What's 'outside' the Universe
Greg Trayling
Stud Muffin wrote:
>
> This is something that has always interested me and i have had some
> facinating and mind bending! conversations with friends about this
> topic. Does anyone here have their own theory to this question.
>
If there's anything outside the universe, then the universe would
be redefined to include this new thing, so the answer is,
logically, nothing.
http://www.cs.uwindsor.ca/meta-index/people/traylin
Junkencrapenmailgespammen ist verboten
Geert Pante
Greg Trayling wrote:
>
> Stud Muffin wrote:
> >
> > This is something that has always interested me and i have had some
> > facinating and mind bending! conversations with friends about this
> > topic. Does anyone here have their own theory to this question.
> >
> If there's anything outside the universe, then the universe would
> be redefined to include this new thing, so the answer is,
> logically, nothing.
>
Well, Einstein had these ideas about curved space, didn't he. Well,
couldn't there be a proof that when you would be an imaginary spirit,
that could fly above lightspeed, and see what happens, that when you
flew out of the universe as normal people see it, you would enter it
from the other side?
If there were only two dimensions, besides time, and space was a surface
of a sphere, our sight being limited by the speed of light, and the
radius of our 2D-space, too, what would be outside of our 2D-universe?
For me the answer is a non-curved more-dimensional space.
If you'd accept the super-symmetrical string theory, you could say that
all effects perceptible by human can be described as resulted by
26-dimensioned curvatures. Mass is curvature, not material. What's
'inside' the Universe then? Emptiness? Curvature? What's outside
these 26 dimension? Should we care? I don't think so.
Sorry for the Chaos.
--
v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v{NaoM...@GeoCities.com}v;v;
Geert Pante - RijksUniversiteit Gent - nr. 1995 0632 - 2de
kan.burg.ir.
- Home Astrid K.249, Krijgslaan 250, 9000 Gent,
Belgium
- http://studwww.rug.ac.be/~gpante.
v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;v;
+--HI, I'm a signature virus :-) Copy me into your sign to join in.
---+
PGP Key fingerprint = C4 A5 FA 5D F4 1E 0B 7E FC F2 97 95 92 DC 58 27
William R. Penrose
In article <341671...@geocities.com> Geert Pante <NaoM...@geocities.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: What's 'outside' the Universe
It doesn't matter. Bill Gates already owns it, and the IRS is already taxing
it.
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpen...@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D and gas sensor-based product
development to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Robbie
Unfortunately noone has the authority to do the redefinition.
Greg Trayling wrote:
>
> Stud Muffin wrote:
> >
> > This is something that has always interested me and i have had some
> > facinating and mind bending! conversations with friends about this
> > topic. Does anyone here have their own theory to this question.
> >
> If there's anything outside the universe, then the universe would
> be redefined to include this new thing, so the answer is,
> logically, nothing.
>
sarah
>Stud Muffin wrote:
>>
>> This is something that has always interested me and i have had some
>> facinating and mind bending! conversations with friends about this
>> topic. Does anyone here have their own theory to this question.
>>
>If there's anything outside the universe, then the universe would
>be redefined to include this new thing, so the answer is,
>logically, nothing.
>
> http://www.cs.uwindsor.ca/meta-index/people/traylin
> Junkencrapenmailgespammen ist verboten
Alright, silly postulation coming up.
Can we in fact say that the universe is defined by it containing
everything that exists, or by it containing everything that we can
detect? The difference being that anything beyond the event horizon of
a black hole would be undetectable, and therefore outside of our
universe. Therefore, if we are shut off inside this universe within a
black-hole-like shell, there might be things outside of it, but not
necessarily part of our universe, since they are unreachable?
Tony Buckland
In article <3422045c...@news.earthlink.net>,
sarah <ofgoblinsW...@juno.com> wrote:
|On Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:16:23 GMT, Greg Trayling
|<"traylin**nospam<<"@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
|>If there's anything outside the universe, then the universe would
|>be redefined to include this new thing ...
|Can we in fact say that the universe is defined by it containing
|everything that exists, or by it containing everything that we can
|detect? The difference being that anything beyond the event horizon of
|a black hole would be undetectable, and therefore outside of our
|universe. Therefore, if we are shut off inside this universe within a
|black-hole-like shell, there might be things outside of it, but not
|necessarily part of our universe, since they are unreachable?
Nice try. But do you really want to exclude, as your definition does
exclude, everything inside the event horizons of the black holes in
our universe? If so, there's a problem, because such matter _is_
detectable, because of its gravitational attraction. Which leads to
the question of whether, if we dwell in a very large black hole, we
should be able to detect everything outside our hole by _its_
gravitational attraction.
Anyhow, the multiple-universe idea seems to crop up these days not
so much in the black hole context as in that of bubble universes, of
which ours could be one.