If the universe is expanding...

We got no fucking idea

>>18743395
I know. But it's a fascinating thing to think about. Would there be a barrier or could you transcend into it? Maybe I should have posted this on the science board. Still kind of paranormal though.

>>18743393
Its endless. Our universe that we know and can observe does have a limit, but there is more universe out there thats the theory. Or we live in a giant blacknhole in another universe.

>>18743418
I understand. But what would the edge look like and feel like? It's kind of mindblowing when you try to ponder it.

>>18743426
I'd imagine that it would be a black void.

File: 1391675958233.jpg (40KB, 319x374px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 319x374px

>>18743393
Your talking about a kind of event horizon, which just looks black like the void it is travelling into.
Light hits it and then the universe is visible. Nothing much to look at. Sorry to ruin your day.

>>18743433
Possibly. But I wonder what expands into the void. Is it dark space? Do new stars form? To me it's a fascinating thought.

>>18743426
What exactly do you want for an answer? It probably is just a black wall, like in video games. but expanding with the speed of light.

>>18743448
Faster then the speed of light

>>18743441
Not ruining my day. What you say makes sense. I was just thinking about it and thought I'd post it here to get the thoughts of /x/.

>>18743448
Not looking for a particular answer. Just ideas. Thought it would be fun for /x/ philes to ponder this shit.

>>18743393
"As you make more and more powerful microscopic instruments, the universe has to get smaller and smaller in order to escape the investigation. Just as when the telescopes become more and more powerful, the galaxies have to recede in order to get away from the telescopes. Because what is happening in all these investigations is this: Through us and through our eyes and senses, the universe is looking at itself. And when you try to turn around to see your own head, what happens? It runs away. You'll never get at it.... Shankara explains it beautifully in his commentary on the Kenopanishad where he says 'That which is the Knower, the ground of all knowledge, is never itself an object of knowledge' ...There is always that profound mystery that you're never going to be in absolute control of what is going on, cause if you were, it would be like making love to a plastic woman, and who wants that?"

- Alan Watts

>>18743458
>, it would be like making love to a plastic woman, and who wants that?"
I hear sexbots are a growing industry

Nicely said

>>18743393
Just watch an explosion in slowmo
Then realize that an explosion doesn't have an edge so much as a magnitude it expands before the energy(heat) is gone

When you see an explosion in the blink of an eye, relativistically that was the entirety of existence. To us, it's happening much much faster and slower, at the same time.

Physics is wild stuff.

>>18743452
Okay, yes, correct.

>>18743393
The universe is curved in on itself. If you could travel much faster than light, and you went in only one direction, you would eventually end up back where you started.

There is no edge.

If you traveled in a straight line, you'd end up where you started.

Imagine that the universe is spread across the surface of an ever-inflating balloon.

>>18743447
>>18743426
this >>18743542

>>18743456
Probably some grander concept we'r expanding into.
Maybe another universe, in so miniature scale in a desolate part of that universe that ''they'' would have no means to even detect us.

File: 32003bd128bebe99cb8c655a9c0f00f5.jpg (95KB, 736x1104px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 736x1104px

All the people saying if you went in one direction far enough, you'd end up where you started are wrong.

There is no edge to the universe. It exists within a null void. Space only has meaning between two points.

If you go past the furthest point of the universe, all that happens is you become the furthest point of the universe.

>>18743562
Read a basic physics book and it'll prove you wrong.

You'd end up in the same spot eventually. Considering you're faster than the expansion rate.

>>18743426
What if the universe has no edges because it is sphere-shaped?

>>18743570
Could you educate me on this one, because what your saying really sounds like bullshit. Since you can't exceed the speed of light and the universe is somewhat flat, then there's not even point discussing wether or not you'd end up in the same place you started to begin with.

>>18743452
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0Q5OwnVuQ

>>18743579
Don't be ridiculous, the universe is flat

Imagine a carbonated drink, and every singme liquid particle is an observable universe. Theres more particles nearby, chained together to form the liquid. Thats simply what we cannot see. As for what is beyond what we cannot see, who knows? Maybe it juat links to another side of the glass, an alternate "liquid". Perhaps it is infinite, and we would reach the beginning of time yet again.

>>18743393
The edge is the point at which light travels away from us faster than light speed due to the cosmological constant.

Basically, we are surrounded by a black hole.

>>18743631
...

In case people didn't know.. the cosmological constant is also referred to as "Dark Energy".

File: 98096787.png (56KB, 375x258px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 375x258px

Kind of surprised me as to how little we actually know about anything.

>>18743690
You're on the first step of knowledge, my friend.

The Universe is a mind fuck.

>>18743393
If we're living in a simulation/game neckbeard gamers would be outplaying everyone else and running shit. Last time I looked most of them were still at home with mum. I guess we're not in a game.

>>18743393
What is the edge of a number line? Where does the next highest number come from? What is outside the line of numbers?

>>18743542
>>18743548
>>18743570
>>18743579
All observational evidence points to this being false. The universe has no curvature.

>>18743755
You mention numbers.. then make a dumbass generalisation about space based on nothing.

Mathematically, the Universe is curved. Black holes bend space. Stars bend space. Anything with mass bends space. If you're imagining space as some flat 2d surface.. then you're wrong in doing so.

You cannot explain Quantum Physics using anything other than abstract math because you will get it wrong. Words don't cut it. Even more so with relativity.

It outs you as a retard when you say shit like.. "the universe has no curve"

Here is where more will start to understand the truth. This BELIEF that the universe is spreading is a massive lie that you all believe as a root value whole heartedly and you never blink at realizing. The lie is that everything will eventually be disconnected completely. The truth is that everything always is as one at all times. There is a bit more to this concept. Look at the OP and the thread. You all believe it without a second's thought, and there is power to over all you and me and that's why I say all this.

File: universe curves.jpg (52KB, 557x501px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 557x501px

>>18743796
>a dumbass generalisation about space based on nothing
Sigh...

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
>The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were flat, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about one degree across. If the universe were open, the spots would be less than one degree across. If the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be greater than one degree across.
>Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174427-astrophysicists-create-the-first-accurate-map-of-the-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite
>According to the BOSS researchers, who presented their work at the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society this week, the findings strongly indicate that the universe is “extraordinarily flat” and that the universe is probably infinite, extending forever in space and time.

>It outs you as a retard when you say shit like.. "the universe has no curve"
Please link to me the non-retarded astrophysicists who AREN'T saying the universe is flat.

>>18743393
google hubble field and bubbleverse theory.

>>18743822
They say "flat" meaning homogeneous you reatard, as in.. it looks the same in all directions.

We have no idea what shape of the universe is, but it certainly isn't a 3D Euclidean shape.

Again, you're trying to use WORDS to describe the universe. It's impossible, dude. I'm telling you, it's impossible.

We cannot visualise any more than 3 dimensions, let alone explain it. Our brains are hardwired to be this way. Only by using ridiculously complex math can we describe wtf is going on, and even then we hit "infinities". Infinity = we give up/our math don't work.

>>18743869
>They say "flat" meaning homogeneous you reatard, as in.. it looks the same in all directions.
No, they mean flat as in "if you travel in one direction you will NEVER end up in the same spot." Flat means "the geometry of the universe is such that parallel lines will never cross, the angles in a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees, and the corners of cubes will always make right angles."

>We have no idea what shape of the universe is
Yes we do. Read the articles.
>but it certainly isn't a 3D Euclidean shape.
No one said it was. Read the articles.

>I can't do it, and I don't know the correct model, but I KNOW you're wrong
And now I am done with your anti-intellectual shit. Go educate yourself.

>>18743806
you don't know what truth is or isn't anymore or less than anyone else. I'm not saying I agree that the universe is expanding but you don't know if it is or isn't anymore than the space cadets do. Acting like anyone knows shit about the universe is like living on a grain of sand on the ocean beach and saying we can see everything on the planet. its all bullshit to say anyone knows or doesn't know anything about the universe.

>Only by using ridiculously complex math can we describe wtf is going on, and even then we hit "infinities". Infinity = we give up/our math don't work.
>"infinities". Infinity = we give up/our math don't work.

DUDE

>>18743916
>if you travel in one direction you will NEVER end up in the same spot.

Then how does the moon orbit the earth?

Seriously, you're quoting from an article in a magazine.

>I can't do it, and I don't know the correct model, but I KNOW you're wrong

It's not that I can't visualise 11 dimensions.. NOBODY can. Not Hawking. Not Einstein. It's literally not possible. Our brain can only visualise 3.

Any btw.. "Flat" is a word defining the structure of a 3d surface, but the Universe isn't 3d.. so.. you get where I'm going..?

Words don't cut it. Show me mathematical proofs or stfu.

What shape is time?

Say flat or linear and you're an idiot.

>>18743393
Given that the only way to remain on that "edge" is to travel the speed of light, thus becoming light, it wouldn't be possible to reach that edge, ever. This means that light will pass you by. So still maybe a black void.
We as humans can't comprehend nothingness. We've always been, therefore we can't imagine nothing being. But I'd imagine it'd be that empty feeling you get when you're laying in bed late at night looking at your life or something idk.

>>18743961
time is cyclical

>>18743953
He means in a straight line on a flat plane, not an orbital projection.

To the best of our current knowledge, there is no edge to our isotropic, homogenous universe. If the universe were finite and bounded, there would be two 'edges'. The first, the limit of the distance travelled at the speed of light from the big bang in a roughly euclidean sphere. The second, the actual 'edge' of the expansion of spacetime. What could lie beyond a second edge is question being asked by theoretical physicists. Because of the difficulties involved with a bounded universe, many posit an unbounded model similar to a closed manifold in mathematics. The space is finite but has no edge, somewhat like walking the surface of a sphere would lead to no limit. In cosmology much of what we work with are quite abstract, mathematical models. Trying to accurately describe this universe proves challenging. The implications of an infinite universe are metaphysically bewildering. Cosmology seems to echo other areas of physics in a worrying respect. The more we learn, the less sense everything seems to make. There seems to be a fractal nature to reality, whereby each new understanding raises yet more questions and ever deeper models and systems. I'm beginning to think that, even theoretically, beings within the confines of the universe may not understand nature in totality.

File: picture of matter of gravitied and orbit of plasma of star of_ _Sol__ S04EP06_m139f6e73 ____43 seconds of 9 minutes of 2 hours of 15 days of 4 months of 2016 years.jpg (52KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x554px

>>18743393
OP, what do you make of this picture?

>>18743606
How can the universe be flat if it's hollow?

File: StandardTori_701.gif (41KB, 508x338px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 508x338px

>>18743953
>Then how does the moon orbit the earth?
By changing direction. Constantly. It's called an orbit.

>Any btw.. "Flat" is a word defining the structure of a 3d surface, but the Universe isn't 3d.. so.. you get where I'm going..?
AAckshuallee...
>In geometry, a flat is a subset of n-dimensional space that is congruent to a Euclidean space of lower dimension. The flats in two-dimensional space are points and lines, and the flats in three-dimensional space are points, lines, and planes. In n-dimensional space, there are flats of every dimension from 0 to n − 1.

So an 11-dimensional space would have 11 different flats, from 0th dimensional to 10th dimensional.

Space is 3-dimensional, and flat.

>>18743961
Spacetime is likely curved. Imagine 3D space as a infinitesimal slice of 4D spacetime. Like a plane is a 2D slice of 3D space. Now consider a torus - a curved 3D space made up of flat, 2D planes. We can extrapolate from this a flat, 3D space with a curving, 4D spacetime. Or with string theory 10 and 11 dimensions. The shape wouldn't be similar, as both the torus and the circle are bounded. As far as I know we think space is unbounded, though I'm not certain on time. Certainly it seems bounded on one end, but I would guess it's unbounded on the other and has a negative curve (won't curve back on itself like a sphere) which would lead to increasing expansion of flat, 3D space and eventual heat death of the universe.

>>18743986
>I'm beginning to think that, even theoretically, beings within the confines of the universe may not understand nature in totality.
Welcome to hard agnosticism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVGAxMo-kiw

>>18744113
the universe is likely a torus, but I'd never expect the retards on /x/, let alone most smart people not referenced in astronomy, cosmology or astrophysics to know, or understand why


Wtf are you doing here being smart? Smart people aren't allowed on /x/, go to /tg/ or something

>>18743393
There is no edge abd it doesnt expand INTO something. The universe is all there is and space is expanding faster than anything within it can exchange information. It is like trying to reach the start of a rainbow

File: Accelerated_Expansion_of_the_Universe-580x327.jpg (56KB, 580x327px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 580x327px

>>18744125
Really, I got the moon thing wrong, it's traveling straight through a infinitesimal (relative to universe) bit of curved space. Why do you say torus? I was reading up on topology pop sci and it was saying there's 18 possible and I would imagine until we start seeing copies of sections of the universe we would go with one that doesn't loop back onto itself.

>Wtf are you doing here being smart?
Cognitive dissonance. I feel it's a mistake to let go of our irrational side.

>>18744125
What's REALLY funny to me is that if this is correct. Then the Earth is round, but space is flat, and spacetime is a torus.

Which means globetards, flatfags, and torusbros are ALL right, in their own way.

>>18743393
>According to the theory of cosmic inflation initially introduced by its founder, Alan Guth (and by D. Kazanas [22]), if it is assumed that inflation began about 10−37 seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe before the inflation occurred was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 3x1023 times the radius of the observable universe.[23] There are also lower estimates claiming that the entire universe is in excess of 250 times larger than the observable universe[24] and also higher estimates implying that the universe is at least 101010122 times larger than the observable universe

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks30PccPaFo

>>18744163
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-torus_model_of_the_universe

the outer surface could be what we observe as the expansion of the universe. The torus thus connects two locations in spacetime: the primeval atom (the Big Bang) and the entirety of the outer surface, though some models feature the universe’s collapse (the Big Crunch) at the other center

also the universe can likely contain positive and negative curvature, although I haven't seen any NASA projects on this for a while

File: autism.gif (537KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 480x270px

>>18743796
>universe continues to expand indefinitely
>OH I KNOW! IT'S A SPHERE/CURVE/PEAR SHAPE!

>>18744202
Well the result of a "bouncing" universe is certainly nicer than heat death. Let's hope we start to see expansion reduce at some point.

>>18744227
lewd

>>18743393
The universe is probably not on a flat plane. It's most likely a ball but the ball is getting bigger and bigger. At least that's how I picture the universe.
>>18743418
We actually don't know if it's endless, we say it's endless because we can only see so far. There's a rising idea in the scientific community that the universe does end somewhere but past that point is the multiverse.

>>18744211
>look at me, I dont understand cosmology at all!

>>18743806
There's scientific evidence of the universe expanding. Einstein predicted it back in the day.

>>18743562
Dope rabbit

>>18743393
Well Thoth talked about it. He described it as a shore. And if you tried to trespass you would hear the howl of hounds whom are mentioned to keep you from going beyond. And then if they catch they hold you captive till the current cycle of time ends. But what lies beyond is pretty cool if you manage to outrun them. If you leave you will eventually meet the source wall, and if you break through that the hologram that you would no longer be blessed to be projected beyond those confines. It is better to have a body at that point. Because otherwise it is a wasted trip. Pro tip: You can only escape the great hounds by moving in curves.

>>18743393
Do you experience some metaphysical interaction or special physical interaction when you cross a border between countries or states?

All evidence points to the "universe" as we define it not really having boundaries. You are conflating your limited capability to perceive reality with the way something must assuredly be. The biggest mistake you're making is that you're conflating items contained within the universe (matter, interactions, etc.) with the universe itself.

The only reason the universe is described as "expanding" is because physicists realize describing it any other way to people who don't have specialized PhD's won't get them anywhere. When they say that, they mean everything contained within the universe, not the universe itself.

>>18743393
>>18743426
It's like that black void from map editors in games. We just don't know.

>>18743975
>>18744113

Arguing the shape of the universe is pointless because we simply don't have enough information.

My point was more arguing his use of the word "flat" in describing an overall "shape" of the universe.

I'm sure whatever shape it is, it's something we don't even have a name for.

>>18743961
>you're

Guess whom is the idiot

File: image.jpg (356KB, 1024x1457px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1024x1457px

>>18743393
>edge?
>>18743426
>But what would the edge look like and feel like?

He said edge
Golly...
How silly

>pic unrelated
Go Team Venture!

It turns solid at some point, with representations of worlds being isolated in their own little pockets. With this I mean that the universe is sort of a barren scale model, there are representations of planets and other bodies but they're just decorative, giving an idea of the overall structure. This means that we're indeed "alone" and won't ever find life by exploring the universe. To do that we would need to travel through planes/dimension and enter other worlds, which are in the same situation as ours, with their own copy is the scale model universe and a different planet being inhabited. Beyond the universe's boundaries there's an organic double-layered chamber enclosing it, with empty space in between the layers, it kinda feels like being inside our own bodies would look like, imagine being inside your chest cavity, with the heart being the I closed universe, something like that. What's beyond the second layer, probably only the Architect knows.

File: egg.jpg (10KB, 230x181px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 230x181px

>>18743393
>Itzhak Bentov had his cosmic egg theory. Makes sense to me. We can't see the edge of the universe nor the beginning. To us temporal beings, the "big bang" happened everywhere simultaneously.

So all points are equally distant and local simultaneously.

File: 1478847005815.jpg (117KB, 350x438px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 350x438px

>>18744113
>In n-dimensional space, there are flats of every dimension from 0 to n − 1.
This shit triggers me. Every time I try to conceptualize 4d space my brain locks up.

>flat space in 2d is a line
okay
>flat space in 3d is a flat 2d-like surface, like the top of a table
okay
>flat space in 4d is a 3d object / plane, which is how we conceptualize the tesseract
That even makes sense to me, that the tesseract is a flat side of a 4d cube, but I just cant into what the whole actual 4d thing would be like

Also does time have nth dimensions as well? Like, we experience it as 1 dimension so a flat surface of time would be 0d, or a point, or a fixed point in time, like what we observe all the time as the present. But if we observed it in 2d, a flat surface would be a line, or every point in the past, present, and future. So basically capable of time travel? What the hell would it even mean to experience 3 dimensions of time?

I guess at the big bang time and space were a 0 dimensional point, then it expanded into 11 dimensions, or whatever string theory says, and because were the cucks of the universe we can only perceive 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.

Any source that could help try to explain this a bit would be great

>>18743926
Your natural inclination to conventional wisdom creates these assumptions of me but my belief is stronger than these subconscious "knowings". I AM YOU. I have always my entire life agreed with every single word of your post. Believe it or not. I fucking am you I'm not anything special I want you to realize this crazy amazing shit together and see what the theoerical end is. I truly believe I understand and that I can teach you and end this for all the right reasons. I haven't really asked any of you only faith in my belief. My inherent divinity.

>>18744646
We can't see it because we would need multiple unknown sensory systems to pick up more than 1 plane at a time. Remember 4-d is 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. So a 4-d shape is something that grows and expands, like the Universe. It expands more and more as you unravel it. the 5th dimension is from my understanding 4 dimensions of space and 1 of time. So that is when it envelop itself and becomes an absolute form for the beginning of the shape is the end of shape temporally speaking. Beyond that is probably the connection between planes of time, possibly one day allowing to understand time travel.

>>18743393
The edge is just space with no matter or anything.

>>18744675
I wish I had edited

3-d space. What we perceive at any given moment.
4-d space. Expansion of the shape.
5-d space. The form is a state where the Beginning is the end, Spacial Singularity
6-d space. The Singularities connect temporally

Nigger u don't even know what the centre of the earth looks like or the DEEP SEA , below a certain depth. . Figure that out first

File: kmand02.jpg (4MB, 2000x2736px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2000x2736px

>>18744682
If you keep going the Tesseract I think it is called ends up looking like the Mandala. Beyond that I'm pretty sure a trinity of time is accomplished. The beginning, the end, the movement of interconnected planes of time.

After that comes insanity to us.

>>18744696
Or rather, the fates of time. Beyond which is temporal Consciousness.

>>18744699
I think it resembles the wheel of Reincarnation a lot. Because after time expands that much I think space or an equivalent higher organization of form starts. This is probably because Temporal Singularity is achieved. That which is the Beginning is the end.

>>18744707
Welp, people asked. I thought it would have generated more discussion. Didn't mean to kill the thread.

>>18744725
I had a theory about whats at the end of everything. If you guys wanted to let me know how the theory of Spacial singularity sounds.

>>18744646
Lemme take a swing at it. If I take me right now as a 3D point in 4D spacetime, and me five days from now, and connect them through all the instances of me in the slices of time inbetween, I will have drawn a 4D "line." These spacetime "worms" are fairly easy to conceptualize: it's basically what we think of as a timeline.

To draw a "square" in 4D of this 3D object, we would have to somehow travel in a time direction that is perpendicular to what we think of as normal time flow, then advance through time the same amount, and somehow simultaneously occupy all those positions in 4D. To make the cube, we would have to find yet ANOTHER orthogonal direction in time and repeat the process.

Breaking this down to something digestible, I think you could say a 4D "cube" would be all the possible happening within a certain span of time (1 time dimension), within a set of parameters for initial conditions (2 time dimensions), and with a set of parameters for physical laws (3 time dimensions).

File: 4D space.jpg (71KB, 700x780px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 700x780px

Thousand hours in MSPaint, just for you.

>>18744002
I'm not a physicist by any means. What am I supposed to make of it?

File: 1480093907539.jpg (91KB, 350x510px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 350x510px

>people feeling smart while confusing time with a 4th spatial dimension like the dumb pop-sci plebs they are

>>18744404
its correct

>>18745261
Time can be considered a dimension, just not a spatial one. The dimensions of a mathematical space are the number of different coordinates required to explicitly define a point in that space. So a point has zero dimensions - there's only one explicit point so there is no coordinate needed to define it. A line has one dimension, a single coordinate like 7 or 3.14159 is all you need to define a single point. Likewise a plane has 2, and a cube or 3D space has 3.

But if we introduce time into a 3D space, we now need a 4th set of coordinates to explicitly define a point. Did you want the point (2,7,9) at time=0, or did you want the point (2,7,9) at time = 100? Thus time is a 4th dimension.

This also gets into why String Theory proposes so many dimensions. They disagree that a point can be explicitly defined in space with just 3 coordinates. In String Theory, it takes 10 coordinates not including time to explicitly define a point, but a lot of coordinates that can change happen on a quantum level which is too small for us to perceive.

>>18743393

What if universe is not expanding at all, but instead we are shrinking, or subparticles that we are made of are getting closer to each other. It is mostly empty space between them so if all particles in universe get 10% closer, everything shrinks and we observe it like universe got 10% bigger. Universe sits in old litter box of some space cat on desk of some space kid that bought it like we buy ant farms. And recently he got older and forgot about his ants.

>>18745993
>Time can be considered a dimension, just not a spatial one.
Was exactly my point. Thats pretty much what I implied.
So imagining the tesseract as a cube moving through time like some anons suggested is completely missing the point and simply wrong

File: tesseract construction.png (8KB, 385x129px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 385x129px

>>18746005
Hrmm, I would agree in that if you take a line and move it through the 3rd dimension, you haven't created plane, you've moved the line. Likewise, a 3D cube moving through time is not a tesseract, but the shape it would make if you were to connect all those 3D cubes into a single 4th dimensional object would be a tesseract.

>A tesseract is in principle obtained by combining two cubes. The scheme is similar to the construction of a cube from two squares: juxtapose two copies of the lower-dimensional cube and connect the corresponding vertices.

>The construction of a hypercube can be imagined the following way:
>1-dimensional: Two points A and B can be connected to a line, giving a new line segment AB.
>2-dimensional: Two parallel line segments AB and CD can be connected to become a square, with the corners marked as ABCD.
>3-dimensional: Two parallel squares ABCD and EFGH can be connected to become a cube, with the corners marked as ABCDEFGH.
>4-dimensional: Two parallel cubes ABCDEFGH and IJKLMNOP can be connected to become a hypercube, with the corners marked as ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP.

>>18746043
Well, sure. Thats simple enough. But I guess for most people the problem with imagining that thing is, imagining the higher dimension. Easy to imagine a flat object moving through 3 dimensions, but very hard to think outside the box (sorry), since there is direct experience with that. It is completely abstract considering the way we perceive the world

>>18746084
*...since there is NO experience with that

>>18743458
Nice. Underrated quote.

File: 3f6cbb7a4520eba20b43b509906ce8c31c2b94e2_hq.jpg (55KB, 640x828px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x828px

>>18746114
I say to mankind, Be not curious about God. For I, who am curious about each, am not curious about God - I hear and behold God in every object, yet understand God not in the least.

>>18746005
Time is the dimension of possible spacial coordinates for quantum particles before and after quantum change. A second dimension of time is being in two states at the same time. A 3rd dimension of time is 3 states at the same time. When it hits 4 states at the same time Temporal singularity occurs. It's where time is and isn't. Where quantum states are in a super state that is never itself.

>>18746043
So it is exactly like I said. I just can't say it right. How we would perceive 4 dimensional space is 1 plane at a time. It's what we do right now. Because we are in 4 Dimensional Space.

>>18744682
That addition of time only means that the Universe has an observable beginning and end. When you introduce the idea in the 5th dimension of a 4th dimension of space within still a single dimension of time. The beginning of the form is the end of the form. Sure there is lots in between but space itself takes on it's highest form possible. After that the only bit of space that you can observe is the spacial singularity. When you add another dimension of time to the spacial singularity there are two states of the 5th dimension which is already in a super state. This is specifically because two dimensions of time implies two differing states.

>>18743393
it's expanding everywhere at the same time. there's no center, and every point is the center. it's really insane to think about with our dumb brains, on par with Lovecraft-level unfathomable cosmic madness

>>18743393
The edge doesn't exist buddy.
Think about it like this: If you could mystically warp to the edge right now, you still wouldn't see the edge, because once you'd gotten there to see it the bubble would have expanded infinitely more away from you in the microseconds it took your brain to process your location. Imagine trying to stare into infinity itself, and you'll have approximated the edge of the universe. Plus there won't be any light at all so anything you see will just be the cold, suffocating void of space, surrounded by infinite miles of the void in every direction, unable to escape, unable to comprehend reality unfolding before you.

File: 300px-Observable_Universe_with_Measurements_01.png (141KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 300x300px

pic related. is "observable" universe = 93 billion ly

beyond this horizon, that we can never see past, are > 250 additional "hubble volumes"

so universe is ~ 22,750 billion ly in diameter, and expanding rapidly at a rate far exceeding ls

hypothetically, if one were able to travel faster than this speed, traversing the unfathomable. wrap around to the beginning, or enter an entirely new "superduper mega hubble volume"," that is basically an entirely new universe in itself. assume that this would go on infinitely

File: image.jpg (1MB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x800px

>>18747135
>so universe is ~ 22,750 billion ly
Well golly...
I guess Alan Guth is wrong.
>see MIT online courseware, The Early Universe.
Glad >>>/x/ could help

The edge of our universe is perceived as a curtain of black from which we are seeing the edge of visible light that has reached us since the formation of the universe. As light reaches and the universe expands the curtain peels back slightly, and we can also confirm there are things beyond the edge by observing things like other bodies being affected by the gravity of objects outside the "curtain". It's pretty neat to think about

>>18747463
Universe or cosmos,
>cosmos.

>>18748182
Universe doesn't expand, cosmos expands 'into' universe.

>>18748192
Right, yeah. Fair. I'm just using my terminology poorly but I think I still nailed the basic concept and understanding right.

>>18743433
The void is of an existence that remains @ its place.
Cosmos is void source material.

Its a containment of a great darkness... this place.

Cosmos is emissions from void data field.
The world wuz born outta darkness, before light ever was.

And darkness will always be waiting... when you're light fades.

Thus alpha omega = darkness.

At the edge, you will only find your reflection. There behind you exists everything that will be.

The universe isn't expanding. What's expanding is the distance between all matter. Everything is moving away from the center where the big bang supposedly happened.

The edge of the universe would look like empty black space. If you look at the night sky, the black is the edge of space. If you were to pick a black spot in the night sky, and fly to it infinitely, you would reach nothing forever. However, if you traveled to the very edge of space, and then moved 1 foot over it, you would have set the new edge of space.

File: image.jpg (22KB, 236x324px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 236x324px

>>18748299
>Everything is moving away from the center where the big bang supposedly happened.
Try again

>>18748299
There is no centre you jackass. It happened everywhere at once.

Everything is moving away from everything else. There is no middle.

>However, if you traveled to the very edge of space, and then moved 1 foot over it, you would have set the new edge of space.

Goddamn you're an idiot.

>>18748299
No.
Like, no. Thats just wrong. All of it

>>18743393
There is no end. And the universe ISNT expanding. Humans are so dull. Your simply picking up information from objects further and further away the thing is the universe is so big we will be discovering new parts forever

>>18748798
>ISNT
>your
>What is Hubble's Law.

Hubble's law states that: A. The Milky Way is expanding. B. The Universe is expanding. C. The redshifts of distant galaxies are proportional to their distances from us. Meaning the further away they are from us, the faster they're moving away.

>>18743393
Kinda roundish.
Visible curving.
The outside is all black....

>>18748814
Expanding to where? That space is still outerspace and part of the universe, just lacking matter. Universe in infinite. If it had a reachable edge, and it doesn't, that edge would be quantifiable as infinity.

It rolls forever like a wave edge.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2561x3400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2561x3400px

>>18748875
>infinite
>edge
~ giggle

>>18748814
>The Universe is expanding
What surrounds the Universe for it to expand into?

>>18744185

What was this video?

>>18743393
where's the edge on a ball?
Where's the edge on a donut?

>>18743746

Who do you think are the gamers of Life?

Those at the top.

Are you really that retarded? Neckbeards are such losers that they need to enter simulations within the simulation to achieve anything.

Don't ask /x/, ask /sci/.

File: Glass_Petri_dish.jpg (21KB, 736x600px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 736x600px

Not sure but I dream that it is curved and glass like something like the side of your average Petri Dish. See inset photo.

>>18743413
You would enter nothingness, which would become part of the universe eventually.

>the universe is an illogical concept
>people try to understand it with logic anyway

>>18743395
/thread

See this it's only 30 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA2axbKxcoQ

>>18743447
stuff just expands out into the void. making the void part of the universe.

It was unknowable because we believed the false concept of it in the first place. It doesn't make sense does it? That single rapid expansion just sprang from nothing. It must have always been. I realized it in its obviousness and that's why you do and dominos are falling.

>>18752148
Seriously believe it.

>>18743393
It doesnt have to have an edge, when they say expanding they dont mean its expanding into somthing, only thing that is happening is that distances between any two points in universe are increasing. That is problem with pop sci when they talk about big bang and inflation, universe probably was/is/will be infinite just distances between objects change.

>>18743393
I think it's not expanding. It has an end. Multiverse sounds more plausible to me

File: It doesn't matter None a this matters.jpg (17KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 720x405px

It would be an edge that constantly expands away from you at the speed of light

>>18744503
>solid universe
>organic container

Damn, that's pretty Lovecraftian.

>>18743426
just space and more universe out there beyond it.

>>18743570
the edge is moving at the speed of light, you cant get to it because it keeps getting farther away from you. you cant go faster

>>18743606
no its a void full of stuff

File: like.png (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>18743631
i like this answer

File: C000001244-PAR-ZOOM_6284d395-a8aa-4aed-af63-f671eedeb0b3.jpg (219KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1000x1000px

>>18743746
the chinese would be winning with all the gold

>>18743961
time is a wave and a particle

>>18744773
slices are points in time, time is a wave

>>18754095
spacetime expands faster than the speed of light tho

>>18743690
>74% ram and pagefile
>22% processor
>3.6% free disk space
>0.4% running programs

>>18757013
>universe is written by pajeets and numales in js and has no memory management to speak of

>>18743393
Expansion is a theory. Just delet the thread. We have no clue. Our kind are fighting over flags, bathrooms and pizzas. This is clearly a mocking simulation. The ultimate joke, if you will.

>>18757019
>tfw we live in the Tandy 5000 universe.

File: 1374003375246.jpg (98KB, 790x960px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 790x960px

>>18743393
you are the edge. Life is enabled by chaos order and void.

>edge of the universe
So, are you fags roleplaying, or you actually this stupid? I never got that about this board.

>>18743393
there is no end it's infinite, just the same when you zoom in you can do it endlessly

>>18748896
our known universe is expanding into more universe

>>18748820
what black is outside, its got to be more space

>>18757234
Fractal, holographic tip of the spear.

Universe become self-aware.

>>18758787
Nope. There is a limit. Planck scale.

Not infinite, definite.

>>18743426
the edge is an imaginary line where our known universe is expanding into more universe

>>18743441
yes seems blase doesn't it? that's what i expect from infinity, more of the same, not some 14 dimensional acid trip

>>18743393
The universe is a plane of existence or a dimension if you will. It's not expanding at all.
It's infinit.

>>18758838
>Nope. There is a limit. Planck scale.
This thread is so full of misunderstandings. What you refer to as "Planck scale" (I'm going to assume you mean the one applied to spacial distance, and not time), is a limit under which our current physics break down. That doesn't mean there can't be smaller things, it just means we're unable to accurately describe smaller things using our current set of scientific tools.
Similarly to how when you encounter a singularity in an equation, it doesn't mean there is literally an infinitely large or small thing there, because our models "predicted" it. It means that whatever is there, the model in question is unable to predict it accurately, and it "breaks down" into what is essentially gibberish.
A good example is encountering singularities when excluding calculus from our toolset. The conlusion is obviously not that the singularities are accurate predictions, because since calculus happened they just "disappeared". They were never really there, they were just shortcomings of our models. The same will happen for our current little "bugs" in our mathematics. Our systems are just not perfect, and probably never will be.

Achilles DOES eventually reach tortoise. It's up to us to make a model that accurately predicts this, and not up to the universe to conform to our faulty models.

The universe expands as fast and as big as we allow it to because it is simply a projection of our sub conscious thoughts. Every thought, idea, fantasy, principal, dream and nightmare serves as another piece of a vast neural network. We will always keep finding something else. A new galaxy, a new particle, a new wavelength. Because it's in the searching that you make what you find. It's like that shitty game no man's sky. Your searching and wondering is what causes worlds and galaxies to form. In the end though we all have to learn that we don't have to form spacecrafts that travel at the speed of light, or satellites to take images of planets light years away. The kingdom of heaven is within, free your mind and your ass will follow.

>>18758851
.

File: MICHaW0.png (154KB, 426x365px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 426x365px

This image is used in Undertale :D

File: map_model_1.gif (81KB, 512x256px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 512x256px

>>18758974
>to spacial distance, and not time
Timespace is one thing. Planck time, Planck distance.

Limits.

> is a limit under which our current physics break down. That doesn't mean there can't be smaller things,

It does. It means there is nothing smaller.

> it just means we're unable to accurately describe smaller things using our current set of scientific tools.

Because there is nothing there to describe. You have reached the edge of the universe.

>Similarly to how when you encounter a singularity in an equation, it doesn't mean there is literally an infinitely large or small thing there, because our models "predicted" it.

It means there is an arrangement of matter which has the density of the planck scale, and cannot get any smaller. It has reached the limit.

>and it "breaks down" into what is essentially gibberish.

No it doesn't. It simply stops contracting. Now it's behaviour changes. It radiates outwards.

Reached the edge and then rebounds.

>and not up to the universe to conform to our faulty models.

You want the universe to be infinite, so you ignore all the evidence showing how it has defined limits, by dismissing the available evidence as a shortcoming of theoretical models.

The data is there. The phenomena has been observed and measured. The models have nothing to do with the empirical evidence that has been gathered.

The universe does not have infinite resolution. It has shape, structure, order, definition, limits, laws, rules, design.

We don't have to invoke theoretical models. That's what the data says.

File: tesla was right.jpg (28KB, 420x296px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 420x296px

>>18744551
Tesla knew this. Its magnetism!!! There is no gravity its just big magnets doing magic!!!
Open your eyes!!

>>18743393
The universe doesn't have an edge. Imagine the 2d surface of an expanding balloon. The surface of the balloon is expanding, but it doesn't have an edge and it isn't really expanding into anything.

>>18759008
>Timespace is one thing. Planck time, Planck distance.
The second part is literally what I was referring to. Don't even know what your problem is here.

>No it doesn't. It simply stops contracting. Now it's behaviour changes. It radiates outwards.
I'm sorry? Mathematics "stops contracting" and "radiates outwards"?

>empirical evidence
>The phenomena has been observed and measured
You really, actually think you can gather data at that scale, and not just make predictions? Wew lad. Show me that equipment.


The point was about how the weird "conclusions" of these predictive models that are obviously just nonsense doesn't make the universe is magic n shit - physicists know this, mathemathicians know this. You just missed it.

But whatever, keep on believing what you will. It's not like yours is the most outlandish view on this board, and far be it from me to intrude into your safe space of crazies any longer.

>>18759080
So what's outside the balloon?

>>18759008
>It does. It means there is nothing smaller.
And for the longest time, do you remember what was considered the point where you can't get any smaller? They even named it "unable to cut." It was the atom. According to the model, there was nothing smaller than an atom. That was the limit.

Then our tech advanced, and the model changed. We learned you CAN cut an atom. There IS something smaller than the limit. We got protons and neutrons and electrons. And that was the limit. An electron was the smallest possible. Then our tech advanced, and the model changed.

I hope you can see the pattern.

>>18759386
nothing, it pops if you poke it

>>18759386
it is the state of non existence, you die, or be ripped apart, anything along those lines. space and time does not exist, therefore you don't ,and can't

It isn't heaven, it is the very state of non existence, you have no dimensions, no air, no molecules not even a single atom because it cannot achieve shape. you don't hit a wall, you just die or dissappear. Because nothing can exist period

File: 1460992761846.gif (793KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 500x381px

Imagine how the edge would look though. Just black nothingness in front of you and dim sparkles behind. What would the void be like without the radiation present in our universe? Could anything theoretically exist in the true void? Would we even be capable of traversing into or around in it?

The universe is a cube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebMd__D5jGg

>>18743393
not expanding in the traditional sense. New space is just created everywhere all the time. There is no "edge" that moves forward

>>18748299
No. Just no.
Imagine you are a 2D creature on a balloon. Now that balloon is getting blown up. Thats what the expansion of the universe is like. There is no center. It just expands in every direction

>>18743393
literally pick a direction and it's that way.

File: IMG_20160707_235654.jpg (73KB, 640x684px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x684px

If there is a wall at the edge of the universe, what's on the other side?
Light can be a beam or a wave that originates from the most powerful magnetic fields known but has no mass and carries no electro magnetic charge. Electro magnetic fields in atoms keep you from falling through the chair your setting on.. 80%of the universe is supposedly dark matter/energy . Let's hope it's not pissed off at us.

>>18763428
3 days ago

3 days, and you're replying to it

>>18743458
That's beautiful. I believe in cause in effect. God created the universe. Not believing in a creator makes no sense at all in the observable universe. We can't see dark energy/matter but science believes that IT'S there. We have some knowledge of the creator. No knowledge per say of Dark matter or Dark energy. There's something there , the name alone stirs the senses.

>>18752160
But if someone were to enter nothingness, it would no longer be nothing as you would be apart of it.
You yourself would essentially be an extension of the known universe into nothingness.

Was the big bang,
and also exploding stars what puts light into motion? Does lights 0 electric charge prevent gravity from slowing it down?

how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real

>>18759080 A stopping point means there's something on the other side ,
Void, parallel universe , Heaven . Dr who.

>>18759045
I have always believed that magnets are responsible for the attracting force.
Photons are what causes the attracting force in magnets , which irony carry no magnetic field but does exert magnetic force on charged particles. . For those that don't believe in God, your living in living in on heck of a goldilock zone.

>>18743393
No, because space in itself is just nothingness. Sure there are planets, stars and whatnot floating inside this vacuum, and at some point there won''t be any of those left either, just endless darkness.

>>18743452
>>18743448

It is light. The light is the furthest point because light is as far as we know the fastest speed anything can travel. Following that light are gasses and other cosmic objects.

>>18743393
You end up where the Throne of God is.Just like the Bible says.

>>18743393
Ever play a game where the map is rendered as you advance in the game?
Its exactly like that. Ask what exists there before you get there.
The act of observation creates exiatance based on the existing laws.
In the universe's case its time and energy expansion. You cannot exceed those limits to render existance.

>>18756785
You don't know that. None of us do.

>>18763702
>The act of observation

When the word observation is used, what is really meant is interaction.

I.e. reality unfolds quantized interaction by quantized interaction.

Frame by frame.

It isn't fluid, which is bizarre. It runs like a cartoon!

why couldn't we be able to see even a single star getting born when it should be full of them, but we can see them die

>>18764358
are you referencing empiricism or solipsism?

File: 1343327099480.gif (194KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 150x150px

its a torus (donught), every expanding untill a point where it starts to contract back to the origin.

The universe is all there is in our 3d existence it is like drawing a cartoon on a piece of paper and wondering why you cant draw up or down, you can only draw on the paper, you could draw a 3 d cube like we draw 4d objects to try and comprehend it, but because the paper is all that exists in reference to the cartoons you will only move and see in 4 directions, left right forward backwards no up down. The paper is all that exists like our universe. A 4D being would be able to see it though.

>>18743393
If I ever get there, I'll send you a postcard. A postcard from the edge.

>>18764751
We can it is called a nebula. We just don't have billions of years to watch it.

>>18765407
nebulas are the remains of dead stars

>it takes billions of years

still there should be new stars every second somewhere in the universe

>>18765407
but there should be billions of stars that should have already passed those billions of years,,, every second

File: Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg (154KB, 1200x1183px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1200x1183px

>>18765453
>>18765453
So why this picture is called "the pillars of creation" if they don't form solar systems? Stars can explode into super nova that can form all kinds of stuff since we are all made of dead stars, but if big and dense enough a black hole as well. Not sure if this is troll or someone that stupid?

>>18765529
The universe is too big to just watch stars form! the nearest star to ours over 4 light years away the nearest galaxy looks like a star to the naked eye how do you expect to see them? even with the most powerful telescopes you look at the nearest star to ours it looks like one star and it is not it is binary system but that proves how little we can see it looks like a single point of light.

look up "sidrato el montaha" in google. thats the expanding edge.
after it there is god.