Visualising a Boundless universer, no edges, no centre

Post Reply New Topic

It is often said by scientists that the Universe is boundless, no edge, corner, no side or no centre. Imagine the universe as a computer game where if you go to the fear side if the screen you end up at the other side but all in 3D. Who know the old Amiga game Elite might be a boundless game.

The problem is I have big problems visualising the concept of a boundless universe. I am thinking what would it be like if the universe was the size of a small box bedroom with two planets the size beach balls in them as the only object. What would one see in this tiny universe?

As I said this tiny universe would be boundless, it would be possible to travel around this universe very quickly as it is the size of a small bedroom proportion to yourself.

Try thinking in non-euclidean terms

I got one of them things between my ears.

I agree that the universe is boundless. An interesting way to look at it is in the form of fractals. Bubbles, vortices, tauroids, and vesicles are also intriguing structures. A folding universe is another idea. I personally favor quantum mind theory. It stipulates that the probability of being able to self navigate through existence is "almost certain". The notion of infinite probability comes to mind.

The universe might have a certain shape, but mathematicians haven't found it yet.

If the universe is infinite, it would seem to be shapeless in the sense of singularity. I would say that it is composed of many shapes.

Wouldn't It be great of one of you geeks could make computer game that emulates navigating a tiny universe with big planets in them. So at least we would have an idea of what the universe looks like inside if it still remains impossible to define what it looks like from the outside.

I think that the best equivalent would be to imagine the universe as being "spherical" in shape. If you travel in one direction for long enough, you will come back to the beginning, yet you will have neither gone in a Euclidian circle nor gone over to another "frame." Let's put it this way: travelling in a straight line in Euclidian space doesn't necessarily mean that you're travelling in a straight line in non-Euclidian space, and you will always come around in one sort of circle or another to right where you started.

Try this little thought experiment:

Get a relatively featureless ball, such as one of those cloud-covered looking things you find at the Walmart. While you're there, get a marker that contrasts with the color of the ball. When you get home, first draw a small circle on one side. Then draw a larger circle around it. Repeat this as many times as you like until you have gotten to the point that your circle traces a "straight" line around the circumference of the ball. Now, when you go in a "straight" line in Euclidian terms, you are only doing so in the same sense that the circle drawn around the circumference of that ball is "straight."

Now, I'm not entirely sure that's completely accurate, but it seems about right. If nothing else, it's at least enough to break you away from expecting the universe to exist only in Euclidian space. Once you've mentally stepped beyond this boundary, thinking about these matters will be a lot easier for you.

Even then, however, you have to take into account that the universe isn't necessarily regular in shape. Just try to think of all the headaches this would create for a space traveller, hmm? Fortunately, it may be that such irregularities would be marked by such indicative phenomena as black holes, wormholes, etc. Even something as simple as a planet creates such an irregularity.

I think I have found what I am looking for.
http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/dec ... t.en.shtml

Tiny universe would look like if it had one big planet in it. Found it you suckers!! !!
As you can see you see a planet inside a hexagon fingy if you was to travel from one hexagon to another then think you are going another universe but you won't be motherfvcker you would be going back on yourself.

s**t!! ! downed on me that this diagram is too simplistic this cannot be what a mini universe would look like.
.

As I posited on another thread, the universe has a three-dimensional curvature that is continually expanding. A straight line sent out in any direction from any point would ultimately return to the backside of the same point.

Assume you had a non-expanding universe with two planets in it and you were on one of the planets and there were some source of lighting. Looking at the other planet, you would see the planet PLUS a distorted view of that planet appearing behind it like in a partial eclipse where the penumbra doesn't land. In the opposite direction, you would have a bloated view of the backside of the same planet. Everywhere else, you would see the backside of the planet you are on -- inverted. At the horizon of your view there would be a very thin band of your hair color....

I am inclined to believe that a line sent out in any direction can never return to the same point. This could be considered an idiom of temporal mechanics. If one were to return to the same point, one would have never left in the first place.

Are you good at drawing

Would you explain that further, Vesica? I think that you are taking into account the passage of time. Yes?

Yeah, what does temporal mechanics have to do with it? I mean, the problem we were given assumed the curvature was fairly tight and the two planets were close together and not moving.

I mean, if commuting from home to the office and back is the same as never leaving home, why bother wasting time and gas? Why bother getting out of my pajamas?

It is my current understanding that time and space are inseparable. I am also accounting for displacement on a micro scale and considering relativity as well. Commuting from home to the office and then back again would result in being displaced temporaly as well as spatialy relocated on a solar, galactic, or universal metric. Do you see what I mean now when I say, "If one could return to the same instance one would have never left in the first place"?

Okay, I see what the problem is. Two possibilities:
1. If I fired a condensed photon packet into the space of this fictional universe in any direction, it would take time to traverse the distance back to itself. It would have left and returned.
2. drawing a purely hypothetical straight line out from its origin, to its origin could be done in an instant because it is entirely hypothetical. Thus it never left or arrived in the common sense; it just suddenly WAS, in a hypothetical sense.