Does Space have an end ?

[march56]

I wanted to know what general views were out there about whether Space has an end or is infinite. Please explain your viewpoint and any ideas on formation. Please don't make assumtions unless willing to explain.
-M.C.

 

[Locrian]

I'd be happy to throw out an opinion, but first I need you to define what you mean by "end" in this context.

 

[Apollonian]

I think the answer to this question is likely to be completely analogous to the paradigm shift that occured regarding the "end of the earth".

It may be plausible to think of an "end" to space, but there are not many things in nature (at least not on a fundamental scale) which come to an abrupt end. Rather, the question is what is the nature of the end of space.

Just like the "end" of the earth is actually the bounds of a sphere rather than an abrupt droppoff, so too the "end" of space is a boundary into higher dimensions.

It is conceivable that the entirety of spacetime lies on the surphase of a kind of hypersphere which is expanding outward from the big bang. Hence, there is no "end" perse and there is no reachable center. Everything is moving away from everything else.

 

[Moros]

I don't think there are any scientific presumptions which state that everything must have an end (although most if not every-thing does, since kinetic energy runs out). I don't have any evidence to back this up, but it seems to me that since gravity pulls things downwards (depleting energy and eventually bringing motion to an end), and based on its effect on fired bullets:

then it's possible the "end" of the universe (if there is one) is similar to that of a bullet?

 

[five]

Chasing the edge of the universe is probably a bit like chasing tomorrow.

 

[Qrusty]

No...Space, or the proper term, Space-time is an infinite curve. It's much like asking if the Earth's 2 dimensional surface has an end. You can walk forever and never find it. Understanding is impeded by the limits of our current ability to conceptualize greater deminsions. We're just now grasping the ability to conceptualize 3 dimensions. At one time(not long ago) we didn't have the ability to conceive how one could start walking in a straight line, and eventually pass the starting point.

We're also restricted by our language...ask someone who just reached the North pole to take a couple more steps North.

 

[Qrusty]

I don't think there are any scientific presumptions which state that everything must have an end (although most if not every-thing does, since kinetic energy runs out). I don't have any evidence to back this up, but it seems to me that since gravity pulls things downwards (depleting energy and eventually bringing motion to an end), and based on its effect on fired bullets:

then it's possible the "end" of the universe (if there is one) is similar to that of a bullet?

Friction is much more of a counter force than gravity. If the bullet is fast enough, and atmospheric friction is reduced(say by firing at a real high altitude) then the bullet will go into orbit. By increasing its speed you stretch out that falling-arch. If you stretch that arch out enough to where it matches the curveature of the Earth, then the bullet, perpetually falls around the Earth's curveature. So, orbit is simply perpetual falling.

I italicized perpetual because the weak force of gravity(from Earth as well as other sources) and other frictional circumstance will eventually cause the bullet to slow, and eventually it, as well as anything that orbits, will slow enough to catch the edge of what it's orbiting.

 

[Qrusty]

Here's an interesting interactive for dimensional conceptualization.

actually...the entire segment is pretty cool.

sorry...i geek-out on this stuff...i'll stop now.

 

[LouTheWicked]

It'll go on, and on, and on forever.

 

[funyun]

It should noted that there do not necessarily have to be higher dimensions in order for the universe to be shaped analogous to the surface of a sphere or an annulus.

 

[funyun]

I don't think there are any scientific presumptions which state that everything must have an end (although most if not every-thing does, since kinetic energy runs out). I don't have any evidence to back this up, but it seems to me that since gravity pulls things downwards (depleting energy and eventually bringing motion to an end)

If we indeed live in an open universe, as is supported by the vast majority of evidence, then kinetic energy will never actually run out. Instead available net energy will decrease asymptotically (as will temperature) as entropy increases. Absolute zero will never be attained in this process, and even if it could be, energy in a vaccuum at absolute zero is never totally free of energy due to quantum effects.

 

[[serious]]

according to the best models available, all the matter in the universe is within a finite space. As such, this boundry could be described as the end of the universe. However, the universe has been demonstrated to be expanding thus making the universe bigger.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I believe Space does have limits in its size because in the Bible it says that "the LORD sits on many waters". This supports the claims that some scientists theorise about there being water on the outside of the universe. This is the end of the second heaven leading into the third heaven which is where God lives.

 

[Apollonian]

I believe Space does have limits in its size because in the Bible it says that "the LORD sits on many waters". This supports the claims that some scientists theorise about there being water on the outside of the universe. This is the end of the second heaven leading into the third heaven which is where God lives.

You believe that space has limits because of one non-physical, highly metaphorical verse from the Bible? (what is the citation for the verse, by the way?)

Plus, who are these "scientists" who are "theorising" what lies completely outside the realm of observable phenomona?

Please do not interpose the positions of science and religion! Science ought to tell us what the nature of the physical universe is and religion ought to tell us what lies beyond the observable.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I heard this from Dr. Kent Hovind who is a Creation Scientist. He was talking about the Canopy Theory and the 3 heavens.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Another thing. There are 3 heavens. 1. The Sky. 2. Stars, solar systems, and galaxies. 3. The heaven where God lives. This is why I believe that there is a limit to outer space.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Psalms 148:4 "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens and ye waters that be above the heavens."

Psalms 29:3 The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters.

 

[Apollonian]

sci‧ence  /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

1. I am profoundly curious to see any "Creation Scientists" explain their theories with the kind of mathematical rigour evident in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, let alone the simplest of physics.

2. As a matter of fact, "science" deals only with the physical, material world. As such, "Creation Scientists" who attempt to include metaphysical elements such as an "act of God" are not doing science; they are creating a new religion which makes mockery of both Christianity and the established scientific method.

3. I don't see how "Creation Science" fits into any of the established branches of natural or physical science. Rather, "Creation Science" attempts to encompass many such fields at once.

4 & 5. "Systematized Knowledge" may be the only argument for "Creation Science" being "Science" at all. Yet, I fail to see the credibility of any system which is created by "Begging the question", a common logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

6. "Creation Science" is a subset of metaphysics, not science. If someone talks about the "science of creation", one necessarily must include scientific experimentation into particle physics and the observations of the naturalists studying the differentiation of species, rather than dismissing these out of hand.

7. I fail to see how "Creation Science" is at all accurate let alone precise when it seems to systematically ignore scientific evidence.

--------------------------------

Does the universe have limits? Perhaps, perhaps not. I do not think there is anything in the Bible which is meant to place (or not place) limits on the universe. Contrarywise, cosmologist are seeking to actually observe whether or not there is a limit. Many professors can have an opinion, but such an opinion even from very smart individuals does not constitute Truth by itself.

Frankly, if you ask me my opinion after studying what I have about cosmology, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics (as well as considering the arguments from the "Creation Scientists"), I believe that God resides in infinite dimensions. This means that God exists both inside and outside of human experience. It places him outside the flow of time, yet does not strip Him of His ability to change the course of human events as we experience them. I do not believe that "Heaven" is meant to exist anywhere in the observable physical universe.

If anyone objects to this interpretation of either the scientific method or the interpretation of the position of God in the world, please PM me. I would be interested in discussing how best to ascertain the Truth about Reality.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

My friend read the scriptures I put on this thread and also Genesis 1. I do side with the creation scientists. This is my belief. If you really want to know go to God. Man's knowledge and observation is limited. I'm a christian and I do love science, but now since i'm getting closer to Christ via ministry and creation science studies I have to base my thinking on the Bible.
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
God bless.

 

[Apollonian]

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
God bless.

It seems to me that Paul is telling Timothy that Scripture should be used for religious doctrine, social guidance, and moral direction. It seems to completely leave out anything regarding insight into the nature of reality itself.

I have read Genesis, and I have read the scripture which you have presented. I have also read a great deal of other scripture which you have not presented.

I would be eternally grateful if you could find the scripture which clearly indicates that God's intent for scripture was to inform us regarding the nature of reality.

As it stands, my interpretation is that God does not have such an intent for scripture, and any reference to the material world in the Bible is God's attempt to give us insight in a manner which individuals without science may understand.

The following verse seems to indicate the reverse: that God intended for His creation to speak for itself, so that those without scripture may be without excuse. Therefore, humankind's observations may not be so limited as to contradict what God, through Paul, is telling us here. The bold emphasis is mine.

Romans 1:19-32 [ Verse 20 in Original: Greek ]
[ Read Chapter | Discuss these Verses ]
19 because that R38 which is known about God is evident within F13 them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since R39 the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being R40 understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor F14 Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile R41 in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing R42 to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged R43 the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling F15 creatures. 24 Therefore God R44 gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored R45 among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a F16 lie, R46 and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who R47 is blessed forever. F17 Amen.

FOOTNOTES:
F13 Or among
F14 Lit glorify
F15 Or reptiles
F16 Lit the lie
F17 Lit unto the ages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS REFERENCES:
R38 Acts 14:17; 17:24ff
R39 Mark 10:6
R40 Job 12:7-9; Psalms 19:1-6; Jeremiah 5:21f
R41 2 Kings 17:15; Jeremiah 2:5; Ephesians 4:17f
R42 Jeremiah 10:14; 1 Corinthians 1:20
R43 Deuteronomy 4:16-18; Psalms 106:20; Jeremiah 2:11; Acts 17:29
R44 Romans 1:26,28; Ephesians 4:19
R45 Ephesians 2:3
R46 Isaiah 44:20; Jeremiah 10:14; 13:25;
R47 Romans 9:5; 2 Corinthians 11:31

How do you know that you are not exchanging the Truth of God for a lie? If humankind's observations are limited, doesn't this also apply to humankind's 'observations' of the Bible?