Kyrisch Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 The branes in the multiverse obviously exist in the absence of space-time, they transcend what we know, and what we know is space-time. The extra dimensions in M-Theory are completely independent of the spatial ones to which we are accustomed. You keep citing the inconsistency of me using the term 'before', but I use this term in the loosest definition thereof, not with specific regards to what we experience as part of space-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Kyrisch... your post comes across as "word salad." Can you please try to rephrase that? Maybe offer a link or two which reference the specific ideas you're trying to convey? Thanks, and cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyrisch Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 I did not intend to throw useless terms at you. I only meant to point out that your argument is based in the semantic inconsistency of my use of the word 'before' and isn't really addressing my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Which was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyrisch Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 That something could have existed 'before' the Big Bang that is independent of space-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 That doesn't make sense. You said it yourself space-TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 That something could have existed 'before' the Big Bang that is independent of space-time. Okay. And since the big bang was literally the beginning of time and space, the concept of "before" the big bang is completely meaningless. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, or are you truly not understanding my point? If the latter, please explain and I'll try to find a way to meet you in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 The branes in the multiverse obviously exist in the absence of space-time, they transcend what we know, and what we know is space-time. The extra dimensions in M-Theory are completely independent of the spatial ones to which we are accustomed. You keep citing the inconsistency of me using the term 'before', but I use this term in the loosest definition thereof, not with specific regards to what we experience as part of space-time. How I love that word; "Obviously". Since the multiverse is unproven, it is, obviously, not obviously anything. We have hypotheses on its existence, not obviousness. Obviously the word obviously doesn't fit here. On top of that, even if we ignore the 'obviously' in here, you need to base your claim on a LOT more than your own obvious opinion on it. Who claims that the "branes in the multiverse obviously exist in the absence of space-time"? What is it supported on? What predictions can you make that prove - or at the very least support - this hypothesis? It is quite meaningless without these. The 'common' theory is that space-time is a "connected" term. Therefore, not just "space" was created, but Space-Time. the word "Before" is related to time, whether it is "broad" or "thin" definition, it doesn't matter. Before is still a definition relating to time. Time does not exist, did not exist, will-not-have-had-existed prior to the big bang. By definition. This argument is moot. You're arguing definitions. If your argument is speculative and opinionated, I suggest we move this thread to the speculation thread, where you can hypothesize and opinionate on "Obviously" obvious things with much less opposition. But with, still, requirements for citation and proof for basis. Obviously. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antimatter Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Well said. There's no point in trying to argue if the concept has been explained and re-explained over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Unless, of course, there is something new and consistent and plausible to offer. However, to the tone of your post, we have not yet seen any such thing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyrisch Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 I concede the fact that before is not the correct word. I simply used it because it is nearly impossible to imagine anything that is independent of time because of how our brains are wired. However, current M-Theory (and I know that M-Theory is pretty much backed up by nothing, but this thread was intended for speculation) holds that it is a possibility that the Big Bang was caused by the collision of two branes or some such event. While this may not have occurred "before" the formation of dimensional space per se, it is still independent thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Actually, this thread was supposed to discuss where (if) space ends, not what was before or during the Big Bang. And the point I was trying to make is that this speculation (!) is *one* out of an existing some. It's not obvious, and it's not the only one. And you still need to give references and basis for your claims to make them valid. This, for instance: While this may not have occurred "before" the formation of dimensional space per se, it is still independent thereof. Makes no sense, whether it is because of our limited minds or not. We (humans) created the word "TIME" to describe a phenomenon by which we perceive things. We do not entirely perceive time (like we do the other three dimensions) - we are AFFECTED by time. The word itself is our creation. I see what you mean, but you can't use "before", not even as a broad sense, because it is senseless by definition. We have limited brains and limited definitions. Example: The question "Where is nowhere?" is moot. The word nowhere means that it is no where. No matter how broad or thin I propose this question to be, it is still, and probably always will be, illogical. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 It's a bit like asking "what is the temperature of happy." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn5 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 my opinion on where space ends is,....that it doesn't end, its just a revolving door. and dont let it hit on your way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlashboy Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Well have you guys ever thought about thinking small? What if we are an atom, or molecule, our universe an atom, it might seem stupid but its a thought. Anyone ever think small is the answer? What if we are an atom? think about it the atom acts like a solar system. Explosions, electicity going through the universe, almost the same as an atom has negative and positive charge. It might be a stupid idea but it's just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igosaur Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Space doesn't end in the same way that the surface of the Earth doesn't end. On the other hand, you could leave our Universe if you could find a way to travel at right angles to all three dimensions, so perhaps the end of space is in fact closer than the distance between a proton and it's electrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathsgeek Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 space doesn't end, it goes on forever, but it's possible that space could just be, like, a bouncy ball in an enormous giant's pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igosaur Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 You've been watching Men in Black again haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry kibler Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 we are just a atom in sombody's telephone reciever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midgetwars Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 IF the universe had edges what would happen if you went over the edges???? What else is over the edges?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 IF the universe had edges what would happen if you went over the edges????What else is over the edges?? If there's an "over the edge", then it's part of the universe. That means, by definition, "over the edge" isn't over the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIM TIM Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 OK, I'm just an average guy that came to these forums to look for an answer on a question of Ball lightning, and I thought that I would stop for a few minutes and check out a couple of posts while I was here. This is a good question. I have a thought that I would like to share. Here goes, and I hope that I don't sound too stupid when I ask this............. Why would it end ??? Didn't scientists create and still use the symbol for infinity for a reason ? Is it so hard to think that something like space goes on forever? I learned a long time ago that, just because you don't understand or beleive something, does not mean that it is not so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pradeepkumar Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 There is no chance for human to find the end(size) of the universe. But man can find the end(lifetime) of the universe. any way according to big bang theory universe will expand to its maximum space by swallowing the empty spaces. then there will be no spacefor the universe to occupy so it will crunch again .This theory is also called as the Big crunch theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIM TIM Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 But isn't space a vacuum ? It would seem to me that with no resistance, that the shock wave from the CREATION of all things would keep on going forever with nothing to impede the motion, and that it would be a perfect sphere going outward in all directions at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igosaur Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 But isn't space a vacuum ?It would seem to me that with no resistance, that the shock wave from the CREATION of all things would keep on going forever with nothing to impede the motion, and that it would be a perfect sphere going outward in all directions at once. But in at least four physical dimensions. With the 3D Universe that we inhabit being the surface of this 'sphere'. In this case from our 3D perspective there can be no end to space in exactly the same way that there can be no centre to the universe. To use a 2D in a 3D world analogy, the surface of the Earth has no centre nor can you find the end. This is the way the Universe works except in at least 4 dimensions. There may well be a location for the big bang but it certainly isn't located anywhere in our Universe and as far as finding the edge of the Universe, well, it's everywhere, it's just that you would have to travel in a direction which isn't up/down, left/right or back/forth to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts