Question on Space

[kjtocool]

Hey everyone,<br /><br />I am in a sense new here, found this message board in searching out the answer to a question that recently jumped into my head.<br /><br />I was innocently sitting around, doing nothing as only I can do, when I was assulted by ... gasp ... a thought!<br /><br />I am sure others have had similar ideas, so I figured imparting my newfound knowledge on others was a worthless endeavour. Rather I am hoping that some of YOU can impart your knowledge on me, and help me expand, quash, or in some way bring to conclusion ... this thought.<br /><br />So ...<br /><br />My thinking is, we know the universe to be an ever expanding vast vast entity. It was my understanding that for the most part, excluding the minor exceptions, the universe is viewed to be in the general shape of a compact disk.<br /><br />Despite the truth of that statement, I firmly believe that is how the universe is viewed to the mass of the earths population.<br /><br />My idea, thought, question is, could this be false? Much like the earth was once viewed to be flat, and soon realized to becurved.<br /><br />Could the universe be infintely larger than even WE realize? Meaning ... could it be a GIANT ball, a size that we can't even comprehend. Meaning that if we start out from point A (Earth) and walk (assuming we could walk) we would eventually return to point A (earth).<br /><br />I am not well versed on the techniques for deciphering this, but it would be immensly more complex than realizing the curvature of the Earth for various reasons.<br /><br />So ... is this possible? Could the universe be a giant Ball ... could the great bang have just created a larger ball instead of a singular plane?<br /><br />I am sure it will all collapse back on itself eventually regardless.

 

[majornature]

I thought about that too. I even thought about the universe condensing, cooling and collapsing back into itself.<br /><br />I think the universe is viewed in a plane to get a better understanding of the universe. Besides, no one really knows the true shape of the universe, it is just assumed.<br /><br />But serious, I would go with the Universe being a giant ball. The way I see it when the big bang happened, it exploded in a "big ball" way. <br /><br />I am also curious that the stars, planets, blackholes, galaxies, etc. rotate in a circular formation. <br /><br /><b><font color="black"> True Knowledge Exists in Knowing That You Know</font>/b> <b>NOTHING!!!!!</b></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[kjtocool]

I just really think it makes more sense for things to exist in all directions. <br /><br />I think imagining the universe as a "Ball" shape just makes more sense to me.<br /><br />Obviously the question becomes ... is the universe infinite or finite, and what comes at the edge of the now ball shaped universe. I suppose Cold Dark Matter could be the answer to that question.<br /><br />I was just more curious on the general shape of the universe. What should I think it looks like?!

 

[labguy]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I just really think it makes more sense for things to exist in all directions. <br /><br />I think imagining the universe as a "Ball" shape just makes more sense to me. <br /><br />Obviously the question becomes ... is the universe infinite or finite, and what comes at the edge of the now ball shaped universe. I suppose Cold Dark Matter could be the answer to that question. <br /><br />I was just more curious on the general shape of the universe. What should I think it looks like?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> There is a lot of misunderstanding about the concept of a "flat" universe. You can consider the universe to be roughly spherical, with an unknown size as of now.<br /><br />The term "flat" has only to do with the application of geometry (math), it does not mean that the universe is flat such as a table-top or a disk.<br /><br />See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FLAT<br />for an explanation about this and about as much on Cosmology as you might ever want. Wright's website totals over 5400 pages! It states about a "flat" universe that:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><i>The Universe appears to be homogeneous and isotropic, and there are only three possible geometries that are homogeneous and isotropic as shown in Part 3. A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 deg. A curved space has non-Euclidean geometry. In a positively curved, or hyperspherical space, the sum of the angles in a triangle is bigger than 180 deg., and this angle excess gives the area of the triangle divided by the square of the radius of the surface. In a negatively curved or hyperbolic space, the sum of the angles in a triangle is less than 180 deg. When Gauss invented this non-Euclidean geometry he actually tried measuring a large triangle, but he got an angle sum of 180 d</i></p></blockquote>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Thinking is great, specially thinking about this mysterious universe. But when thinking, try to take into consideration this 2 factors<br />1) As long as we humans have 'eyes', infinity or singularity cannot exist to us.<br />2) Compare this with a person who was born totally blind. His perception of distance and the world in general is totally different than ours.<br /><br />This is just my comprehension of infinity and singularity, other may vehemently oppose my way of thinking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[kjtocool]

Yet as long as we have a brain, we can understand that our eyes play tricks on us.<br /><br />I am just looking in general for some more knowledge on the respected theories regarding the shape of the universe. <br /><br />Should I consider out galaxy a small dot inside of a globe? Should I consider it a dot on a peice of paper where the height of the paper is considered more like 100 million years (rather than simply flat)?<br /><br />I am just curious.

 

[contracommando]

“Yet as long as we have a brain, we can understand that our eyes play tricks on us. <br /><br />I am just looking in general for some more knowledge on the respected theories regarding the shape of the universe. <br /><br />Should I consider out galaxy a small dot inside of a globe? Should I consider it a dot on a piece of paper where the height of the paper is considered more like 100 million years (rather than simply flat)? <br /><br />I am just curious.”<br /><br /><br />As far as I understand, string theorists regard our universe as possibly being a gigantic flat-like brane among many other branes- that the universe could in fact be strangely 2-D (even though it has 11 dimensions) and similar to a hologram. There is some evidence to suggest this, like the fact that on certain occasions scientists would expect the volume of an object to come into play (3-D universe), when instead, surface area is what matters (2-D like universe?). The only analogy that I can think of is your television set. Imagine sitting down on your couch one night to watch a show-Battle star Galactica. The people in it move and act as though they were 3-D-and if they were sentient they would even think that they were 3 dimensional-but you know (from you perspective on the couch) that they are nothing more than 3-D representations of 2-D objects (optical illusion) on a 2-D surface - like a flat brane, or a piece of paper. <br /><br /><br />If you want to imagine the universe as spherical though, imagine it as a balloon instead of a ball. Draw the Milky way, Andromeda and all the galaxies on the surface of a blowup balloon-the only way you can travel is by moving in a line on the surface (ignore the inside of the balloon, everything is on the surface). If you blow air into it, the balloon expands and the galaxies move away from each other (the space between them expands) like the big bang. Conversely, if you let air out the balloon the amount of space between each galaxy is reduced and the galaxie

 

[contracommando]

<i>“My idea, thought, question is, could this be false? Much like the earth was once viewed to be flat and soon realized to be curved. <br /><br />Could the universe be infinitely larger than even WE realize? Meaning ... could it be a GIANT ball, a size that we can't even comprehend. Meaning that if we start out from point A (Earth) and walk (assuming we could walk) we would eventually return to point A (earth). <br /><br />I am not well versed on the techniques for deciphering this, but it would be immensely more complex than realizing the curvature of the Earth for various reasons. <br /><br />So ... is this possible? Could the universe be a giant Ball ... could the great bang have just created a larger ball instead of a singular plane? <br /><br />I am sure it will all collapse back on itself eventually regardless.”</i><br /><br /><br />On that last point, I’ve always had the crackpot idea that the universe was really like pizza dough than a ball or balloon. At first it starts out as a condensed, thick ball of dough. Now imagine that we start to spin it. As we spin it, its surface area grows (at an accelerated rate) and as it expands it flattens. Some scientists imagine the universe’s big bang as two giant branes (flat surfaces) colliding in space in a never ending cycle of big bangs, expansions of the branes away from each other, coming together of the branes again, and collisions. But could this be an optical illusion? Instead, could it be like the pizza dough. Imagine for a second that the spinning dough is hollow. It starts off as a ball with north and south poles (depending upon your perspective) and then, an infinite time in the future the universe is so flattened that the north pole (top) and the south pole (bottom) are coming together as the universe is flattening. Eventually the poles collide, giving the appearance that two separate branes (or universes) have collided, but instead, in a strange geometrical way, the universe has collapsed in on itself as

 

[pluto_vic]

Just a small point, but I took string theorists' portrayal of our universe on a 2D brane to be an easier way to imagine the existence of more dimensions. Since we only know 3+1 dimensions it's easier to see that the bulk (not the brane) could have more dimensions than our universe. Where many other branes are spoken of this is a slightly different theory, of a multiverse. The biggest piece of evidence (as I understand string theory) is that gravity is such a weak force in comparison with weak, strong, and EM forces. The trick to imagining this theory would be to imagine both the possibility of being in the balloon, while also only being able to be on the outer surface.<br />There is also a cool documentary entitled 'the elegant universe', but i would suggest going to a local uni and chatting to people to be one of the best ways to find out more about string theory.<br />I hope this is right...

 

[pluto_vic]

Another thing...<br />The pizza dough would need to be spinning already (not a spin started) if it is to expand and flatten, due to conservation of angular momentum.

 

[tex_1224]

There are as many dimensions as there are factors of 6. there are 6 dimensions in a vacuum, each dimension has a perspective of 6 more dimesions, and so on, and so on. here's the catch, we can only percieve 3 of the 6 dimensions. so dimensions of reality, one could say, are as many as there are factors of 3. to break it down. 1 dimension of Time and space between me and an object. I percieve the object in 3 dimensions, plus, in a vacuum we have 6 more dimensions with an infinite number of dimensions depending on ones perspective. 10 dimensions I can see by looking at a drawing of a cube. 1 time, 3 of from my point of view, and 6 for the vacuum. and if I look at the drawing from all the 6 points of view, I can see 60 dimensions. There is no limit to dimensions that can be seen from a single 2d drawing of a simple cube. It all depends on one's point of origin. <br /><br />M.C. escher does this the best.