[kylok]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TBH, I put some thought into this after I made my post.

I think the way Nassim demonstrates it is wrong in his assumptions.

That boundary would be a soft boundary and move with the frame of reference, the bubbles would move with the point of view of the observer. This is of course all mathematical simulation of physics. That's probably the most simplified way of seeing it. I couldn't begin to really grasp the math at it. But the abstract is there. It would be something worthy to look into.

In his lectures he asserts you couldn't possibly pass up a boundary, but only down a boundary.

I think that's incorrect, and that the boundaries aught to be represented more holographically, maybe simultaneously co-existing, and indeed, there is no boundary at all if your near the edge. You only perceive such boundaries.

And add in the idea that as above, so below, the universe/nature is fractal (this is just a perceptual, constant). You would get an ideal model.

A easy example of what I'm talking about is:

As you move your universe changes gradually, but you could leave the universe behind. I.e. your origin can pass beyond your boundary. At which point you are no longer in the old known universe. Probably at these points you might see duplication or replication.

A further affect would be that... you are being reached by photons while, in the past, that are from the extreme boundry of your current universe, and that information is constantly there. You don't have to physically be at the end of the universe to see it. Time complicates things obviously and this is were I fall at conceptualizing space/time. And probably were Einstien kicks ass.

Currently improvable to an extent. Yet if you look at the far away background radiation of the galaxy you see what visually represents the same picture as a Nueral network. See Chandra X Ray observatory: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html

If you think about it. One day, we'll be able to map enough of the sky to see that this observation hopefully does have some evidence backing it up. Currently we don't.

But the theory is sound at the moment. As the ideas are based in current known scientific models. I'm sure we'll refine them over the years. But the basic abstract concepts aught to not change much.

If they do, that will be an eye opener.

Bold is what I have been taught, I challenged my physics professor on this point and he concisely corrected me. I agree the hypothesis is plausible, but I'm hesitant to take anything purely based in math as empirical evidence. Yes it's logical, yes it makes sense, but we don't *currently have a way of verifying it. It's sort of like talking about the possibility of deities existing, we can talk about it for years on end and never reach a conclusion because both sides of that argument can be argued equally well. I choose to take the QM approach, until the results are observed all answers are true - and even then observing them changes them. Part of the problem with attempting to determine where the boundary of the universe is that you have to pick a point that is the middle, and *currently we have no means of doing this besides arbitrarily using our planet.