NeoPhysics

Isnt asking whats at the edge of the universe in a way asking if the earth is flat rather than round? Because "from my point of view," which can always be wrong I'd like to note, an explosion on a 3 dimensional space will expand in 3 dimensions. Now once the big bang happened, the fastest particles we know of are those of light, so that those are on the "edge" of the universe. Now, according to many theories, one cannot travel faster than light. If these three assumptions are all based on correct premises that are true themselves, it is impossible for one to reach the edge of the universe because it will be always be moving away faster than anything that may try to reach it. And not only that, but if one were to reach it, then moving toward the edge of the universe would be much like walking over the surface of the Earth, you would keep walking and walking and reaching the same point over and over again. Now, like I said before and like to emphasize, none of this, except that the idea that nothing can travel faster than light came from my mind and has no scientific proof, so if it sounds lame to anyone with firther knowledge, excuse me

Regardless of where the randomess is at, from that point on there is an infinite number of possibilities so that unless there is no beginning there cannot be determinism.

I may be wrong, but I think that your test has some connections to my idea of the universe is a fractal... because your idea is similar to mine, i dunno, take a look at this http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13567 ... Yeah, I think that if you were to change the speed in such a way as you said then you would cause the way that the matter is organized inside your 1-sphere be different, even though it will still occupy the same space and contain the same atoms. There would be either something extra or something less, which could not happen unless the configuration of the matter inside it was changing, which i guess would be in favor of the String Theory.

You say that what happened before tells what will happen next. Let me suppose I agree with you for a second. Now let us go all the way back to the Big Bang. If i knew everything that happened since then, if I knew everything then I would be able to tell what is going to happen next. Now, if that is true, if everything happens because of a previous event, and if the Big Bang is the "beginning" of everything, then how could the Big Bang happen if there was nothing previous to cause it? For if there was nothing to determine how the Big Bang happened then is it not true that it is safe to say that the Big Bang itself could have happened in an infinite number of ways? And could not each of these possible ways have originated a parallel universe in which every difference in how the Big Bang happened caused a different universe to be created? And that if it is so that is it not possible to say that "determinism" is a paradox since it would, as i just said, bring to the conclusion that how the Bing Bang happened could not have been determined beforehand? Unless of course if we were to conceive the idea that there was something before the Big Bang that would have determined how it happened, but then there would have to be something before that, and then before that one, and it would go on infinetly, so that the only way that determinism could exist in our universe is if indeed our universe had always been here and never had a "beginning" Well, this is only my idea of why determinism cannot be absolute, but of course, I could be wrong in this universe

Yeah... this is kinda my idea... imagine three functions. One tells the distribution of protons, another the distribution of neutrons and another the distribution of electrons... basically every time a particle moves, that is, the dependent variable of those functions since they tell where particles are supposed to be, that means that if we were to look at a graph of those functions the independent variable would have been changed. The idea is that all that we see is what we get when we put those 3 graphs together, the independent variable being time itself. But then, if that is the case, what is time? how can we really define time? Because if we really think about it, time has to do with speed and distance and universally those change as the speed that the universe is expanding changes. Now, according to the Chaos Theory, if you change the initial conditions no matter how little, the results will have exponentially increasing changes. So, the question is, if we could change the speed at which matter is expanding (or possibly retracting in a very distant future) would we be able to have complete control over matter?

I've been doing some reading on chaos theory and i was wondering about what people think of it... I got some crazy ideas and theories of my own in case anyone wants to discuss... In fact I believe that the universe itself is a fractal... i.e. it is self similar to every single thing in it, our perception of these things being different being caused only by the fact that matter is spread at different points in the fractal. This idea wound in fact work with the String Theory, which i guess is kinda cool ... Well... if anyone got ideas about the chaos theory and would like to discuss let me know.