I was pleasantly surprised at the thoughtful content. If you really did spend 26,823 hours on this, 3 person years, then it was time well spent. I would make a few points. The diameter of the visible universe is not traversable. Even a photon released today would never arrive at what is currently the edge of the visible universe due to expansion. For the same reason, in a closed universe, you would never be able to get back to the place you started by traveling in a straight line. Your point of origin would always be accelerating away from you faster than light. That's the reason we don't see multiple images of the same object on different parts of the sky.
Thanks! The 26,823 hours was just a little joke I wanted to add haha. You make a great point. It may be possible though, for a photon that’s released today reaching distant regions of the universe, depending on the rate of expansion in those areas. While the universe is expanding, not all regions are receding from us faster than light. As for a closed universe, if it were truly finite and curved, there’s a possibility you could return to your point of origin. The expansion wouldn’t necessarily prevent that, since a closed loop could allow light to go back around and arrive back at its starting point.
@@Science.Mirage I'm glad I erred on the side of niceness instead of snarkyness. I Still stand by my support for the content. I agree if there were no expansion, you could return to your origin, but we don't live there. We can still live in a finite, curved universe and have expansion, as every number is finite except for "infinity" (not really a number). You would still never get to the edge, let alone your origin. I was assuming an ever expanding universe, but in a terminating universe, or reversing and contracting universe, you could loop.
The universe includes everything, therefore there is nothing outside the universe. What is outside of the Hubbleverse? More of the same and it looks like you are in the center of another Hubbleverse.
i think of it as a camera, the lens is there regardless of if someone is looking thru it or not. and if someone did put the camera there then that would mean they had a purpose to put it there..
Why would you assume or make the proposal that someone put it there? Why a lens in a camera? Why not just a rock that is there if you look at it or not. No reason to assume someone put the rock there to be looked at.
@@someguy-k2h i was basing it off one of the theories that was suggested in the video.. it was the simulation theory (which i dont really believe anyway). as i said, the lens is there regardless of or if someone put it there or is looking thru it or not!
@@nmikara Simulation theory, not really a theory but an hypothesis, simply states that the reality we experience is the product of another intelligence. If it could be proved or disproved, then it could move on to being more than an hypothesis. I still don't get the point of a camera lens other than to try an sneak a creator with intention into the discussion.
@@someguy-k2h yes i know, i am not religious at all if that's what you're trying to hint at me saying. i included "someone" because the video hinted at it, not my own original outlook. i more or less believe the "multiple" universes. kinda like a schrodinger paradox.
Nice ai/clever edit combo. Really. Props on it and the creativity
Outside would be the same as before the big bang, it's an incomplete question, though an intriguing one, it makes my head hurt 😖
outside...? we haven't seen the end of our own yet. Outside is where father Christmas lives.
I was pleasantly surprised at the thoughtful content. If you really did spend 26,823 hours on this, 3 person years, then it was time well spent.
I would make a few points. The diameter of the visible universe is not traversable. Even a photon released today would never arrive at what is currently the edge of the visible universe due to expansion. For the same reason, in a closed universe, you would never be able to get back to the place you started by traveling in a straight line. Your point of origin would always be accelerating away from you faster than light. That's the reason we don't see multiple images of the same object on different parts of the sky.
Thanks! The 26,823 hours was just a little joke I wanted to add haha.
You make a great point. It may be possible though, for a photon that’s released today reaching distant regions of the universe, depending on the rate of expansion in those areas. While the universe is expanding, not all regions are receding from us faster than light. As for a closed universe, if it were truly finite and curved, there’s a possibility you could return to your point of origin. The expansion wouldn’t necessarily prevent that, since a closed loop could allow light to go back around and arrive back at its starting point.
@@Science.Mirage I'm glad I erred on the side of niceness instead of snarkyness. I Still stand by my support for the content.
I agree if there were no expansion, you could return to your origin, but we don't live there. We can still live in a finite, curved universe and have expansion, as every number is finite except for "infinity" (not really a number). You would still never get to the edge, let alone your origin. I was assuming an ever expanding universe, but in a terminating universe, or reversing and contracting universe, you could loop.
The universe includes everything, therefore there is nothing outside the universe.
What is outside of the Hubbleverse? More of the same and it looks like you are in the center of another Hubbleverse.
There is no outside of the universe. There is only one universe, its in the name, one verse. Duh.
There’s outside the Observable universe, we know this. But we don’t know how far that goes, beyond That limit is in existence 🤷🏽♂️. Don’t know.
i think of it as a camera, the lens is there regardless of if someone is looking thru it or not. and if someone did put the camera there then that would mean they had a purpose to put it there..
Why would you assume or make the proposal that someone put it there? Why a lens in a camera? Why not just a rock that is there if you look at it or not. No reason to assume someone put the rock there to be looked at.
@@someguy-k2h i was basing it off one of the theories that was suggested in the video.. it was the simulation theory (which i dont really believe anyway). as i said, the lens is there regardless of or if someone put it there or is looking thru it or not!
@@nmikara Simulation theory, not really a theory but an hypothesis, simply states that the reality we experience is the product of another intelligence. If it could be proved or disproved, then it could move on to being more than an hypothesis.
I still don't get the point of a camera lens other than to try an sneak a creator with intention into the discussion.
@@someguy-k2h yes i know, i am not religious at all if that's what you're trying to hint at me saying. i included "someone" because the video hinted at it, not my own original outlook. i more or less believe the "multiple" universes. kinda like a schrodinger paradox.