border of the universe + blackhole question

[H.r.E.]

so.. i know the universe is expanding all the time but wat would be if you would have a uberfast ship which would go above the expanding border...

and wat is if somebody falls in a blackhole and somebody watches it? wiki says it will look like it will take forever , but why? cuz the light which shows dat he gets in doesnt reach the watcher?

[Ummon]

Going beyond the border may imply coming out in another place inside the universe. All depends from the kind of symmetry of the universe itself.

Since the universe is all that exists, besides, borders can only be borders with itself.

Upon a certain moment, gravity causes time to stop when you approach a black hole.

[H.r.E.]

borders can only be borders with itself.

how do you mean dat =O

so just nothing would happen? the person which gets in wouldnt be able to do anything

[Cúchulainn]

My understand of the universe is that there is not border.

The Big Bang created matter, which is expanding into the vast emptiness of space.

The end of the universe would be when you exceed the speed at which matter is expanding from the centre of the Big Bang, all that is there is empty space.

The intense gravity slows light down to an almost standstill.

You would perceive the object moving very slowly, then stopping, as the light (and the image of the object moving) cannot reach you.

However the object has been spaghettified for some time.

[Otsman]

My understand of the universe is that there is not border.

The Big Bang created matter, which is expanding into the vast emptiness of space.

The end of the universe would be when you exceed the speed at which matter is expanding from the centre of the Big Bang, all that is there is empty space.

The intense gravity slows light down to an almost standstill.

You would perceive the object moving very slowly, then stopping, as the light (and the image of the object moving) cannot reach you.

However the object has been spaghettified for some time.

the problem with the big bang theory is that it doesn't explain where the original atom came from, and thats why the amount of people who actually believe in it is steadily decreasing.

i recently watched a show on this, and the best explanation that is out there now, is that the universe is like a freeflowing object, but there are billions of other freeflowing universes that collide and intercect. The theory goes that two or more of these universes collided, and our universe was a biproduct. again, 'where did these universes originate' and again the concept of eternity seems to be the only answer

however, i like the concept that the universe isn't a sphere, or freeflowing bubble, but that it's just space, not confined to anything, and that it just goes on forever

[Syron]

the problem with the big bang theory is that it doesn't explain where the original atom came from, and thats why the amount of people who actually believe in it is steadily decreasing.

A theory should explain currently observed phenomena and predict new ones that are testable. That the Big Bang theory does not currently explain where the energy to create the universe came from is not a “problem” with it, because it doesn’t attempt to explain it.

No, all the evidence collected so far agrees even more convincingly with the Big Bang model, especially CMB studies.

I don’t know where you are getting this idea from that experts disagree with the Big Bang. Btw, M theory doesn’t contradict the Big Bang.

i recently watched a show on this, and the best explanation that is out there now, is that the universe is like a freeflowing object, but there are billions of other freeflowing universes that collide and intercect. The theory goes that two or more of these universes collided, and our universe was a biproduct. again, 'where did these universes originate' and again the concept of eternity seems to be the only answer

M theory, what you are talking about, is not a best explanation of anything. It is a mathematical model with NO supporting evidence.

It is at most a hypothesis with currently a small chance of predicting falsifiable results.

Yes, it is an intriguing idea but that is all it is thus far, it is not science at the moment.

however, i like the concept that the universe isn't a sphere, or freeflowing bubble, but that it's just space, not confined to anything, and that it just goes on forever

If that were true the universe would be shining all around, not black, since everywhere you looked you would be looking at the surface of a star……

[Syron]

As far as we know the universe has no borders, or centre for that matter.

Imagine the universe as being drawn on the surface of a deflated balloon.

Now when you inflate the balloon (equivalent to the expansion of the universe), the universe clearly has no borders, it just goes all around the surface of the balloon. Go one way and you'll come back around again.

Incidentally, the universe would have no centre either as in the case of the inflated balloon the "centre" is actually off the plane of the balloon skin.

[D.B. Cooper]

I've wondered this before...and it's hard to wrap my head around because the universe has to be expanding through something, right?

[Cúchulainn]

I've wondered this before...and it's hard to wrap my head around because the universe has to be expanding through something, right?

Yes.

Space.

The "universe" is just the matter in it.

It is expanding from the epicentre of the big bang outward through the emptiness of space.

[Chaigidel]

well if our universe is part of a greater energetic process we would indeed be expanding through something likely the 11th dimension ; soon we will know some more hints about the actual nature of our universe--- im looking at you swizterland


but it all depends really--- if there is something more than just what we can recognize as a universe then our expansion could be as chaotic as a drop of water spreading over a flat surface or it could be uniform it must operate according to the math given the forces so if it does not then it is not

thats where the 11th dimension comes from I think the vaporous membrane theory

[H.r.E.]

lol imagine in 100 billion years when there is no light anymore :hmmm:

[chris_uk_83]

Yes.

Space.

The "universe" is just the matter in it.

Not necessarily. Current thinking seems to be that the big bang actually produced the space as well, so the space into which the universe is expanding is expanding itself. A weird concept I know, but that's physics for you (especially cosmology!)

[Cúchulainn]

Not necessarily. Current thinking seems to be that the big bang actually produced the space as well, so the space into which the universe is expanding is expanding itself. A weird concept I know, but that's physics for you (especially cosmology!)

Cosmology is very weird.

If the space itself is expanding, does that mean it is made of something, Dark Matter for instance.

[Djûn]

Not necessarily. Current thinking seems to be that the big bang actually produced the space as well, so the space into which the universe is expanding is expanding itself. A weird concept I know, but that's physics for you (especially cosmology!)

Could you show me a source for this claim with reference to the Big Bang creating space? As far as I know from my vast Physics knowledge (a whole A-level I'll have you know) space is the absence of anything. Therefore before the Big Bang there was nothing, i.e. space. Thus although all the mass in the universe was created by the Big Bang and is expanding through this space, I fail to see how an explosion can create what is essentially nothing!

1 = 0 and all that malarky.

[Mithradates]

Therefore before the Big Bang there was nothing, i.e. space. Thus although all the mass in the universe was created by the Big Bang and is expanding through this space, I fail to see how an explosion can create what is essentially nothing!

Space is not nothing, space is space, only nothing is nothing.

Thats the hard (actually impossible) part, trying to imagine what is "nothing", you simply cant, you cant imagine "it" because every time you try to imagine anything you actually imagine something but nothing is not "something", its just nothing.
and because of this you cant imagine it, since its not an "it".

There are ideas which the human brain simply cant truly erm... "realize" like the conception of "nothing", "eternity", "infinity" and such.

I know my bad english makes this even more confusing

[eventhorizen]

Nothing is only difficult to conceive of when it is viewed in a spatial context, as some kind of distance spanning absence, which is clearly false for a nothing that is a priori or contra to the physical Universe.

This hypothetical, metaphysical nothing, the nothing that "bounds" or "precedes" or hypothetically "replaces" the physical Universe, is the most simple kind of nothing, a nothing that does not exist. One might say that this concept announces is factual nature through its absence.

[Djûn]

Space is not nothing, space is space, only nothing is nothing.

Thats the hard (actually impossible) part, trying to imagine what is "nothing", you simply cant, you cant imagine "it" because every time you try to imagine anything you actually imagine something but nothing is not "something", its just nothing.

But that's my point really. If you take, for example, one cubic metre of air above the sea level on Earth, you will have a cubic metre of roughly 78% Nitrogen, roughly 20% Oxygen and the remaining 2% comprising of Carbon Dioxide and other noble gases. Now say we are to remove all of these gases from this cubic metre (and mysteriously isolate it from all surrounding gases), then we are left with a vacuum. A vacuum, by definition, is an area of set dimensions in which there is no matter whatsoever. So if this is not nothing, what truly is? You seem to suggest that if, in this Universe, we find an area in which no matter resides and in fact the only forces upon it are those of gravity from far distant planets, then this is not nothing.

Is there any way you could elaborate to help me understand? From my impression, a vacuum is nothing, for it contains no matter and thus has no mass.

[Otsman]

flamer

[chris_uk_83]

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Just a quick google search pulled this up. It's by no means conclusive proof of the theory but it does give you an overview of the points of view that are considered to be "correct".

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.

This bit's under the 'common misconceptions' heading.

[Ramashan]

I'm rooted in the belief that if the Universe is expanding, it must be expanding 'into' something and that alone implies that there may be more beyond our universe.

I mean, before Hubble (I believe), most thought that our universe was confined to the Milkyway and now we see that we are but a small part of something exceptionally larger. Why can't our Universe be part of something exceptionally larger? Much like finding smaller and smaller parts of matter as we peer down why can't the same be true for peering out?

Even if the balloon model is true, that only allows for two planes across the 2D surface of the balloon, but you can lift your finger off the balloon so to speak. It may not be something provable by science or math, but at the moment everything beyond our universe is all conjecture and theory.