The edge of space (IF there is one)

Conspirator
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 12:48 am » by Doogle


I was talking to someone the other day about things that are possible, implausible and improbable. We were arguing about life in the universe and he was going on about no proof etc and our current understanding of physics ruling out interstellar travel and at first I tried to explain that it was only our "current" understanding, but he was having none of it.

Then I asked him "OK, if we know it all, tell me, if we could travel to the furthest point in space, what would we find?" He called me a twat. Fair enough, or not.

But it's an age old, and mind boggling thought, and one that never seems to bore, well not me anyway.

So, smart asses, what do you think we would find if we could travel to the furthest reaches of space, and time if you will? If it is eternal, how do you explain it?

No proof necessary (in this case).

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:56 pm

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 5:31 am » by Chillitiger


personally i think it goes on forever, you may go far enough to come all the way back into yourself!
Yes i'll admit it.... I think Max Keiser is a LEGEND

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7128
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:00 pm
Location: Zin-Uru

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 5:36 am » by Kinninigan


:look:




Audiobook: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy



Upload to Disclose.tv


Published on Sep 15, 2011 by audiobookmturk19


the answer is "42"




Actually any theory is just a crazy as this one








:lol:












:peep:


Upload to Disclose.tv


https://www.youtube.com/user/kinninigan
http://www.disclose.tv/user/kinninigan/

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2253
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 5:59 am » by Iwanci


Or maybe just maybe if you were t travel as far as you could you may end up exactly where you started...

:think:
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:27 pm

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 7:57 am » by Willynumbnuts


Time (from the human perspective) and space (again from our human persepective) appear to be the same.

If space has an 'Edge' or end, then so does time. Before you can study this interesting little titbit, you must understand how human's understand and express time/space in their own languages. How a human expresses his/her concept of time/space must be by language and it's limitations.

check out this little site:

"THE METAPHOR OF TIME AS SPACE."

http://epistemic-forms.com/Time-as-space.html


It's a long haul read. Here's a couple quotes from it:

INTERNAL TIME: The biological aspects of time revolve around various internal experiences such as being conscious, witnessing events that are causal, witnessing events that are simultaneous, memory of the past, cyclical modules of growth, awaiting new outcomes in the future, etc. This inward awareness of time is blended in Western societies as linear time. This is time that reckons movement from the past, through the present, and into the future. This movement of time is from left to right. This has become the natural scanning movement of the eyes in processing information. It forms the basis of reading, scanning items on a grocery shelf , etc. This linear movement emerges in the blend of linear time. These movements are new to the blend. They do not occur naturally in time. They have been created in the blend and constitute a cognitive metaphor in European languages. Hence, in English, it is natural to assume that one looks forward into the future and turns back to see the past. Furthermore, in English time is based on a Contact Schema. One has to move forward physically from the present and into the future. Such is not the case in all languages. In Greek, for example, the future is behind an individual and the past is in front. Furthermore, time moves from the future, enfolds in the present, and resides in the past. In Greek, it is time that moves. In English, on the other hand, it is the individual who moves towards time. The march of time is a metaphor that is common to English speaking countries.


THE METAPHOR OF LINEAR TIME
Many students of language are astounded by the fact that there are languages which lack tense. This confusion results from the fact that they do not realize that time is a semantic construct and tense is a linguistic one. All languages have ways of speaking about time, a semantic construct. Not all languages have linguistic markers of time, tense. Languages that lack tense, use time words to signal events that take place in the past, present, or future. With the passage of time, these time words become attached to verbs and the resulting conflation is known as tense. English has only two tenses: the present and the past. The future occurs as a time construct, but not as a linguistic one. In order to talk about the future in English, one must use a construction that employs the model will.


Basically, a human's description of time/space depends on how he/she can express it in language - and that language IS the description of that human's understanding (from their brain/conciouness/self-awareness/etc)

Understanding the limitations of language expression when referencing time is a start to understanding the subject. Afterall, Einstein would express his idea's quite differenlty from than, say Galileo Galilei, because of the differences in language and understanding. Therefore, time is quite relative to who's doing the observation, their understanding of what they are seeing, and most importantly, how they express or communicate, to others, what they have observed.

Therefore 'the edge of space' may mean the end of measurable matter (by who ever is observing it) or the end of understood 'time' - again by the experiences and understanding of who's doing the observation and how they define both time and/space.


It's just the start of the answer to your question - obviously from the English Language perspective and experience.

Image

This is interesting:

http://scienceline.org/2010/12/the-end-of-time-not-quite/

Though it’s still going strong after 13.7 billion years, the universe may be headed for the big sleep, according to a group of theoretical physicists. A recently published study provocatively suggests that time will end—and for our galaxy, the end will come within the next five billion years.


The end of time is the edge of the universe?

:cheers:
"When you do something to help the world like.....like i wrote a book on how to cure eyesight,"
Oreocannon

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:20 am

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 8:26 am » by Boatman


Doogle wrote:I was talking to someone the other day about things that are possible, implausible and improbable. We were arguing about life in the universe and he was going on about no proof etc and our current understanding of physics ruling out interstellar travel and at first I tried to explain that it was only our "current" understanding, but he was having none of it.

Then I asked him "OK, if we know it all, tell me, if we could travel to the furthest point in space, what would we find?" He called me a twat. Fair enough, or not.

But it's an age old, and mind boggling thought, and one that never seems to bore, well not me anyway.

So, smart asses, what do you think we would find if we could travel to the furthest reaches of space, and time if you will? If it is eternal, how do you explain it?

No proof necessary (in this case).


I'm not being Funny here Doogle my mate, i am just trying to explain it the best way i know how.
Your mate has got the age old problem "He can't grasp what's beyond his nose". That person thinks we are the centre of the Universe, and a problem like that they just can't handle, it's too much for him.

Or on the other hand he's like "Zaphod Beeblebrox" from "Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy" he is so far up himself that the Universe, and its vastness is second place to his ego.
Image

Writer
User avatar
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:28 pm

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 9:28 am » by Apropo


Chillitiger wrote:personally i think it goes on forever, you may go far enough to come all the way back into yourself!



imo its like a fractal, were just a small part of some bigger picture, which is a part of an even bigger one, and so on to infinity :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Cx9gz_i6E&feature=plcp

Writer
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:31 pm

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 11:03 am » by Webhead


well let me start ,theres more than 1 universe it is a multiverse so if you simply travelled to the edge of our universe you would simply end up in another universe like branches off a tree the universe,s are endless.

because everything is inside something as in were on the earth the earth is inside the atmosphere that is inside our galaxy the galaxy is inside space and space is inside the universe the universe is inside a multiverse.

thats what i beleive. space itself would be inside something that something is another universe, or 1 of the multivers branches.

so you would never truely get to the end as then you would have to contend with another universe finding your way back could be tricky too.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: United Kingdom

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 11:38 am » by Shendao


I am a multiverse believer, however, I also believe that we exist in the 'verse that we comprehend.

That is, each of us has a comprehension of our 'verse that is dependent upon our ability to relate to the input we receive. It is interesting that people will base their reality upon agreements with other people that 'appear' to coincide, and yet may be vastly different in detail. As I said, I believe in a multiverse and as such I may appear to be in agreement with Webhead, yet my multiverse is one of electric dynamics so may not be like his at all.

So for me, the limits of the multiverse are defined by our sense of comprehension of our idea of a multiverse.
There may be nothing at all 'out there', there may only be our interpretation of what's 'in here' and if that is the case then the multiverse must be as finite as the 7 billion souls that create it. If those souls are infinite in and of themselves then the 'verse must be infinite by the 'expression' of their infinity.

I would suggest the OP could also read 'the edge of comprehension (if there is one)' :think:
You are an immortal being, so stop freaking out about losing another body!

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:27 pm

PostMon Sep 24, 2012 12:24 pm » by Willynumbnuts


Shendao wrote:I am a multiverse believer, however, I also believe that we exist in the 'verse that we comprehend.

That is, each of us has a comprehension of our 'verse that is dependent upon our ability to relate to the input we receive. It is interesting that people will base their reality upon agreements with other people that 'appear' to coincide, and yet may be vastly different in detail. As I said, I believe in a multiverse and as such I may appear to be in agreement with Webhead, yet my multiverse is one of electric dynamics so may not be like his at all.

So for me, the limits of the multiverse are defined by our sense of comprehension of our idea of a multiverse.
There may be nothing at all 'out there', there may only be our interpretation of what's 'in here' and if that is the case then the multiverse must be as finite as the 7 billion souls that create it. If those souls are infinite in and of themselves then the 'verse must be infinite by the 'expression' of their infinity.

I would suggest the OP could also read 'the edge of comprehension (if there is one)' :think:


From these comments I would point you to my post above, your references to 'comprehension' are in line with comments posted there.

As human's, we appear to be constrained in our thinking of 'time/space' constructed and operating within a 'Linear' time frame, the Creeks had other idea's:

In Greek, for example, the future is behind an individual and the past is in front. Furthermore, time moves from the future, enfolds in the present, and resides in the past. In Greek, it is time that moves. In English, on the other hand, it is the individual who moves towards time. The march of time is a metaphor that is common to English speaking countries.


From my post above. Our 'comprehension' of the space/time constraint is obviously based upon our understanding of it's form, communicated through the english language and that may present limitations to the understanding of such a process (if that's the correct expression to employ) We appear to be constrained by the 'Linear' approach to time, but what are the alternatives?

Multi-dimensional time/space is interesting, but again, are we viewing it from a human persepective which is already biased by the 'Linear' proposal?

To quote Webhead:
because everything is inside something as in were on the earth the earth is inside the atmosphere that is inside our galaxy the galaxy is inside space and space is inside the universe the universe is inside a multiverse.


A 'Linear' approach , one is inside another, inside another etc. The human mind placing a 'Linear' restraint upon it's thinking. This comes, very basically from this: "Birth - Life - Death" A Linear' time line from which our organic human brain cannot apparently escape from.

You are quite right, 'comprehension' is everything, like percepetion. The answer (if there is one) may lay within the concept of 'The Soul' and in a totally non-religious way.

:cheers:
"When you do something to help the world like.....like i wrote a book on how to cure eyesight,"
Oreocannon


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook