If you were to fly in a rocket to the end of the universe, there should be something there to stop you getting out of the universe so what would it be and what would it feel like?  for the sake of this question just assume we could reach the point where the universe is expanding.

I've just watched a TV program about the biggest number, the universe and - of course - infinity. It said that a number named "Graham" was so big that there was not enough space in the entire universe to write it down. So if there is a number that actually has and end - which was bigger than the universe - then there can't be an everlasting universe! Or can there?

As our universe expands, could there be a possibility that the speed of light isn't constant? As spacetime is very slowely stretched out following 13+ billions years of expansion, could the time taken for light to traverse spacetime also be stretched meaning the 'speed of light' really isn't constant? 

An electron is both a particle and a wave, and we cannot define exactly where a subatomic particle/wave is because it is spread out across time and space - we can only define it through probabilities. Wouldn't there need to be infinite precision and no uncertainty in nature for nature to be deterministic? Considering that infinite precision and certainty don't appear to exist - because experiments show randomness and uncertainty exists at the heart of nature, then would it be correct to assume that both atomic and subatomic particles/waves do not always interact with one another with infinite precision and if so then is it correct to conclude that nature cannot be deterministic - i.e. by having exact knowledge of the starting conditions of the universe and infinite computing power it would still be impossible to calculate exactly how the universe would evolve?

What the meaning of life the universe and every thing and not 42.

If all the matter in the universe was once in a singularity which expanded with the Big Bang to the size it is now, then surely the density of matter initially exceeded the threshhold to create a black hole.

If such is the case, then don't we all live within one massive black hole and the physics that we see are the physics that operate within a black hole?

And if there are smaller blackholes within our observable universe, then surely it is reasonable to assume that there is physics that operates within those blackholes that is similar to our own.

This leads me to think of 2 pretty cool outcomes.

1) there can be an infinite number of blackholes within blackholes and that our observable universe exists as a just one blackhole in a universe of a larger scale just as we have many black holes within our observable universe.  Kind of like infitie Russian Dolls.

and

2) it is possible that the observable universe can both expand to reach the scale and density equilibrium required to one day equalize with the space it occupies in the next higher up scale universe.  Balance could be achieved through the mechanism of matter falling into the Black Hole and hawking radiation out of it along with the gradual expansion.

Does it also mean that the gravity of the next higher scale universe is pulling the matter in this blackhole universe that we live in apart?  Is it the missing Dark Energy?  Is that the dimension where gravity leaks?

I wish I knew some cosmic mathematics to delve deeper into these ideas.  But I'm sure someone who does can tell me why I'm wrong and why a singularity can expand, can even inflate, without bending any rules of blackholes.

Regards,

Kevin

From the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, and maybe even the universe itself, everything seems to be in a spin. What causes this spinning? Is it fundamental result of physical laws? How did it start? Can it be stopped?

Let x = the angle between dimensions. A cube is described in 3 dimensions, knowing x = 90 degrees. The same cube can be described in 7 dimensions when x = 45 degrees. The 2nd decription is more complex but it's still a cube. If an object can be described by any number of higher dimensions and the matching value of x then our universe is only 3 dimensional if x = 90 degrees. Who proved x can only ever equal 90 degrees? or have we presumed we live in a 3D universe simply because x = 90 degrees is mathematically and geometrically convienient?

From NewScientist.com-

"This is a tale of two spacecraft. Pioneer 10 was launched in 1972; Pioneer 11 a year later. By now both craft should be drifting off into deep space with no one watching. However, their trajectories have proved far too fascinating to ignore.

That's because something has been pulling - or pushing - on them, causing them to speed up. The resulting acceleration is tiny, less than a nanometre per second per second. That's equivalent to just one ten-billionth of the gravity at Earth's surface, but it is enough to have shifted Pioneer 10 some 400,000 kilometres off track. NASA lost touch with Pioneer 11 in 1995, but up to that point it was experiencing exactly the same deviation as its sister probe. So what is causing it?"

Other things I have read about time have led me to wonder if maybe the craft aren't moving faster, but rather our perception of time is changing.

Another user on this site asked if time travel might be possible by further expanding or re-collapsing the universe to speed up or "rewind" time. I don't think traveling back in history could be done using this method, but it may be like flooring the gas or pushing the brake on time itself. He also pointed out that what we perceive as "time" is a dimension probably restricted to this universe, but because of that it may be pushing against the limits of its ever-expanding confines. If he's correct, then might time be "stretching" to fill the universe, thereby "stretching" our perception of it?

Just an idea to toss around.