Edge of the Universe

[j_rankin]

If gravity can't escape black holes, then why do black holes have such an immense gravitational field?

 

[j_rankin]

But if the graviton is measurable, and nothing can escape from a black hole, then how can gravitons possibly exist? <br /><br />Does string-theory conclude that gravity is a dimension all of its own? If so then i accept defeat.

 

[j_rankin]

However, i don't agree with everything stated in M-theory. The nature of the origin of the universe is very different to what Ed Witten calculated, in my honest opinion.<br /><br />I don't even think the big crunch will take any more than an infinitissimal amount of time.

 

[willrobinson]

Explosions, at least on Earth travel away from center in a sphere shape, losing speed along the way. If the BB is correct, then wouldn't the edge of the Universe be moving away from center at C (slowing over time) with matter falling out of C and into the newest part of space/time until all E becomes M and is thrown into the Universe?

 

[newtonian]

willrobinson - From Lost in Space?<br /><br />Indeed, some E (energy) may have become M (matter) and be lost in space beyond where any photons or the gravity of our universe has reachedl<br /><br />Remember, btw, that matter also becomes energy - as in nuclear fusion in stars.<br /><br />Isaiah 40:22 indicates our universe is expanding like a stretching fine gauze; i.e. the fabric of space is expanding.<br /><br />And it is not slowing down - at least the current popular interpretation of new data that has been observed indicates our universe is undergoing acceleration of expansion.

 

[newtonian]

ranur - Wow! All this time (posting on SDC, etc.) I have been discussing the expansion (stretching out - Is.40:22) of our universe in a big bang context without noting that stretching out a flexible fabric does not necessarily involve a bang!<br /><br />Rather, simply expansion from the singularity (or very tiny) beginning.<br /><br />I am going to start a thread relating to how and why this happenned!

 

[eric2006]

My whole problem comprehending the Big Bang occurs when I try to apply relativity. From my understanding a universe expanding from a singularity would have a center and an edge. How does this make sense when we can't figure out where the center and edge are without using absolute motion? Granted I understand the red shift shows an expansion but explain it using relativity. Also, Einstein predicted that a star with a large mass would have a gravitational effect on light. It would want to slow it down. But since light travels at a constant velocity it's wavelength would be altered not it's speed. Would this not produce a red shift? If so then how can you tell the difference between an expanding universe and a star's gravitational effect on light?

 

[eric2006]

I agree. I think gravity is space itself. I think that the mass of an object creates a distortion on space. I think that would also hold true with a magnetic field. The lines of a magnetic field I think are distortions of space. When I think of a magnet attracting something I like to imagine that the field distorts the space between the object bringing them closer together. That is how I see it in my mind anyway. When I think this way it always brings the "Ether" to mind.

 

[eric2006]

I think that if we created another universe within our own that it would start to create and fill it's own space. Basically a whole universe the size of our own could exist as small as an atom in our universe. Hawking had a book "Black Holes and Baby Universes".These universes goe into an infinite number of universes all existing like trillions of bubbles. It is mind boggling theoretical physics.<br /><br />I do find interest in the "Brane Theory". That two multi-dimensional branes collided to cause the energy and then later the mass in our universe.

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - There is, of course a 4-dimensional center involving time since there was a beginning - considering the space-time fabric.<br /><br />And if our unverse is finite, as I believe, and if our universe is expanding according to a flat model (not the balloon model) then there would be an edge or limit - but one must define "edge."<br /><br />How would you define "edge?"<br /><br />There is, of course, an edge to the extent of light in the 3 dimensional finite universe (brane, membrane, fabric) - however one must then consider FTL (faster than light) expansion and its effect on that limit.<br /><br />BTW - the universe was not always transparent or even translucent - early density would have blocked the escape of light. Therefore some matter expelled before the universe was translucent may be expanding beyond the light of our universe!<br /><br />I.e. the light edge would be "closer" than the matter edge.<br /><br />The edge of gravity from our universe may lie in between these two edges (see Jude 13 - stars with no set course that travel in eternal darkness - possibly due to having escaped the gravity of our universe entirely).

 

[eric2006]

"And if our unverse is finite, as I believe, and if our universe is expanding according to a flat model (not the balloon model) then there would be an edge or limit - but one must define "edge." <br /><br />I understand what you are saying completely. But how can we know where to look for it if absolute motion does not exist?<br /><br /><br />"BTW - the universe was not always transparent or even translucent - early density would have blocked the escape of light. Therefore some matter expelled before the universe was translucent may be expanding beyond the light of our universe! <br />"<br />When you speak of early density are you saying space/time itself was dense? Like for instance if you blow up a black balloon enough it will become somewhat transparent? Or are you speaking of dark matter? I would like to try and visualize your description. It is very interesting.<br />

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - On motion first:<br /><br />Absolute motion is a relative term - aka semantics.<br /><br />Motion does exist - and for us to observe motion we will naturally use our location as the reference point.<br /><br />This, obviously, would be totally different than motion observed from the reference point of another location within our universe, let alone from another universe.<br /><br />The motion is, of course, not changed - just the reference point from which one is measuring said motion.<br /><br />The location(s) of the edge (or one of many "edges" depending on definition) of our universe also does not change just because an attempt is being made to observe it from a different reference point.<br /><br />BTW - edge involves dimensions, and there may be more dimensions that the 3-d plus time we are here discussing.<br /><br />Where to look? In all directions (and, if you want to really get complex: all dimensions).<br /><br />Our universe is observed to be expanding in all 3-d dimensions, simply illustrated as follows:<br /><br />(Isaiah 40:22) . . .There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,. . .<br /><br />Simplifying further, consider just the stretching fine gauze aspect.<br /><br />Our universe is observed to have threads and filaments which are exanding in 3-d space, and this is also true in the 4-d space time fabric of space.<br /><br />Our universe, in computer simulations and extrapolations, has a gauzelike appearance - so the illustration is accurate.<br /><br />Now picture an expanding finite gauze (assuming finite) and consider our location as one point on this gauze, and distant points as other points on this gauze.<br /><br />As the gauze is being stretched out, each point will expand from each other point and more distant points will expand faster from each other.<br /><br />This is confirmed by sci

 

[eric2006]

"As the gauze is being stretched out, each point will expand from each other point and more distant points will expand faster from each other. <br /><br />This is confirmed by scientific observation."<br /><br />Everything should be moving away from everything else. This would be evident with a red shift. I am lacking a little in my knowledge department. I understand we have detected red shift. But has everything we detected show a red shift? It would have to be so if every point is moving away from every other point and accelerating at that. In respects to Quasars the Compton Effect may very well explain some instances of red shift. If you throw this wrench into the machine how can there be a firm explanation?

 

[eric2006]

"Now picture an expanding finite gauze (assuming finite) and consider our location as one point on this gauze, and distant points as other points on this gauze. <br /><br />As the gauze is being stretched out, each point will expand from each other point and more distant points will expand faster from each other. "<br /><br /><br /><br />If our universe is like a gauze being stretched out - then is it reasonable to say that the edges of the gauze(universe) were once the center? So (in theory) to find the center we must look near the edge?

 

[siarad]

Magnetism is a force. A 1lb magnet will pull with that irrespective of the mass of the object pulled.<br />Gravity can't be a force as it seems in-consumable & pulls with a strength equal to the pulled object.<br />If space is gravity & expanding it seems gravity would be weakening at every place & a weaker gravity creates less red-shift.<br />Has any-one measured reducing R-S

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - Sorry, I was giving an overview, but details show exceptions to the red shift.<br /><br />There are many galaxies in our area of universe which are blue shifted - notably Andromeda galaxy with which we will merge billions of years from now.<br /><br />And there are many galaxies including our own which are on a sort of river in space heading towards a great attractor in the Virgo cluster.<br /><br />This is to be expected in view of another Biblical statement:<br /><br />(Job 38:31-33) . . .Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki´mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke´sil constellation? 32 Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33 Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, Or could you put its authority in the earth?<br /><br />Among the bonds between stars ang galaxies (besides, e.g., magnetism) is gravity.<br /><br />Gravitational bonds can either hold fast or be broken.<br /><br />In the stretching gauze illustration, a gauze of fabric which is being stretched out will have some threads or filaments which break and may even locally recoil.<br /><br />This gives added detail to the illustration, and it is also confirmed by scientific observation.<br /><br />Milky Way and other galaxies have been in a gravitational tug of war between the great attractor in the Virgo cluster and another great attractor.<br /><br />The Great Attractor has won and we and many other galaxies are heading towards it.<br /><br />You all - does anyone know when Milky Way will first come close to (or merge) with the Great Attractor?

 

[eric2006]

Newtonian, <br /><br />How was my visual map of an expanding universe in reference to the stretching gauze illustration? I am trying to picture it in my mind. Would the center later become the edge as it becomes more inflated? <br /><br />I would like to comprehend this model more. Let me know if I am thinking in the right direction or if I am just confusing myself.<br /><br />When I speak of an edge and center I just use it as a visual map for myself. Not that I mean it in a practical manner. But if I can understand the dynamics I will have something to work with in my ever straining mind.

 

[eric2006]

Newtonian,<br /><br />Can you please comment on this older post? I think you did answer but it flow way over my head.<br /><br />"BTW - the universe was not always transparent or even translucent - early density would have blocked the escape of light. Therefore some matter expelled before the universe was translucent may be expanding beyond the light of our universe! <br />" <br />When you speak of early density are you saying space/time itself was dense? Like for instance if you blow up a black balloon enough it will become somewhat transparent? Or are you speaking of dark matter? I would like to try and visualize your description. It is very interesting.

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - Sorry, I actually forgot to answer the second part of the older post.<br /><br />I will need to research that and get back to you for an accurate response.<br /><br />From my memory:<br /><br />The early universe was too dense to allow light to escape for two reasons:<br /><br />1. Gravity bends light. Too much gravity will not allow light to escape.<br /><br />2. Too much matter in universe - i.e. too dense to let light out.<br /><br />However, I will need to re-research this to get it straight.

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - Well, my memory was close - but here is the standard big bang model explanation - which sounds reasonable for any model starting with a superdense superhot state and cooling and expanding:<br /><br />"A few hundred thousand years later [after the big bang] the temperature had fallen to about 3,000K [from above 10 trillionK {K=degrees Kelvin}right after the big bang]. Protons became able to capture and hold on to electrons to form atoms of neutral hydrogen, because the radiation was no longer energetic enough to separate (ionize) them. Most of the electrons were quickly mopped up, and it became possible for photons to travel vast distances without being absorbed or suffering collisions. During this stage, known as the 'decoupling' of matter and radiation, the universe became transparent." - [bracketts mine] - "The World of Science," by Andromeda Oxford Ltd. (distributed by Britannica) 1991, Volume 8, pages 110-111.<br /><br />Note that while page 111 indicates a few hundred thousand years after the big bang for becoming transparent, the caption on the illustration on page 110 states:<br /><br />"The graph shows how the temperature of matter and radiation declined from well over 10^12K to about 3,000K in the first 100,000 years or so. At this stage (the 'decoupling' of matter from radiation) space became transparent." - Ibid., p. 110<br /><br />OK, that is obviously an estimate, since in the first 100,000 years is less than a few hundred thousand years.<br /><br />The point I was making is that FTL inflation may well have occurred very early after the big bang, long before this decoupling. Therefore, some matter may still be beyond our universe's light. <br /><br />If said matter is expanding FTL, then it would be forever beyond the light of our universe.

 

[newtonian]

Tim (Hicup) - Actually, astronomers do observe this effect, and even use the terms threads and filaments to describe the observed universe, and it is indeed expanding or stretching out.<br /><br />And computer simulations of the actual observed appearance of our universe do have a gauzelilke appearance.<br /><br />It is not, however, uniform or simple in structure:<br /><br />"The clusters are not evenly distributed in space. On a grand scale, they look like thin sheets and filaments around vast bubblelike voids. Some features are so long and wide that they resemble great walls. This may surprise many who think that our universe created itself in a chance cosmic explosion. “The more clearly we can see the universe in all its glorious detail,” concludes a senior writer for Scientific American, “the more difficult it will be for us to explain with a simple theory how it came to be that way.”" - "Is there a Creator Who Cares About You?," 1998, pp. 10,11

 

[trustno1fox2]

Well, since the universe is expanding, coudlnt we assume that we would not in reality be an "edge"?<br /><br />For example, in math we can place a limit on a function. Since there is no limit, the universe does not converge to any point in particular (note im talking about expansion only, yes it exploded from a point known as the big bang). It only diverges in all directions. Thus at once it is inifnitily expanding. By defintion, a function that is divergent is infinite.<br /><br />Besides, even if there was an edge to the universe, then we would need to be traveling faster at the speed of light, because the edge that we see currently ** if we did***, would be what had occured some billions of years ago. <br /><br />I have a qustion for everyone.<br /><br />If you were situated at the edge of the universe, and the universe is expanding. what would we see? I have a qustion. Does space expand faster than light? If so, then one would never be able to see the edge of the universe, because the edge would always appear to be growing.

 

[vogon13]

No matter where or when you're located in the universe, you are always at the center of a sphere, whose radius is defined as the distance from you at which the recession = light speed.<br /><br />You can't be closer to the edge in one direction, and further in the opposite.<br /><br />Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.<br />Stealers Wheel<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[trustno1fox2]

Of course, your right, I was just stating a hypothetical situation. <br /><br />We know what mathamatical laws and physics laws that the universe must follow, but still we must remember, always keep an open mind (such as what if?) understand my point?<br /><br />Innovation cannot be realized without imagination. <br />Always imagine.

 

[vogon13]

What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical question?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>