LegendBegins said
That's absolutely the dumbest thing I've ever heard. First of all, I'm quite hesitant to believe anything I can't observe. Second, we have no idea how the universe works, nor have a way to find out.

Mammalia said
Relativity. I forgot how exactly they figured that out. I'll read up on it.

Mammalia said
So first of all, we know the universe has no edge because the universe is everything. Ever. Go out more, still universe. Go out even more, still universe. Astronomers think (we can't prove it absolutely because of the reason about to be stated) that if we look far enough, we'll see back to where we started. The reason we can't prove it absolutely is because we think in three-dimensional volume. According to Euclidean 3 dimensional geometry, that can't happen. The universe is not three dimensional.Okay, so I read some more and found out that if the universe is finite and has no edge (we know the latter is true, but the former is iffy), the universe could actually be smaller than the observable universe because the light is actually circumnavigating the universe and making duplicate images. Unfortunately I can't find exactly how light circumnavigates it. Yet.

Etcetera said
This is so [handicapped slur expunged] that I can't even begin to express it. You know why all these theories still exist, including those of quantum theory and Schrödinger's Cat, as well as these relativity theories!? Because we can't bloody disprove them, so they are therefore plausible. You may think I'm joking, but I'm legitimately angry that this passes off as actual No, it's the ramblings of people who have nothing better to do. This information doesn't even bloody benefit us! It's worthless and a waste of human resources, intelligence, and energy.

Mammalia said
One of the main reasons that scientists do science is . And what I said is what would most certainly be true the factors behind it were true. There is the that the actual universe is smaller than the observable universe, certain factors are the way they're supposed to be. We can't prove those factors, so we make a theory for each possible major arrangement of factors. The universe is either flat, hyperbolic, or spherical, although we can't completely properly visualise that because it's four-dimensional. If the universe is spherical and has no edge, light can probably circumnavigate it. If light can circumnavigate it, there's the that the known universe is smaller than the observable universe. There's also the possibility that it's bigger. Either way is a , and so we explain how each of those could work out.I never said any of the things I said were absolutely true. If I did then I was being dumb.

Etcetera said
I literally just threw my phone into the ground (scaring my brother), becauseA) You can't claim that something be a certain way.B) There's not a single reason to believe that the universe is four dimensional, and you can't proclaim it as truth until you give some sort of evidence. I can draw a zero, one, two, or even the illusion of a three dimensional shape on a two dimensional surface.C) I'm not against discovery, but I'm against ignorant declaration of truth, or attempts to find the answers to questions while offering answers that can't be verified! We need the technology first, and to do that we must expand in other areas.D) I've read my brother this whole conversation and he says that the theories are unscientific.

Multifarious said

Mammalia said
A. We use the proven theories we have to figure it out. It's most likely that way in each scenario, although we don't know everything about the resources we have so we can never be exact.B. Time is generally accepted as that fourth dimension.C. None of the things I said were declarations of truth. They were possible answers in the case of different factors.D. It doesn't look scientific since I don't have the full explanation. On a related note, I found out that I'm terrible at searching the right terms when having to do with science. "Light circumnavigates the universe" in Google doesn't turn up anything useful.

Etcetera said
A) Proven theories have no place here, since they're not used in every aspect. Scientists fill in the holes.B) Time is in no way a spacial dimension. If you accepted that it was, you, in a way, accept that we have no free will and our destinies are predetermined. C) You said the universe was four dimensional. That's a declaration of truth.D) It's not scientific since it's not observable, testable, and repeatable.E) Nope.

Mammalia said
A. Thus, possibility, not absolution.B. Minkowski Space is what "four-dimensional space" is, and it is the interwoven combination of space and time. I never said that time was a spatial dimension. Just that it was dimension. It's the fourth dimension, and when woven with space we get Minkowski Space, "four-dimensional space".C. Time is the fourth dimension, and since we observe three-dimensional space and also the movement of time, we generally accept that the universe is four-dimensional (and thus sprouts relativity, as stated in B).D. They are possible explanations based on our perceived (observed) mathematics in relation to sciences and the universe as a whole. They're "testable" by mathematics, and those tests are repeatable. Of course these tests are not physical tests, and these theses are still only theses, and will remain theses since we can never prove them absolutely because we are not infallible and therefore don't know the maths perfectly.

Multifarious said

Etcetera said
Hi Jacob.

Multifarious said
Hi. I am, once again, posting sparsely because I'm pretty busy. Although I've completely finished both books, I still have another lesson of chemistry homework to do, on top of yard work and chores. And school starts Thursday. And practice officially starts tomorrow.

Etcetera said
A) A worthless one; it's also possible that I'm blue.B) That would make us fourth dimensional as well. Either way, the point is irrelevant since time has nothing to do with the spacial area of the universe.C) Refer to BD) They aren't tests! Those are equations that we repeat since we don't change our information. What we observe isn't relevant to what actually exists! We can observe nothing in relation to out spacial universe, and have no scientific was of proclaiming anything about it as true or likely. It's just there, and we can only guess. It's not real science, and we can't call it that.

Mammalia said
A. I never specified a theory. Just that there was no absolution.B. If relativity were true, then time would be interwoven with it. And we move in time, thus we move in the fourth dimension, and thus we are four-dimensional.D. We can only observe. We may be viewing the universe completely wrong (although that's probably unlikely). So in reality, all our science is the science of the observable universe, as in literally the universe and its mechanisms that we observe from our point of view and mind.

Etcetera said
WAIT WHAT? I have four weeks!!! And I haven't started my summer work (that I'm totally against) =P

Etcetera said
You skipped C. But according to definition, this isn't scientific.

Multifarious said
Yeah, the school board totally ripped us off. They said that we would have school later than normal this year, and they were going to push the date summer break ends back equally far, but they actually moved it closer by two weeks, and therefore shortening our summer break.

Mammalia said
Because it was refer to B...?And yes, it may be unscientific according to definition, but it's still an attempt to do science based on what we see, and make sense of it all, even though we will never know for sure.