oops, sorry I thought this was the "crock of poo" thread.

What lies beyond the universe is kind of irrelevant, since, as far as we know, nothing can travel faster than light and thus, in theory, we will never be able to see beyond some quasars. Unless we find a way to break the speed of light rule, in which case a lot of other laws would be broken, we just will never know and theoretical physics will hit a brick wall. And besides, anything we could find beyond the universe would be more than 15 billion years old by the time it reached our eyes. It bothers me that the sunlight I get is already 8 minutes old by the time it hits me. Event horizons and light cones really piss me off.

we'll have trouble (matter creatures) breaking the speed of light..as we try to approach it our mass would have to reach infinity. but space can perhaps be 'warped' to speeds greatly in excess of the speed of light. meanwhile, we're still trying how to get around a track in a minute..quarter mile in a few seconds and 0-60 in a second..lol. i wrote a science fiction novel of of 140,000 words, which delves into this topic (hooked around the existence of near-parallel universes). i spent three years researching the technical portions and weaving my storylines. here's the preface..still looking for a publisher or an agent when i have time to send out queries:

Preface

This is an excursion through arguably the most absorbing and hotly debated topic in the sciences of fundamental physics and cosmology, beginning with the question of ‘why is there something, rather than nothing’? In the context of a story, which follows the lives of its characters, the reader will experience a fictional, yet fairly comprehensive examination of the boldest prediction in science today – the existence of parallel universes.
Why have so many of the greatest minds of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries felt so compelled to reach the conclusion that we are in fact ‘not alone’? In an even more bizarre twist…‘we are the other people out there…’
The curiosity that this story generates brings us all to bear on the question of just what is the ‘nature of reality’ and how every single one of us must ultimately reconcile the even greater mystery between ‘faith and reason’. Do we simply exist by chance, as some would argue, or are we in fact the fortunate recipients of a loving, benevolent God with the omnipotent capacity to form infinitely satisfying and personal relationships with his creation? Whichever the case may be, one thing is certain…mankind thirsts for this answer.
Recorded history has traced our path on this journey for truth. Millenniums past, we stared towards the heavens and considered our position in the vast cosmos. For thousands of years, we believed that the Earth was the center of ‘all that is’ – the universe. Only in recent centuries has man evolved the tools to discover that this belief was, in fact, false. Other worlds were soon seen through the lens of Galileo’s mighty telescope, as it was quickly determined that perhaps it was in actuality the ‘Sun’ that should be the center of all things…at least until we saw deeper…
As humanity continued to probe the ‘world of the very large’, even more of these suns were discovered. This forced the unsettling conclusion that most all of the tiny ‘points of light’ in the night sky that we call ‘stars’…were simply other suns. It was uncovered that we live in a galaxy populated with literally billions of suns, which we call stars. Imagine the shock and disorientation when we discovered that not only was the sun, which we orbit not only as common as the ordinary sand grain, but in addition lacks any special prominence whatsoever in our own ‘spiral home’ that we call the Milky Way.
Our little solar system is nothing but a miniscule speck far out on a single spoke of a giant wheel. In the interim, as new tools and technology continued to grow, so did the apparent size and age of the visible universe. Its age today has been closely approximated to 13.8 billion years. Its size…? Well, we can see literally billions of galaxies, filled with billions of common little stars such as our own…
As our minds continued to whirl from these revelations, other men asked a completely different question. Now that we’d begun to conceptualize just ‘how big’ the universe is and how truly ‘insignificant’ we are…we began to wonder. In reality, just how ‘small’ can small be? When we begin to consider the limit of the macro scales of the world, by fascinating necessity we must ultimately consider the same limits at the micro scales of existence.
Arguably, the two greatest innovations in physics of our generation are the inventions of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. No two other theories explain so much of the nature of reality as we experience it. Combined, this pair of explanations describes the universe across a staggering 40 orders of magnitude. Interestingly, as things become infinitely small or infinitely large a new theoretical description is required. Unfortunately, these two theories don’t play well together…
Current revolutions in resolving this dilemma have suggested new approaches to solving this fundamental ‘behavior problem’ by changing the way in which we’ve traditionally viewed reality, in particular on the smallest scales. The language involved has required a continual evolution in the science of mathematics - traditionally the words, formulas and equations that most elegantly define the fundamental properties of the universe. Simpler notions of time and space are no longer adequate to the task as we begin to probe the fantastic worlds of ‘extra-dimensional geometry’ and ‘imaginary time’.
In an effort to combine the ideas contained within General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, new theories have emerged and been given names such as Supersymmetry, Super Gravity, String Theory, Superstring Theory, M-Theory and others. From these novel ways of explaining the nature of reality, one very startling implication borrowed from the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics continues to arise - parallel universes should exist…
For over two millennia, fundamental physics has been based on the ‘round ball’ concept - technically the geometric point particle. This idea and electromagnetism put Man on the moon, created computers and all of the other conveniences of modern technologies. But these same balls bounced us straight into a conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Heisenberg’s bizarre quantum uncertainty introduced a dumbfounding ‘fuzziness’ into physics. Contemporary theories, built currently through the often unpopular strategy of purely mathematical reasoning, seek to replace ‘point’ particles with ‘string’ particles in which every unique, different particle in nature corresponds to nothing more than simply different vibration frequencies.
By definition, the use of point particles as the basic building-block of matter, compresses everything down to an infinitely-small size, infinitely-hot temperature, which becomes an obstacle. The use of a string softens out the mathematically problematic ‘infinities’ into something finite…the resultant size and temperature is still unfathomably small and inconceivably hot, but not infinite.
Vibrating strings cause the whole of spacetime itself to become fuzzy. The combination of puzzling ‘relativistic and quantum effects’, which occur at both the macro and microscopic limits of reality, causes the strengths of the four fundamental forces of nature to suddenly vary. It does appear, however, that they should unify at some extremely high energy.
There are two ways to probe high energies. One of them is the original, primordial experiment - the birth of the universe – while the other is to increase the energies of particle accelerators. The Large Hadron Collider accelerator, which is scheduled to be completed in about five years, could provide hungrily-awaited experimental evidence…but will it be powerful enough? Where does the next frontier lie…?
In particular, in All That Is Seen And Unseen, two persons encounter a phenomenon, which causes a ‘transition effect’ to occur that transports them from their own familiar place and time to another ‘near parallel’ if somewhat anachronistic world. Faced with this frightening and ghostly ‘similar yet different’ reality, they begin to face the issues that a confrontation with such mystery would be expected to engender. Faced with no other alternative but to go forward with their lives, no choice remains but to attempt to cope…while they begin to ask questions and look for answers.
This manuscript assumes a reader’s above average interest or background in some of the most difficult to grasp and challenging aspects of the natural sciences. A large proportion of the writing has included integration of the broad history and foundations of modern physics. Every effort was made to remove specific references to mathematical formulae, with the exception of Newton’s historic gravitational inverse square law and Einstein’s famous equation, which states the equivalency of matter and energy as perhaps the sole exceptions.
The story, thus, is grounded in real science - not science fiction. However, to date there is no verifiable evidence available that can bear out real scenarios that could produce actual ‘communication’ with parallel universes; certainly no amount of thoughtful research on my part over the past three years was able to yield an exhaustive or satisfactory explanation for the passage of just such an event. So, ultimately, the following 140,000 words do indeed represent a work of fiction. I hope it makes you wonder…and I hope you enjoy the journey.
Ryan Vestal

For those interested in the topic, the work and research is about 2-3 years old at present, but here's my list of acknowledgments for the manuscript..some good reading:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the following scientists, writers and organizations who without their amazing work and contributions I could never have attempted this work.

• National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
• University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
• www.adam.com
• Analog: Science Fiction and Fact Magazine
• Jill Rosenfeld, senior writer, Fast Company
• Naval Historical Center, Operational Archives Branch
• Falling Rain Genomics, Inc.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)
• Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
• www.howstuffworks.com
• Department of the Navy, Naval Historical Center
• Brian Braiker, Newsweek
• Geoffrey Carr, Science Editor, The Economist
• Jack Sarfatti, The Quantum Effects Devices Project
• Michael Clive Price, The Many Worlds Interpretation FAQ
• Gerald Parshall, U.S. News & World Report
• Greg Easterbrook, U.S. News & World Report
• Charles Petit, U.S. News & World Report
• Tim Appenzeller, U.S. News & World Report
• Thomas K. Grose, U.S. News & World Report
• William J. Cook, U.S. News & World Report
• Walter Isaacson, Discover
• Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist, City University of New York, Parallel Worlds
• Lee Smolin, theoretical physicist, Discover
• Karen Wright, contributing editor, Discover
• Robert Kunzig, contributing editor, Discover
• Michael Turner, cosmologist, University of Chicago
• Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor, Princeton University
• David Shiga, Sky & Telescope
• Ivan Semeniuk, Sky & Telescope
• Albert Einstein, Relativity
• Nigel Calder, Einstein’s Universe
• Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
• Patricia Schwarz, www.superstringtheory.com
• Marcus Chown, New Scientist
• Martin J. Rees, Professor Of Cosmology and Astrophysics, University of Cambridge
• Max Tegmark, Scientific American
• Jim Holt, Slate, The New Yorker, New York Times
• Brian Greene, Professor of Physics, Columbia University, The Elegant Universe
• James E. Kiefer, Christian church history
• Amanda Peet, String Theorist, University of Toronto
• Sheldon Glashow, Professor of Physics, Boston University
• Edward Witten, Mathematical Physicist, Institute for Advanced Study
• Steven Weinberg, Departments of Physics & Astronomy, University of Texas
• Joseph Lykken, Theoretical Physicist, University of Chicago
• Sylvester James Gates, Jr., Professor of Physics, University of Maryland
• Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time, The God Who is There
• Lawrence M. Krauss, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University, The Physics of Star Trek

"I understand the Big Bang to be the most (don't get hung up on "most" if it bothers you) prevalent theory for the origin of the universe, then"

Read Genesis again, there is no "prevalent theory". God created the universe. Doubt me, and you go direct to Hell.

"1) where did the "chunk" of matter come from that expanded after the bang?"

God made it. Read your bible and get some religeon.

"2) what set off the "bang" which is attributed to the subsequent expansion?"

It 'aint "what" but "who". The Father, Son and Holy Gost is the correct answer.

Care to prove God wrong? ;)

God was messing around one day, and accidentally brought two of the other dimensions together, which produced a big bang, and voila, the deed was done. His mother then called him inside and sat him in the corner for a while.

God only created physics and couldn't figure out how to change anything after that. The rest took care of itself.

You are so in trouble.

Bring it on - they actually believe this crap here.

Need I remind you, dear StuarJ - we are in America. And we will kick your arse if you don't toe the line.

which crap do you refer to?http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...amingdevil.gif

It goes without saying.

Whoops - too late.

And that makes more sense than faith based theories? LOL




(just kidding....sheesh)

steve..are you calling me out?? ;) anyway, this is how i explained what happened to god. :D (i know..'im in trouble'. but hey, i'm catholic..there are loopholes as well as black holes.) :D

Ah, a true believer, using fear to coerce. How about using something other than “doubt me, and you go direct to hell” to convince me in your belief system?

I thought the non existence of God had already been discussed and proven on the other God threads to all but a couple head in the sand types:D

All I get out of Genesis is that "in the beginning God's spirit moved over the waters".

So I get that he's a totally b1tchin' wakeboarder or possibly waterskiier.