@Deep Sight,

Bro, forgive me for taking off like that yersterday. I was online viewing the vid posted by mazaje in another thread, and had to run off to work to cover for someone who called in ill.

Now to your concerns in posts #23 and #24, and thank you for the diagrams. Let me first run through them, and then see if I could later provide some more gist to clear the air.

Deep Sight:

Now take a look at the rough image i have created below.

Where -

T = Spacetime

Y, X, A, B = Galaxies

Z = Outside spacetime.

Can you kindly take sometime and tinker with (edit) this image to show how it might appear when T is "folded" to create a shortcut between X and Y, through a wormhole, perhaps.

When you do, this, please be so kind as to indicate if A and B may have moved within spacetime, and their new locations.

---

www.nairaland.com/attachments/206052_Example_2_jpg0cc02c0c308dc8d16faaa37c4546a3bb

Deep Sight:
Bear in mind also that you said -

The small movement does not affect the Universe, and that is why the Universe is not remodelled. A small part of the universe is experiencing these phenomena, but that does not necessarily affect the Universe as a whole.

And assuming x and y to be at opposite far reaches of the universe, please consider if it can be rightly said that the "folding" of spacetime required to acheive a shortcut between the two will be a "small movement" only, and will not remodel the universe. Can it be said that a "small part" only of the universe will be experiencing the said phenomena?

A few adjustments indeed are necessary there, especially in your diagram. First, we should not conflate spacetime and wormholes as to suppose them to be the same thing (I know you're not doing so, but the distinction is a helpful one to bear in mind). In the examples we considered earlier, remember that wormholes are within the Universe. Let me concisely note that 'Z' is still within the Universe; and 'T'  as space-time is also within the Universe. However, X, Y, A, B (which you referred to as galaxies) may be either within or outside the region of the 'fold' in the spacetime. Rather, the wormholes are formed inside the galaxies, because it is commonly believed that wormholes in many instances are at the cinter of galaxies. Thus, when the wormhole phenomena occurs, it does not affect the entire Universe as to 'remodel' it; nor does the wormhole affect various galaxies in such a manner.

Perhaps in my next posts I shall try and outline them and also see if I could do a touch up on the diagram you provided. Thank you for your patience.

Viaro - There are problems with your post. Serious problems.

Now we are wading into the most spectacular of your many contradictions and flip-flops.

I had noticed it in your earlier post, but it was so shockingly and self-evidently contradictory that i presumed it must have been an error, or slip of the tongue pen.

Now check this out:

viaro:

Let me concisely note that 'Z' is still within the Universe; and 'T'  as space-time is also within the Universe.

You have stated that the regions outside of the spacetime fabric (Z) are still within the universe - thus stating that there are parts of the universe which are not within spacetime. This is underlined by your assertion that spacetime is within the universe.

You thus regard the universe as being more expansive than spacetime. You imagine that there are parts of the universe which are outside spacetime.

This is ridiculous, preposterous and calls for an immediate definition of the word "universe." Is it possible for our universe to exist outside spacetime? I would have thought the right thing would be to state that it exists and is expanding within spacetiime.

Viaro, your statement that there are parts of the universe outside spacetime calls for an inquest. You had earlier hinted at it here -

The region marked 'Z' is still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe

Now i am firmly convinced that this discussion cannot proceed without a definition of the word - Universe.

Let me provide wikipedia's definition -

The Universe comprises everything we perceive to physically exist, the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

And accordingly, your assertion that Z, a region stated to be outside spacetime, is also part of the universe, is just off the cliff.

justcool:

Honestly the first time I read about the idea of folding space I had the same questions that Deepsight have. I struggled with the picture before I arrived at a conclusion that satisfied me only a little.

That picture presents many problems:
1) The Universe does not lie on a flat time-carpet like the picture showed.
2) Even of it does, you cannot fold this carpet without disrupting many bodies in the universe. Such folding will cause a catastrophic chain of event that can possibly destroy all the bodies(Planetry bodies) in the universe.
3) If the universe lies on a flat carpet, like the pictures depicts, then folding a part of it will raise the folded part to a height or depth where the universe may not be able to function. Think about it, if the universe operates on a flat carpet, then that height or range is the height most comfortable for the formation and functioning of the universe. Raising any part of the universe into foreign heights may result in catastrophe. I will give an example, imagine a yeast that is growing like a carpet on the surface of a body of water. The surface of this water provides the best environment for the yeast to grow and function. If you fold the yeast, thereby raising a part of the yeast above the surface of the water, the yeast usually dies.
4) In that picture, the carpet depicts space-time, notice that it has arrows pointing to a direction. This is understandable because the carpet moves, representing the passage of time. Now notice that the folded part is moving in the opposite direction to the unfolded part. How can this be!! So the wormhole has to have one mount in the normal forwarding moving time(Carpet), and the other mouth in a backward moving carpet, ie a place in the universe where time moves backwards.

I personally think that that picture is just a form of giving shape to an idea, thus a figurative picture that does not necessarily comform to reality. Its like when you paint a picture of a straight street. Parallel lines(two side of the street) are drawn in such a way that at infinity they meet. This helps to fool the brain into seeing perspective or dept on a flat surface of the picture. But when you take this picture literally, then you might be expecting that there is a place in reality called infinity where parallel lines meet. This does not comform to reality because in reality parallel lines can never meet.
So that's the way to see the pictures of space-time: It is only a rendering or a depiction of an idea on a picture. Imagine the idea of time as a forth dimension is very difficult to depict on a two dimensional picture.
The idea of using a carpet with arrows to represent the passage of time is very understandable; but the idea of folding this carpet to appear as if one layer is ontop of the other is very missleading because actually, no layer is on-top or above the other. At first I thought that the folding into a circle represents the idea that time passes eternally. It is folded to us because we observe it on a two dimensional picture. Imagine a planet that revolves around a star, when depicted in a picture the circle of revolution becomes small. To the observer of the picture it appears the planet goes on two lines, one on-top of the other, and in opposite direction. But the truth is that to a small creature who cannot observe the circulation of the planet from afar; to such a creature, the planet only moves forward and never in a opposite direction or in a circle. Imagine if no stars or planets can be seen from the earth, then there is no way men on earth could know that the earth is in circulation. The best conclution that men can arrive at it that the earth move perpetually in a staight line. All I am saying is that you need an object outside a particular movement as a refrence in other to be able to tell correctly the nature of the particluar movement. That's the problem with dipicting the universe, we cannot see a universe outside our universe to use as a refrence to the movement of our universe.

I will give an example: Imagine a tire spinning on its axis. If you put a red mark on the circumfrence of the tire. You will observe that as the tire turns, the red mark starts from east to north to west to south then back to east. Representing this in a two dimensional picture, the movement from east to north to west will appear in opposite direction to the movement from west to south to east. It appears on a picture, as if one movement in on-top of the other and in opposite direction.
Now imagine an ant on this tire, to the ant, the tire just goes perpetually forward. If there is a worm whole with a mouth on the north side of the tire, and the other mouth on the south side, then this ant can be transported from north to south via this wormwhole in a split second faster than the rotation of the tire. Then such an ant has travelled in time. Because in a while at the south(Today) it has journyed to the north(Tomorrow).


I thought this is what the picture is trying to potray. This is the only way I can make the spacefolding issue reasonable to me. I have a lot of problems with space folding. I dont think humans can fold space and I dont think space can be folded without catastrophy.


@ Deepsight,
I don't know if what I wrote above throws any light. What do you think? I don't even know if I was able to express what I have in mind. This issue is very difficult to express by writing. I don't know how to upload personally drawn pictures to this forum,(like you do) other wise I would have tried to express by drawing.

Anyway what I wrote is my humble opinion, I could be very wrong.

I have my personally invented idea of how one can, scientifically travel through time(I don't mean spiritually or non-physically), and atleast percieve the events that happened millions of years ago. I think my idea is better that the one in question. If you guys want to hear my idea, I will share it so that you guys can analyze and tell me what you think of the idea.

Brilliant, justcool, just brilliant.

I have tried to express some of this to viaro: that the folding of spacetime must perforce have catastrophic or apocalyptic effects, but he seems not to have seen this. At all events, as you stated, i doubt that spacetime is something that can be folded in the manner envisaged.

Quite frankly, all the talk about folding spacetime in my view amounts only to child-like fantasies and delusions. Most surprising to have such emanating from supposed scientists.

My understanding of this whole space-time thing etc is obviously amateur, picked up here and there from watching Stargate and all that kind of junk, but somehow the only way to get my head around warping/bending space, time travel etc is to visualise space-time as clusters of ‘parallel’ continuums which together form the multiverse. The ‘parallel’ here is not 2,3 or even 4-dimensional.

In other words, there are higher dimensional ‘clouds’ if you like, that encompass each cluster of space-time continuum. So we actually limit ourselves when we talk only in terms of space-time, as each cluster has a lot more than 4 dimensions. I believe theoretical physicists are currently discussing the possibility of up to 11 dimensions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

With this understanding movement across space without the boundaries of time(in other words time travel, moving outside of the speed of light and so on) would involve leaping into higher dimensions. This would be the ‘hyperdrive’ talked about in science fiction.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdrive

Conceptualising space warping and time travel in only 4 dimensions makes it extremely difficult (nay impossible) to understand. When you think in terms of higher dimensions, a bit of illumination dawns!

The 'Z' in Deep Sights diagram would then be something outside of the 4-th dimension but certainly within a particular cluster-continuum of a universe.

beneli:

The 'Z' in Deep Sights diagram would then be something outside of the 4-th dimension but certainly within a particular cluster-continuum of a universe.

Thank you for that excellent note, beneli. You've done far better than I could have managed to capture the whole zing so concisely.

Deep Sight:

Viaro - There are problems with your post. Serious problems.

Now we are wading into the most spectacular of your many contradictions and flip-flops.

I had noticed it in your earlier post, but it was so shockingly and self-evidently contradictory that i presumed it must have been an error, or slip of the tongue pen.

Now check this out:

You have stated that the regions outside of the spacetime fabric (Z) are still within the universe - thus stating that there are parts of the universe which are not within spacetime. This is underlined by your assertion that spacetime is within the universe.

You thus regard the universe as being more expansive than spacetime. You imagine that there are parts of the universe which are outside spacetime.

This is ridiculous, preposterous and calls for an immediate definition of the word "universe." Is it possible for our universe to exist outside spacetime? I would have thought the right thing would be to state that it exists and is expanding within spacetiime.

Viaro, your statement that there are parts of the universe outside spacetime calls for an inquest. You had earlier hinted at it here -

Now i am firmly convinced that this discussion cannot proceed without a definition of the word - Universe.

Let me provide wikipedia's definition -

And accordingly, your assertion that Z, a region stated to be outside spacetime, is also part of the universe, is just off the cliff.

Deep Sight:

Brilliant, justcool, just brilliant.

I have tried to express some of this to viaro: that the folding of spacetime must perforce have catastrophic or apocalyptic effects, but he seems not to have seen this. At all events, as you stated, i doubt that spacetime is something that can be folded in the manner envisaged.

Quite frankly, all the talk about folding spacetime in my view amounts only to child-like fantasies and delusions. Most surprising to have such emanating from supposed scientists.

Deep Sight, my many apologies for my posts coming across to you as 'ridiculous, preposterous' and all that; yet you have completely missed the whole gist of spacetime, wormholes, the Universe, and their relationships. I'm tempted to answer your rejoinder point-by-point, but let me save that for later and instead take up a summary of the latest concerns in yours and deal accordingly.

Like I said above, rather than belabour the whole point and argue back and forth to no avail, I'll just take an essential remark in yours that highlights your problem and then ask simple enough questions:

Deep Sight:

I have tried to express some of this to viaro: that the folding of spacetime must perforce have catastrophic or apocalyptic effects, but he seems not to have seen this. At all events, as you stated, i doubt that spacetime is something that can be folded in the manner envisaged

The highlighted refers, please. Follow the sequence below in the exchange of views between us both.


Deep Sight, this was what you have argued:

[list]

Deep Sight:

This is no small movement. The Universe has essentially been remodelled. I cannot imagine such a massive structural realignment of cosmic bodies without significant cosmic effects.

[/list]

. . . to which I had replied:

[list]

viaro:

The small movement does not affect the Universe, and that is why the Universe is not remodelled. A small part of the universe is experiencing these phenomena, but that does not necessarily affect the Universe as a whole.

[/list]
[list]_{Please note: in stating "the Universe as a whole", it should be clear to you that I was well aware of definitions of the term 'Universe' as used in cosmology - yet I thank you for offering one from Wikipedia.}[/list]

Now, all this miscommunication between us (you and I) seem to stem from the argument as to whether or not the Universe has been 'remodelled' as a result of a 'movement' (small or massive) such as you had asked me to consider.  To sort out all this and save us the tedium, my questions therefore are these:

       (a)   If you are shown that there is such a massive phenomena (such as
       a blackhole, whitehole, or wormhole) somewhere in the Universe, would
       you still maintain that the Universe has been "remodelled"?

       (b)   If you maintain that the Universe has been remodelled, then I ask:
       'remodelled' from what into what?

       (c)    Following the above two questions, how many such occurences of
       blackholes, whiteholes and wormholes should be sufficient to actually
       effect that "remodelling" of the Universe such as in your thinking?



Just incase you might be wondering about those questions, let me go one step further to show you that there is such a 'massive' occurence within the Universe which has not resulted in the 'remodelling' of the Universe as a whole:


[list][list]Tremendous cosmic hole mysteriously empty of "matter" spotted

BEIJING, Aug. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- Much to scientists' surprise, a tremendous black hole was spotted in the universe, devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos.  It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday.

Other space voids have been found before, but what the Minnesota team discovered, using two different types of astronomical observations, is a void that's far bigger than scientists ever imagined. "This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void," said Minnesota astronomy professor Lawrence Rudnick, author of the paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal. "It's not clear that we have the right word yet ,  This is too much of a surprise."

The gargantuan hole was found by examining observations made using the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope, funded by the National Science Foundation. One area of the universe had radio pictures indicating there was up to 45 percent less matter in that region, Rudnick said. There is a "remarkable drop in the number of galaxies" in a region of sky in the constellation Eridanus, Rudnick said.

The region had been previously been dubbed the "WMAP Cold Spot," because it stood out in a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation made by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe (WMAP) satellite. The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.

Astronomers may eventually find a few cosmic structures in the void, but it would still be nearly empty, said Brent Tully, a University of Hawaii astronomer who wasn't part of this research but studies the void closer to Earth. Holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass pulls matter from less dense areas, Tully said.[/list]
 

[list]Read it here: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/24/content_6596010.htm[/list][/list]



Now, amico mio, perhaps you and justcool could answer these questions:

[list]
      ~ Has such a tremendous blackhole with an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles
      of emptiness "remodelled" the Universe as a whole?

      ~ If not, why not? Has your own theory failed? And so, what is responsible for
      the failure of your theory to convince anyone but yourselves?

      ~ More importantly, please note the explanation of how holes in the Universe
      are formed:
      "Holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass
       pulls matter from less dense areas".
       How does this differ from my explanation in the previous page that it is -
      "simply the behavour of gravity acting on spacetime"??

     ~ What do you understand from the above explanation about how holes (whether
      blackholes, wormholes, or whiteholes) are formed - do they form within the Universe or
      they are formed outside of the Universe? Would it be correct then to say what I already
      said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?
[/list]


Deep Sight, it is fair to read what people are saying and not what they are not saying. As you can see, you have taken the physics out of the equation and then ran riot of accusing me of your own confusion - that is the least appropriate thing to do. If you cannot grasp simple issues like this one, then which other point would you ever be able to grasp before you launch again into accusing other people of your own misconceptions?

Please take the time to carefully consider these matters before rushing to hasty conclusions seeking where to put words in my mouth. I'd be glad to attend upon any other queries you might have, even at the risk of being misunderstood for a while. Cheers.

I am not minded to respond in to-to to this post Viaro for one simple reason:

The analysis we have offered has absolutely nothing to do with blackholes, whiteholes or wormholes.

Given this, your entire surmise fails automatically.

Go back and assess thoroughly what we had talked about: to wit - "folding" spacetime.

I note, as customary with you, that you entirely refused to address the glaring contradiction i pointed out in your statement that Z is "part of the universe" and yet outside spacetime. What is the Universe? Is any part of it outside spacetime, as you suggested? That is what i referred to as ridiculous, and Viaro, it eminently is.

That is the issue. Deal with it.

Deep Sight:

I am not minded to respond in to-to to this post Viaro for one simple reason:

The analysis we have offered has absolutely nothing to do with blackholes, whiteholes or wormholes.

Given this, your entire surmise fails automatically.

Please just be man enough to say you are damn too ashamed of your silliness. You have become such a bore it's a wonder that I put up with you for this long! Who was the fellow who first mentioned WORMHOLES in this thread, Deep Sight? Since you did, and I endured you on that note, how has it suddenly become that what I have offered in my lastest response has "absolutely nothing" to do with WORMHOLES? You are such a cheek of a fellow!

Go back and assess thoroughly what we had talked about: to wit - "folding" spacetime.

I'm coming there - but I wanted to clear the air in your accusations in post #33 & #34, which I reproduced in post #37, to wit: the "catastrophic or apocalyptic effects" to "remodel" the Universe due to the phenomena of cosmic holes. This was essentially your problem, and I wanted to sort those out first and bring you on smooth road before taking up other issues. You cannot just bark around with charges like that and then turn round to scamper off when those charges are addressed. Now please be man enough to deal with those questions, or simply say you failed to follow through with your own problems - and only then would i proceed with other concerns.

I note, as customary with you, that you entirely refused to address the glaring contradiction i pointed out in your statement that Z is "part of the universe" and yet outside spacetime. What is the Universe? Is any part of it outside spacetime, as you suggested? That is what i referred to as ridiculous, and Viaro, it eminently is.

I did not ignore anything - and my replies was to show you in another perspective the very same thing that both you and justcool are just yapping about without the slightest clue what you're saying. The question, of course, afterwards was this:

~ What do you understand from the above explanation about how holes (whether
blackholes, wormholes, or whiteholes) are formed - do they form within the Universe
or they are formed outside of the Universe? Would it be correct then to say
what I already said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?

You are just to busy seeking where to perforate your holes for your files, and that is why it should not surprise me you skipped it conveniently.

That is the issue. Deal with it.

Done. Easy and sweet.

No son, this is just completely wrong. Soooooo wrong and off the mark i can't believe it. Your contradictions are just too many and too consistent, and when pointed out, you fill the gaps with thin air.

I'm busy in the office still, i will be back in a few minutes to show you up again, but just like on the Deist thread i fully expect that if i spell it out a zillion times, you will look poker faced at it and claim not to see it.

But just to give you the teaser for the third time: Are there parts of the universe that are outside spacetime? Yes, or No, be man enough.

There will be a limit to my engagement with you, because there isn't much substance to what you offer me.

I'll be back. And this time i will point it out only once.

Deep Sight:

No son, this is just completely wrong. Soooooo wrong and off the mark i can't believe it. Your contradictions are just too many and too consistent, and when pointed out, you fill the gaps with thin air.

Please do the sane thing and just point it out - do so as simply with your thinking cap on.

I'm busy in the office still, i will be back in a few minutes to show you up again, but just like on the Deist thread i fully expect that if i spell it out a zillion times, you will look poker faced at it and claim not to see it.

Don't make me laugh, DS. That thread showed you for what you are, and it's not only viaro who thought you were acting quite queer. Want to see? Just draw it up again and I shall quote comments from others who thought just about the same things of you.

But just to give you the teaser for the third time: Are there parts of the universe that are outside spacetime? Yes, or No, be man enough.

What did I say about the Universe and spacetime?
"The region marked 'Z' is still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe."

And what did you suggest?
"Z = Outside spacetime"

Just because it was least interesting for me to be showing you up in your numerous slips here and there does not mean I hadn't noticed them. Make of those statements whatever you want, when you are done with the office, I shall try and be here early enough to chat with you on these issues.

There will be a limit to my engagement with you, because there isn't much substance to what you offer me.

If you can't grasp simple issues, I can understand why you're making that statement above. Not my fault, though.

I'll be back. And this time i will point it out only once.

Okay sir. Much obliged.

I had an image of the spacetime fabric. I marked a region outside it and called it Z. I thus envisaged that Z as being outside the spacetime fabric, and you will recall i stated it to be the basis of my theory of infinities.

You insist that that Z IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE.

I ask you -

1. Are there parts of the universe that are outside spacetime?

Yes or no, be bold. Stop this irritating escapism.

Shouldn't take you that long to pen one single word -

"Yes"

or

"No"

What's the delay? Afraid of falling into trap?

Deep Sight, let me ask you this: what is spacetime?

Deep Sight:

Shouldn't take you that long to pen one single word -

"Yes"

or

"No"

What's the delay? Afraid of falling into trap?

The delay was quite simply because I can't imagine how illiterate a question you could ask after trying to explain these things to you several times!

Deep Sight, let me be soft on you. Although you're an endless bore, I yet would go it easy on you so that we can talk as gentlemen.

1. I'm not on an escapist adventure with you, howsoever you have wished to 'prove' that somewhere in your career.

2. I also posted an enlarged copy of the picture you had proffered.

3. I also noted that what we were looking at was only a model - a graphic representation - of the phenomena that is being discussed; and as such, we should not invest so much faith in those pictures to the extent of forgetting what spacetime is all about.

4. To that effect, I pointed out several times that spacetime is just simply the 4th dimension; and the phenomena of cosmic holes (blackhole, whitehole, wormhole) that are discussed in science are simple the result of gravity in those regions.

5. I've tried not to confuse between these things: spacetime (the 4th dimension), cosmic holes (blackholes, whiteholes, and wormholes) and the universe.

6. You turn round to deny that what we're saying has absolutely nothing to do with wormholes, even though YOU are the very person who first mentioned "wormhole" in this thread.

7. Not minding such an obviously stupid denial, I maintained that the region in your picture marked 'Z' is 'still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe' - because what was represented by the green curved lines are only diagramatic of how wormholes are formed within the Universe - these phenomena are NOT outside the universe.

8. I cannot fall prey to your doctored question requiring a yes or no - for the simple reason that it is an illiterate question to ask if you are still confused (and stubbornly so) about spacetime being just a matter of the 4th dimension!

How else am I to explain this matter over and over again? That was why today I simply ignored your barking and tried to reason with you on your most enigmatic problem about what you termed a "remodelling" of the Universe by the occurences of such phenomena which you exmeplified. After showing you a clear pointer on this, I asked you a very simple question:

~ What do you understand from the above explanation about how holes (whether
blackholes, wormholes, or whiteholes) are formed - do they form within the Universe
or they are formed outside of the Universe? Would it be correct then to say
[size=14pt]what I already said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?[/size]

Deep Sight:

I ask you -

1. Are there parts of the universe that are outside spacetime?

I just can't stop looking at that question and imagining, what the hec.k? It is like explaining the basic things about the human body and noting that the intestines are inside the body. Then this chap with a matriculation number DS#43 pouts his lips and asks: "are there parts of our intestines that are outside the body?"

I really don't know how to proceed in helping sort out such a misfooted question. You, Deep Sight, are a very funny, funny fellow. You ignore everything that has been said, even though they were repeated, and then still keep confusing yourself on these issues while alleging that someone else is escapist. Bobs, where are you located?

viaro:

Deep Sight, let me ask you this: what is spacetime?

^^^ O dear, i should have known he would evade my question by attempting to forward questions of his own. This is the umpteenth time i will ask a question and you would respond in this manner. When we discussed the self-existence of numbers and i asked you a question on moons around Jupiter, you gave me a long list of nember-related words to define. Same tactics again!

I will answer you if you answer me first. Use your own understanding of "spacetime" to deal with the question, that will be fine by me, ok?

Now here we go again:


ARE THERE PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE THAT ARE OUTSIDE SPACETIME?

A one word answer will do. We can go into details after that.

6. You turn round to deny that what we're saying has absolutely nothing to do with wormholes, even though YOU are the very person who first mentioned "wormhole" in this thread.

Wormholes were an aside, if i might set you straight on that: the issue was the effects of "folding" spacetime in an attempt to create a wormhole. So the wormhole thing is just an aside - it is the act of "folding" that justcool and i were concerned about, and what effects such "folding" might have. My posts are clear on this.

Now, coward, back to the kindergarten question that you so comically avoid -


ARE THERE PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE THAT ARE OUTSIDE SPACETIME?

If you cannot answer yes or no, then you are once again trying to escape: this will be obvious to all and sundry.

Abeg jaare, no long thing - give me one word, and we can discuss details later.

Simple. Why is that so hard for you? ? ?

viaro:

Then this chap with a matriculation number DS#43 pouts his lips and asks: "are there parts of our intestines that are outside the body?"

In this instance you will easily answer: "No, there are no parts of the intestines that are outside the body."

So why the hell can you not give me a similar answer for my question? ? ? ? ?

Whatever long epistle you are busy writing, stop it and save your time and mine.

As i said - simple answer to your own sarcastic jibe at me is this: "No, there are no parts of the intestines that are outside the body."

So give me such an answer as well on my question: indulge my stupidity if you will - because there is something cardinal i seek to show if you will give a definite answer whichever way.

If you do not = supreme cowardice.

Juts say yes or no, i am not God, i cannot kill you for your answer.

Deep Sight:

In this instance you will easily answer: "No, there are no parts of the intestines that are outside the body."

So why the hell can you not give me a similar answer for my question? ? ? ? ?

Because it is obvious that I have pointed out again and again that the phenomena that still amazes you are still WITHIN the Universe . .  that is why I repeated this quote several times:

     ". . . I already said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?"

                                         - and -

     "The region marked 'Z' is still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe"

You even came back and noted that I was insisting on a consistency in my answers:

Deep Sight:

You insist that that Z IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE.

Since my answers have been consistent and you even understood what I was saying, how come you're making the very surprising and outlandish statements that anyone could make?

So, when you ask rhetorically:

So why the hell can you not give me a similar answer for my question? ? ? ? ?

. . all I can say is that you're asking the most dimwitte.d question in the entire Universe!

Deep Sight:


^^^ O dear, i should have known he would evade my question by attempting to forward questions of his own. This is the umpteenth time i will ask a question and you would respond in this manner. When we discussed the self-existence of numbers and i asked you a question on moons around Jupiter, you gave me a long list of nember-related words to define. Same tactics again!

Please answer ths damn question and stop being a grown retard altogether! Enough of your cowardise dressed up in this clownish outfit.

viaro:

all I can say is that you're asking the most dimwitte.d question in the entire Universe!

^^^ If its so dim witted it should be easy to answer: Put all doubts to rest by striking it down once and for all -

Yes, or no, Viaro!

Beware the perceptions of others: you are showing up great cowardice here.

Yes or no, i insist!

I need your categorical answer to prove a point!

_{p.s - to help - the question is not whether wormholes occur within the universe. The question is whether there are any parts of the universe that are outside spacetime.}

viaro:

Please answer ths damn question and stop being a grown retard altogether!

? ? ? ? ?

I thought i was the one who asked you a question?

Now you are asking me what? Oh dear viaro, this simple question has really brought out the worst in you tonite, has'nt it?

TRY.

YES OR NO.

IT AIN'T HARD.

Small teaser. . . to assist, since you appear to be having multiple difficulties grasping the question -

  1. Does anything conceivably exist outside the universe?

  2. Even nothingness. . .?

  3. Is the universe the same thing as spacetime, or does it exist within spacetime.

I hope these help you to understand the initial question better.

Goodluck. Going for a cigarette now to reflect on my money and woman.

I allowed you to exhaust yourself, and perhaps now i could post a reply. No, I'm no coward to fall into your yapping, sorry. I consider it quite awkward and barbaric indeed that you would pretend not to have seen my answers to your concerns anywhere. Justt let me pick just one and tease you more:

Deep Sight:

  3. Is the universe the same thing as spacetime, or does it exist within spacetime.

The Universe is not spacetime, Deep Sight - and that answer is not different from what I have stated repeatedly. You're the one here hellbent to confuse them, but not me.

Deep Sight, I have become bored to death at taking such jibes at you, even though I do so with those I consider dear friends. It seemed you failed to see I was being facetious.

So, now let's be serious for once and progress this thread, shall we? I'm pleading with you, indulge my sanity.

Let's go back and see where all this is coming from, Deep Sight, from your own quotes:

Your problems identified:

Deep Sight:

Viaro - What is spacetime? I have serious problems with the ideas circulating regarding that "fabric."

I was astounded to watch on Nat Geo the other day that Time Travel may be possible if we can fold spacetime and thus pass through wormholes.

My astonishment arose not from the proposition regarding wormholes but the proposition regarding "folding" spacetime as shown below.

I should pause here and ask you: WHERE is this spacetime 'folded'? Outside the universe or WITHIN (inside) the universe?

For me, I have said countless times that they are WITHIN the Universe - and that was where you launched your missiles and described my posts as ridiculous!

No bother. Yet, following on:

Deep Sight:
It surprised me that any scientost would miss the fact that such a folding must perforce result, if it were possible at all, in the total dismemberment of the universe as it is known.

That was you huge problem - because you assumed that if such a phenomena could occur, it would result in total dismemberment of the universe. This was why after replying that is not the case and the universe will not be 'remodelled' by the result of such a phenomena, I went on to show you that scientists have indeed found such a cosmic hole resulting from gravity in the Universe:

[size=14pt]Tremendous cosmic hole mysteriously empty of "matter" spotted[/size]

Then I asked a series of questions, including this one:

~ Has such a tremendous blackhole with an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles
of emptiness "remodelled" the Universe as a whole?

You did not even attempt to offer any answers - directly or indirectly. I also asked:

~ What do you understand from the above explanation about how holes (whether
blackholes, wormholes, or whiteholes) are formed - do they form within the Universe or
they are formed outside of the Universe? Would it be correct then to say what [size=14pt]I already
said, that they are formed WITHIN the Universe?[/size]

That one also, you conveniently ducked and went on barking rabidly. Deep Sight, if you're not going to answer a question and rather would like to keep yapping like a toothless puppy, I would just laugh at your drama and consider you nothing more than the boring joke you have turned out to be in recent times. I have repeatedly answered your concerns, addressed your questions - but you?? Just turning, twisting, confusing yourself and yet yapping about my replies being ridiculous - because you're too silly to admit your denials.

Deep Sight:

p.s - to help - the question is not whether wormholes occur within the universe. The question is whether there are any parts of the universe that are outside spacetime.

I don't know the answer to the highlighted in blue, as I do not know the extent of the cosmos. yet, as regards spacetime (the 4th dimension) resulting in cosmic holes, I have maintained that they are within the Universe. am I clear enough?

If you have anything to show me that spacetime is OUTSIDE the Universe, please forgive my ignorance and bless me with your knowledge.

Kai, abuse dey plenty for ya mouth o, you don turn to Davidylan.

For me, I have said countless times that they are WITHIN the Universe - and that was where you launched your missiles and described my posts as ridiculous!

Right. You waste much time stating repeatedly that the phenomena occur within the universe. Obviously. That is not my issue.

Z - was clearly away from the wormhole or the "folding." You stated it to be "within" the universe. I had problems with that. That was what i described as ridiculous, and not anything to do with wormholes.

But let us look at something that helps -

The Universe is not spacetime, Deep Sight

Great! This is useful!

I positively assert that the Universe exists and is expanding within spacetime.

Therefore when i place Z outside spacetime, it clearly cannot be within the universe, as the universe is within spacetime.

Thus your statement that Z is still within the universe was wrong.

Capisce?

I am leaving the office now to the house. Will do some further explanations when i get home.

Deep Sight:

Kai, abuse dey plenty for ya mouth o, you don turn to Davidylan.

Uh-oh! Now I'm in Deep trouble!
I already said I was being facetious in taking jibes at you - I do it both to friends and i.diots, but especially to friends. .  it brings us closer, you know? That's why when you said:

Deep Sight:

Oh dear viaro, this simple question has really brought out the worst in you tonite, has'nt it?

. .  I had to very quickly let you know that I was being facetious, even though it seemed you had failed to notice. Take no note of it, in real life friends understand the way I joke with people - although it does not come across to those of other cultures.

Anyways:

Right. You waste much time stating repeatedly that the phenomena occur within the universe. Obviously. That is not my issue.

Okay, bless your heart.

Z - was clearly away from the wormhole or the "folding." You stated it to be "within" the universe. I had problems with that. That was what i described as ridiculous, and not anything to do with wormholes.

I understand you, amico mio. I don't want to yap on again about that - so I go on to listen to what you have to say.

But let us look at something that helps -

The Universe is not spacetime, Deep Sight

Great! This is useful!

I positively assert that the Universe exists and is expanding within spacetime.

Okay, I respect sir. As I do not have the physics in geoscience or cosmology to prove or disprove that, viaro will just shut his trap. Please excuse me folding my tail there, as I tend to deal mainly with what I can handle with substance rather than personalised assertions. No disrespect.

Therefore when i place Z outside spacetime, it clearly cannot be within the universe, as the universe is within spacetime.

Well, again I don't know - and maybe that was why I did not (and could not) answer 'No'. On the other hand, I noted that:

      1.  spacetime is the 4th dimension - and:

      2.  gravity acting on spacetime results in cosmic holes

      3.  these phenomena (gravty on spacetime) occurs inside the universe

      4.  the model only shows what is happening within the universe and not outside of it

Please DS, forgive me jibing you - I thought you'd seen what I was saying all along. My mistake was that I had failed to come back and do a sketch on the relationship between these things (as soon as my babe is done with her exams next week, I'll have her laptop where my software for such things are installed - please bear with me for now). My apologies again.

Thus your statement that Z is still within the universe was wrong.

Okay, I get you bro.

Capisce?

Si.

I am leaving the office now to the house. Will do some further explanations when i get home.

Thank you for being patient with me - I take back all the silly quips in my misadventures. What's your brew?

To help in this discussion, here is my attempt at answering some of the very interesting questions raised by Deep Sight.

  1. Does anything conceivably exist outside the universe?

Yes and No-whatever exists 'outside' the 'universe' is outside our comprehension. So it's not concievable to us, really. Having said that, the understanding is that our universe is just one of many so called 'universes', each with their own scripts and laws. Even within our own 'universe' at the level of quantum mechanics, the laws and scripts played out there are quite different to the ones we can understand using 4-dimensional calculations. Some suggestions are that cosmic holes may be the gateways to these other universes. But these are just suggestions. It is also suggested that inbetween the 'universes' could be higher dimensional spaces, but certainly not 'nothing'.

  2. Even nothingness. . .?

No-see answer to 1.

  3. Is the universe the same thing as spacetime,

No-spacetime is just the 4th dimension. The 'universe' is a lot more than the 4 dimensions, according to mathematics and theoretical physics.

  4. or does it exist within spacetime.

No-see the answer to 3.

Addendum: There is a lot of talk of the 'universe expanding'. I think that is where the problem is for some. If there is nothing like 'nothing' then what is the universe expanding into? Well the simple answer to that, a view which some scientists hold, is that the 'universe' is not expanding!  What is expanding is 'spacetime' and NOT the universe per se. Outside of 'spacetime' exists 'space' not subject to our understanding of 'space' and 'time'. This 'space', however, is still within the 'universe'.

@ Deapsight and Viaro

The two blind rats, oh see how they run!

My Advice

Simply read the book OF revelation KJV (if u're humble enough) and you will find out all you need to know about the curriculum of the last day.

Beneli. . . .? ? ? ? ?