What exactly is beyond the known Universe?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Nothing is fact. The laws of physics are only a theory

The laws of physics are not theories, that is why they are called laws. For example, The law of gravity ¨What goes up most come down¨, simple, direct and ultimately correct. It´s not a speculation based on limited information or knowledge, like most theories are. They are proven to be correct, that is why they are called laws.

everything that has not been proven wrong is a theory.

Again if it can not be proven wrong then it is a law. That´s the main difference between a law and a theory. Theories, over time CAN be proven wrong, they can also be discarted. No matter how many years go by laws CAN NOT be proven wrong.

Many people claim to have scientific theories, a theory has to be proven correct. That means that not only can you give evidence of it, that evidence cannot be proven wrong. As such, every accepted theory can be relied upon to be accurate.

I think that you are confused between the definitions of Law and Theory. Many people have different theories about any one object of discussion. Only when this theories are proven to be correct do they become laws and actual fact. A theory does not need to be correct because it´s only a speculation

What gaps does Evolution have? It essentially says that after life was created (it doesn't say how life was created) animals changed and adapted to fit their role better. Sharks, over time, developed better organs for hunting in water, birds developed better ways to fly etc. What hole is there in that?

The theory of evolution, for example, stated that man evolved from primates. They talk about this so called missing link that no one has been able to find. No one has found fossil evidense of this missing link, nor can anyone say at what exact point in time we stopped beeing primates. And what is their main reason to believe that we evolved from primates, that we only have a 3% genetic difference? Elephants share a certain percent of genetic make up with a certain type of mouse (it´s name escapes me at the moment) and they have nothing more in common. I call all of this gaps, because they have no physical evidence to back them up, only speculation.

Originally Posted by Hero_of_Legends

The laws of physics are not theories, that is why they are called laws. For example, The law of gravity ¨What goes up most come down¨, simple, direct and ultimately correct. It´s not a speculation based on limited information or knowledge, like most theories are. They are proven to be correct, that is why they are called laws.

From Dictionary.com:
Theory-
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Again if it can not be proven wrong then it is a law. That´s the main difference between a law and a theory. Theories, over time CAN be proven wrong, they can also be discarted. No matter how many years go by laws CAN NOT be proven wrong.

And yet the laws of physics have been proven wrong on a sub-atomic scale, a law is not absolute, it is still a theory.

The theory of evolution, for example, stated that man evolved from primates. They talk about this so called missing link that no one has been able to find. No one has found fossil evidence of this missing link, nor can anyone say at what exact point in time we stopped being primates. And what is their main reason to believe that we evolved from primates, that we only have a 3% genetic difference? Elephants share a certain percent of genetic make up with a certain type of mouse (it´s name escapes me at the moment) and they have nothing more in common. I call all of this gaps, because they have no physical evidence to back them up, only speculation.

That still doesn't prove the idea behind evolution wrong, that species adapt to suit their environment. They do this via random mutations, those mutations that work stay around, those that don't die. I'm not a biologist, but surely there's a reason that evolution has stayed around and is accepted despite many people attempting to prove it wrong.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

From Dictionary.com:
Theory-
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

From the dictionary page I assume you got your definition, read the last 3 definitions:
the·o·ry
NOUN:
pl. the·o·ries
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2) The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3) A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4) Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5) A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

And yet the laws of physics have been proven wrong on a sub-atomic scale, a law is not absolute, it is still a theory.

I´m not up to date with this so I can not comment about it. I´ll just tell you this, prove the law of gravity wrong.

That still doesn't prove the idea behind evolution wrong, that species adapt to suit their environment. They do this via random mutations, those mutations that work stay around, those that don't die. I'm not a biologist, but surely there's a reason that evolution has stayed around and is accepted despite many people attempting to prove it wrong

I think you are confused. I never said that the theory of evolution was wrong, nor did I say it was correct. I said that I didn´t thrust it because it was incomplete. At what point in this disscussion did I say that it was wrong? It´s a theory, it has the faculties to be either correct or flawed. You can not prove to me that it is correct but I can not prove to you that it is wrong, for the simple reason that we only have limited information on the subject. The theory of evolution has not been discarted simply because there has not been the arrival of a better explanation for this type of events in the past. Who knows, it may end up beeing true, but until it is proven to be true, it´s only a theory, not actual fact.

Originally Posted by Hero_of_Legends

From the dictionary page I assume you got your definition, read the last 3 definitions:
the·o·ry
NOUN:
pl. the·o·ries
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2) The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3) A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4) Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5) A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

That is a logical fallacy. The definition that is used is the first one, it doesn't matter if there are others.

'Swine' has multiple definitions, but that doesn't mean that I can't use it to refer to a pig or a man, I use the definition that fits what I'm trying to define.

I´m not up to date with this so I can not comment about it. I´ll just tell you this, prove the law of gravity wrong.

It hasn't, as such, it is an accepted theory. Should it be proven wrong it shall be altered, that's how science works.

I think you are confused. I never said that the theory of evolution was wrong, nor did I say it was correct. I said that I didn´t thrust it because it was incomplete. At what point in this disscussion did I say that it was wrong? It´s a theory, it has the faculties to be either correct or flawed. You can not prove to me that it is correct but I can not prove to you that it is wrong, for the simple reason that we only have limited information on the subject. The theory of evolution has not been discarted simply because there has not been the arrival of a better explanation for this type of events in the past. Who knows, it may end up beeing true, but until it is proven to be true, it´s only a theory, not actual fact.

Again, nothing is fact. nothing. I will admit that it is incomplete, but so are most commonly accepted theories.

I mean no offence, but you don't seem to know quite how science works.

A person proposes an idea
Someone reaserches that idea, and forms a hypothesis
That Hypothesis is then tested by the person
They then (should their Hypothesis have been proven) submit that idea for other scientists to try and prove wrong.
If no other scientist can prove it wrong it becomes accepted until it is shown to be wrong or incomplete, at which point it is updated or discarded.

Every single scientifically accepted 'fact' is like that. Everything you learnt in your school's science class, and science books, is like that, at any moment it could be gotten rid of to make room for a new idea that works better. That is why there is no 'fact', only theory. But, because when a theory is proven wrong it is gotten rid of you can feel fairly certain that most accepted theories are correct.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Well, it's not fact, nothing is.

Anyways, I'm afraid I'm not an expert on the big bang, but just looking at it logically, if the universe is expanding, then at some point it must have been smaller then it is now, one second ago it was 1 light-second smaller then it is now, one year ago it was one light-year smaller etc. So, if you carry that back 13.7 billion years you get it being 13.7 billion lightyears smaller then it is now, or, smaller then the head of a pin.

Also, the universe can be infinite, it's only the matter in it that is expanding.

Not quite true. The universe itself IS expanding. That's why Redshift and doppler shift aren't the same. Redshift isn't caused by the galaxies emitting light moving away, it's caused by the space through which the light is travelling expanding as the light travels, thereby increasing the wavelength.

Oh, and GDwarf, Hero_Of_Legends, maybe this Evolution debate could use it's own thread. Things are getting a bit off topic.

Originally Posted by Hero_of_Legends

I´m not up to date with this so I can not comment about it. I´ll just tell you this, prove the law of gravity wrong.

We're still yet to find a unified theory, consequently, no current law should really be called a law.

Not quite true. The universe itself IS expanding. That's why Redshift and doppler shift aren't the same. Redshift isn't caused by the galaxies emitting light moving away, it's caused by the space through which the light is travelling expanding as the light travels, thereby increasing the wavelength.

That's not necessarily proof that the universe is expanding. It could be for example, only bodies within our resident supercluster that are moving outwards.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

That's not necessarily proof that the universe is expanding. It could be for example, only bodies within our resident supercluster that are moving outwards.

you don't see any significance in the fact that every galaxy measured has been moving away at an accelerating rate? most people would consider this strong enough evidence to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that the universe is expanding.


as for the original question, any answer to this is a very hard concept to grasp. according to some theories, there are other "universes" (not really universes, because the word implies that it encompases everything).

but what most astrophysicists will tell you is that the universe is finite yet unbounded. this is a mind-boggling concept, but I will give you an example - the surface of a sphere is finite yet unbounded. you can travel as far as you want on it, and you'll never reach an end. however, there is a measurable area. the same goes for the universe, only in many dimensions. of course, the human mind isn't capable of visualizing this.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

That is a logical fallacy. The definition that is used is the first one, it doesn't matter if there are others.

Yeah, I used the last 3 definitions. As you said, I could easily just say that these 3 are the only ones that matter (putting aside everything that you just said, without even caring if it´s right or wrong) thus rendering all of your statements false, right. No dude, it doesn´t work that way. It doesn´t matter if you don´t want to accept it, the facts are right there, and for you to ignore them just because you don´t want to be proven wrong shows how narrow minded you are.

I will admit that it is incomplete, but so are most commonly accepted theories.

Finally we agree on something.

I mean no offence, but you don't seem to know quite how science works.

A person proposes an idea
Someone reaserches that idea, and forms a hypothesis
That Hypothesis is then tested by the person
They then (should their Hypothesis have been proven) submit that idea for other scientists to try and prove wrong.
If no other scientist can prove it wrong it becomes accepted until it is shown to be wrong or incomplete, at which point it is updated or discarded.

Yes I know the Scientific Method and I know how science works. Science is all about probabilities. If you know the scientific method as well as you claim to, then you know this:
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as true. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.
So as you can see science is all about different probabilities, not what you want it to be. So the real question is, Do you know how science works?

I can see this discussion will lead us to nowhere, and Malloc() is right, we are getting of topic. So I´ll leave you here. Have Fun!!

Originally Posted by Hero_of_Legends

Yeah, I used the last 3 definitions. As you said, I could easily just say that these 3 are the only ones that matter (putting aside everything that you just said, without even caring if it´s right or wrong) thus rendering all of your statements false, right. No dude, it doesn´t work that way. It doesn´t matter if you don´t want to accept it, the facts are right there, and for you to ignore them just because you don´t want to be proven wrong shows how narrow minded you are.

I'm not just arbitrarily discounting the other definitions, I'm saying that when I use the word theory I mean the first definition. Just because it can mean other things doesn't mean that I wanted it to.

Yes I know the Scientific Method and I know how science works. Science is all about probabilities. If you know the scientific method as well as you claim to, then you know this:
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as true. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.
So as you can see science is all about different probabilities, not what you want it to be. So the real question is, Do you know how science works?

That's just it, nothing in Science is regarded as true, if it was then it could never be modified at a later time. As it is theories are updated/discarded all the time. Thus, it's obvious that nothing is regarded as the truth.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

Ack, damn. >.<

The 'Universe' mean's 'everything in existance', so it depends on how you define 'nothing', seeing as there's 'nothing' outside the universe. But what confuses me is how a multiverse (a theory that there is more than one universe) is possible, because wouldn't they all just be within the universe? In that case what's the definition of universe?

If there's "nothing" outside the universe, wouldn't that imply that there is "nothing" beyond it?

Also, the universe can be infinite, it's only the matter in it that is expanding.

Correct. A void cannot expand, rather, the matter within it can expand (or contract, as the case may be).

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

According to many scientists, the Big Bang was an expansion of space, not the creation of it. Before the Big Bang was a single point of singularity.

But what was the cause of the Bing Bang? you say that the Bing Bang was a expansion of space not a creation, It's just like saying it was an accident. I believe that something has created the expansion of space.

Well we wouldnt know would we...the known universe is not only expanding but changing as well. My opinion on this is that there is things out there like the universe we know...empty and cold. What else to say?

Originally Posted by Darmani`s Ghost

But what was the cause of the Bing Bang? you say that the Bing Bang was a expansion of space not a creation, It's just like saying it was an accident. I believe that something has created the expansion of space.

I'd say that having all the matter and energy in the universe compressed into one point is bound to cause some kind of reaction that throws them all out into space.

Originally Posted by Darmani`s Ghost

yes I know, but have you ever thought of "if you die then your spirit still lives, but you body doesn't?" But if you think good enough this dying thing comes to your theory afterall.
Because if you die than your nothing, but in you theory does prove that if there is nothing but it exist than it's something. Now I know that if you're something, than you die, than you're nothing. But nothing is also something. So you can proof that after you die that you're still alive in a other way than you lived before.

Thats a good point, are you saying that there is life after death because there can't be a nothing? Because your spirit is something?

But I doubt the Universe will end, I think it will go on forever, I think with the Universe, it has a totally different system from what we know on our tiny little dot in something the scale of the plantet, that billions and billions the size bigger.

So if we know only that little, surely if we search far enough there will be something completely different. People are forgetting how very, very little we know of the Universe. So maybe far, far away there is no beggining or end, where everything is infinite and there is aliens that know more answers then us, that may have witnessed, or maybe even created absolutely everything that exsists.

Think about it, its easily possible. If we know so little of the Universe, if there are billions and billions of other planents among everything thate essists, there could easily be aliens. Maybe just insects on another planet; yes, they would be aliens too. But right now we only know of us as the most intelligant organism, we would seem like animals to some Aliens far away. Which are more intelligant still, and know all the answers.

Originally Posted by Unknown

Thats a good point, are you saying that there is life after death because there can't be a nothing? Because your spirit is something?

But I doubt the Universe will end, I think it will go on forever, I think with the Universe, it has a totally different system from what we know on our tiny little dot in something the scale of the plantet, that billions and billions the size bigger.

So if we know only that little, surely if we search far enough there will be something completely different. People are forgetting how very, very little we know of the Universe. So maybe far, far away there is no beggining or end, where everything is infinite and there is aliens that know more answers then us, that may have witnessed, or maybe even created absolutely everything that exsists.

Think about it, its easily possible. If we know so little of the Universe, if there are billions and billions of other planents among everything thate essists, there could easily be aliens. Maybe just insects on another planet; yes, they would be aliens too. But right now we only know of us as the most intelligant organism, we would seem like animals to some Aliens far away. Which are more intelligant still, and know all the answers.

Yes I've thought of that too!! I mean it's impossible that we are the only ones how live in this universe, and I 'm really sure there are aliens(just like you said).the scientist say that they are good in cloning things, so that means they already know what DNA is and they already know how to manipulate it. And yes, that's what I'm saying that your spirit is something, because how can you proof that you have feelings, that you can dream?

Not really in reply to anyone else's post, but I think it could be possible that our entire universe is absolutely tiny, and that everything within our universe could be like part of a superstring of another universe, and for all we know, a sub-atomic particle in our world is someone elses universe. Get what I'm saying? :S

yes I've made that kind of thread a few weeks ago about the planet being a sort of electron and that it finally is found in a DNA and finally in a for example hair.

How are we actually ment to find out? We're only in the year 2005 A.D, it was only 100 years ago man learned how to fly, it was only 48 years ago that man sent the first unmanned spaceprobe into space, it was only 44 years ago that man first went into space, it was only 36 years ago man first landed on the moon..

So when we find out whats BEYOND the universe.. it's beyond me... We havn't even landed on a different planet yet! We've only landed on a moon, Earth's moon.

And imagine how much money it will cost cost for such a project like this.

Originally Posted by Darmani`s Ghost

But what was the cause of the Bing Bang? you say that the Bing Bang was a expansion of space not a creation, It's just like saying it was an accident. I believe that something has created the expansion of space.

it's impossible to know, at least with today's technology. all we know is that the laws of physics were only created along with the big bang, so before it, different rules, if any, would have been in place.

what's wrong with the universe being an accident?

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

it's impossible to know, at least with today's technology. all we know is that the laws of physics were only created along with the big bang, so before it, different rules, if any, would have been in place.

what's wrong with the universe being an accident?

That's the point, it couldn't be an accident, something has made us and has made the universe and all other things. How can you explain that we are perfect made? our whole body is so complicated, so it can't be just an accident. But the question is why? why do we exist? these are the questions that I like to know, but unfortunately I can't find them because it's too complicated.