NationStates Jolt Archive

I belive in Steven Hawkins theory that the universe consists of an indefinite number of multiverses, in wich each of them there is a world different from the others, but still very close related or not related at all.

Examble: There is one world completely identical were the only difference is 1 grain of sand. There is also another world were earth do not exist. And then there's another world, and another, and another, and another.....

Give me your opinion.

Sand clock. I know. I saw it.

The universe is a doughnut.

Sand clock. I know. I saw it.
Really? Well that explains all... :D

The universe is a doughnut.
Hmm... Sandclock dougnut... what to choose?
A dougnut sounds delicious

There are a never ending number of universes, all a shadows width apart. Every second we inhabit a different one, every second the universe is destroyed and created. But the multiverse goes on, and we sail through it.

Damn I knew there was a reason I dropped philosophy at University and took up History...

The universe is a doughnut.
What things just keep going round and round? Until they hit the jam in the centre.

There are a never ending number of universes, all a shadows width apart. Every second we inhabit a different one, every second the universe is destroyed and created. But the multiverse goes on, and we sail through it.

Damn I knew there was a reason I dropped philosophy at University and took up History...
Man i've got a headache :headbang:

what is the shape of the universe?

what is the sound of one hand clapping?

shape implies edges. If you assume the universe is infinite, which i do, then it has no shape. It is constantly shifting and changing, and if it does have edges, i am positive they are not static.

What things just keep going round and round? Until they hit the jam in the centre.
My friends....

What things just keep going round and round? Until they hit the jam in the centre.

The universe is a cruel place, you keep circling and circling, but YOU NEVER GET TO THE JAM!

what is the shape of the universe?

what is the sound of one hand clapping?

shape implies edges. If you assume the universe is infinite, which i do, then it has no shape. It is constantly shifting and changing, and if it does have edges, i am positive they are not static.
how can it be infinite if it have expanded since the big bang?
And it IS possible to clap with one hand... I just did.

Really? Well that explains all... :D
Actually, that's one of the theories. That this universe has a kind of mirror-universe (the other side of the sand clock) and both of these universes start to collapse at the same time until they form 2 incredible tense what-evers, they collide and start streching again. The theory explained something about the big band they couldn't explain (and still can't)

I can't remember it anymore, I read about it years ago.

The Universe is clown shaped.


what is the sound of one hand clapping?

The answer to that is to stick your hand out as if asking for alms. 'Tis true. That's the answer.

It's kind of hard to assign a 'shape' to something that may or may not be infinite in extent, although spacetime itself seems it might be hyperbolic on large scales, what with this cosmological constant thing...

Of course, there are scientists currently studying the CMB to see if perhaps the universe might be closed, and loop back on itself. Get a strong enough telescope, and you might be able to see the back of your own head... ;)

Get a strong enough telescope, and you might be able to see the back of your own head... ;)

:D Scientists everywhere are asking, "Does my hair look ok back there?"

The answer to that is to stick your hand out as if asking for alms. 'Tis true. That's the answer.
Whoa... okay, this answer (http://www3.tky.3web.ne.jp/~edjacob/koan.html) is a bit too deep for me. :eek:

There are a never ending number of universes, all a shadows width apart. Every second we inhabit a different one, every second the universe is destroyed and created. But the multiverse goes on, and we sail through it.

Damn I knew there was a reason I dropped philosophy at University and took up History...

Hear Hear!

Every idea of this is an opinion. Being a physicist, I'll list most of the one's I have heard.

The differential geometry method:
The Theory of General Relativity (Einstein/Hawkings) supports that there are possibly three types of universal space. a)Flat, b)Sphere, c)Hyperbola. These three are represented by whether the universe is expanding, remaining the same, or shrinking. The math behind this is quite gruesome and I will refrain from posting for lack of symbol capability. Though there is a factor represented by capital Omega which can be greater, less than, or equal to one o define these three shapes.

A model for the visual learners:
Many people will ask how can our three dimentional universe have stuff outside of it. This is quite simple using the representation of multidimentions. Brian Greene (String Theory and author of the Elegant Universe) is trying to use twelve dimentions to solve our universe in the idea of string theory. Not necessarily though is it required to understand. But more importantly it required understanding the basis of the space-time continuum. Our universe (the visible part) can be represented by a four-vector (x,y,z,tau), where tau is actually the speed of light times time, thus creating a unit of distance also. Now picture a balloon as you blow it up. This is space time represented in expanding two dimensions(the surface of the balloon). Though let's say you are an ant on this balloon as it grows quite bigger than yourself. Now it's kinda like our earth. It does not appear to be round, it appears to be flat. Now let's say this balloon kept getting blown up, the amount of space that seems flat grows. For an arc length is represented by angle times radius. And the portion which seems flat is when the angle << 1. So maintaining the angle but increasing the radius will increase the arc length. Thus we have an expanding spherical universe (if the universe is indeed proved to be expanding).

The Addition of String Theory:
String theory adds a new take on the idea of relativity. Instead of looking big, it looks small where relativity no longer has the dominance over the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Which states either energy or momentum can be precisely defined in relation to Planck's constant over two pi). Here, string theory involves twelve dimensions as I have stated before. Now strings can pass in and out of our visible three dimension. Thus creating 'parallel universes' which some believe might explain the creation of anti-particles. Though, the main problem with a solid solution to string theory is that there are so many possible tweleve dimensional spaces which satisfy the boundaries of a linear space and trying them all would take years of computing power.

I hope this helps some, and I can answer questions as needed.

how can it be infinite if it have expanded since the big bang?
And it IS possible to clap with one hand... I just did.
Well, the expansion of the universe isn't the same as, say, the expansion of an explosion. Unlike an explosion, the universe has no 'center' that it expands outward from, nor is it expanding 'into' anything else; it's expanding in all directions, at every point.

The universe is a Toroid........ but then so is a doughnut. So I guess thats a good answer too.

It looks like this.... picture (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/Goldi/c240s.gif)
Or this..... picture (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/Goldi/Toroidal_Cosmos.jpg)

However, a toroid is used to give a visual representation of all of Space-time. A moment in Space-time probably looks like this horn. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/Goldi/horn-universe.jpg)

The universe has no shape, it is inifinitely large.

Actually, that's one of the theories. That this universe has a kind of mirror-universe (the other side of the sand clock) and both of these universes start to collapse at the same time until they form 2 incredible tense what-evers, they collide and start streching again. The theory explained something about the big band they couldn't explain (and still can't)

I can't remember it anymore, I read about it years ago.
That would be the ekpyrotic version of the big bang. Supposedly it could leave a fingerprint on the cosmic background radiation, making a potentially testable theory. How crazy is that.

Supernova surveys seem to indicate there expansion of the universe is accelerating, and so it's shape is like a saddle.

That would be the ekpyrotic version of the big bang. Supposedly it could leave a fingerprint on the cosmic background radiation, making a potentially testable theory. How crazy is that.

Supernova surveys seem to indicate there expansion of the universe is accelerating, and so it's shape is like a saddle.
Ekpyrotic? Alright.

I've read about that one too. I never quite understood why the accelerating expansion would lead to the shape of saddle.

Ooh, I love the modified ekpyrotic theory!

As for the saddle-shape thing, it's not really shaped like a saddle, rather the geometry of spacetime is curved in a fashion equivalent to the surface of a saddle, ie. hyperbolic. Basically, what it means is that, for example, two beams of light that start out being parallel will eventually diverge over distance, due to the curvature of spacetime. It also implies that the universe is 'open' and will expand infinitely.

As for the saddle-shape thing, it's not really shaped like a saddle, rather the geometry of spacetime is curved in a fashion equivalent to the surface of a saddle, ie. hyperbolic. Basically, what it means is that, for example, two beams of light that start out being parallel will eventually diverge over distance, due to the curvature of spacetime. It also implies that the universe is 'open' and will expand infinitely.
Oddly, that makes a lot more sense.
Actually. I understand it now. The word has always confused me and I thought they meant something else with that theory (I mean with the saddle theory. I thought there were 2 different theories.)

How many of you have actually done any of the math which makes all of these theories possible?!?!?!?!?!? :(

currently reading about choas... its obvious that given the universe (or multiverse, still applicable) is infinite then there can be no boundry and therefore no shape. It can be viewed from outside so they is no point in speculting what form it might take. However, viewed from inside, it would lilky appear to take a shape not unlike a fractal graphic (ie mandlebrot) since they too are infinite.

or it could just look like a spoon. no-one is ever going to be able to prove otherwise.

currently reading about choas... its obvious that given the universe (or multiverse, still applicable) is infinite then there can be no boundry and therefore no shape. It can be viewed from outside so they is no point in speculting what form it might take. However, viewed from inside, it would lilky appear to take a shape not unlike a fractal graphic (ie mandlebrot) since they too are infinite.

or it could just look like a spoon. no-one is ever going to be able to prove otherwise.
Well, it probably doesn't have a 'shape', per se, but it has a geometry. Some geometries will leave tell-tale signs in things like the cosmic microwave background, so in some cases they may actually be observable.

Re: Hemminsoft... no, I value my brain far too much to destroy it trying to understand the mathematics behind this stuff. :D

The universe has no shape, it is inifinitely large.

Actually that's wrong. Size is a relative measurement and adheres to the same principles as 'The General Theory of Relativity'.
The size of something is only definable as 'big' through an offset of being 'small'.
So the size of the universe from the outside-in could remain the same size all the time and the only change of relative size is localized inside the outershell. So the actual space needed is always the same. But then relative to that which inhabits the space-time from the inside; it would appear to be infinitely large and boundless.

Consider this.

If Space is infinite, that means that it has an infinite amount of points within it. If you take a length of wood 6 inch long, it has an infinite amount point within it. So if you take a 12 inch piece of wood, it also has an infinite amount of points within it. SO if you add the points from the 6 inch piece of wood to the 12 inch piece; you still have an infinite amount of points.

Now imagine you take this 12 inch amount of length with it's infinite amount of points. As long as everything within that length acts relatively to that subset, you can have any amount of material that you want because all measurements are quantifiable through referencing from the relative position of other objects/markers.

I guess the simplest example was from Men in Black, when at the end of the movie it zooms out of all the different universes, that are just marbles and stuff in other higher/larger universes.

Remember, space-time isn't boundless, it's just infinite. That means it's a cycle, not an endless array of matter, because that is physically impossible.

How many of you have actually done any of the math which makes all of these theories possible?!?!?!?!?!? :(

You want the math behind the Clown Shaped Universe theory?

You want the math behind the Clown Shaped Universe theory?

Mostly just the people who are arguing the infinite, boundless, ... i.e. realistic ones.

Mostly just the people who are arguing the infinite, boundless, ... i.e. realistic ones.

You sayin' my Clown Shape is any less realistic than the infinite and boundless ones? :p

I'm going with combining the theories on the first page of this thread...

The Universe is an hourglass shape encircled by the doughnut shape:

It’s like a puzzle problem you sometimes find in a bar, when God figures out how to get the ring off of the bar-bell shape the universe ends and God wins :p :D

I don’t know what the universe is shaped like. All I know is it‘s really, really big and, when you get to the end, there’s a giant ape that throws barrels at you.

The shape of the universe can only be explained using fundemantals (such as length, mass, tempeature, whatever)
These have all been created by humans in attemps to explain things that are relative to humans (makes sense)

Say, you land in an empty room excluding you and a stick. After a while you get bored and you're kinda like 'wtf, where am I?' so you decide that you want to find the perameters of this room, you start using the stick to calculate the height, width, whatever. pretty soon you are measuring in sticks. the room is 15 sticks by 50 sticks, whatever.
after figureing that out, you find yourself in another room... with your stick, though finding by observation you have no walls to measure from, no boundaries or marked areas, what do you do?
suddenly your stick becomes very obsolete.

i don't necessarily think that the shape of the universe is actually
needed to understand how the universe works
we can only understand the physical traits we've uncovered so far
by building on those, while testing them against what we know
about the forces in the universe, we can come up with a
sketchy view of a unified theory

personally, i do not subscribe to stephen hawking's view of the universe
i believe the big bang has no relation to any physical theories we know
and sh always refers to god, and i think that is a weak point

there are various other scientists that have great explanations, but
are basically silenced because so many people are riding on the back
of sh

i currently have been reviewing the steady-state theory. feynman, penrose,
reese, hawkins(not hawkings) all have great ideas, but due to the fact
that sh disagrees, many of their ideas are made fun of

i enjoyed the reference to brian greene-great writer with excellent approach
but just remember that simply because something is 'steady' doesn't
mean that it's static and unmoving; it just maintains balance

The universe is boundless, but finite. It is warped into such a shape that it folds over its self allowing it to be both boundless yet finite. All points may be thought of as the centre of the universe, because the centre of the universe is at all points in the universe.

Man...
I've been trying to catch up with all the replies and my brain is about to explode!
Are you some kind of "I've-got-an-IQ-of-300-persons" or something? :p

dodecohedron.

everyone knows the universe just revolves around me :p

I don’t know what the universe is shaped like. All I know is it‘s really, really big and, when you get to the end, there’s a giant ape that throws barrels at you.

That episode was on last night! :D

You know what?

It's Universe-shaped.

You know what?

It's Universe-shaped.
You're a GENIOUS!!! Why didn't I come up with that?

I belive in Steven Hawkins theory that the universe consists of an indefinite number of multiverses, in wich each of them there is a world different from the others, but still very close related or not related at all.

Examble: There is one world completely identical were the only difference is 1 grain of sand. There is also another world were earth do not exist. And then there's another world, and another, and another, and another.....

Give me your opinion.



I know a Mr. Occham and his little razor that are planning your assassination right now. Run!

what is the shape of the universe?

what is the sound of one hand clapping?

shape implies edges. If you assume the universe is infinite, which i do, then it has no shape. It is constantly shifting and changing, and if it does have edges, i am positive they are not static.



It depends on what aspect of the universe you are defining as infinite: Is it the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. or the Void itself?

I know a Mr. Occham and his little razor that are planning your assassination right now. Run!

What if that is the simplest explanation, and we don't know it? :eek:

I know a Mr. Occham and his little razor that are planning your assassination right now. Run!
Never heard of him but he seems to be dangerous.... :(

Here's the shape of the Universe as far as I understand it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/proMonkey/universe.png

I could explain the maths involved but you wouldn't understand it (with the exception of Keruvalia).

Here's the shape of the Universe as far as I understand it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/proMonkey/universe.png

I could explain the maths involved but you wouldn't understand it (with the exception of Keruvalia).
lol :D

how can it be infinite if it have expanded since the big bang?
And it IS possible to clap with one hand... I just did.
It's infinitely expanding. Though, some people say it might start contracting. Err...

It's infinitely expanding. Though, some people say it might start contracting. Err...



But if the oscillating universe theory was true, the second law of thermodynamics states that everything would have been incinerated by now.

"What shape does the universe have?"

It is shaped like a very large shrubbery. But you can only traverse it with ...














.... a herring!

I belive in Steven Hawkins theory that the universe consists of an indefinite number of multiverses, in wich each of them there is a world different from the others, but still very close related or not related at all.

Examble: There is one world completely identical were the only difference is 1 grain of sand. There is also another world were earth do not exist. And then there's another world, and another, and another, and another.....

Give me your opinion.

Right, you know those novelty toys which are made of loads of dull pins stuck through a plate and kept in place by a see-through plate which allows you to press items against them to form a a similar image of it made out of pin heads against the see-though plate?

The Multiverses are shaped like that, but the image you can see through the other side is that of Desmond lynam (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0528207/)'s face.

But if the oscillating universe theory was true, the second law of thermodynamics states that everything would have been incinerated by now.
Yeah... I'm really bad at this even though I'm extremely interested. This is basically what I was trying to say.
"Depending on the average density of matter and energy in the Universe, it will either keep on expanding forever or it will be gravitationally slowed and will eventually collapse back on itself in a "big crunch". Currently the evidence suggests not only that there is insufficient mass/energy to cause a recollapse, but that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating and will accelerate for the whole of eternity (see accelerating universe)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

My understanding is so juvenile, I shouldn't even be talking about this.

The Universe is clown shaped.

:cool:

I think the universe needs a sammich.

Spherical. All that exists was blown out in all directions from the original, central "big bang". Since nothing can travel faster than light, all matter and energy traveling at the speed of light that originated at the beginning forms the outer boundary of the universe. Since all of this is traveling at the same top speed, it is all an equal, ever-growing radius from the original center, thus forming by definition a sphere. The universe is everything that exists, and since nothing exists beyond this sphere, that is the boundary of the universe. However, as soon as something penetrates beyond that boundary, the boundary is extended. Thus, the universe is at any given moment finite, but infinite in potential. In 4 dimensions, the boundary of the universe could be represented by a 3-dimensional sphere with a certain linear difference in radius for each 4th-dimension time unit, and so would be infinite in 4 dimensions, unless time is finite.

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (Aw)^2
where x, y, and z are space coordinates, w is a time coordinate, and A is the difference by which the radius increases for each unit of w.


... does that make sense?

So yeah, that is my long-held, much-thought-out, mathematically-influenced and just-now-written-down theory of the universe. But to answer the question: the universe is spherical.

Bump

Man i've got a headache :headbang:

That gave you a headache? Man, what grade did yous skip?

Here's the shape of the Universe as far as I understand it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/proMonkey/universe.png

I could explain the maths involved but you wouldn't understand it (with the exception of Keruvalia).
so you're saying it's torus shaped?

please explain the math.

I find this thread fascinating... and I'm wondering if my explanation made any sense at all or if it has so many scientific holes that it's all too obvious I haven't even finished half of high school.

Spherical. All that exists was blown out in all directions from the original, central "big bang". Since nothing can travel faster than light, all matter and energy traveling at the speed of light that originated at the beginning forms the outer boundary of the universe. Since all of this is traveling at the same top speed, it is all an equal, ever-growing radius from the original center, thus forming by definition a sphere. The universe is everything that exists, and since nothing exists beyond this sphere, that is the boundary of the universe. However, as soon as something penetrates beyond that boundary, the boundary is extended. Thus, the universe is at any given moment finite, but infinite in potential. In 4 dimensions, the boundary of the universe could be represented by a 3-dimensional sphere with a certain linear difference in radius for each 4th-dimension time unit, and so would be infinite in 4 dimensions, unless time is finite.

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (Aw)^2
where x, y, and z are space coordinates, w is a time coordinate, and A is the difference by which the radius increases for each unit of w.


... does that make sense?

So yeah, that is my long-held, much-thought-out, mathematically-influenced and just-now-written-down theory of the universe. But to answer the question: the universe is spherical.



Personally, spherical was the first thing that came to my mind, due to Big Bang theory. However, it might also be true that certain constants might be altered by things such as gravity, dark energy, etc. so the Universe could possibly be deformed in some sections.

Before I begin, I would first like to point out that this thread might be easier to read if anyone who posts a theory first says if their theory describes the shape of the MASS contained in the void of the universe, or the shape of the universe ITSELF (which I define as all the volume available for mass to occupy).

My elaboration on an already posted theory describes the shape of the universe itself.
dodecohedron.
Though it may seem fairly decisive of him to say it that way, it appears to be somewhat credible method of describing the shape of the universe because I have heard the same thing from several sources. I was told that each surface of the dodecahedron loops onto the opposite side; this of course negates the entire concept of being able to define a center of the universe or even observe the shape of it from the outside when only using four dimensions. (Using more allows the concept of multiple universes, observation outside the universe, etc.). From the inside (if we could discover where the borders are) it would be possible to define our location and a point equidistant from each corner but only if there were some way to send messages so much faster that the speed of light and unaffected by gravity that it could traverse the entire universe in a straight, uninterrupted line in less than a lifetime. I might add that this method of observation is extremely basic in concept but still impossible because of the lack of any such wave or particle that is so fast.

I think I did okay supporting a theory that I have no reason to believe in because I haven’t seen any math or writings, don't you? :D

Spherical. All that exists was blown out in all directions from the original, central "big bang". Since nothing can travel faster than light, all matter and energy traveling at the speed of light that originated at the beginning forms the outer boundary of the universe. Since all of this is traveling at the same top speed, it is all an equal, ever-growing radius from the original center, thus forming by definition a sphere. The universe is everything that exists, and since nothing exists beyond this sphere, that is the boundary of the universe. However, as soon as something penetrates beyond that boundary, the boundary is extended. Thus, the universe is at any given moment finite, but infinite in potential. In 4 dimensions, the boundary of the universe could be represented by a 3-dimensional sphere with a certain linear difference in radius for each 4th-dimension time unit, and so would be infinite in 4 dimensions, unless time is finite.

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (Aw)^2
where x, y, and z are space coordinates, w is a time coordinate, and A is the difference by which the radius increases for each unit of w.


... does that make sense?

So yeah, that is my long-held, much-thought-out, mathematically-influenced and just-now-written-down theory of the universe. But to answer the question: the universe is spherical.
Well, the expansion of the universe appears to be isotropic, ie. it's expanding the same way no matter where you observe the expansion from; so there's no 'central point' of the expansion.

An approximate analogy is that of an inflating balloon. Pretend the universe is two-dimensional, and corresponds to the surface of a balloon. You draw dots on the surface of the balloon, and these represent galaxies and things. Now, as you inflate the balloon, the dots (galaxies) start moving away from each other as the surface of the balloon expands. However, there is no point on the surface of the balloon that you can call the 'center of expansion'; it just expands everywhere at once.

dodecohedron.
Nono, it's a stellated, rhombitruncated icosidodecahedron. :)

I belive in Steven Hawkins theory that the universe consists of an indefinite number of multiverses, in wich each of them there is a world different from the others, but still very close related or not related at all.

Examble: There is one world completely identical were the only difference is 1 grain of sand. There is also another world were earth do not exist. And then there's another world, and another, and another, and another.....

Give me your opinion.

What is meant by "shape"?

In our concept of a 3-dimentional volume; it has no "shape" as it has no actual borders from our frame of refference...

Well, the expansion of the universe appears to be isotropic, ie. it's expanding the same way no matter where you observe the expansion from; so there's no 'central point' of the expansion.

An approximate analogy is that of an inflating balloon. Pretend the universe is two-dimensional, and corresponds to the surface of a balloon. You draw dots on the surface of the balloon, and these represent galaxies and things. Now, as you inflate the balloon, the dots (galaxies) start moving away from each other as the surface of the balloon expands. However, there is no point on the surface of the balloon that you can call the 'center of expansion'; it just expands everywhere at once.

For some reason, when I attempted to translate that analogy into 3 dimensions, I thought of fractals of the type you'd see in a kaleidoscope... any takers for the universe being a fractal of some sort?

For some reason, when I attempted to translate that analogy into 3 dimensions, I thought of fractals of the type you'd see in a kaleidoscope... any takers for the universe being a fractal of some sort?
Well... the balloon analogy is a two-dimensional surface (the skin of the balloon) embedded in a three-dimensional space, for the purposes of us being able to observe it. My brain starts to hurt real bad when I start trying to visualize a three dimensional 'surface' embedded in a four-dimensional viewing space. I wouldn't be surprised if you started hallucinating all sorts of things, if you tried too hard. ;)

Although... hey, maybe you did manage it, sort of. I've seen simulations of the three dimensional 'shadows' of four-dimensional embeddings, and they do look strangely fractal... :eek:

I always thought golfball shapped, curved, but with dimples.

Curved, because of my understanding of general relativity and the effects of gravity, not to mention that everything else in the universe tends to curves and balls.

Dimpled because we have yet to explain missing matter (dark matter seems very fuzzy at this point in time), and also, we have yet to figure out what the black holes are doing with the matter they're busy sucking up.

The universe is a cruel place, you keep circling and circling, but YOU NEVER GET TO THE JAM!


D'oh!

Hmm... I cant remember the shape, but from the outside its definatley blue.

I reckon the universe is one of many. I also reckon it is bounded, so has a shape. After a long argument with my physics teacher, we came to the conclusion it was *probably* spherical. Then we came to the conclusion that it's not really that vital to know unless the universe is about to collapse in on itself. And I reckon it will, I think the universe is an oscillating one

Question: where did the matter for the original big bang come from, if not God? I am genuinlly very interested in this and would love to hear some crazy or not-so-crazy theories on it.

I reckon the universe is one of many. I also reckon it is bounded, so has a shape. After a long argument with my physics teacher, we came to the conclusion it was *probably* spherical. Then we came to the conclusion that it's not really that vital to know unless the universe is about to collapse in on itself. And I reckon it will, I think the universe is an oscillating one

Question: where did the matter for the original big bang come from, if not God? I am genuinlly very interested in this and would love to hear some crazy or not-so-crazy theories on it.

Ah, this is a not-so-crazy theory. The current models of the forces in our universe, which also defines matter itself can be traced back only to a time I believe is roughly 10^-34 s after the beginning. So who says there was anything smaller than the size of the relative Planck Length. So all the matter of the universe was couped up in that small amount of area. Denser than shit though ;)

Hmm... I cant remember the shape, but from the outside its definatley blue.
"outside"? Whats outside the universe?

"outside"? Whats outside the universe?

The stuff that insn't blue.

The stuff that insn't blue.
But what's beyon that? :confused:

But what's beyon that? :confused:
Um... stuff that isn't not blue? Er... :confused: :D

Um... stuff that isn't not blue? Er... :confused: :D
Actualy its popably a realm of space time filled with lost socks

Actualy its popably a realm of space time filled with lost socks
Oh, no... that's "No-Man's Land", the same place the electricity goes when nothing is plugged into the socket. :D

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html



go to here...it is about a theory that can unite quntam mechanics and general relitivity and if it is true can prove that there are other universes and shit....3 hours worth of video very well made. watch it it will make your head spin.

tell me what you think

it is a spercal shap in my mind but i do ad met that other universe miet have a deffrent shape like spyrol or disc or ireuler but these is my lates quechen waht is 2 universe calided i have all so be thinking on these ofr about a year now. os i all redye supeted a multverse so that is all i am saying for now. :fluffle:

The universe is shaped like a really big molotov cocktail, at least in anarchist cosmology! :p

B


U



M



P



Sorry, can't let this thread die :D

The universe is shaped like a Jolt forum! Full of uselessness, the more stuff goes in, the bigger it gets.

BUMPZOR!

Whoa... okay, this answer (http://www3.tky.3web.ne.jp/~edjacob/koan.html) is a bit too deep for me. :eek:
That's deep, yet understandable. I guess I'm a deep guy. 'Tis a deep, deep universe. A universe limited by the bounds of the mind and the illusions of space and time. If we all think, all we truly real or fake? Objects or illusions? I know this: No one is important. We all are mere gears in the machine of life. When one breaks, it gets replaced like nothing ever happened. Nothing changes. To change is to alter permanantly and go against what will happen by causing what won't happen. If you dropped dead right now, will the world stop turning? Will the sun stop shining? Will i drop dead because you dropped dead? Of course not. nothing is deep. There is only shallow and even shallow isn't real after all. We can all meet and chat, but what will that accomplish? Nothing. To accomplish is to achieve more than what will be achieved, which is both a logical and an illogical impossibility. A fact and a lie. Has a lack of sleep clouded my judgement or allowed me to see past the realm of the insane and into true sanity? Niether. The latter is an impossibility because to understand sanity, we must lose our insanity, which we basicly all are.

Well, seeing as most celestial objects are spheres (ex. planets, moons(most), stars, etc.) I would have to say the universe is a sphere.

That's deep, yet understandable. I guess I'm a deep guy. 'Tis a deep, deep universe. A universe limited by the bounds of the mind and the illusions of space and time. If we all think, all we truly real or fake? Objects or illusions? I know this: No one is important. We all are mere gears in the machine of life. When one breaks, it gets replaced like nothing ever happened. Nothing changes. To change is to alter permanantly and go against what will happen by causing what won't happen. If you dropped dead right now, will the world stop turning? Will the sun stop shining? Will i drop dead because you dropped dead? Of course not. nothing is deep. There is only shallow and even shallow isn't real after all. We can all meet and chat, but what will that accomplish? Nothing. To accomplish is to achieve more than what will be achieved, which is both a logical and an illogical impossibility. A fact and a lie. Has a lack of sleep clouded my judgement or allowed me to see past the realm of the insane and into true sanity? Niether. The latter is an impossibility because to understand sanity, we must lose our insanity, which we basicly all are.
If you want something about the universe that will seriously mess with your head, check out the Holographic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle). :D

It's unlikely that the universe is actually spherical, since a sphere has boundaries, and we don't see much evidence for the universe being bounded in that way (though I suppose it's possible).