Question Edgeless universe?

Page 6 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
***
Quickly? My understanding is it took the Vatican 300 years.
Nope. There are many, many areas of misquotes and misunderstandings about those days. [The one that is most troubling is the claim that Bruno was burned at the stake for his views on astronomy.]

Galileo was active, somewhat, in the Church. He even did some papers such as one on Dante's work. But he wasn't regarded highly as a theologian, but as a great scientist. He was very well liked by the Jesuits, at first. They were located at College Romano (in Rome) and were the more official scientists of their day. Many were brilliant and some were famous mathematicians.

So, when Galileo made telescopes, and gave them to others, he was able to demonstrate a number of things. But the observation that falsified the 2000-year Artistotle model -- formalized by Ptolemy to create practical-use astrological tables, then infused into Catholocism by Thomas Aquinas (he saw the church might look foolish not to adopt such great and suddenly popular reasoning on many things from Aristotle) -- was the telescopic observation of Venus. The Earth-centered model does not allow both a crescent and gibbous phase, but yet it became clear after numerous observations, even with weak lenses and bad seeing conditions, that both those phases exist.

The Jesuits, many who still liked and respected Galileo, agreed that the Aristotle model was falsified -- not that their was any SM back then, but facts are facts after all. Galileo tried to argue that Copernicus was right and that the Sun is the center of the "world" (universe). But their literal religious views, and Council of Trent demands, and other dogma, got them to adopt the Earth-centered Tychonic model where the planets, except Earth, orbited the Sun. This allows Venus to have both phases. So they discounted the wonderful elegance and unification the Copernicus had in explaining things like retrogrades.

Galileo, who had great clout and world acclaim for his discoveries, inventions, and mathematical prowess, got approval to write a book that, he hoped, would turn others within his church to agree with Copernicus (a church canon) and other Church Cardinals who also supported him and Copernicus. The book he wrote argued that tides "proved" the Cop theory and he, unwisely, used the Pope's arguments in a belittling way, though I am sure he did not mean anything personal since the Pope was his friend. The Pope, with tons of more troubling issues, quickly lost patience with Galileo and that's when things started going downhill quickly. The trial ended with Galileo recanting and being stuck at home from then on. [He did write another remarkable book, nevetheless.]

So, if you didn't mind reading all that, the 300 years was the time the Church took to apologize for their mistake regarding their treatment of Galileo. I think it was in 1992. Their adoption, however, of the Tychonic model may have been in only several months. The Cop model was likely consiered more practical to use for planetray calculations so I suspect there was a gradual, but non-vocal, adoption of the Cop model long before 1992.

[Added: There is a term worth learning (teleology) if anyone finds interesting this period -- the birth of science. That time period held that all things in nature came with an intended purpose -- God's purpose. Science as it is today didn't exist as we know it then. Religion, being subjective, was infused with their science, so Galileo, when this was a problem for him, brilliantly argued that religion should be more flexible when discoveries (objective evidence) come along. Interpretations simply needed to be tweaked to make more sense whenever it became obvious a religious or philosophical view was in conflict with the evidence. He was probably the best at trying since he, IMO, was the first powerful person to properly combine today's SM elements including experiments, math, reasoning, etc. ]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
And here is the conclusion:
QUOTE
And so 92 billion light years might seem like a large number for a 13.8 billion year old Universe, but it’s the right number for the Universe we have today, full of matter, radiation, dark energy, and obeying the laws of General Relativity. The fact that space itself is expanding, and that new space is constantly getting created in between the bound galaxies, groups and clusters in the cosmos, is how the Universe got to be as big as it is to our eyes. Given what’s in it, what governs it and how it came to be, it couldn’t have turned out any other way.
QUOTE

IG. you can come back now!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Nope. There are many, many areas of misquotes and misunderstandings about those days. [The one that is most troubling is the claim that Bruno was burned at the stake for his views on astronomy.]

Galileo was active, somewhat, in the Church. He even did some papers such as one on Dante's work. But he wasn't regarded highly as a theologian, but as a great scientist. He was very well liked by the Jesuits, at first. They were located at College Romano (in Rome) and were the more official scientists of their day. Many were brilliant and some were famous mathematicians.

So, when Galileo made telescopes, and gave them to others, he was able to demonstrate a number of things. But the observation that falsified the 2000-year Artistotle model -- formalized by Ptolemy to create practical-use astrological tables, then infused into Catholocism by Thomas Aquinas (he saw the church might look foolish not to adopt such great and suddenly popular reasoning on many things from Aristotle) -- was the telescopic observation of Venus. The Earth-centered model does not allow both a crescent and gibbous phase, but yet it became clear after numerous observations, even with weak lenses and bad seeing conditions, that both those phases exist.

The Jesuits, many who still liked and respected Galileo, agreed that the Aristotle model was falsified -- not that their was any SM back then, but facts are facts after all. Galileo tried to argue that Copernicus was right and that the Sun is the center of the "world" (universe). But their literal religious views, and Council of Trent demands, and other dogma, got them to adopt the Earth-centered Tychonic model where the planets, except Earth, orbited the Sun. This allows Venus to have both phases. So they discounted the wonderful elegance and unification the Copernicus had in explaining things like retrogrades.

Galileo, who had great clout and world acclaim for his discoveries, inventions, and mathematical prowess, got approval to write a book that, he hoped, would turn others within his church to agree with Copernicus (a church canon) and other Church Cardinals who also supported him and Copernicus. The book he wrote argued that tides "proved" the Cop theory and he, unwisely, used the Pope's arguments in a belittling way, though I am sure he did not mean anything personal since the Pope was his friend. The Pope, with tons of more troubling issues, quickly lost patience with Galileo and that's when things started going downhill quickly. The trial ended with Galileo recanting and being stuck at home from then on. [He did write another remarkable book, nevetheless.]

So, if you didn't mind reading all that, the 300 years was the time the Church took to apologize for their mistake regarding their treatment of Galileo. I think it was in 1992. Their adoption, however, of the Tychonic model may have been in only several months. The Cop model was likely consiered more practical to use for planetray calculations so I suspect there was a gradual, but non-vocal, adoption of the Cop model long before 1992.

[Added: There is a term worth learning (teleology) if anyone finds interesting this period -- the birth of science. That time period held that all things in nature came with an intended purpose -- God's purpose. Science as it is today didn't exist as we know it then. Religion, being subjective, was infused with their science, so Galileo, when this was a problem for him, brilliantly argued that religion should be more flexible when discoveries (objective evidence) come along. Interpretations simply needed to be tweaked to make more sense whenever it became obvious a religious or philosophical view was in conflict with the evidence. He was probably the best at trying since he, IMO, was the first powerful person to properly combine today's SM elements including experiments, math, reasoning, etc. ]
What a wonderful exegesis! Obviously written as it came, direct transmission of knowledge, no cut and paste stuff here! Sir! I salute you. I wish English people had half your command of the English language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
What a wonderful exegesis! Obviously written as it came, direct transmission of knowledge, no cut and paste stuff here! Sir! I salute you. I wish English people had half your command of the English language.
Thanks. You’re too kind. I credit my discourse experience in forums such as these where I learn from those who did not object to dragging me along to higher ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
First, there is nothing like visible universe. Search wikipedia for observable universe, you will get your answer.
Yeah ok, learning is important like L speed field of view. You have no answer to why we can see beyond the age of this universe and conception of L speed information isn't your understanding. So be it.
 
Last edited:
You might like to have a look at this?

If The Universe Is 13.8 Billion Years Old, How Can We See 46 Billion Light Years Away?
Distances in the expanding Universe don’t work like you’d expect. Unless, that is, you learn to think like a cosmologist.


https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/if-the-universe-is-13-8-billion-years-old-how-can-we-see-46-billion-light-years-away-db45212a1cd3
Because we don't see our universe rushing away at faster than L, we see another universe getting closer to ours. easy. all the time in the multiverse to see 48 billion light years away. Big bang as beginning becomes clouded with visibility of things older than this universe.
 
Because we don't see our universe rushing away at faster than L, ...
We do observe redshifted light that has come from regions faster than c, but only to a point, farther distances are forever beyond our view.

...we see another universe getting closer to ours. easy. all the time in the multiverse to see 48 billion light years away.
. We can not see all of our own universe, and definitely none of the others suppose. No one has ever proposed a way to see beyond our universe.

Big bang as beginning becomes clouded with visibility of things older than this universe.
Some nice pics would be cool, and the Noble Prize awaits the one who can present one.
 
We do observe redshifted light that has come from regions faster than c, but only to a point, farther distances are forever beyond our view.

. We can not see all of our own universe, and definitely none of the others suppose. No one has ever proposed a way to see beyond our universe.

Some nice pics would be cool, and the Noble Prize awaits the one who can present one.
Yeah once we have things moving away from us at L the light can never catch up to us.
I agree our universe is probably bigger than we can see but the microwave big bang radiation we can see says we see most if not nearly all of it.
Those galaxies we see at 32Bly and 48Bly IMO are telling us our universe has a foggy Edge or is simply quantum fluctuation between universes.
Universe Collisions start big bangs and also cease expansion so it could be that simple the mechanics of universe bubbles in a sea of forever of them.
Reason for the start in the first place... Void space had potential energy=quantum fluctuation energy that created particles and energy that stayed until a E balance was met.

Star Treks The final frontier and a beginning or end of anything might not exist.

I bet with some long ugly math those two galaxies we see at 32b and 48b would tell us how close they are to our universe, how big our universe really is and when to expect a collision. :)
 
Last edited:
Yeah once we have things moving away from us at L the light can never catch up to us.
. Surprisingly weird, but no, we do see light from regions traveling faster than the speed of light. Those photons are able to travel into regions that aren’t traveling at c, thus will reach us. But this is only for regions closer to us.

I agree our universe is probably bigger than we can see but the microwave big bang radiation we can see says we see most if not nearly all of it.
Maybe but we can’t know.

Universe Collisions start big bangs and also cease expansion so it could be that simple the mechanics of universe bubbles in a sea of forever of them.
Some pics of that, or any evidence, would be nice to have. ;)
 
Jun 22, 2020
3
0
10
I have read all the posts in this thread and have an answer for your question. The only possible shape that makes sense for space is a spherical one. So to answer your question yes if you are moving away from a galaxy you are also moving towards it if travelling in the opposite direction. The universe is not expanding at the same rate everywhere, there are different factors to consider first before you can determine the rate of expansion in any one place in space. Those factored could be the amount of dark matter/energy in the area, galaxies and there mass, whator direction those galaxies are moving. Are there black holes in the area. These are just to name a few factors that will effect the expansion rate of any one are in spacetime.
 
. Surprisingly weird, but no, we do see light from regions traveling faster than the speed of light. Those photons are able to travel into regions that aren’t traveling at c, thus will reach us. But this is only for regions closer to us.

Maybe but we can’t know.

Some pics of that, or any evidence, would be nice to have. ;)
I think they are getting faster than L on very distant objects.
Goes against understanding of physics, obviously understanding is wrong not the universe.
Could be L is constant even with escape faster than L, but the universe itself displays L at L speed no matter what the object does.
Just a property of quantum space.

Wish i could prove those 32b and 48b galaxies were from other universes.
It would put a new perspective on reality for sure.
No real other way to explain them though than the light really has traveled that far and no way we could see them if they were part of our universe.

Void=QFlutuation=universe
It's such a simple reason for everything from nothing.
It also leads to the endless number of them and why they expand and contract.
Only real mechanism for getting one out of a black hole phase is a collision so IMO it's probably how a big bang starts.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
lawrence

"The only possible shape that makes sense for space is a spherical one."

I assume you are referring to my analogy which requires closure in the ( n + 1 ) dimension.

When one sees statements such as:

“if you are moving away from a galaxy you are also moving towards it if travelling in the opposite direction.”

one should recall that one cannot travel around ‘space’ in a lifetime, or probably in a billion billion lifetimes even at the speed of light, were this capability to be available - especially when the Universe is expanding. Such statements thus come into the category of “Did you see that pig fly by the window?”

As far as mass is concerned, see my Post #118:

“Maybe our rulers are appropriate to volumes containing mass, but not to empty spaces.”

You stated: I have read all the posts in this thread and have an answer for your question. Whilst I appreciate your ability to read what we have written, I cannot see that you have offered any new idea to the discussion. Please feel free to correct me if appropriate.
 
I think they are getting faster than L on very distant objects.
Goes against understanding of physics, obviously understanding is wrong not the universe.
That's a bit premature.

Here's something that addresses recession speeds that are superluminal (faster than c).

I like the ant analogy. Imagine an ant running on a very long flat strip of rubber that is being stretched at one end quickly -- think so many inches per second for every foot of rubber strip (Hubble-Lemaitre Constant). We are on the fixed end of the rubber strip, the ant on the other end running towards us. Since the pulling action on the rubber strip is traveling at a fixed rate, each step the ant takes puts it into a region that is expanding at a less rate than where it was, so eventually it can reach a section of the rubber strip that will allow it to eventually reach us. But at some point in time the far end will be traveling too fast for any ant to gain ground.

Keep in mind that the expansion rate of the rubber may be fast on the far end but it is zero where we are. This is the only way the ant gains ground as it comes towards us.

It's such a simple reason for everything from nothing.
IMO, sometimes the simple things are worth just that....nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Apropos of nothing really :) but do you remember the Moebius Strip? For anyone who doesn't, you take a strip of whatever - need not be elastic yet, but we will come to that.
Take your strip and join the ends together but not so as to make a curved 'flat' surface - give it half a twist before you join it. Assume you have a red edge and a blue edge. Joining red to red and blue to blue gives you the "flat" join - we want half a twist so we join red to blue and blue to red.

OK now the thing about the Moebius (sorry I don't have an Umlaut on this keyboard) Strip is that it is never ending. You start your ant (yes we are getting there) anywhere and you will find that it gets back to its starting place. The Moebius Strip has only one side.


Now we can have a stretchable strip. If you follow the picture through, you see just as before, that there is a speed at which the ant cannot keep up with the stretching; a point where it "stays still"; and a speed where it can catch up with the stretching and make headway.

Once you get familiar with the Moebius Strip it is easier to understand than the sphere. The ant, if it runs fast enough, will get back to its starting place . . . . . . . . .
unless you start getting involved with c.

I appreciate that we are not considering an edgeless strip, but we are considering an endless (so to speak) strip.
Hope this helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slenderella
That's a bit premature.

Here's something that addresses recession speeds that are superluminal (faster than c).

I like the ant analogy. Imagine an ant running on a very long flat strip of rubber that is being stretched at one end quickly -- think so many inches per second for every foot of rubber strip (Hubble-Lemaitre Constant). We are on the fixed end of the rubber strip, the ant on the other end running towards us. Since the pulling action on the rubber strip is traveling at a fixed rate, each step the ant takes puts it into a region that is expanding at a less rate than where it was, so eventually it can reach a section of the rubber strip that will allow it to eventually reach us. But at some point in time the far end will be traveling too fast for any ant to gain ground.

Keep in mind that the expansion rate of the rubber may be fast on the far end but it is zero where we are. This is the only way the ant gains ground as it comes towards us.

IMO, sometimes the simple things are worth just that....nothing.
At C though it still the ant still can never see the track. No way round the fact the the relative speed is beyond c. A different and simple solution is needed to why the universe can show faster than C information in a law of C universe.
IMO the duality of the universe is showing that the real universe has two part, quantum fluctuation and nothing.
Light traveling through nothing, or light traveling through a quanta/space/time.
Particle and wave and different laws for both.
Why we see above some things c.
Still doesn't explain the 32 and 48bly objects though :)

Sometimes the simple solution is the right one.
Everything from nothing with a simple E balance as the reason.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"Sometimes the simple solution is the right one."

Have you ever questioned that the "simple" solutions are for simpletons only?

Nothing personal whatsoever intended.
Perhaps the simple solution is perfect for simpletons?

Your suggestion opens layers of interesting Qs!

Maybe we need an Einstein occasionally.

Good Luck in your quest wherever it leads you!

Cat ;)
 
At C though it still the ant still can never see the track. No way round the fact the the relative speed is beyond c.
Imagine the ant is traveling, say, 1 fps, but he sits there until the rubber stip has reached 1 fps from us. The ant steps towards us and is immediately in a region on the strip that is less than his 1fps so he begins to gain ground.

But what if he waits till the rubber is, say, 1.1 fps, then will he ever reach us. Yes for the same reason, but this won't be true if the ant waits too long and the speed is too great.

This doesn't violate the law that c is constant as light is still traveling at c so from a superluminal region far away, the light will travel into an expansion area closer to us that will allow it to reach us.
 
Imagine the ant is traveling, say, 1 fps, but he sits there until the rubber stip has reached 1 fps from us. The ant steps towards us and is immediately in a region on the strip that is less than his 1fps so he begins to gain ground.

But what if he waits till the rubber is, say, 1.1 fps, then will he ever reach us. Yes for the same reason, but this won't be true if the ant waits too long and the speed is too great.

This doesn't violate the law that c is constant as light is still traveling at c so from a superluminal region far away, the light will travel into an expansion area closer to us that will allow it to reach us.
Sure that will work for objects just out of C but not for the very distant galaxies that the speed is well beyond C that do show. Difficult to imagine a way they can show other than a property of quantum/space. The mechanics of having space split into void and quantum fluctuation filling all the space it can allows for some oddities of C speed laws and the duality of wave or particle depending on the reality you look at. Both are true but you can only look at one or the other.

Jmo
 
Jun 1, 2020
18
11
4,515
This edgeless and infinite stuff in astrophysics must come from some complex math. It, no doubt, is hard to get your hands around. So, none of it makes any sense in to us in our experience. Things can only be explained in terms of the familiar. Kind of like some of the problems in chemistry. Absorption edges approach infinity in spectroscopy. Division by zero sometimes can sort of make sense, as in calculus, until it does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Latest posts