/sci/ - Science & Math

Faulty assumption is faulty.

Cocks. Rows upon rows of cocks, and they go on forever.

>>4329142
How is that?

The universe doesn't have an edge, just like our planet. It's finite, but it has no borders.

>>4329153
Citation needed?

universe the of edge the at is what

>>4329153

yeah, but you can still escape from earth. so what is outside this ball?

>>4329152

It could be compact, as noted above, or it could be unbounded. In either case it doesn't have an edge.

In either case, it's almost certain that the size of the universe is larger than the size of the observable universe. See f.ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

guys I need something, does anyone have that latex of "CANT TRAVEL FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT .99999 = 1 etc thats bolded and like 20 lines?

>>4329224
<span class="math">\rlap { \lower{-1.5em}{You ~can't~ travel }} \rlap { \lower{-1.9em}{Cant}} \rlap { \lower{-2.5em}{~~~~~~~~can't ~travel~ the~ speed}} \rlap { \lower{0.6em}{of~ light}} \rlap { \lower{0.5em}{of ~~light}} \rlap { \lower{1.9em}{only~ a~ fraction}} \rlap { \lower{2.5em}{~~~~~fraction }} \rlap { \lower{2.7em}{~~~~~~fraction }} \rlap { \lower{3.4em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.999^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} \rlap { \lower{3.5em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=1}} \rlap { \lower{3.4em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=1}} \rlap { \lower{4.2em}{you~ can ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.25em}{you~ can ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.1em}{you~ can ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.7em}{you~ can ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}}[/spoiler]

Theoretically, we can find out in a second.

is the universe an expanding, 3 dimensional sphere?

Doesn't that mean that technically, the universe has an edge... The point where the universe starts and the point where it hasn't expanded to yet is the edge.

>>4329253

The math doesn't require that the sphere is embedded in something, and our current observation doesn't support this either.

>>4329253
>compare two things
>because they're similar they must have like properties
I dont think so tim

>>4329235
<span class="math">
\rlap { \lower{-1.5em}{You ~can't~ travel }} \rlap { \lower{-1.9em}{Cant}} \rlap { \lower{-2.5em}{~~~~~~~~can't ~travel~ the~ speed}} \rlap { \lower{0.6em}{of~ light}} \rlap { \lower{0.5em}{of ~~light}} \rlap { \lower{1.9em}{only~ a~ fraction}} \rlap { \lower{2.5em}{~~~~~fraction }} \rlap { \lower{2.7em}{~~~~~~fraction }} \rlap { \lower{3.4em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.999^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} \rlap { \lower{3.5em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=1}} \rlap { \lower{3.4em}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=1}} \rlap { \lower{4.2em}{you~ can ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.25em}{you~ can ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.1em}{you~ can't ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}} \rlap { \lower{4.7em}{you~ can't ~travel ~at ~the ~speed ~of ~light}}
[/spoiler]

>>4329253
>is the universe an expanding, 3 dimensional sphere?

No, it isn't.

wait so if the universe started as a microscopic explosion and its constantly expanding, can we know how far away we are from the "center" of the universe? meaning the place where the big bang occurred?

>>4329320
Explain yourself!?

>>4329321
>wait so if the universe started as a microscopic explosion and its constantly expanding, can we know how far away we are from the "center" of the universe? meaning the place where the big bang occurred?

The big bang occurred everywhere. It's not the kind of explosion you're thinking of. It's an "explosion" OF space, not IN space.

"There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell."

wait wat, how can it be expanding equally in all directions in all places?

>>4329334
>wait wat, how can it be expanding equally in all directions in all places?

The metric (space itself) is expanding. Every mile grows by an inch every x years.

>>4329347
wouldnt that mean the speed of light changes with the universe expanding?

>>4329354

No, why would it?

>>4329189
>putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away
>humanity will never reach the edge of the universe

>>4329334
That still makes it as if there is a center to the universe. It's just the area that corresponds to the location of the initial expansion.

>>4329364

It's not the edge of the universe. And no, of course we won't reach it.

>>4329331
If the universe started from a dot and has ever since expanded equally at all places and in all directions, we're still getting a sphere right? A dot being expanded in all directions becomes a tiny sphere, then each dot of a tiny sphere being extended in all directions becomes a bigger sphere. Why is our universe not a sphere then?

>>4329368

No, it doesn't. The "location of the initial expansion" is everywhere.

>>4329360
because distance changes and speed is distance/time?

>>4329368
Every single area of space has ALWAYS been expanding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw5W3CszeAI

>>4329371

No, it's not a sphere and never was a sphere. A sphere is a shape with an inside and an outside. The universe does not have an outside. In fact, it might be infinite.

>>4329138
>edge of the universe

Imposing your shitty limited understanding of geometry to the universe.

>>4329354

No, the speed of light remains constant. That means that as space expands, there is no way to reach that space, unless you travel through a wormhole or can accelerate yourself past the speed of light by warping space.

>>4329382
Its not infinite, since it wasn't infinite at the beginning of the Big Bang, right? So it couldn't be infinite now, just mindblowingly large.

>>4329378

"Distance changes" in that there is more distance. A light year is still a light year.

Somebody explain in detail why the universe has no center.

>>4329388
>Its not infinite, since it wasn't infinite at the beginning of the Big Bang, right?

No, it could have always been infinite, even at the big bang.

>>4329391

It's not a 3D shape, hence "center" doesn't apply.

>>4329391
Every single part of everything expanding into nothingness everywhere in directions that were nothing before being expanded into.

Its like a balloon expanding, only the universe was the LAYER of the balloon on the outside, and the middle of the balloon did not exist. When you blow it up, it expands, but thinking of it like that, there is no center, and every single part of it expands at the same rate.

>>4329392
do you mean infinite as the surface of the Earth, like if we're walking on it we will never reach its edge, or as an Earth of infinite radius?

>>4329392
But the Big Bang WAS the universe, and at that point it was small enough to be recorded. How is that infinite, unless all science on the Big Bang is wrong. The Big Bang's explosion was the birth of the universe and the universes' expanding.

Since we can surmise that it was really friggin tiny and then blew up from there, it wasn't of infinite size, even if it did cover "everything" and there's nothing outside of the universe.

i like this explanation

One can imagine the surface of the balloon as a two-dimensional space, and as it is inflated its surface area is increased; essentially new space is being created. To a two-dimensional creature living on the surface of this balloon, he would observe his universe expanding around him and everything moving away from him, and might come to the conclusion that he is at the center of his universe. However, an observer on a different part of the balloon would come to the same conclusion.

>>4329371
A sphere will approach a "dot" as its radius decreases, but so will a ton of other shapes.

It is incorrect to assume that an expanding dot is a sphere. That does not follow form the fact that a sphere will a small radius could look like a dot.

Your logic is wrong.
A=>B, DOES NOT MEAN B=>A

>>4329399
But the balloon is not infinite!

>>4329397

As in an Earth of infinite radius, I guess. Note I'm not saying that it necessarily is infinite, just that we don't know that it isn't.

>>4329402
Well, mathematically a dot expanding equally in all directions is a sphere whether you like it or not.

>>4329396
>and at that point it was small enough to be recorded.

What?

>Since we can surmise that it was really friggin tiny

We can't. We can surmise that it had extremely high density. Such that, for example, places which are currently tens of billions of light years away would be right on top of each other.

>>4329405
a dot is a one dimensional thing, it cant expand

>>4329403
>But the balloon is not infinite!

The balloon analogy supposes a finite universe. It is not necessarily infinite.

>>4329394
If it's not a 3D shape, then what shape is it?

>>4329395
This makes sense, until you say that there is no middle. So it comes back to the above question of what is the shape of the universe.

is there any way to easily visualize a 4th dimensional object?

>>4329410
>If it's not a 3D shape, then what shape is it?

It could have several possible "shapes," but they're not shapes in the sense that you're used to. Probably the easiest one to imagine would be the case such that a traveling in a straight line will eventually bring you back to where you started, much like walking in a straight line on the Earth's surface.

>>4329410
>This makes sense, until you say that there is no middle.

What point on the Earth's surface is the "middle?"

>>4329394
>implying having a center applies solely to 3D shapes
The asker refers to the origin, from which space has expanded equally in all possible directions fathomable or no.

>>4329403
The universe is probably a lot of shapes, but it also seems to be flat, too. Personally, at least from our vantage not counting other dimensions, it's probably best to just think of it as in the realm of being a sphere. Since nobody knows exactly how the Big Bang's actual explosion happened we can just assume that if it were a shape we could rationally visualize it'd probably be rounded. Though it could be uneven or even not uniform, it's not like we can actually TELL at this point, or in the foreseeable future.

>>4329421

The "origin" is every point in space.

>>4329410
Is there a middle to the surface of the balloon?

>>4329405
>mathematically a dot expanding equally in all directions is a sphere

Nope. The problem is that you are assuming that a dot is just a small sphere to being with. That is not true. The dot could expand to a cylinder for example.

A sphere that is scaled to some very very small value will look like a dot. A cylinder scaled to some very very small value will look like a dot too. Both will be "dots". If you expand the dots back out, one will produce the sphere, and the other will produce the cylinder.

You cannot just assume that a dot expands to a sphere. Stop talking out of your ass son!

According to the Big Bang model the universe was a singularity of infinite density at t=0. People here say the universe may have been infinite at t=0, which means it was infinite and of infinite density. But then how do you get from an infinite universe of infinite density to an infinite universe of finite density?

>>4329418
>>4329434
I never said the surface of the balloon. I'm talking about the interior of the balloon, whether or not there is anything in it or not. A spherical-like object has a center.

>>4329416
So...a sphere?...

>>4329438
How do you get from expanding equally in all directions to a cylinder, son!

>>4329441
>kids using the word "infinite" meaninglessly

Infinite is a non-scientific concept. There are many ways to use it in a given scientific/mathematical context, but there are also different types of infinity is a scientific/mathematical context.

You butcher the word, making it devoid of meaning.

>>4329442
>I never said the surface of the balloon.

The surface is the only thing that exists in this analogy. It is an imperfect analogy, obviously, but most people find it helpful.

>>4329442
>So...a sphere?...

No, not a sphere. If you travel in a straight line inside a sphere, you reach the edge of the sphere and then you leave it.

>>4329462
Why am I butchering it and what is wrong exactly with my question? How about you start with this instead of acting like Mr. Knowitall

>>4329427
What about in relation to the outlying multiverse?

>>4329442
There is no interior. The universe if flat like the surface of a balloon and might very well wrap around.

>>4329441

The model breaks down at t=0, which is why they call it a singularity. It's like 1/x as x approaches 0. The function approaches infinity, but 1/0 itself has no meaning.

So don't take t=0, take t=some arbitrarily small number. The universe would be infinite and of arbitrarily high density.

>>4329449
You scale it, the same way you do a sphere. It is all just scaling shit bro.

Are you really this stupid?
Did you never go to elementary school?

Basic example: Draw any object in paint. Then go to resize. Resize both the x an y , by the same amount.

OHH WTF! YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME FUCKING OBJECT! ONLY BIGGER! HOLY SHIT! THEY TEACH THIS STUFF TO 5 YEARS OLDS! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

>>4329477
>What about in relation to the outlying multiverse?

The what?

>>4329449
>>4329449

>>4329487
Jesus fucking christ you are one heck of an asshole. I don't understand it because your explanation is unsatisfying, your inability to explain things properly doesn't make me an idiot.
I think I had the impression it would expand to a sphere because I'm seeing the universe as expanding into a 3 dimensional space, which it isn't, and any of childish posts didn't help at all in understanding this.

>>4329486
Thank you.

>>4329529
You are just fucking stupid. It is plain as that. If you don't understand scaling shit, you should go fucking shoot yourself in the head. You should kill your parents first though, they deserve to fucking die for not teaching you THE MOST BASIC FUCKING GEOMETRY AS A CHILD.

Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. Can't go fast enough to even reach the edge if there was one.

>>4329558
I understand your scaling shit, you didn't need to explain it 3 times once would have been enough, but you're so arrogant and full of yourself that you haven't even begun to realize why your answer is unsatisfactory.

>>4329585
Suppose you had a warp drive?

>>4329622
>Just stupid

it could be expanding as an ellipsis or a box...or one of those weird pretzel torus thingies.

Given that we can't actually travel that far plausibly (as of this posting) it's mostly guessing out of our ass what "shape" it conforms to (and I'm using that term loosely) but we can all agree that there is some sort of space within the area of explosion

>>4329438
Not if the 'dot' is infinitely small.
Then it can be expanded as such, but you can move away from it and form a sphere.

>>4329728
Are you like 12?

>>4329438
The way you explained made it sound as if there was a single point with infinite, but regular density which, when expanded outward in all directions at the same rate, would form a sphere. Presumably, the density was infinite only in that, because it existed within a single "dot," the mass-energy per unit volume was undefined, because it has effectively zero volume. Any amount of mass within such a dot would have infinite density. But, in order for a shape that is not a sphere, the density would have to be irregular.