Ever since I read and seen shows about the universe and astronomy in general I have always wondered what lies beyond the known universe.
Since the universe occupies a finite amount of space like a round ball, what lies beyond that ball?
Does the lack of matter in that area mean that the laws of physics do not apply and thus break down?
Or does it strech infinitely into empty space?
When discussing this topic with a friend, we covered the following possibilties:
- The universe forms a self contained unit, if travelling from one point outwards you'd come back from another point thus travelling within the ball all the time unable to exit.
- Travelling outwards you'd come across other universes.
- The laws of physics break down and you would dissappear
What are your theories?
Friedmann model: universe is finite, but has no boundry. space is bent around itself, making it like the surface of the earth -- finite, but has no boundry.
u can't travel outward to other universe. u will arrive at the same spot u left.
I agree with the previous post, I like to think that the universe is a hypersphere.
Imagine a two dimensional person who lives on a flat surface. Now, he can go as far as he wants in any direction and go on and on into empty space. However, if he lives on a 3 dimensional sphere and not a flat plane, then he would go round and round the sphere, never noticing the curvature, because he is two dimensional. Now imagine us living on the surface of a four dimensional hypersphere, we would never notice the curvature eiter, unless we went in a complete circle around it and recognized our starting point.
I see no way to prove any of these theories except one, wich may or may not work.
We could make a three dimensional map of the stars and far away galaxies in one direction, then use computer modeling to see what the same galaxies would look like viewed from the other direction. We then look in the opposide direction for the other side of those galaxies. The universe is probably to big for this to work with our current telescopes, but it is possible that we can see to the edge of the universe. If this succeded, it would prove the hypersphere theory, and would allow us to calculate the exact size of the universe by the distance of those galaxies. It would also, should it be sucessful, prove the existance of the fourth spatial dimension.
all you said has already been proved in 1922 by friedmann. u can only prove those theories is wrong, not the other way around. in fact, edwin hubble already discovered friedmann's assumptions several years later. too late to debunk it now.
in case u don't know about it, friedmann assumptions was | Quote: |
| that the universe looks identical in whichever direction we look, and this would also be true if we were observing the universe from anywhere else. |
then later edwin hubble came out with his galaxies catalog.
there is no way u can calculate the size of universe because you can only measure in 3D. it's like 2D people try to measure a 3D object. they can only measure the size of the surface, not the volume. then again to them the surface has no boundry, and it seem to them like it has infinity size. now expand it to 3D. it you try to measure the universe volume, you just can't because it's like measuring the surface of manifold. This is a very easy question and certainly an easy response : " other galaxies, stars, quasars, and so on ".
If the Big - Bang theory is right, beyond the upper limit of Universe it shouldn't be anything, not even time. But whitout a phisical evidence we should only guess it.
I think here works perfectly the X-Files stereotype : "The truth is out there" (sorry ,i don't konw if i've spelled it right).
The arriving in the same place you left off theory is interesting but I personally beleive in The Multiverse 
Or you could combine the two - hyperdimensional curvature and multiverses. If ocalhoun's two-dimensional person (basically a flatlander) lived on a flat surface, nothing's to say there aren't more flat surfaces above and below it:
______________________________ Flatland 1
______________________________ Flatland 2
______________________________ Flatland 3
Although there are several such flatlands, a flatlander can't leave his own surface - say, Flatland 2 (because he'd have to travel in the third dimension). And he can't see the other flatlands, although they may exist a millimeter above and below him. The same thing would go for a flatlander living on a sphere. Billions of larger and smaller spheres may exist inside and outside the flatlander's sphere without him ever knowing.
Expand to three dimensions, and you have the same idea. A hyperdimensionally curved universe could exist alongside billions of others, the three-dimensional beings of each of them totally oblivious about the beings that may walk a millimeter next to them in the fourth (or fifth or sixth or tenth) spatial dimension. This is the simplified version of what scientists call the "braneworld" theory in string theory.
All those other worlds might have the same physical rules as our own, or rules entirely different. Which leads to another point. The rules and constants of our universe are incredibly harmonious - change them a tiny bit, and the world would be very different - or only have existed for a split second. For example, make gravity a tiny bit stronger, and the universe would likely have collapsed a moment after the Big Bang. Make it a tiny bit weaker, and there would likely not have been any planets, suns or anything - just a chaotic space of molecules.
This harmony of physical constants seems so much a lucky coincidence to some people that to them, it's proof of intelligent design, pointing at the fact that the creation of such a universe by chance is very very unlikely. They fail, however, to take into account that noone was around to count those billions of universes that didn't work out Some interesting theories, good discussion guys.
if you remember the image of a black hole making dent in space time, then you will get this...
all matter does this to a degree, the universe is finite by this definition: that it is the maximum expanse of light or masses from the a specific point 'wherever' that is. Mass makes this sheet curve on to its self, so at one point it will curve onto its self.
There's an interesting answer with strings theory, because it presents our Universe as one of many parallel universes, "like a loaf of bread", so in this case beyond our universe there are more universes and now we have a bigger problem.... Exactly where and what it's between this parallel universes...????
So, in essence, it would be like going in circles. To me, that seems the most likely possibility. If we attempted to travel out of the finite universe, we would end up somewhere else, but still within the universe. I believe it has already been compared to the round earth, which explains it (with the most logic) to me.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| So, in essence, it would be like going in circles. To me, that seems the most likely possibility. If we attempted to travel out of the finite universe, we would end up somewhere else, but still within the universe. I believe it has already been compared to the round earth, which explains it (with the most logic) to me. |
It's a bit more complicated than that.
The observable universe is finite - it is about 15 billion light years away. The observable universe is everything that could affect us, given the speed of light, from the time of the Big Bang. The edge of the observable universe is called the 'cosmic light horizon' and is, as stated, around 15-16 billion light years distant.
The problem is, thought, that spacetime itself is stretching - expansion. This means that as galaxies move away from each other, the space between them is also stretching. This is why the balloon analogy is used. To complicate matters the early universe is thought to have undergone a process called 'inflation' where it rapidly increased in size in a very short time. The present distance (called the comoving distance) to the edge of the universe is therefore much greater than the cosmic light horizon because of this explansion. Present estimates are around 80 billion light years.
ChrisI dont think there is a "beyond the universe". Even though the universe is of infinte size it is still expanding and beyond its infinite limits, there is the exisitance of nothing, or some kind of non-reality. Its kinda wild just to think about it for a while.
Make no effort. At this time we are just too stupid to understand "infinity".
I agree with SocratesX. Reading these posts is so confusing, and I'm somewhat educated in physics. Not that we should stop trying to observe, record, and understand... but explaining this now is akin to cavemen trying to explain how fire works...
... Or having my current end-users attempt to comprehend "intranet" vs. "internet" 
Expansion is not too tricky to grasp. Basically expansion says that instead of flying apart from each other, galaxies can be regarded as almost as rest with regard to each other. If you could string a tape measure out to such a galaxy you would not need to let out any more as it moved away from you.
When you wound the tape back in, however, it would be much longer.
What is happening is that spacetime itself is stretching which makes it seem as though the galaxies are flying apart from each other moving through space - but in fact it is the space between then that is stretching whilst the galaxies remain fairly still. The tape measure would have stretched along with the space it occupied.
This is a thought experiment, of course, you could not really do this.
Expansion only happens is deep deep space. As an illustration it doesn't happen between our galaxy and what is known as the 'Local Group' which are a few tens of light years away. The reason is that the expansive 'force' is very weak and is easily swamped by gravity. Even gravity at distances of millions/billions of miles is enough to stop expansion happening. This is why we outselves are not expanding (as far as we know). Once you get into very deep space, though, gravity is almost non existent and space starts to expand (or stretch) of it's own accord.
Cheers
Chris
beyond the known universe?
it is obviously the unknown universe, since it is beyond the known part.
Our knowledge will always be finite, yet the universe is not.
we may talk about strings theory, 10+ dimensions... but we are living in our 4 d world... maybe in quantum models, we may visualize those dimensions...
gravity may stop the expansion, but we don't know if there is enough mass in our universe...
| Quote: |
| What's beyond the known universe? |
Well, unknown one. 
No seriously, it's just space. It all comes down to how do you define universe really. As a space with particles only or as "all" space that may exist.
| Quote: |
| we may talk about strings theory, 10+ dimensions... but we are living in our 4 d world... maybe in quantum models, we may visualize those dimensions... |
We cannot really say that we "are living in our 4d world". We are living in a world with as many dimensions as there are. We only perceive 4 (I should state here that time is a dimension of a different kind of other 3 "spacial" dimensions).
| Quote: |
| gravity may stop the expansion, but we don't know if there is enough mass in our universe... |
Actually we have a pretty good idea. I think it was January 1998 when the astronomers have confirmed globally that our universe is accelerating in expansion. The farest "stars" that we know of have supposedly already reached 95% c.
And, I forgot when I read this - but it was recently, It has been calculated that our universe has only about 20% of mass needed for the gravity to stop expansion ("weak universe"). This has been confirmed; this is not just my speculation. So as we now stand the universe will expand indefinitely. | ne2 Luka wrote: |
We cannot really say that we "are living in our 4d world". We are living in a world with as many dimensions as there are. We only perceive 4 (I should state here that time is a dimension of a different kind of other 3 "spacial" dimensions). |
Agreed, correction accepted.
| Quote: |
Actually we have a pretty good idea. I think it was January 1998 when the astronomers have confirmed globally that our universe is accelerating in expansion. The farest "stars" that we know of have supposedly already reached 95% c.
|
This is not yet beyond serious question, which was my point, although I agree that most in the science community accept the general picture.
| Quote: |
| And, I forgot when I read this - but it was recently, It has been calculated that our universe has only about 20% of mass needed for the gravity to stop expansion ("weak universe"). This has been confirmed; this is not just my speculation. So as we now stand the universe will expand indefinitely. |
This is not 'confirmed' as such yet since there is still a question over Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The physicists I talk to generally believe that the matter is not enough but there are varying theories about dark matter still being actively discussed and debated and consequently the exact figures for universal mass are still speculative. The best figure comes from the CMB survey and is around 3 x 10e55 g for the observable Universe. | Bikerman wrote: |
This is not 'confirmed' as such yet since there is still a question over Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The physicists I talk to generally believe that the matter is not enough but there are varying theories about dark matter still being actively discussed and debated and consequently the exact figures for universal mass are still speculative. The best figure comes from the CMB survey and is around 3 x 10e55 g for the observable Universe. |
I thought that Dark Matter was included in this 20%. Dark Matter is speculated to exist because it has been observed that most galaxies (maybe all, I'm not sure) don't have enough mass to form as they did and to hold together. I thought that the supposed mass of the "Dark Matter" has been included. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. This was done by Neta Bahcall and her associates. | ne2 Luka wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
This is not 'confirmed' as such yet since there is still a question over Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The physicists I talk to generally believe that the matter is not enough but there are varying theories about dark matter still being actively discussed and debated and consequently the exact figures for universal mass are still speculative. The best figure comes from the CMB survey and is around 3 x 10e55 g for the observable Universe. |
I thought that Dark Matter was included in this 20%. Dark Matter is speculated to exist because it has been observed that most galaxies (maybe all, I'm not sure) don't have enough mass to form as they did and to hold together. I thought that the supposed mass of the "Dark Matter" has been included. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. This was done by Neta Bahcall and her associates. |
What you say is correct, I think, but is not definitive and, I think, not accurate. Here's a quote which says what I would but better :-
| Quote: |
For a significant clue to the composition of the dark matter, we look to the abundance of the heavier isotope of hydrogen, weighing twice the mass, called deuterium, created during the big bang. There is no alternative source for the extra deuterium other than the big bang, since stars destroy deuterium rather than produce it. By now, a considerable fraction of any primordial deuterium present at the birth of the galaxy would have been destroyed inside stars. This is confirmed by observation: interstellar clouds contain deuterium, as do gravitationally-powered stars that have not yet developed nuclear burning cores; on the other hand, evolved stars have no deuterium.
To estimate how much deuterium was created in the big bang, one has to factor in all the deuterium that has since been destroyed. The percentage of the isotope destroyed since the big bang can be calculated if one knows the its rate of destruction, which can be found by comparing the abundance of deuterated molecules in the atmosphere of Jupiter with the abundance of deuterium in interstellar clouds. One has to choose a value for the density of baryons that cannot exceed about a tenth of the critical density for closure of the universe, or too little primordial deuterium would have been synthesized. Conversely, the density of baryons cannot be too low, below 2 or 3 percent of the critical density, or else one would overproduce deuterium, compared to what is observed in the solar system. If the universe is at critical density, 90 percent of the matter in the universe must be nonbaryonic. |
(source : http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html)
A general non-tech description of the overall issue is here :
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darkmatt_020108-2.htmlaha..............my favourite topic!!! am really unpopular in school bcos of some of my theories!!!
well, i think that the universe is finite, and that there is something outside this universe, which i guess is a ball, which provides it energy to expand!!! so, although it is impossible to go OUT of the universe, it may be that after abt a million yrs, we may discover something abt it!!! so, wat do you guys say abt my theory??? 
i am going to stick to this theory, even if some ppl don't like it........ | einstein wrote: |
aha..............my favourite topic!!! am really unpopular in school bcos of some of my theories!!!
well, i think that the universe is finite, and that there is something outside this universe, which i guess is a ball, which provides it energy to expand!!! so, although it is impossible to go OUT of the universe, it may be that after abt a million yrs, we may discover something abt it!!! so, wat do you guys say abt my theory??? i am going to stick to this theory, even if some ppl don't like it........ |
What data/experiment/logic is this theory (actually a better word is hypothesis if you want to be more accurate) based on ?
ChrisNow this may seem to simplistic but I am just 12
I think if you were to travel in a straight line towards the boundries of the universe you would pass through and end up in the exact opposite of where it is you started
[Passed through here---------------------------------Came to here]
Why, its just the only thing that makes scence because we just don't understand infinity.
And for the record I love this topic!
| reddishblue wrote: |
Now this may seem to simplistic but I am just 12
I think if you were to travel in a straight line towards the boundries of the universe you would pass through and end up in the exact opposite of where it is you started
[Passed through here---------------------------------Came to here]
Why, its just the only thing that makes scence because we just don't understand infinity.
And for the record I love this topic! |
For your age that is not a bad go at it - well done.
Unfortunately it is not what we think actually happens. Imagine that spacetime (the fabric of the universe) is actually curved instead of 'straight'. One way to imagine it is to think of a balloon and imagine the universe is the surface of the balloon. You can travel forever and never meet an 'edge' or boundary. In this model you would actually end up where you started if you managed to travel far enough.
There is another problem. The universe is expanding. This is not the same as just getting bigger as the galaxies fly apart. This is the process where spacetime itself is stretching. The gaps between the galaxies stretch and this makes it appear as though the galaxies themselves are rushing apart when, in fact, they are not.
It's a tricky idea to get hold of but you seem like a bright enough chap/chapess so I think you will get it.
Now, Einstein said that nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light within our universe (within spacetime). This does not apply, though, to spacetime itself.
This means that expansion can 'break' the speed of light and the galaxies can actually 'move apart' faster than c (the symbol for the speed of light).
This is thought to be what has happened and is happening.
In this case you could never travel fast enough to reach the edge even if there was one....
It's confusing stuff, I know, because it is not 'like' anything else so I can't say 'it's just like.....' and give you an example....there are no examples....
See if you can follow this. If you can, well done indeed.
Chris. | Bikerman wrote: |
| einstein wrote: | aha..............my favourite topic!!! am really unpopular in school bcos of some of my theories!!!
well, i think that the universe is finite, and that there is something outside this universe, which i guess is a ball, which provides it energy to expand!!! so, although it is impossible to go OUT of the universe, it may be that after abt a million yrs, we may discover something abt it!!! so, wat do you guys say abt my theory??? i am going to stick to this theory, even if some ppl don't like it........ |
What data/experiment/logic is this theory (actually a better word is hypothesis if you want to be more accurate) based on ?
Chris |
umm, well............................i ask u a simple question: Where from is the energy which helps in the expansion of the universe come from???
My HYPOTHESIS is based on this......... | Quote: |
Now, Einstein said that nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light within our universe (within spacetime). This does not apply, though, to spacetime itself.
This means that expansion can 'break' the speed of light and the galaxies can actually 'move apart' faster than c (the symbol for the speed of light). |
I didn't hear about that. Is that the general opinion of the science society? I mean, that space-time itself expands? The galaxies do move away from each other "evenly" (for the most part), but why should it point to expansion of space-time and why isn't space-time bound to c. Sorry for my ignorance, but I just never heard about it. If you could elaborate on the subject it would be appreciated. | einstein wrote: |
umm, well............................i ask u a simple question: Where from is the energy which helps in the expansion of the universe come from???
My HYPOTHESIS is based on this......... |
I don't mean to be rough, but you should really read more to educate yourself. I can see by your words that you are very young. You seem to me like a person who asks a lot of questions about any thing; and that is good in my opinion, but one should always first explore all that has been said before and then make new observations and conclusions. I didn't mean to be too offensive (just a little ).
...Luka.well, the problem is that till now, nobody (and i mean it!!) whom i asked have been abale to answer my question. so, atleast, clear my doubts!!! | einstein wrote: |
umm, well............................i ask u a simple question: Where from is the energy which helps in the expansion of the universe come from???
My HYPOTHESIS is based on this......... |
Your hypothesis is based on the source of expansion ? How interesting. You must be a very deep thinker.
OK - expansion is still something of a mystery. The force driving it is generically called 'dark energy'.
This 'Dark energy' is a bit like 'anti-gravity' in that it forces things apart rather than pulls them together, but the analogy is not a good one. The current 2 favourite explanations are :
1. Vacuum energy and 2. Quintessence.
1. Cosmological Constant.
One way to illustrate this concept without math is using the idea of a piston.
The animation below shows a piston moving in a cylinder filled with a "vacuum" containing quantum fluctuations, while the region outside the cylinder has "nothing" with zero density and pressure.
Essentially the point is that as the vacuum in the piston must have negative pressure, otherwise it would force the piston out. The space created inside the piston contains non-zero energy so one has to supply the equivalent energy. In relativity negative pressure equates to negative gravity. This is the model that Einstein used.
2. Qintessence.
In this model spacetime itself contains an energy. The simplest model is of vacuum energy. Quantum fluctuations are the energy fluctuations found in vacuum and are a result of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - it's a complex argument based on the fact that an electron and proton can't cancel to 0 because uncertainty predicts a 'ground' state which is above 0 energy because the position of the electron can never be known completely and it must wobble around rather than collapse into the proton. Therefore even when we think there is no matter, there is in fact a residual energy caused by this 'ground' state of matter. You can search Google using the terms :
'Casimir energy', 'Zero point energy' or 'quantum fluctuations' if you want to look into this seriously.
More complex models have quantum field with ultra-long wavelength acting.....it all gets very complex.
Anyway - that's where physics is. Do tell me how your hypothesis depends on this and what it assumes/says about it ? I'm interested.
Chris.well, actually ne2 Luka is correct!!! i never read abt all these things and just formed my own hypothesis on this topic.....................i still have to develop it to some extent and then maybe i will be able to expand on it!!! just give me some time................BTW, i am 16 yrs old!!! once I think about this question, my head hurts.
This is a biiiiiiig problem
| einstein wrote: |
| well, actually ne2 Luka is correct!!! i never read abt all these things and just formed my own hypothesis on this topic.....................i still have to develop it to some extent and then maybe i will be able to expand on it!!! just give me some time................BTW, i am 16 yrs old!!! |
No problem - the problem is that it is a very technical sibject and the absolute MUST for this is math. Unless you have at least basic calculus then most of the theory and current work in the field of cosmology is out of reach. Explaining in English works for some areas but not all, some concepts and ideas only make sense when you read it in the 'native' language of science...trying to put it in english is not really possible and often misleads.
I would, therefore, encourage you to study math as hard as possible.
My own math is highly dodgy which is why I've been recently making a determined effort to bring it up to at least a level I'm not ashamed of.
Cheers
Chrisyeah, everywhere i go, the advice is to be the BEST in maths........cos i wish to become an astrophysicist when i grow up!!!! thanx.... | einstein wrote: |
| yeah, everywhere i go, the advice is to be the BEST in maths........cos i wish to become an astrophysicist when i grow up!!!! thanx.... |
In that case maths is an absolute must!
Have you looked at Calculus yet ?
C.nah...............maybe i will start it in school next year!!! but i don't even know the "C" of Calculus yet!!! 
| einstein wrote: |
| nah...............maybe i will start it in school next year!!! but i don't even know the "C" of Calculus yet!!! |
I'm currently building a site which has maths and science tutorials and exercises - I'll let you know when it's done
C.OK, i will be looking forward to it.............
thanx
| Bikerman wrote: |
I'm currently building a site which has maths and science tutorials and exercises - I'll let you know when it's done
C. |
I was thinking about doing the same thing, although my interest lie mostly in math. Maybe we could join forces.
I find it hard to find on the internet a nice site that would host free books (articles, essays, ...) all in one place (there are many free books scattered on the web that are free to copy and distribute for non-commercial purposes) where a student of science (or anyone else interested) could get info on any subject he/she is interested in.
...Luka. | ne2 Luka wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
I'm currently building a site which has maths and science tutorials and exercises - I'll let you know when it's done
C. |
I was thinking about doing the same thing, although my interest lie mostly in math. Maybe we could join forces.
I find it hard to find on the internet a nice site that would host free books (articles, essays, ...) all in one place (there are many free books scattered on the web that are free to copy and distribute for non-commercial purposes) where a student of science (or anyone else interested) could get info on any subject he/she is interested in.
...Luka. |
Look no further - the site is still under construction but is the home of CAMRES - the campaign for real science. Several scientists from Elmhurst labs are involved and the original plan was to setup a forum where scientists can discuss media and political treatment of science and respond formally as an organisation. That is still the remit but I also want to develop the educational and professional side on the web site.
The url is
http://camres.frih.net
this is a development/copy of the existing site at www.real-science.org, www.real-science.org.uk, www.real-science.com, and another couple of domains. The original site is running but I'm developing the new version here at FRIH.
Have a look round by all means - it is still work in progress.
You might also like to pay a visit to the home of eolmhurst labs where this started - good people and many science brains :
http://real-science.org.uk/images/elmhurstmenu_b1.png
Cheers
Chris
So I've checked out the http://camres.frih.net/ ...
Some of my thoughts:
1. I understand that the aims of CAMRES are:
| Quote: |
| This organisation aims to promote better understanding of scientific issues by the general public in the UK and internationally, and to improve the profile of science in the day-to-day life of our culture. |
...but it would be nice if the site included a certain collection of free books available on the net to help in understanding of science (and of specific areas within)
2. Maybe a light-blue theme would be bether. It calms the eyes and it's nicer (in my humble opinion).
3. A logo of the site is needed at the top. Maybe done in flash.
Anyways, these are just a few thoughts given in "good faith"
...Luka. nice site, bikerman. really COOL.............the logo is cool, but it can be a bit larger.....
| bartdou wrote: |
once I think about this question, my head hurts.
This is a biiiiiiig problem |
No, my young friend, you are wrong. This is not a problem at all.
The answer is very simple: nothing. Or if you prefer: we will never know.
Because, as long as we don't know, we don't know. Remains unknown.
And as soon as we know, it's no longer unknown; it's known. So it doesn't belong to BEYOND known universe - it belongs to INSIDE knwown universe. So what was unknown becomes known, and what remains unknown remains nothing.
If your head hurts, you could try stop thinking about dummy stuff like that, but rather thinking to find a job, quit puffing, and get engaged with a girl your mumy introduced to you.I don't know if this was already posted (I was too lazy to read them all, no matter how interesting).
I believe the whole spherical theory with a twist. I beleive that much the way we can leave earth, we can leave the universe via trave in the 5th dimension. Our world is 4d, correct with no discovered 5th dimension. that would be the one we are traveling in with the sphere of the universe. If we swapped directions in the 5th universe via some bizzar means of propulsion we could jump into a new universe or whatever lies beyone our universe.
AFter universe..? it should be universe again..surely..
| Quote: |
| What's beyond the known universe? |
The unknown universe? | ne2 Luka wrote: |
So I've checked out the http://camres.frih.net/ ...
Some of my thoughts:
1. I understand that the aims of CAMRES are:
| Quote: | | This organisation aims to promote better understanding of scientific issues by the general public in the UK and internationally, and to improve the profile of science in the day-to-day life of our culture. |
...but it would be nice if the site included a certain collection of free books available on the net to help in understanding of science (and of specific areas within) |
Agreed - I'll get it going.
| Quote: |
2. Maybe a light-blue theme would be bether. It calms the eyes and it's nicer (in my humble opinion).
|
There are 4 schemes currently available (the 4 buttons on the top). I'll change one of them to suit this suggestion.
| Quote: |
3. A logo of the site is needed at the top. Maybe done in flash.
|
We have the logo/badge - it is :
Maybe we could also do with a logo-ised version of CAMRES which is what you may mean - fancy having a crack at a version ? | Quote: |
Anyways, these are just a few thoughts given in "good faith"
|
Thanks - useful and taken on board.
Chris. | cannibalsmurf wrote: |
I don't know if this was already posted (I was too lazy to read them all, no matter how interesting).
I believe the whole spherical theory with a twist. I beleive that much the way we can leave earth, we can leave the universe via trave in the 5th dimension. Our world is 4d, correct with no discovered 5th dimension. that would be the one we are traveling in with the sphere of the universe. If we swapped directions in the 5th universe via some bizzar means of propulsion we could jump into a new universe or whatever lies beyone our universe. |
Logically that seems consistent, but here's a couple of thoughts:
1) This 5th dimension must be tied to the 4th dimension since it includes the idea of 'movement' which is itself dependant on time. This means that it is not really an independant dimension at all.
2) In what way is this 5th dimension different from the current dimensions ? It seems to be just another way of saying 'space-time'.
3) The metaphor of a sphere is often stretched beyond it's intentions and I think this is the case here. The universe is not 'travelling' as such, it is expanding. It therefore has no 'path' in that sense.
Regards
Chris
