I have discovered what lies on the outside of spacetime

[Simon D]

The shape of the observable universe is a sphere. EMR moves in all directions at equal speed in a vacuum. Based on these physical principals, how could you come to any other conclusion then that the whole universe is spherical?

I already told you, because light moves at a fixed speed and the universe is expanding. We can't see what's at the other sides because light is too far away to reach us. Furthermore it seems that you assume that the universe is expanding spherically which might not be the case but it might be expanding horizontally (something like not a flat earth but a flat universe), but don't assume we are at the centre of it.

Honestly you could just Google this stuff. I get it's difficult concepts I have a background in science and even I find it hard, because it is mind boggling.

 

[HARK!]

I already told you, because light moves at a fixed speed and the universe is expanding. We can't see what's at the other sides because light is too far away to reach us.

This goes back to my light bulbs in China analogy. We covered this.

Furthermore it seems that you assume that the universe is expanding spherically

I assume that the laws concerning EMR are universal.

EMR is radiated spherically.

which might not be the case but it might be expanding horizontally (something like not a flat earth but a flat universe),

What would suppress the EMR from radiating in three dimensions as it does throughout the rest of the known three dimensional universe?

but don't assume we are at the centre of it.

I would assert that we are not at the center of it. I would assert that we are moving away from the center of it.

Honestly you could just Google this stuff.

I didn't need to Google it. I took science classes; then I poured over books throughout the rest of my life, to get deeper understanding.

I get it's difficult concepts I have a background in science and even I find it hard, because it is mind boggling

I have a background in science too. I love Newtonian Physics. Understanding it comes easily to me.

 

[Simon D]

This goes back to my light bulbs in China analogy. We covered this.



I assume that the laws concerning EMR are universal.

EMR is radiated spherically.



What would suppress the EMR from radiating in three dimensions as it does throughout the rest of the known three dimensional universe?



I would assert that we are not at the center of it. I would assert that we are moving away from the center of it.



I didn't need to Google it. I took science classes.



I have a background in science too. I love Newtonian Physics. Understanding it comes easily to me.

OK I'm finding you a bit non productively argumentative. I don't mind talking but this is non productive and somewhat lecturing/confrontational. I'll leave you to discuss whatever it is you are trying to do with yourself. All the best

 

[HARK!]

OK I'm finding you a bit non productively argumentative. I don't mind talking but this is non productive and somewhat lecturing/confrontational. I'll leave you to discuss whatever it is you are trying to do with yourself. All the best

It seems our sentiments are mutual. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Simon D]

It seems our sentiments are mutual. Thanks for sharing.

Yes you are argumentative and a moderator.. OK

 

[Sorn]

The shape of the observable universe is a sphere. EMR moves in all directions at equal speed in a vacuum. Based on these physical principals, how could you come to any other conclusion then that the whole universe is spherical?

You are making an assumption based on what you can see, ie observable universe is spherical.
Simon D is just saying that he is not making that assumption, he is not saying it isn't spherical either, just that its not known (and can't be tested currently) so no point in making such an assumption. As such he is allowing for other possibilities. He is maintaining an open mind on the matter.

If you were dropped into the middle of an ocean and told that it was on another planet and you could not see land, that would not mean that the entire planet would be ocean or that the ocean you are on is circular just because that is all you can see from your vantage point.

Currently, what we can observe and what we know means that may point to a likelihood of a spherical universe but that assumes we know all there is about the fundamentals of physics to rule anything else out. The truth is we just don't. There is a lot of fundamental stuff we still don't know, any of which could completely change the picture. Throughout history, many people have made assumptions about how the world worked only to be proven wrong as knowledge expanded. Assumptions are ok but should be made with the following in mind:
1) They need to be recognized as assumptions and not facts
2) Recognize it could be wrong though you might think it isn't

 

[Sorn]

But isn't it true that our sun, and our entire galaxy will one day be consumed by our black hole?

No, not if you believe whats in the bible in Revelation. This universe will be disassembled by God and a new one built in its place, probably with some new/different physics in it. This is only a temporary universe, only needs to last as long as it takes for Gods plan of redemption and salvation to be worked out.
So it doesn't matter if its heading towards a heat death or a cold death or a black hole death. it will be switched off and replaced (though some may prefer to use the term renovated) long before then.

 

[HARK!]

You are making an assumption based on what you can see, ie observable universe is spherical.
Simon D is just saying that he is not making that assumption, he is not saying it isn't spherical either, just that its not known (and can't be tested currently) so no point in making such an assumption. As such he is allowing for other possibilities. He is maintaining an open mind on the matter.

If you were dropped into the middle of an ocean and told that it was on another planet and you could not see land, that would not mean that the entire planet would be ocean or that the ocean you are on is circular just because that is all you can see from your vantage point.

Currently, what we can observe and what we know means that may point to a likelihood of a spherical universe but that assumes we know all there is about the fundamentals of physics to rule anything else out. The truth is we just don't. There is a lot of fundamental stuff we still don't know, any of which could completely change the picture. Throughout history, many people have made assumptions about how the world worked only to be proven wrong as knowledge expanded. Assumptions are ok but should be made with the following in mind:
1) They need to be recognized as assumptions and not facts
2) Recognize it could be wrong though you might think it isn't

Scientific law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law describes what happens.
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.

Scientific law - Wikipedia.

You seem to be making an assumption that a universe exists, outside what has been observed; and that it would behave differently than what has been observed. We know that the universe that has been observed is spherical; and it conforms to scientific law.

 

[Sorn]

Scientific law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law describes what happens.
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.

Scientific law - Wikipedia.

You seem to be making an assumption that a universe exists, outside what has been observed; and that it would behave differently than what has been observed. We know that the universe that has been observed is spherical; and it conforms to scientific law.

"You seem to be making an assumption that a universe exists, outside what has been observed; and that it would behave differently than what has been observed."
Well from a secular perspective, I am not making the assumption that what we have observed is all there is.
Consequently i am allowing for the possibility that there may exist parts of the universe we have not observed yet, perhaps a lot as well as the possibility of a metaverse in which our universe exists.
In other words, as far as I know, science has not proven that there isn't more to the universe than what we observe or that there isn't a metaverse / multiverse. Certainly some of the theoretical work points to such a possibility, while not in and of itself being evidence of course.

From a Christian perspective, I definitely believe that this universe is not all that there is.

 

[HARK!]

Well from a secular perspective, I am not making the assumption that what we have observed is all there is.
Consequently i am allowing for the possibility that there may exist parts of the universe we have not observed yet, perhaps a lot as well as the possibility of a metaverse in which our universe exists.
In other words, as far as I know, science has not proven that there isn't more to the universe than what we observe or that there isn't a metaverse / multiverse. Certainly some of the theoretical work points to such a possibility, while not in and of itself being evidence of course.

Could that be where rainbow unicorns frolic?

The multiverse theory is a great attempt to explain away creation. The empirical evidence points to creation.

 

[Sorn]

Could that be where rainbow unicorns frolic?

The multiverse theory is a great attempt to explain away creation. The empirical evidence points to creation.

"Could that be where rainbow unicorns frolic?"
It could be where all sorts of things we haven't even imagined happen and exist, doesn't mean they are there but doesn't mean they're not either.
You obviously are pretty closed minded, just like flat earthers were in Galileo's time.

"The empirical evidence points to creation."
No it doesn't. It doesn't necessarily point to evolution either. For it to be evidence, it would have to be reproducible. We can't reproduce the past. Consequently the data that is available is interpreted according to a person's belief system, biases etc. More often than not there is enough wiggle room for everyone to see what they want and paint themselves an argument that clinches it. In the end its a faith position.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Consequently i am allowing for the possibility that there may exist parts of the universe we have not observed yet, perhaps a lot as well as the possibility of a metaverse in which our universe exists.
In other words, as far as I know, science has not proven that there isn't more to the universe than what we observe or that there isn't a metaverse / multiverse. Certainly some of the theoretical work points to such a possibility, while not in and of itself being evidence of course.

You'll may be interested to know that observations tell us that, if the universe is closed, its radius of curvature is at least:

"... 150 times as large as the part that’s observable to us! Meaning that — even without speculative physics like cosmic inflation and multiverses — we know that the entire Universe extends for at least 14 trillion light years in diameter, including the part that’s unobservable to us today."
How Big is the Entire Universe?​

But our observations are also consistent with it being infinitely large - which is, counter-intuitively, consistent with General Relativity, which even allows an infinite universe to arise from a finite volume in a finite time (this surprised me too!).

Given its likely minimum size, there is a variety of potential topologies it could have, a 3-sphere being just one.

 

[Sorn]

You'll may be interested to know that observations tell us that, if the universe is closed, its radius of curvature is at least:

"... 150 times as large as the part that’s observable to us! Meaning that — even without speculative physics like cosmic inflation and multiverses — we know that the entire Universe extends for at least 14 trillion light years in diameter, including the part that’s unobservable to us today."
How Big is the Entire Universe?​

But our observations are also consistent with it being infinitely large - which is, counter-intuitively, consistent with General Relativity, which even allows an infinite universe to arise from a finite volume in a finite time (this surprised me too!).

Given its likely minimum size, there is a variety of potential topologies it could have, a 3-sphere being just one.

Yes, i had watched this video just a day or so ago that said very similar.

So from a secular point of view it is at least heaps bigger than we can see.
Though from a Christian point of view its possible that God may impose some limit to its size outside of what we can see. After all according to revelation, this universe is just a temporary one until Gods plan for man has run its course, then He recreates it, which i take to mean, He then creates the REAL universe we inhabit for eternity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Though from a Christian point of view its possible that God may impose some limit to its size outside of what we can see. After all according to revelation, this universe is just a temporary one until Gods plan for man has run its course, then He recreates it, which i take to mean, He then creates the REAL universe we inhabit for eternity.

One of many cultural & religious myths or stories about what will happen at the 'end of time'.

 

[JohnEmmett]

One of many cultural & religious myths or stories about what will happen at the 'end of time'.

The end of the Kali Yuga in 2025

The Yuga Cycle doctrine tells us that we are now living in the Kali Yuga; the age of darkness, when moral virtue and mental capabilities reach their lowest point in the cycle.

 

[Sorn]

One of many cultural & religious myths or stories about what will happen at the 'end of time'.

Not the 'end of time', time won't end, but the end of mortality, sin, death & separation from God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not the 'end of time', time won't end, but the end of mortality, sin, death & separation from God.

OK; one of many cultural & religious myths or stories about what will happen at some indeterminate future time.

 

[Ophiolite]

What would suppress the EMR from radiating in three dimensions as it does throughout the rest of the known three dimensional universe?

That's above our pay grade.

I would assert that we are not at the center of it. I would assert that we are moving away from the center of it.

Why, if you have studied the matter in depth, as you claim, do you reject the consensus that there is no centre?

I assume that the laws concerning EMR are universal.

Why make that assumption? What is your justification?