Wanna blow your mind?

And also....



chewbacca was a wookie...now does that make any damn sense at all?

if chewbacca was a wookie, you must accquit

What edge? Unless I am mistaken, current theory predicts a spherical or nearly-spherical universe. You look far enough forward, you probably see the back of your own head

Besides, I suspect if you did see past the edge of our universe, you'd just see another universe.

SpaceAce

thats why i made the illusion to columbus

My mistake

We need three ships to sail around the universe, now.

The Enterprise, the Reliant and the Kobayashi Maru

SpaceAce

"Seeing past the edge of the universe" is kind of an absurd idea in several ways.

First, space is what we call what's between things, so there is no space beyond the universe.

Secondly, "the Universe" in its usual meaning is an all-encompassing concept, such that if we looked beyond what we thought was our universe and saw something else, by the meaning of the term, THAT would also be part of our universe.

Also, I'm not following your logic in terms of the sphericity of the universe. Imagine we are inside a glass ball. Our biggest problem will be that there won't be anything to see beyond the ball. This looking back at ourselves thing is something you'll need to explain a bit more.

The edge is moving away at the speed of light (if you construe "the edge" as a wall of photons generated at or near the original Big Bang. It would seem to follow that that "edge" is what physicists sometimes call the absolute unknowable: totally irretrievable data.

Yes but, chewbacca was a wookie! Can you explain that!?! It makes no sense!

We will never intercept information that's moving away from us at the speed of light. Is that easy enough?

you don't watch southpark do you?

The most interesting thing is that the further away you look is also the further back in time since it took that light X years to travel here. So if there was a big bang and you looked far enough away you would just see the point of light that started it. Meditate on that for awhile and see what conclusions you come to. =]

By the word "space" I mean all the area outside of Earth's atmosphere and yet inside our universe.

I'm not sure where you get that definition of a universe. Our unviverse is (probably) a finite space with a certain set of rules that apply everywhere. The known universe exists in three dimensions (perhaps four, depending on what time really is). Beyond that, there could be more "space" that belongs to a different set of dimensions, runs on a different set of rules, maybe does or maybe does not interact with our "space". The idea of "universe" meaning everything that exists anywhere in any time, space or dimension is the broadest possible definition of a universe. Pick up any scientific journal or publication. The idea of multiple universes is no longer scoffed at and as scienctists explore quantum and string theories, they look more and more likely.

My statement about seeing the back of your own head was followed by a smiley face for a reason. However, it isn't that absurd an idea. As we are dealing with curved space, here, there is no reason not to think that at the edge of our universe things like light might not follw the curve back to where it started. Imagine a hollow sphere of some sort. If you put, say, a marble inside the sphere and set it in motion, it doesn't stop when it rolls to one of the walls of the sphere. Instead, it continues to travel, following the curve of the sphere as long as it has enough energy to do so.

I cannot quote much evidence for that last paragraph, I am just putting forth that the idea is by no means ridiculous.

Seeing past the edge of our universe is only absurd if you go on the assumption that everything that exists exists in our universe. That is not a statement or assumption I have ever heard in any publication or discussion on the matter (see above). For immediate discussion on the matter, just hit the search engines. There are several very good physics and astronomy message boards hosted by universities and technology companies. Very interesting reading in addition to things like the American Journal of Physics.

S[aceAce

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpaceAce
[B]

You:

By the word "space" I mean all the area outside of Earth's atmosphere and yet inside our universe.

Me:

I can go along with that, substituting "the unverse" for "our universe" for the reasons stated in my piece. I recognize that the word "universe" has different definitions in different contexts, but the idea that there can be another universe is a pretty diminished concept of what "universe" means. It reduces to just a clump stuff like any other similar clump of stuff instead of something really unique and special.

You:

I'm not sure where you get that definition of a universe. Our universe is (probably) a finite space with a certain set of rules that apply everywhere. The known universe exists in three dimensions (perhaps four, depending on what time really is). Beyond that, there could be more "space" that belongs to a different set of dimensions, runs on a different set of rules, maybe does or maybe does not interact with our "space". The idea of "universe" meaning everything that exists anywhere in any time, space or dimension is the broadest possible definition of a universe.

Me:

No, it's what the "uni" in "universe" means that has me using that definition. It means "one" (in the sense of one and only one). It's the same "uni" that's in "unique."

You:

Pick up any scientific journal or publication. The idea of multiple universes is no longer scoffed at and as scienctists explore quantum and string theories, they look more and more likely.

Me:

I don't doubt that, but that's "universe" used as jargon, not everyday speech. It diminishes the concept in much the same way that jumping from God to gods does. At any rate, by the most inclusive definition of "universe" (the one which preserves the concept of "universality"?everywhereness) there can be but one and whatever we discover just gets added to that concept. If physicists want to continue to use the term "universe" in a fashion contrary to its primary meaning in English, they are jargonizing.

You:

My statement about seeing the back of your own head was followed by a smiley face for a reason. However, it isn't that absurd an idea. As we are dealing with curved space, here, there is no reason not to think that at the edge of our universe things like light might not follw the curve back to where it started. Imagine a hollow sphere of some sort. If you put, say, a marble inside the sphere and set it in motion, it doesn't stop when it rolls to one of the walls of the sphere. Instead, it continues to travel, following the curve of the sphere as long as it has enough energy to do so.

Me:



You:

Seeing past the edge of our universe is only absurd if you go on the assumption that everything that exists exists in our universe.

Me:

As I do.

Just go and study quantum mechanics or quantum physics. That'll blow your mind to the illeniumith power. lol!

illeniumith power - spoken in true geekishian dialect`, very funny !!!

badastronomy.com

very good site.

How do they know they are the 'earliest objects'?
They would have to see the 'edge' to know that, and this will never happen..

ArmChairAstronomers.com is an even better site. All you have to do to be a member and contribute well thought out theories is to have at least seen Star Wars or Star Trek. I qualify twice. And so I offer these TRUTHS:

We are all just computer nerds, and none of us will ever travel through space or time.
The universe is never ending.
Aria Giovanni while being pretty, still has fucked up teeth.

is your imagination limited? if so, what is beyond that limit? ;)

take a piece of hologram and devide it.. somehow image if a smaller piece will contain image of the whole (in smaller proportion)

edit: got to luv vector graphix

PS regarding edge of universe, i've heard that nothing exists beyond consiousness (?) it is possibly true, but who am i, i know nothing

The Chewbacca defense!

thank god one person got it

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UnseenWorld
[B]Yeah, this is great but it has nothing to do with explaining the Chewbacca problem.

SEATTLE, Jan. 9 ? Peering deep in space and time, astronomers have seen what they think are some of the earliest known objects in the universe...




Jak

Wouldn't it be a trip if they looked out and found out we were slowly wiping out one universe as ours expanded...