/sci/ - Science & Math

Fucked if I (or anyone) knows.

>>4243468

> Most of the theories I'm reading about have huge contradictions
go on...

>>4243488
Which ones? I can't be assed to do all of them.

>>4243468
The universe is defined "AS FUCKING EVERYTHING". There is no "outside" of the universe. Your question doesn't even make any fucking sense.

It's full of stars.

>>4243490
>AS FUCKING EVERYTHING
But the universe is expanding. How can something expand if there is no space outside of it to expand into?

>>4243468

This is a picture of the outer universe.

>>4243506
>Am I cool yet?
No.

>>4243497
The distance between any two points is increasing. Saying the universe is expanding doesn't mean that there's an outside to expand into.

>>4243497
space is expanding, not things in space

>>4243497
You are cute. You think you are saying something that makes sense, but in fact it doesn't.

You think in very simple terms and ideas, because you are very young. When scientist say "expansion" of the universe, the "expansion" they refer to is not the same kind of "expansion" you know of.

They are refering to a more abstract mathematical concept, that doesn't require this "space outside of it to expand into".

It probably won't make anysense to you, UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY STUDY THE FUCKING MATH/PHYSICS. And just because you are to naive to understand an advanced concept, doesn't make the concept wrong, IT JUST MAKES YOU FUCKING NAIVE.

>>4243526
God, the other boards were right, you people really ARE assholes.

>>4243532
>you people

>>4243532
saged and reported for believing in magic

/x/----->

>>4243532
thats becasue we have retards asking shit question all the fucking time. do you really intend to understand this? it will involve more than watching a 20 minute dumbed down entertainment show. if you do want to understand, we can help you, but we cant try to help the majority that comes to sci and when we start explaining go "explain it without the math" or "but [insert popsci] said this" and so on.

>>4243526
I did a google search, and understood it after the first paragraph. Intrinsic expansion, right? Not that hard to understand, ok.
Let me ask another question, then. Before the universe existed (ignoring "lol there was no time before the big bang!"), Hawking theorized that the creation of the universe happened because "something can emerge from nothing". How can something emerge from nothing if there is no space for it to occupy?

Although >>4243532 is right, and your reply was obnoxious, I'm pretty good at overseeing that, since I'm obviously ignorant to a lot of things. You're right, I don't study physics or math.

>the ones that I can't see ontradictions in are probably just too complicated for me to find the contradictions

So what you're saying is, you are one of the greatest physicists in the world at such a young age and can disprove tons of awesome stuff, but the only thing holding you back is your limited knowledge?

Better get studying! We need you!

>>4243526
You gotta excuse the kid for being a little confused, its not like this shit is an intuitive concept. No need to berate the uninitiated, makes us all look like niggers.

>>4243526

Tell him where his deductive reasoning abilities developed. Go on, tell him.

I'll do it.

Africa.

The savannas of Africa.

:D

>>4243532
>hates jewish people
>hates black people

saged and reported

>>4243542
space-time doesn't need to occupy space-time.

>>4243532 isn't OP. I didn't bring it up until now because I didn't think it mattered, but the thread began to derail because everyone thought that OP wasn't reasonable enough to try to learn this shit.


>>4243541
No, I'm not using anything advanced to disprove them. Let's look at a the infinite bubbles theory. If there is an infinite amount of universes, all infinite with different laws, then we must assume that an infinite number of universes has both the technology to transport between universes and the technology to destroy said universes. If this is the case, then in infinite number of universes would have already been destroyed. Why are we still here?

>>4243532
>implyling assholes aren't necessary

>>4243553
But, if there's an infinite number of universe, how could they ALL get destroyed?

>>4243542
>ignoring "lol there wuz no time before the big bang"

I'm pretty sure you can't just "ignore" things like that. Physics is not the study of intuition. You sound 15, which is okay. You just have to study a little more so you can ask legitimate questions. Of course you don't understand this; it's because you did one google search and immediately claimed that you understood a concept after reading the first paragraph of one source.

it's funny as most scientists tend to think philosophy is bullshit, and then they start talking about their idea of the origin of the big bang

hahah

>>4243559
If there is an infinite number, we can assume that one universe has the technology to simultaneously destroy all other universes, including ours, and is about to use said technology.
We're still here.

>>4243553
>If there is an infinite amount of universes, all infinite with different laws, then we must assume that an infinite number of universes has both the technology to transport between universes and the technology to destroy said universes.
Nope. Suppose transport between the worlds is impossible. Then no universe will develop such technology.

>>4243553
It could be that destruction of a universe is impossible. Also, infinity minus infinity does not equal zero. Also, you sound like you just took an introductory philosophy course.

>>4243569
Each of the infinite universes in the infinite bubbles theory is stated to have different laws. Surely one universes laws allows for travel between universes.

>>4243574
You're not considering god-mode laws

>>4243574
Just because there are an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of laws, does not mean that there is a universe with the particular set of laws you want.

>>4243553
What about the theories that you can't see contradictions in? If you think the only reason you can't disprove them is because they're too complicated, you should study. It's not that hard to figure out.

>>4243579
I thought that the fact that there was an infinite number of universes would imply that an infinite number of universes did have those set of laws.

>>4243574
If two universes are concocted, they are by definition the same universe.

>>4243585
Why? Just because there's an infinite number of universes doesn't mean there's no limit to what is and isn't possible inside these universes.

>>4243582
One of those theories is the theory that each black hole contains a universe. Since I don't really know anything about black holes, except for some very elementary things, like the event horizon and that they have a point of singularity, I can't really understand the whole theory.

>implying anyone knows what's outside our own universe
>you are 2/3 retard if you try to say definitively "nothing" or claim to know what's beyond our universe

>>4243574
Yes, but there are certain laws that would cause a universe to contract soon after it expands. So just because you think that all combinations of physical constants are achieved, does not mean that they all work.

>>4243593
So you should study, right now. Because there are a lot of people studying black hole theory right now because they think that it is correct. These people could be out getting laid instead of wasting their time on something wrong. Study now.

>>4243585
Absolutely not!

And in the most popular ideas along these lines (I'm not sure if I'd call it a theory yet, although there are people trying to test it), all the regions all have the same fundamental laws anyway. What varies from region to region are the approximate laws that describe physics at low energies.

>>4243542
>How can something emerge from nothing if there is no space for it to occupy?

Ok... So this can go on forever. You can ask some more kiddy questions, and we can answer. It is not addressing the problem though.

THE PROBLEM IS YOU. You have this "everyman", "common", approach to science. You come at it with all these shit humdrum, very very very very very very very very limitied, physical experiences. This is expected.....

You then proceed to get confused when you find something that doesn't obey YOUR SHITTY PRE-CONCIEVED NOTION OF HOW SHIT WORKS. THE PROBLEM IS YOUR PRE-CONCIEVED NOTIONS, MOST OF WHICH ARE SHIT!

So, before you start asking questions. Ask yourself, WHICH SHITTY ASSUMPTION YOU MADE? Then be willing to accept that maybe your notion was wrong on some fundemental level. Then learn to stop making shit assumptions!

In this case, you ask "How can something emerge from nothing if there is no space for it to occupy?". So obviously, you have some shitty pre-concieved notion of space and occupancy THAT IS FUCKING WRONG.....DURRRR.

Make sense?
It is neat that you want to learn. We need more people like you. Just remember to "review" your assumptions, that is all I am telling you. Review and change (when needed) of assumptions is very crucial to critical thinking, it is how any real learning or discovery is done. By using this technique you will be able to understand a great deal of shit. You will actually be able to figure out alot of shit out for yourself if you review you assumptions first.

>>4243622
wisdom? in my /sci/?

>>4243635
Not very likely, this is /sci/ after all. So more probably a typo. A very unlikely and long typo, but non the less. That is more likely than wisdom on /sci/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

Well let's start with the obvious. We can't say anything for certain about our universe, at the moment. However, we can predict certain scenarios our universe might follow. The universe might be closed like figure one. If that's the case there is no outside the universe because there is no edge of the universe. It would be like the pacman game, if you went off one side you'd appear on the other. And you couldn't like go "up" or "through" because that would be like a two-dimensional square moving through the z-axis. With an open universe there is no edge, it is infinite. It's "open". It is popularly thought, and with strong empirical support, that our universe is flat (figure 3). In either scenario there is no "outside the universe". That is not a semantically significant phrase. That would be on par with asking how tall is the average elf? Elves don't actually exist so to ask a question presupposing their existence is not cognitively meaningful.

On the other hand, the multiverse theory is a very viable and tantalizing theory...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

>>4243490
But if the universe is everything, explain the red shift and the expanding of the Universe. If everything is expanding, then it's not everything---or else what is it expanding in to?

OP, I theorize that vacuums exist beyond the Universe.

>>4243468
Your universe is everything inside your consciousness and it is impossible for something to be outside of it. Therefore, there is nothing outside of the universe.

>>4243622
OP here, thanks for your improbable (though possible) long typo. I'll go study, and maybe repost the same question when I feel like I have a better understanding of the universe.

>>4243606
I'll read up on it. Blackholes always interested me anyway.

>>4244103
You are talking as if there is some sort of area outside the universe already in existence that space moves in to. There is not.

Space-time does not expand in to space-time. It just expands. That is all.
It doesn't expand "in to" anything. It is against our intuition because all we can experienced is things expanding in to space. This is not how the universe works.

Seriously, the concepts don't make a lot of sense but the maths does, at that is the important thing.

The universe as we know it is not as we know it.

>>4243783
Seeing as how "typo" is short for "typographical error" and no error can exist in nature, this is not a typo