Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:36:07 UTC No. 16636124

yes but the deeper redpill is that our model of the cosmos is entirely culture bound and changes every 500 to 1000 years, and we dont necessarily know any more than people from previous cycles

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:37:12 UTC No. 16636580

>>16636117
the universe is finite and always will be

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:40:27 UTC No. 16636586

>>16636117
Any assumption from infinity has infinite risk given a simple mathematical operation

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:47:11 UTC No. 16636605

>>16636124
fpbp
>>16636265
>>16636372
>>16636498
laugh while you can, monkey-boys

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:32:13 UTC No. 16636678

>>16636117
If we can see galaxies from when the universe was just millions of years old, some of the oldest ones proposed to exist, and we believe that the universe is around 14 billion years old, doesn't that imply that it's finite? Like nothing could be much more distant than that.

Hmm this is getting my brain thinking...
If we assume the universe is homogenous, could we look in any direction and see galaxies that old? Is there an implied direction of expansion like we could look into space and say the big bang happened roughly over here? Apparently not.
Of course, millions of years after the big bang, things would already be BBC distributed very widely so the chance of an old universe existing in any direction is evenly distributed. The singularity didn't blow out galaxies, just energy.

I guess the answer is unknown, but I personally don't like infinities since we do not observe them in nature on earth, everything here is finite. I question why a system with infinities at very large scales would not possess them at smaller scales.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:43:53 UTC No. 16636698

It seems inconsequential to me what's beyond the outer boundary of the universe, since nothing, not even light could ever reach it due to expansion, but if I had to imagine I'd say it's just like empty space with zero energy - no virtual particles, no neutrinos, no background radiation, just nothing - absolute vacuum.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:46:51 UTC No. 16636701

>>16636698
Why would the universe shoot void generators in all directions?

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:49:08 UTC No. 16636708

>>16636701
NTA but it's because it's all a theoretical fantasy. Metaphysics is real and the universe is geocentric. Go back to the middle ages NOW

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:50:15 UTC No. 16636710

>>16636701
Because it's expanding?
The void it shoots out is higher energy than the void outside it. We could say that the various fields upon which energy waves travel are expanding. These do not exist outside the area of expansion.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:50:30 UTC No. 16636712

>>16636708
I run physics. It would violate causality across true time if I used elemental intervention across this boundary

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:52:29 UTC No. 16636716

Guys, it's just Tycho and Newton. This is not a drill. The rot in science is older and deeper than you think.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:52:50 UTC No. 16636718

>>16636712
You can not cross the boundary, it grows at the speed of light.
If there's an age of collapse towards a big crunch/big bounce, perhaps you could, but we're not in that age.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:55:23 UTC No. 16636721

>>16636710
>expanding
Nope. Consider carefully how space emerges in your system.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:56:16 UTC No. 16636724

Clearly the structure of the universe is at a higher dimension than we exist at. 4D, 5D whatever. We look out and see stars in every direction. For a higher dimensional observer they will see the cone of expansion and the point of origin of the universe. WE can't see this shape because we're limited by 3D perspective.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:57:49 UTC No. 16636726

>>16636718
I run physics.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:17:06 UTC No. 16636759

>>16636726
could you do me a favor then and change the up quark spin to 1/4?

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:18:39 UTC No. 16636761

>>16636724
There are three dimensions of space and one of time

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:21:22 UTC No. 16636764

>>16636761
That you can see, but actually there's more spatial dimensions than that. We only see a 3D slice of it.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:23:54 UTC No. 16636766

>>16636759
Yes, explain the desired precision or I might dump tortured organisms into your slough queue

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:24:42 UTC No. 16636769

>>16636761
>>16636764
That's why we see space as mostly homogenous and evenly distributed. At the higher dimension it has a shape, and a visible point of origin.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:24:50 UTC No. 16636770

>>16636764
Prove it

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:27:54 UTC No. 16636773

>>16636770
It's a theory, you're welcome to accept others instead.
Also I guess the 4th spatial dimension could just be what we perceive as time. The universe expanding in 4 dimensions gives rise to the temporal dimension. Same kind of thing, if you were a higher dimensional observer you'd see the shape of the universe as its progression through time.
So what I'm saying is... time is an emergent property of a 4th spatial dimension, which is expanding. If it were contracting time would go backwards.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:29:22 UTC No. 16636775

Or is time getting longer? And if it were contracting, time would grow shorter. I get confused thinking about it, I'm limited by my 3D perspective, and the amount of alcohol in my blood.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:30:56 UTC No. 16636779

>>16636775
No, for time to be getting longer, it would have to be expanding in 5 dimensions. It's probably only expanding in 4, and time is the emergent property of expansion. Get your fucking theory straight.