No one will ever know. by the time we are advanced enough to finally reach the outskirts. The World will have already destroyed its self.

No such thing as the edge

Is there any proof there is no edge???

Looking in or out the way ?

As we think of our universe made of galaxies stars dark matter and lets be honest possible other forces there defiantly will be an edge be it heliosphere of the entire known energy emitting particles we have since labelling the universe what we observe.

There is technically no end to the universe. It is either in a open-ended state ore closed ended state. This means that the universe fold over on itself and is never ending in terms of edges.

It's very simple really. When you get to the edge of the Universe there will be a wall topped with barbed wire beside a car park and a cafeteria. The real question is what is on the OTHER side of said wall and barbed wire ? I think it has to be Keith Chegwin.

What? A wall with barbed wire on the top? In space? Are you crazy? That's one of the dumbest things ever!

Cherish, I think you fell for it...

if the big bang theory is the accepted standard, implying an origin point, doesn't that also imply a causality edge?

the real problem with understanding the size of the universe and if it has an edge seems to be the amount of matter calculated to be in existence. Modern science insists that matter cannot be created or destroyed only converted into energy.

black hole theory claims that singularities exist at the centers of galactic structures and "eat" them but how does this account for the luminosity of such galaxies as C3 273 (quasar) and P6 0052+251(Sb spiral)the cores of both these are brighter than the galaxies themselves.If a singularity is eating light at their cores, why are they glowing?

what if galactic cores are NOT singularities but matter conversions pumps that use the deep gravity well as an engine of sorts?
(constantly sucking in, crunching together then exploding out atomic particles and matter that acretes along the galactic ecliptic into new stars, so that the cycle is sort of never ending.

If that were an accurate model, what does that do to the model of the universe? It certainly allows for a massive matter creation/conversion source..what if we can't see that source because of the occluding dust, the way we can't see the center of the Milkyway because of dust...

what if the center of the galaxies, and maybe the universe, is more like a star than a hole? what if it wasn't an explosion at all but an accretion of energy in a very deep gravity well that sparked into a matter pump?

Dawn

Supposing this pump busy with matter conversion...
matter reduced to energy and strings.(=stretched vacuum/spacetime)
strings accrete to hadrons->atoms. so energy does become matter! ... gravity needed to do that. not through acceleration but by a higgs to provide the mass.
But why we perceive everything as redshifting i.e. moving away from us...is beyond me.
We are going to collide with adromeda...so is somebody using the wrong lenses?
The extreme brightness; some have allready suggested a dumbbel starsystem.
Universe shape...some have suggested a ...(keep forgetting the name);
take a long strip of paper. twist it so you end up with a corner of 90 degrees. twist a bit further and glue the endparts together. you'll find that you can follow the shape in a perpetual move.
Someone wrote a SF about people being curious(not very dissimilar to conquer) as to what was behind the wall on their thus shaped world.

The question is vague. Does he want to know what's at the edge or beyond it.

Is not the acceleration and the masses in the universe your Strings?.......?

Would not the acceleration of galaxies and there mass in the vacuum of space pull upon the forces of other galaxies....there is no gravity only the acceleration and mass. gravity is a made up term to keep track. like time. It's made up. I guess your term strings is called gravity.

Galaxies are moving away because the Acceleration and mass of the universe grew so great it could not contain itself so it blew apart. This blew all the mass in to smaller pieces of itself and away from the great vacuum in the center of the universe that once contained it. Is that vacuum still present after an explosion like that who knows. Thats important. If that vacuum still exist the galaxies will continue to a point and than slowly be dragged back in. If that whole is gone or become weaker they will keep going on forever because there is no resistance in a vacuum. The vacuum may be stunned or not working correctly after such a explosion. The term vacuum may be wrong maybe galaxies are free from the pull just spinning away.

Seeing the structure of the universe as similar to the structure of a spiral galaxy answers the question of red shift

if the older galaxies are assumed to be 'ahead' of us on the universal spiral arm, moving 'toward' the center of the universe and thus toward this gravity conversion engine, and they are moving along this arm at or near C then they are red shifted because we (the milky way) are behind them and moving slower or at a lesser fraction of C.
is the milky way also moving along the universal ecliptic at some relative fraction of light speed as well? Is this why are sun is also exhibiting red shift?

blue spirals may be galaxies that are behind us and moving slower than we are
yellow disks may be galaxies that have recently experienced a galactic core event which affected their rate of travel and thus the light shift frequency. these events might be a natural adjustment factor for healthy energetic galaxies...in other words, frequent and regular 'explosions' of a galactic core change the rate of travel toward the ultimate conversion engine at the universal core. thus, only old, dead galaxies are consumed and rewritten.

think constant creation instead of imminent destruction...

the real question about red shifted galaxies is, why, if they are moving at a large fraction of C, do they appear structurally intact?
if the theory of relativity is correct, these galaxies should be exhibiting structural collapse of some kind...but they aren't

when this concept is combined with the question of high luminosity exhibited by all pictures of so called black holes, it brings up the question of whether black holes can truly suck in all light

while some light particles may be sucked into a black hole, the evidence seems to suggest that not ALL light is....luminosity
this explains why gravity wells can BEND light but not slow it

if light speed is NOT a barrier to speed, if the red shift galaxies are indeed structurally intact while moving toward and perhaps at light speed, then we have seriously miscalculated the relevant constant force
perhaps the speed of light is unaffected by gravity because it is simply not MASSIVE enough to go any faster.
the galaxies ARE massive enough to travel at, or perhaps beyond light speed...I wonder how fast the UNIVERSE is traveling? or if there's only one...maybe the whole thing IS like some stoner's metaphysical day dream...if only you had the perspective...

think about it, as soemthing travels downhill, it picks up kinetic energy relative to its mass and its speed is affected by other forces (the effects of friction etc)
if there were no friction, which, in a void there wouldn't be,
and a mass was acted upon by tremendous gravity


what happens? how fast can that object go? speed would be limited only by mass...

the only way to calculate gravity is by how it affects mass...weight, right?
so, the actual gravity force can not be truly calculated, thus it may be the Constant we are looking for to generate a new theory ....we don't have to INCLUDE gravity, we have to BASE it on gravity!

I know this isn't string theory...I'm sorry for spewing...

in short, I think strings are the bits of information that aren't yet assimilated into planetary, stellar or galactic structure.

Dawn

What is at the edge...causality...nothing with properties...

I somehow feel that's not the gratifying answer.
The real question was why string t was not yet the theory of everything.

I have to find an article on this redshifting.

redshift astronomy on wikipedia will have to do.

Try Beyond the Big Bang...Paul LaViolette, PhD.

the reason string theory didn't lead to TOE is because the theory is based on the assumption of general and special relativity which describes the behavior of light but doesn't accurately describe gravity. I think gravity is the actual constant and the only reason light doesn't or can't move faster is because it lacks mass. The mass of light is constant, factoring out other types of radiant energy and just focusing on 'light'.

gravity is always the same, its the mass of what its 'pulling on' that changes.

we need an equation that deals with the gravity constant such as, someone else wrote this and I'm copying it...G=M-E, then apply it to
E=MC2... this equation describes energy but NOT static force...which is gravity...which is the constant we must base TOE on...the speed of light is irrelevant to TOE except for the fact, it showed us the way

Dawn

Well...... no but space is so big i dhot there is a edge

:S i dont know :S

To dawn...light is not affected by gravity. light shine through or reflects. Think, gravity does not exist. Acceleration of mass causes a pull which bring things in. The earths rotation and mass keeps the moon where it is. As the earths rotation on its axis subsides the moon pulls further away... earth slows down...less rotation...= less force on the moon, moon becomes free. The universe acts the same way except on a bigger scale. The physic people teach on this planet are wrong because they do not apply it to the vacuum which is space and all that exist in it. Your not blabbering they are wrong.. you can't have fact on something made up to explain something that always was and will be. Always was and will be is not a god. It is understanding. Its the form

Your wrong the pull of gravity...NEVER CHANGES...figure it out...child

eh, what ever...I'm tired of being called names

Name calling is quit rude, and by calling her a child and stooping to such a low level, you in turn are the child. That's sad actually, that a 15 year old can be more mature than a, I'm just going to take an educated guess, late 30 year old. Quit sad.

In other news, could somebody please explain to me what the 4th deminsion is? Doesn't that have something to do with the string theory?

Cherish Faith

museken

Have you never wondered how hubble feyman hawkings could then suppose his punching a hole and strings , more plus then minus or whatever entering to make our universe. All the forces equal at that point as they say. But G diminishes and other force takes over. We get space-time and matter (because of G or because of the weak force? So when does G come out to play?!)and expand because other forces get stronger.
just making it simple so the kids here, can follow.
Stating that G allways stays the same is nice if we are talking about expanding universes the Great Rip etc.--

Then people can start looking for black energy/matter etc. that's stronger then G, or of which there is more of.
Vacuum means absolute vacuum as far as is possible with strings that seem drawn to occupy every bit of such a vacuum. For a mini black-hole an absolute vacuum seems to be created by a brane and a higgs supposedly affects it to big-bang. After which the higs should still be there but sofar this G-boson remains elusive.
This higgs particle non-show supposes that we have a limited number of G particles in our universe.
Next question:when does G become active? If a property of matter at what point?
Why can't light speed be variable? Some light escapes...x-ray. Visible light is heavy light? Because it has no mass. But it can be affected heavy blue galaxy acts as lense and shows multiple yellow galaxies reflected that are just one galaxy behind the heavy blue one.

--But the very beginning of the big bang and first stages are not explained. Let alone strings and vacuum mini blackholes paradoxes.

at least we have the curiosity of children...the little professor...grin

Dawn I got the answer. I will not post no more. Someones looking for fame. I'm science.

Bye

I did fall for it. I know the answer. BYE

Maybe another universe.

11 years old - junheng

Hi Dawn. Yes there certainly was a tiny point of origin for the universe and it does suggest there is an edge, but remember the universe is expanding faster and faster all the time so the edge can only be conceptual. And I still don't understand why the amount of matter is a problem, space does not have to be populated to exist. Sorry if I have missed something there. i often get this question in my physics class so its an easy one. Its true that in all galaxies we have found so far, we find a SMBH at its centre, its also true that its eating the light at the centre too, but only the light that is inside the event horizon. Remember there is a much higher density of stars at the belly of a galaxy, this is why we get the 'bulge' but from one end of the bulge to the other its still atleast 20000 light years. A good analogy is, imagine a sink full of water when you have just pulled the plug, although some is going down the plug, the rest has to wait for its turn. This is whats happening at the centre of a galaxy, all stars are bound by the gravitational pull of the SMBH, but only a tiny amount of them have crossed its event horizon, and this is the place where not even light can assume escape velocity.
As far as the model you describe with the matter pumps, its a pretty model, if I understand it correctly its based on the 'whitehole' idea. I'm sorry but its just not stable, the math work's and it break's no physical laws, so the idea keeps cropping up but we can not keep such 'pumps' (as you call them) stable with our model's, plus these should be easy to observe with sky survey's such as the ogel project regardless of the amount of dust there is in the way, but they always show up nothing. But thats the good thing about science, some clever new enthusiast may just come along and prove us all wrong, and show us there is a new way to look at things. Damon

You have clearly thought about the statements you make here, but I honestly think you would benefit from a fresh look at the more fundamental areas of physics. Roger Penrose, road to reality is a great source of the fundamental math of modern physics. Be very carefull when using string theory for idea's, remember its a purely mathmatical idea. Although its can describe and unite all of physics. It has never made any observable predictions and has zero observable evidence. Real science is about thing we can test not things we can show are possible. I am not saying we have nothing to learn from string theory. Just that it should not be used as an idea's factory. I myself am a student of Thomas Campbell and his MBT(my big TOE) which is also unites all of physics using consciousness. But untill we observe some predictions it makes its just a belief system. Handle with care! Damon.

Because Cobra Commander is a mad villain who pulls the strings and makes the daisies come up.

Now I know.

Does the universe have an edge? No, not officially. The center of the universe is everywhere as well as its edge. The Local Group (our Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies) is on the edge and at the universe's center because astronomers seeing us from across the universe see a very red-shifted group fleeing them at almost lightspeed- we're separated from them by 13.7 billion lightyears!

However, I read that the universe is 15,000 lightyears thick as well as 13.7 billion wide (in National Geographic). This seems a contradiction. How could this be infinite and yet measured? I can only conclude it's a disk expanding mostly horizontally rather than vertically. Within this, most galaxies expand away from each other because the universe does so at lightspeed.

The universe therefore seems to me to be as an explosion in the form of a disk- stars do the same (when supernova). Therefore, what is our universe exploding into? I would think it does so into a meta-universe, as a stone into a pond. It is waves of matter expanding back into its parental void. This meta-universe must be a turbulent place, with Black Holes everywhere, constantly crashing into each other, and sometimes producing a rebound effect upon Spacetime from which other universes form. In effect, this meta-universe must be as a storm with clouds its subject universes.

Steve
Stephenmann35@yahoo.com

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

HEY ARROGANT PEOPLE ..........