we" literally. Information disappears in a black hole, and there's not escaping that (ba-dum-pish). Hawking thinks that information lost through black holes is reintroduced elsewhere in other universes - the parallel universe theory is what mathematically satisfies conservation of information.



Didn't mean we in that way.
But its not something anyone can be sure about until they go through a black hole and come back.
#19
Btw, not all of your "logical consistencies" are correct.
--------------╯╰--------------
A SIGNATURE.
--------------╮╭--------------
#20
Quote by darkstar2466
- We know that black holes are exit points out of the universe

- We know that the universe has a shape.

- We know that the universe is spinning, but we don't know which way / how it is spinning. It could be spinning in and through itself... >_>


I take issue with these three.

- Nobody knows what the singularity at the core of a black hole is. Many people think that there isn't actually a singularity there and consistent quantum theory of gravity will have no singularity.

- Only in the abstract sense that anything 3 dimensional has a shape. We don't know what that shape is, if it is closed or open or whatever.

- I was under the impression that the universe was not spinning.

Quote by darkstar2466
Aw don't take the "we" literally. Information disappears in a black hole, and there's not escaping that (ba-dum-pish). Hawking thinks that information lost through black holes is reintroduced elsewhere in other universes - the parallel universe theory is what mathematically satisfies conservation of information.


That is one suggestion. There are others. We certainly do not "know" that it is the case.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#21
Actual science talk going on here? Or at least what seems like serious science to me? Welp. I'm out.
Quote by WCPhils
My prayers are with you and your balls TS


Quote by jetfuel495
I ran out of chicken nuggets.

When will this misery end.
#22
Didn't read, was just gonna say that there is likely no such thing as "outside the universe"
#23
Quote by Seref
Assuming Einstein was right, the outside of the Universe (if there is such a thing) has no dimension.

The first three dimensions are properties of space and from there it becomes properties of time and then combination of the two. Space and time (commonly refered to as spacetime since when you dig deeper they are intricately related) are only defined within the Universe.


That's only one of hawkings theories. he allso wrote an extensive publication on Black Hole Radiation. Energy radiates rapidly and powerfully from the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, so much so that the only explanation is that it is actually the ejection of consumed matter in the form of energy. A leading theory regarding Black Holes is that the matter that enters a Black Hole doesn't get ejected elsewhere, it gets ejected from the same Black Hole in the form of X Rays and Gamma Rays, and it will continue to do so until the Black Hole "evaporates" and loses all the matter at its core.


What makes me indecisive about information loss in a black hole is that at its core, the black hole is a singularity. A singularity by definition is compression of density and temperature (loose terms in god-scale physics, not to be taken to heart again) into the infinite. To have different definitions of singularity also means having different infinities.

Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#24
Quote by Meths
I take issue with these three.

- Nobody knows what the singularity at the core of a black hole is. Many people think that there isn't actually a singularity there and consistent quantum theory of gravity will have no singularity.

- Only in the abstract sense that anything 3 dimensional has a shape. We don't know what that shape is, if it is closed or open or whatever.

- I was under the impression that the universe was not spinning.


That is one suggestion. There are others. We certainly do not "know" that it is the case.

It is generally agreed upon currently in the physics world that the universe is a flat system. The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) has collected data that backs this up with an extremely small margin of error.
--------------╯╰--------------
A SIGNATURE.
--------------╮╭--------------
#25
Quote by darkstar2466
What makes me indecisive about information loss in a black hole is that at its core, the black hole is a singularity. A singularity by definition is compression of density and temperature (loose terms in god-scale physics, not to be taken to heart again) into the infinite. To have different definitions of singularity also means having different infinities.



A singularity is by no means infinite.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#26
Quote by flxjhnlrssn
Didn't read, was just gonna say that there is likely no such thing as "outside the universe"
I don't think so. If you would consider a 2D universe, the people on 2D earth would probably think that there isn't anything outside their universe. However, us in our 3D world can look into the 2D world from outside that universe and see how limited it is (missing the z plane (depth) and all).

For all we know, there could be a 4D universe outside our universe seeing us the same way we see a 2D universe. We just can't comprehend a 4D universe because we're stuck in our 3D one.

tl:dr If you've been trapped in a opaque box your whole life, how can you imagine how the world outside the box looks like?


I'M PROBABLY WRONG, PLEASE DISREGARD IF SO.
ggg1 ggg3

.
Last edited by behind_you at Mar 23, 2012,
#27
Quote by DonGlover
It is generally agreed upon currently in the physics world that the universe is a flat system. The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) has collected data that backs this up with an extremely small margin of error.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that also means that it is "endless", meaning there is no "outside"
#28
Quote by darkstar2466
What makes me indecisive about information loss in a black hole is that at its core, the black hole is a singularity. A singularity by definition is compression of density and temperature (loose terms in god-scale physics, not to be taken to heart again) into the infinite. To have different definitions of singularity also means having different infinities.


There are different infinities. How many numbers between 1 and 2? How many between 1 and 3?
#29
Quote by ethan_hanus
No, but so what? You can't find out, mankind will be extinct before we get the technology to even get close to making an accurate assumption, and who cares? We have better things to worry about, like when someone is gonna make me my friken flying car!


And what's your point? In Leonardo Da Vinci's time people probably thought the same thing when he drew up the design for his flying machine.


There was a time when people probably thought the same thing about going to the moon.

It's absurd to say that we'll never develop the technology to be able to find the answer to the question of what's outside our universe. It's people like you that say that we shouldn't even bother to find the answers to our questions about the universe that hold back our progress.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#30
Quote by flxjhnlrssn
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that also means that it is "endless", meaning there is no "outside"

Yes, an infinite flat type model. It doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of an "outside" the universe, but it would obviously be working on physical terms we do not understand, so we would be wise to conclude that a universe which can spring from nothing does not have a something outside of it.
--------------╯╰--------------
A SIGNATURE.
--------------╮╭--------------
#31
Quote by DonGlover
It is generally agreed upon currently in the physics world that the universe is a flat system. The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) has collected data that backs this up with an extremely small margin of error.


That's just silly, the universe can't be flat, like a plank of wood, I think of it like a sphere, since according to the big bang theory, the universe expanded out in all directions from one central point, thus, not expanding out flat, but in every direction in 3 dimensions.

If it was flat, then you could only see stars at one point in the sky, and not at any point anywhere on the planet.


#32
Quote by behind_you
I don't think so. If you would consider a 2D universe, the people on 2D earth would probably think that there isn't anything outside their universe. However, us in our 3D world can look into the 2D world from outside that universe and see how limited it is (missing the z plane (depth) and all).

For all we know, there could be a 4D universe outside our universe seeing us the same way we see a 2D universe. We just can't comprehend a 4D universe because we're stuck in our 3D one.

Doesn't the universe have "all" dimensions, what we call the 3 dimensions are just what we can see, and we can't possibly understand how a "2d" world works. But it is technically possible that this universe could be seen as a 2d verse by something.

Okey, I don't know what I'm talking about either. But I'm still pretty sure that the currently most likely scenario is that there is only this universe, and nothing else.


Quote by ethan_hanus
That's just silly, the universe can't be flat, like a plank of wood, I think of it like a sphere, since according to the big bang theory, the universe expanded out in all directions from one central point, thus, not expanding out flat, but in every direction in 3 dimensions.

If it was flat, then you could only see stars at one point in the sky, and not at any point anywhere on the planet.



You take the "flat" far to literally
Last edited by flxjhnlrssn at Mar 23, 2012,
#33
Quote by metal4eva_22
citation needed.


This is not my graduate thesis lol. I presented what I thought to be logically consistent datapoints that we can agree or disagree on. If some of them logically inconsistent, we refine the datapoints until they are consistent. Perhaps I should not toss the word "know" around for things that aren't factually accurate.

Quote by Meths
I take issue with these three.

- Nobody knows what the singularity at the core of a black hole is. Many people think that there isn't actually a singularity there and consistent quantum theory of gravity will have no singularity.

- Only in the abstract sense that anything 3 dimensional has a shape. We don't know what that shape is, if it is closed or open or whatever.

- I was under the impression that the universe was not spinning.


That is one suggestion. There are others. We certainly do not "know" that it is the case.


I read pretty recently that some researcher found that galaxy clusters had a preferred direction of rotation, and by a good enough clip - something only possibly if the universe had an axis or more of rotation in early stages.
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
Last edited by darkstar2466 at Mar 23, 2012,
#34
Quote by ethan_hanus
That's just silly, the universe can't be flat, like a plank of wood, I think of it like a sphere, since according to the big bang theory, the universe expanded out in all directions from one central point, thus, not expanding out flat, but in every direction in 3 dimensions.

If it was flat, then you could only see stars at one point in the sky, and not at any point anywhere on the planet.



Haha, that's not how it works. I can assure you, the geometry involved is far beyond your understanding of shapes, because it is subject to the number of dimensions. Flat doesn't just mean like a piece of paper.

This is an example of a flat shape:

--------------╯╰--------------
A SIGNATURE.
--------------╮╭--------------
#35
Quote by ethan_hanus
That's just silly, the universe can't be flat, like a plank of wood, I think of it like a sphere, since according to the big bang theory, the universe expanded out in all directions from one central point, thus, not expanding out flat, but in every direction in 3 dimensions.

If it was flat, then you could only see stars at one point in the sky, and not at any point anywhere on the planet.




That doesn't necessarily mean that the universe can't be flat. For example, imagine that this is the universe:


______________________________________<Top of universe

-----------------*
----------------------------------------------*
--*
.<Earth
--------------------------------------*
______________________________________<Bottom of universe


So as you can see it's still flat even though it's quite wide. So from our perspective we would still see the universe as not being flat (much like how people used to think the universe revolved around earth due to the way it looked to us) even though it actually is.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#38
Quote by darkstar2466
This is not my graduate thesis lol. I presented what I thought to be logically consistent datapoints that we can agree or disagree on. If some of them logically inconsistent, we refine the datapoints until they are consistent. Perhaps I should not toss the word "know" around for things that aren't factually accurate.


I read pretty recently that some researcher found that galaxy clusters had a preferred direction of rotation, and by a good enough clip - something only possibly if the universe had an axis or more of rotation in early stages.


Galactic cluster rotating has nothing to do with the universe rotating. All of the mass in the universe could revolve around a single point in the universe, but that wouldn't mean the universe itself was rotating - only that the mass within it was.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#39
The general concesus right now is that the edges of the universe curl inwards into a toroidal shape so that there is no truly defined "edge of the universe" so the argument is kind of nullified regardless.

The reason we often consider it "flat" in the classical sense (like a piece of paper) is because objects travel along it in a rectilinear path. Consider an enormous sphere--you can limit a square area on it and if the radius of the sphere is big enough, the surface of that square will be virtually flat and any particle moving along that surface will act as it would on a flat surface. Kind of like us on Earth except scaled up by several billion magnitudes.
Last edited by Seref at Mar 23, 2012,
#40
Quote by CrimsonBizzare
There are different infinities. How many numbers between 1 and 2? How many between 1 and 3?

The number of numbers between 1 and 2 and the number of numbers between 2 and 3 are the same: infinity.
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie