Elite / Frontier Discussion - The Edge of Space

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

The black hole itself does not spew radiation and energy, it's the very edge of the event horizon that's causing the apparent radiation. It tears stuff to shreds and some of it is blasted outwards, as well as it capturing one part of pairs of atoms (that appear and disappear as part of the 'cosmic foam') that spawn too close to the edge.

I think your anti-gravity theory is flawed. Light cannot escape not because it is not fast or energetic enough, but because space itself is being turned in on itself. Gravity is just our word for how space is bent by the presence of matter, I suspect anti-gravity may just be us isolating ourselves from normal space-time and freeing us from that force. You would feel no gravity, but it would not necessarily fling you away at infinite speed.

 

[potsmoke66]

i guess i stay to the ant on the basketball

with one or two additions
a any dimensioned universe is bounded by it's own dimensions
the basketball as you like
to imagine rather as a bag then a ball but it's just a visual helper and didn't discribes the real shape.
it could be flat, why not?, but it could be also a cube, or a glass of jam?, or spit of a monster?, a marble, well good thinking, its to imagine that the whole universe is into a dewdrop, i like that one. it describes infinte very well, our universe in a dewdrop which is part of a world like ours, which is again part of a universe into a dewdrop, like a endless mirrored picture in a mirror.
a "outside" (wrong term) is a sort of impossibility, i mean it's there, but dimensions only exists as long as there is something that makes it possible to measure dimension.
if there is nothing, nothing can('t) be measured.
from this view it's like the basketball again, infinite
as long as what is, is bound to a (single)dimension it can't reach "null".

let's say theoretically, we could be able to leave the dimensions boundaries
there would be simply "null".

stupid thing is, "null" you can't measure, so how can i know then that i reached "null"?

because this is a impossibility, it's near to guess that other universes will "border" directly onto ours, makes less twisted brains and it's easier to understand.

what will be then between?
"null", and null is not to measure.

btw, "null" means neither infinite, because to measure what is infinite you need something that is "finite", something that has borders or extensions, a dimension of some sort.

i guess that ant shouldn't think so much else her head explodes,
and i'm not willing to clean up that mess

maybe, to get back to the idea of the dewdrop we simply fall back to our own universe when trying to leave.

another good idea is to guess that macrocosmos and microcosmos, both are infinite, will build a closed circle at infinity...

i still should have that bunkered, i had a comic strip (i love infinite stories, the end leads to the beginning of the story, real braintwisters) where our universe is a skin fungus, now the "person" having this fungus is scratching itself...

 

[potsmoke66]

one such story is from asimov i guess, it's about a time traveller, or attempted time travel? if i'm right it's called "the incorruptible".
but i'm not shure, since this is a translation and i don't know the real english title of this short story.

 

[Tribble]

Re: infinity.


Is it Leipzig or Kant who said the universe was certainly
finite otherwise there would have been an infinity of
time before we would be there, able to notice time.
As if infinity would make it impossible to arrive at a point in
time, because there would always be something before it.
Or whatever it was they meant.


Tribble

 

[potsmoke66]

time is infinite, somewhat, it would exist without a universe, from my point of view (i know, general theory is, time is bound to matter, they say time starts with the universe. a limitation of our mind?).

but to get a idea of time you need a beginning and a end, a dimension in other words.

maybe time is only reality to us? and it didn't exists for real, only as a abstract idea?
at least mankind couldn't live, think, or measure things without time, so we say it exists.

i guess to the universe time doesn't matters, alpha and omega, beginning and end, all the same.
when it starts it was allready dead.

again, a strike from the past

 

[potsmoke66]

theoretical physicians have now the (a) idea what was before the big bang and point this before time, but i would say then put the start where the start is and not 0- something, because if there was something it's not 0 it's allways 0+ something.

my idea is 0 can't exist.
i had this idea very early in my life.
somekind of causality
0 requires 1 to exist or vice versa

but don't ask me, i'm only a "tüechlidrugger" (fabrics printer) from a mountain valley.

who should finally keep up his pioneer thread on latest standings
finish some models
and last but not least find a job
and get a place to live

further, get his things together and to "get that girl" in the end

 

[Crayfish]

The edge of the universe

The hypothesis that space/time curves back on itself through a higher dimension has been covered quite extensively in this thread. That's one interesting theory, it also requires the unknowable presence of higher dimensions so is somewhat unsatisfactory.

An alternative hypothesis keeps space flat but uses the relationship between space and time (they are the same thing) to explain what is at the edge of the universe.

First of all we have the simple fact that if we had the ultimate telescope and looked at the physical edge universe, what we would see is the moment of the big bang, roughly 14 billion years ago. Presumably this would look something like the noise of the microwave background radiation, extended into the visible spectrum.

So what if we make the assumption that space and time are so intricately linked that even if we had a mechanism for instant (FTL) travel, that the act of moving through space also moves us through time? Even if we instantly move to the edge of the universe, as it is at this precise moment, we still reach the event horizon of the big bang. As you approach the edge, space itself would compress dramatically until everything is ripped into pure energy.

That's my pet theory anyway.

 

[DraQ]

The black hole itself does not spew radiation and energy, it's the very edge of the event horizon that's causing the apparent radiation. It tears stuff to shreds and some of it is blasted outwards, as well as it capturing one part of pairs of atoms (that appear and disappear as part of the 'cosmic foam') that spawn too close to the edge.

My (rather ad hoc) understanding of the 'jets' emitted from the poles of massive black holes is that when we have a black hole surrounded by an accretion disk, the matter in the disk constantly collides with itself and with the new matter flowing in. At the same time the matter nearing the black hole increases its velocity but constantly loses its newly gained kinetic energy in increasingly energetic collisions, generating a lot of heat and radiation. Given that the outward portions of the disk block most directions available for radiation and collision ejects, they can only go axially.

The hypothesis that space/time curves back on itself through a higher dimension has been covered quite extensively in this thread. That's one interesting theory, it also requires the unknowable presence of higher dimensions so is somewhat unsatisfactory.

It does not. Space doesn't need higher dimensions to be curved in any more than it does need them to be flat in. Extra dimensions can be helpful as an aid to imagine it, but are in no way necessary for the curvature itself.

 

[panda]

well, this is my idea

Let's start with a statement from my side: the ant is right.
What do i mean? It does not matter how bright is the living being, but the 'reachable' dimensions depend just on its senses.For example, our ant lives in a 2D world: her eyes are plugged in sockets which do not allow her to move them-result, in order to see around she has to move head.Other thing: our ant, compared to us, is TINY: her world will be always a huge and flat world, whatever is she doing: climbing a tree, carrying food to home, fighting with another insect, etc..But our poor ant can have a grasp of the 3D dimension: when falling from a tree, she moves even in her Z axis.We cannot know how she is feeling meanwhile falling, what she does see,but WE (from the 3D dimension)can see that she IS moving in a 3D space.Just because we have capabilities she does not.This should lead to a consideration..what about us? Do we have any moment in our lives which makes us feel there is .. more out there? In my opinion, for example, could be the speculations about time, one of the proposed 4th dimensions.Einstein tried to explain that, and made it, to some degree.We were driven to call it time, this 4th dimension.I think otherwise: could it just be a wrong road? could it not just be an 'adaptation' of something which is out of our mind boundaries?Think to the narrow relativity..Could not be time just an human adaptation of an unreachable,with our senses, dimension?
I know that my suggestions are more philosophy-driven rather than by science, but i would like to know what you crazes like me think about

P.S.
I am sorry for my AWFUL english

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I think when it reaches this level, philosophy is as good a tool as any to analyse the worlds we cannot yet know. I am still freaked out by the fact that pretty much everything we know about deep space comes from analyzing the light from distant stars. By that I mean we use the spectrums from tiny pinpoints of light (pinpoints even in very powerful telescopes) to tell almost everything we currently "know" about stars. When I look at the stars through my scope and see just those tiny pinpricks of white, I struggle to imagine how we came by all the knowledge we have from just that view.

 

[panda]

I think when it reaches this level, philosophy is as good a tool as any to analyse the worlds we cannot yet know. I am still freaked out by the fact that pretty much everything we know about deep space comes from analyzing the light from distant stars. By that I mean we use the spectrums from tiny pinpoints of light (pinpoints even in very powerful telescopes) to tell almost everything we currently "know" about stars. When I look at the stars through my scope and see just those tiny pinpricks of white, I struggle to imagine how we came by all the knowledge we have from just that view.

Well, I can try to explain.. well look here:

It tells that the frequency of an emission depends on the original wavelenght f,multiplied by a factor,where v is the velocity of the source related to the observer, θ is the angle between the velocity of the object and the observer, and c is the speed of light.This is the doppler effect law,so it happens that you can tell from her shift in the colour if the star is going away or coming to us.Red shift and blue shift should come handy terms here.Then, from the colour of the star, you can tell what elements are burning in there.. since every element emits a specific radiation.
Edit:
You should find info about Nernst' black body too