With a hugre universe theres possiblities of anything....Not even Einsteins mind can compare to the unknown parts of the universe. I mean there could be another life of different properties. There could be magic people who can mgically create sopmthing out of air. All we can figure out is what we see not what we know. Huge universe the large universe cant compare to what we just see. Heck...we dont even know if the universe ends. If it does...then whats beyond that? If it doesnt end then why not have possiblities beyond what we know? Explain your theories to say. It is true then we dont know its so large maybe we will never find the end or the end is so far the universe will cease before its discovered.
2007-10-09 10:22:17 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Basically im rebelling against Einstiens Relativity Theory
2007-10-09 12:33:59 · update #1
The frustation in your question is very justified, and maybe you are rightly irritated by the incapability of the human mind to deal with the infinite. But hey, that's how it is!
Even if the universe can be "explained" by some set of joined up mathematical equations, they will be of such complexity that no-one will be able to comprehend what they physically mean, in the truest sense of understanding. It's the best evidence I can offer that God has a sense of humour.
Barring some quantum leap in mental faculty, we are doomed to never get to grips with the scale of things.
My own suspicion is that we our universe is traversing the surface of a higher dimensional torus on a cycle of expansion and contraction. Contact me if you are interested. I'm not going to bang on about it for the sake of a few more potential points.
2007-10-09 11:26:52 · answer #1 · answered by netruden 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
so are you suggesting that at random points in space the laws of physics cease to exist? think about that, its idiotic.
you are right in some parts though, life as we know it couldnt exist in most places. but thats why you hear people use the phrase "as we know it". there could be life based on something completely different than water. we dont know.
but we do know that the laws of physics hold true all around the universe, its the ONLY logical answer. for someone to randomly conjure up a donut from air is impossible without some seriously complex machines. you would have to rearrange the protons, neutrons, and electrons and make complex molecules 1 by 1. the only thing you can conjure up with just air is air, you cant take O2 + C and come up with NaCl, that doesnt make sense at all. thats the laws of physics, and it makes absolutely no sense for them to just randomly disappear in space.
and we can observe stars and planets far away. and i haven't heard of any stars that do anything that cant be answered by the laws of physics.
2007-10-09 19:06:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we let our imagination propose the possibilities of the universe then science would stand still.
You're right, we shouldn't be closed minded to the possibilities, but in order to unravel the mysteries, we have to study what we have in front of us because we CAN study that. Things that we can't see or study aren't worth imagining about from a scientific standpoint.
If we ever unravel all of the answer about what's "near" us, then we can begin to find answers about what's not so near us and so on.
2007-10-09 17:28:48 · answer #3 · answered by Nate F 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How can we have theories about things which we cannot observe? We have to assume that the scientific laws which hold in one part of the universe also apply in other parts.
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over?
2007-10-09 17:28:48 · answer #4 · answered by GeoffG 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we are doing science, not writing a novel. Science is based on observations. If it's not, it's just pure, rampant speculation. A theory MUST be based on observations of the natural world.
If not, it's just science fiction.
2007-10-09 17:28:04 · answer #5 · answered by Wayner 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure there's plenty of things out there we haven't found yet. But if we can't observe it in any fashion, what's the point?
2007-10-09 17:25:52 · answer #6 · answered by eri 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you bragging or complaining? Not clear...
2007-10-09 18:12:27 · answer #7 · answered by aviophage 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
'Tis the journey, not the destination.
2007-10-09 17:40:42 · answer #8 · answered by Eratosthenes 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
grow up dude...
"wayner" is right and your "theory" although understandable... its very childish and dumb.
2007-10-09 18:05:49 · answer #9 · answered by Progen P 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋