The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Insight Welcome

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will have to forgive me, for I cannot yet understand your model well enough to see how it matches our observations.How come the CMBR is coming in at us from all directions with only the tiniest fluctuations in temperature? How did your "returning" shockwave hit us evenly from all directions? Does the temperature of the shockwave decrease over time? Are we at the epicentre? How can an explosion with an epicentre cause even expansion throughout?How do distant galaxies move as if they are receding at multiples of the speed of light?If you understand the mainstream theory, presumably you understand the implications of Special and General Relativity too? How does your model reconcile itself with SR and GR?&nbsp; <br />Posted by <strong>SpeedFreek</strong></DIV><br /><br />Good questions those.</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Yes, they are... I give you that. Just give me a bit guys, lol. I have all the kids here, supper, wife sick, lol. I will get those answers to you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>Hey, there's no hurry.. take your time to think things through, do research etc, but most importantly, <em>enjoy the journey!</em></p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How interesting. I believe I mentioned as part of my theory about early magnetic waves. <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>That's why I posted the link for ya. </p><p>Personally that not exactly how I'd "interpret" this particular data, but their interpretation seemed consistent with you earlier presentation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>Well, here goes the beginning of it. In GR, Gravitational Redshift still occurs and would not be obstructed by theorized waves in space. We know that space today is in fact transparent. So the wavelength of light would only show the true distance an object is from the observer as per Einsteins theory.</p><p>In the calaclismic event you have the condensed atoms explode. At the same time space itself ripples outward. From the explosion, the atoms are only carried so far. It is the rippling affect of space that seperates these "clumps" of atoms from other clumps, which later formed into the nebula we see today.However, it is Dark Energy that kept this seperation going.... (more to follow)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>I actually believe that the physical scale of the wave magnitude can be measured. If we take a hard look at the CMBR there are definate fluctuations. But the temperature differences do not vary by much. This would be to scale with a disipating wave. If you have a round beach with a pond in the middle and drop a pebble into it, the line upon which that wave travels up each part of the beach will vary slightly even if the angle of the beach is the same at all parts. Also, a shockwave will also vary but remain circular in essence. This process would also apply in a 3 dimensional sphere form. This is proven in supernova remnants. The temperatures from the center point outward vary slightly, but still keep their circular momentum and temperature rather even before disipating.</p><p>As the waves of space itself calmed and returned back to normal, it would have thrust the position of the shockwave to astronomical distances. Not because it moved the shockwave, but because space itself streached back outward to it position prior to the Big Bang. </p><p><strong>*IF in fact the breach of light speed were possible. It would only been due to this rippling affect of space itself thrusting these atoms outward as it returned back to it's original form. But since we cannot duplicate this rippling affect on space... we cannot duplicate light speed.*</strong> (more to follow) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>I would like to take this quote from Einsteins "Special Relativity":</p><p><em>"The speed of light is fixed, and thus not relative to the movement of the observer. This was impossible under Newtonian classical mechanics. Einstein argues,</em></p><p><em>... the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that <strong>light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocit</strong>y c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."</em></p><p>I do believe this is an undisputed fact. Light does have a definate velocity in empty space. However when space itself is distorted light can still pass between it's wave lengths unaffected by space itself. ONLY the molecules or atoms IN space will have their positions altered during a rippling process of space. The molecules or atoms themselves may not be moved greater then light speed to be placed light years apart, but rather the repositioning of space back to it's original form distiguishes the relative distances between "clumps".</p><p>After reading much of (long and extremely complicated at times) Einsteins theory of relativity and Special Relativity, I have a bit more understanding and appreciation of this brainiac. I cannot nor would I want to begin disputing his calculations. However, as in the wave lengths&nbsp;I mentioned, if this is truly what happened, in the inital explosion, particles were shot in all directions, led by an intense shockwave. This explosion also cause intense turbulence in reference to the particles. At this point is where as a result of the turbulance of particles, we see signs of the first magnetic fields. Also, as a result&nbsp;of the explosive magnitude, space itself rippled;&nbsp;fluctuating&nbsp;the position of these particles within it. It cannot be said that these particles did or did not travel greater then the speed of light as it is not possible to duplicate a fluctuation of space alone at this time.</p><p>It is also theorized that micro-black holes may have occurred in the early universe. If the rippling affect of space can be proven, then in the turbulance of space and the rotation of particles may in fact caused these micro-black holes to occurred due to the intense gravitational fields. If these micro-black holes later settled within a settling nebulea, then it is nebulea that could have possibly fed this minut deformations into the now known Super-massive black holes, while general black holes remain the results of the collapse of the cores of stars. Time in essence is affected by this intense gravitational field but only by the earlier turbulance of space. As current studies show that Black holes occurred prior to the stars around them, it would hold true in this scenerio. As the micro-black holes fed on the surrounding nebulea gases, it does not however prevent star formations in other parts of the nebulea. As a result of the black holes presence, gases are slowly compressed further in the outer edges of the nebulea, resulting in a burst of star formation. As the micro-black hole grows into what we see today, it would be safe to say that the gravitation turbulence would pull any surrounding gas into a galactic disk... finally resulting in a galactic formation.</p><p>In this theory galaxies would thus end up light-years away from each other while never themselves having breached light-speed. It is at this time that Dark Energy continues an acceleration of seperation of these galaxies going. Since these galaxies momentum was only caused by the Big Bang and not near the speed of light, the excelleration of Dark Energy's affect on these galaxies merely acts as a repellant between galaxies. Since Dark Energy acts equally on all galaxies, and is evenly spread throughout the universe; it is gravitational attraction and the smaller influence of Dark matter that is the necessary factor in galactic mergers.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>&nbsp;Absolutely expected, and fantastic questions Speedfreek. I am curtain these question would have to be answered for this model to work, now wouldn't they</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will have to forgive me, for I cannot yet understand your model well enough to see how it matches our observations.</DIV></p><p>The CMBR can be influenced in reference to it's position at it's distance by the rippling of space itself. If the wave affect in still occurring between the outer reaches of the universe and the CMBR, then the CMBR can appear to be coming in at us. Put a boat on the surface of calm water. If you cause waves in the water which way does the boat move. It is also based on how the background radiation iappears to us&nbsp;within a turbulant space. Our position in space now would appear calm while at the distance of the CMBR it would appear as a ever slow movement. We currently can only map the present CMBR, purhaps these slight temperature fluctuations are caused by a still existing ripple affect.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How come the CMBR is coming in at us from all directions with only the tiniest fluctuations in temperature?</DIV> </p><p>&nbsp;The shockwave is an outbound affect of an explosion. I don't believe we are at the epicenter. But I do believe clues might be in further analysis of the CMBR. Yes, I do believe the temperature of the shockwave will in fact decease over time. It would be uncertain to tell if these fluctuations are a result of depth of the CMBR in reference to it's thickness & temperature... or just temerature alone.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did your "returning" shockwave hit us evenly from all directions? Does the temperature of the shockwave decrease over time? Are we at the epicentre? How can an explosion with an epicentre cause even expansion throughout?How do distant galaxies move as if they are receding at multiples of the speed of light?If you understand the mainstream theory, presumably you understand the implications of Special and General Relativity too? How does your model reconcile itself with SR and GR?&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BoJangles]

hrm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Is this theory currently plausable? or am I far out in left field on this? To my comprehension of the topic, it is possible with what I know. But as the topic title says: "Professional Insight Welcome". I definately require a professional in the field to tell me if this theory would in fact result in what we see today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>Speedfreek in a previous post in Ask The Astronomer>Big Bang Question topic:</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"<u>Co-moving distance:</u>&nbsp;</p><p>Those z=7 galaxies are estimated to have receded to around 29 billion light years away by now, meaning that they would be 58 billion light years apart today. They have only had 13.7 billion years to reach that distance, but the expansion of space was a lot quicker in the past than it is nowadays and the limit of the speed of light only applies to objects moving through the universe, not to the expansion of the universe itself. We can see galaxies that are now, and always have been, receding faster than light."</DIV></p><p>Could this statement imply that a disipating ripple affect of space itself could have occurred? As in your explaination of how space was expanding a lot faster in the past as it is now. If so, wouldn't this theory fit such an explanation?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The CMBR can be influenced in reference to it's position at it's distance by the rippling of space itself. If the wave affect in still occurring between the outer reaches of the universe and the CMBR, then the CMBR can appear to be coming in at us. Put a boat on the surface of calm water. If you cause waves in the water which way does the boat move. It is also based on how the background radiation iappears to us&nbsp;within a turbulant space. Our position in space now would appear calm while at the distance of the CMBR it would appear as a ever slow movement. We currently can only map the present CMBR, purhaps these slight temperature fluctuations are caused by a still existing ripple affect. &nbsp;The shockwave is an outbound affect of an explosion. I don't believe we are at the epicenter. But I do believe clues might be in further analysis of the CMBR. Yes, I do believe the temperature of the shockwave will in fact decease over time. It would be uncertain to tell if these fluctuations are a result of depth of the CMBR in reference to it's thickness & temperature... or just temerature alone. <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>The universe was filled with photons after recombination, which became the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. It is not "at a distance", it is here, there and everywhere - if it filled the universe to begin with then we will always detect it, as CMBR photons come in that were emitted at increasing distances from coordinates that form a conceptual sphere that represents those emission points, known as the "surface of last scattering". That is not a real surface moving through space, it is simply a representation of the original emission points of the CMBR photons that we <span style="font-weight:bold">currently</span> detect. So it would seem that either your shockwave is also everywhere, including here, or the CMBR photons that were emitted by your shockwave just happen to be reaching us at the same time from all directions. Or, if the temperature of your shockwave decreases over time and yet the CMBR that is hitting us from all directions is the same temperature, we must be at the epicentre of that shockwave. If we were not at your epicentre, we would have CMBR photons hitting us from different directions that had been travelling for different amounts of time and would thus see a overall difference in the temperature of the CMBR that is coming in from one side of the observable universe when compared to the other.</p><p>Either your shockwave was everywhere or we are at the centre of your shockwave.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Could this statement imply that a disipating ripple affect of space itself could have occurred? As in your explaination of how space was expanding a lot faster in the past as it is now. If so, wouldn't this theory fit such an explanation? <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>Again, I think your theory only works if we are at the epicentre of that dissipating ripple, which contradicts the core idea of relativity - that there is no preferred frame of reference. It seems to me that a lot of your ideas might have some merit only if we are at that epicentre. If all the distant galaxies that seem to be moving away from us at multiples of the speed of light were "riding" your ripple, our observations are telling us that we are at the epicentre of that ripple. If we were not at that epicentre, either galaxies on opposite sides of the universe that have the same angular diameter distance (the distance they were at emission) would have different redshifts, or they would have the same redshifts but with a different angular diameter distance. It seems to me that with your model (as I currently understand it) you cannot have the same redshift and angular-diameter distance for galaxies on opposite sides of the universe unless you are at the centre of the ripple, or everywhere is at the centre of the ripple.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Fair enough. So far it's been very exciting as an amature to study about the universe. But of course there are several downfall's as well. Not having a background in physics or all the knowledge astro-physists know about the universe is the biggest one. Okay, so the CMBR is everywhere throughout space, and the redshift does still remain an issue if I'm not to co-incide with mainstream theories about the universe not being round. For some reason i am still convinced it is. But it how to prove that as still see the redshift & CMBR as we do today WITHOUT us being at the epicenter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>These concepts are exciting, aren't they! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> I am still as enthusiastic about finding out the nature of the universe as I was as a kid!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Yes, it is very exciting. As a kid I wanted to be an astronaut, but as I grew older I got more and more into astronomy. Then when I was posted to CFB North Bay in Ontario a friend of mine told me that his daughter had a very hard time with Math. He himself was a single father, but also had an obsession with astronomy. So he tried including his daughter in the building of his many telescopes. As you know it takes a few calculations to know where exactly to place your mirrors, etc... Well, after she did a lot of hands on and helped her dad work out the math, her marks in school went from 50-60% up to 80-90%. After that he taught me. I built and still have a 10" F5. We did everything from the treating of the carboard tubing (used normally for making concerte columns) to the placing of optics. I have a beautiful Arnold's Optics primary & secondary mirror in it. He is absolutely the best optics marker in Canada. All of his work is personally signed. All I need now is the Atlas EQ6 tripod, lol. It's only $1500 Can, lol. Just need to earn the dough first <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Now, I was also thinking about what you said about the CMBR Speedfreek. Sorry I was wrong about the way I was viewing the CMBR. But if it is everywhere then you are right, it can't be a "shockwave" in itself. But if we think about his for second... if "space" alone was ripped, like waves in water, could the explosion in fact have "radiated" all of the then local space? Then when the rippling affect calmed and spread back out, then it would have carried with it an even radiation throughout it? The redshift is a problem. The only way I can count for that at this time is purhaps an affect caused by our own sun. As light has traveled from distant stars to us, our sun's light has also traveled there. Even though Earth orbits the sun, I was thinking that purhaps that would matter so much at those distances. But again, I could be wrong. Of course, this whole theory could be wrong. I just thought there might have been a purpose to this thought. Like I said, the idea just came to me one day, I wasn't even thinking about astronomy at the time when it came to me. So I figured, why not ask the experts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Is there a way to cancel out the CMBR totally in viewing distant stars? I am wondering if this could have an affect on the redshift of these distant objects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am wondering if this could have an affect on the redshift of these distant objects. <br />Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV><br /><br />Even for distant supernovae the redshift is still measured in the optical band, far far removed from the microwave frequencies we think of as being the CMBR.&nbsp; So I don't see that it could negatively affect the redshift measurement.&nbsp; It would be like weather radar affecting a telescope looking at the stars.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Okay. Your absolutely right. Then I'm not sure how to explain it. It just seems that spherical and an origin point would suit the universe. I often hear the expansion of the universe described as being on the surface of a balloon while it's expanding outward. Distances just growing bigger, but without an origin point. Well, for something to expand from nothing, I believe you have to have an origin point at some point. I have read Einstein's General & Special Relativity, and a number of other astro-physists studies of the universe, their theories, and watched many of the The Universe videos, and something doesn't seem right about it being flat. Ever since this thought came to me, there's just something wrong about it. Do any of you have any idea's what may cause the redshift we see, and have the possibility of a spherical universe? lol, I think I'm fresh out of idea's to explain this phanomena. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>A spherical universe, with an origin point, would only seem to suit the universe if it was created within a three dimensional space that was <em>already there</em>. So where did that 3D space come from and why is it three dimensional to begin with? Space, at the smallest scale, is not empty but is seething with virtual particles, a sort of "quantum foam". Was <em>that</em> the state of the void before the big bang? Or does the quantum foam only appear in space once the universe has expanded to fill it? What would the conditions be like at the boundary? </p><p>If the universe was a single explosion <em>in</em> space, all matter would radiate outwards like a shell, leaving a large void in the centre, unless matter were continually being created at that origin point and moving outwards (steady-state theory). But then we have the problem of explaining how galaxies can seemingly violate relativity and move through space faster than light.</p><p>If space is absolute and everything in the universe moves through it, where each galaxy and photon has an absolute speed relative to the space, then how do we explain galaxies flying apart at multiples of the speed of light. How could the light from those galaxies ever reach us here in that case? If a galaxy was receding through space at 3 times the speed of light and it emits photons towards us, that light moves away from that galaxy at the speed of light and would thus be moving away from us at twice the speed of light! Whereas if a galaxy were moving away from us at only twice the speed of light, those photons would not be moving relative to us. This cannot work as you have photons moving at different speeds relative to each other - photons would overtake other photons. We know that light always travels at the speed of light, however fast the observer is moving relative to that light. </p><p>If space were absolute, then movement would be absolute too.</p><p>But as soon as you introduce the concept of "expanding space", the concept that the metric that defines cosmological distance has been changing throughout time, all these problems can be resolved with one simple solution (although we don't know the mechanism behind that expansion, it precludes the mechanism where galaxies are simply moving through space). But with resolution comes relativity - if cosmological distances increase through a mechanism other than an object or a photons movement through space, if space "expands" in between that photon and the observer at different rates during the journey, but the photon always travels through space at c, the picture all falls into place.</p><p>Unfortunately, as soon as you introduce the metric expansion of the universe, you lose an origin point <em>within</em> our universe. If everything including the space expands, then the space that the origin point originally took up also expands. If everything (including the space) in our observable part of the universe can be traced back to when it would all fit into a space only a few centimeters in radius, then every point in space was as much a part of that origin point as any other. Also, the observable universe might only make up an insignificantly small part of the whole universe. When our "origin point" was only a few centimeters in radius, the whole universe might have already been enormous, or possibly even infinite in extent, and filled with the same stuff as ours. And then it all expanded. </p><p>But then the question always arises - what would the view be like if you could look at the universe from the outside? Does the universe even <em>have</em> an outside and if so, what happens at the boundary? If all the dimensions of space were created with the universe, how can the outside have any dimensions? What is it all expanding <em>into</em>?</p><p>This is where the balloon analogy usually comes in and helpful as it is, the balloon is often misunderstood and taken too literally. The balloon is a simplified model that only uses the two dimensional surface of the balloon to represent our universe and what it does it does well, but it leaves one unsatisfied as to what "up" or "down" might look like. A model with more dimensions might help, but becomes hard to visualise.</p><p>Our universe does not require a higher dimension to be embedded within, but it might aid visualisation to model it using one, although that visualisation would have to be abstract (unless you can think in four dimensions!). So we take the balloon model (a 2-sphere) and we add a dimension to it, making a 3-sphere. Here, our 3 dimensional universe is mapped onto the surface of an expanding 4 dimensional sphere! We keep your intuitive notion of a sphere, but with an added dimension! There's still not much <em>we</em> can do about a centre or an origin point though.</p><p>If you were to travel in <span style="font-weight:bold">any</span> direction through a 3 dimensional universe that was the surface of an expanding 4 dimensional sphere, the straight line you were following would be part of a very large circle and if the whole thing were large enough, any straight line within the observable universe would be so close to "flat" that we would not be able to tell the difference, we could assume our universe is "flat". </p><p>If you were a four dimensional creature living in the fourth dimension in which our model is embedded, your expanding 3-sphere universe might have a 4 dimensional origin point. But of course, this is just a model and we have no need to embed our own universe in a higher dimension except to play games like this!</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>That is another point I was trying to make. If the universe is so vast, then if it were spherical, it's curves might be enormous, that to us they would appear "flat"... but how can either be proven? I think "space" existed before "our" universe. That is why I explained it as a ripple affect. That would explain the vast distances between objects without anything exceeding the speed of light, because space did expand between these objects. But as you said, there are many questions that need solving. But then again, either way there are still many questions that need solving. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you were to travel in any direction through a 3 dimensional universe that was the surface of an expanding 4 dimensional sphere, the straight line you were following would be part of a very large circle and if the whole thing were large enough, any straight line within the observable universe would be so close to "flat" that we would not be able to tell the difference, we could assume our universe is "flat". If you were a four dimensional creature living in the fourth dimension in which our model is embedded, your expanding 3-sphere universe might have a 4 dimensional origin point. But of course, this is just a model and we have no need to embed our own universe in a higher dimension except to play games like this! <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jim48]

<strong><font size="2"><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/5/07f76a55-2e59-4c33-95ef-1c21688ca74b.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />This is fascinating, Rave. May I call you Rave? Obviously you have done your homework. By the way, MeteorWayne and I go way, way back. We are the closest of friends! Now, as the only real, genuine, bonafide, Honest-to-God scientist out here, I want you to know that I stand ready to answer any of your questions in&nbsp;a really, really, really, really cool and scientific way, scientifically speaking, of course. If I go too fast for you just let me know. Getting back to the Big Bang, I enclose a picture of the Big Bang which I took&nbsp;through&nbsp;a humble little telescope of my own design. Perhaps this will be of use to you. Well, I'll admit that I cheated a little. I plugged the telescope into my Mark IV, Series 80, Hyper-Electric Neutron Gravitator. Sorry. I couldn't avoid it!!! Rave, I am, humbly, at your service. Oh, and finally, after the Big Bang came--not surprisingly--the Big Cigarette!</font></strong> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>lol, sure... you may call me Rave. Don't let the name or the avie fool you though. I am 31 yrs old, married, father of three. I have always had a fasination with space. Thank you very much for your compliments as well I've also brough up another topic about my oldest son being mild autistic and recently developing a deep interest in my space video's. This summer I hope to bring him out and let him look at a few object through my home built 10" F5 telescope. It's not a bad piece of gear for a back-yard telescope. I can easily see at least 7 of Jupiters moon's. Can't wait to get a full set of eye pieces for it though.</p><p>Of course as the topic has been going, I find it hard to believe that mainstream believes the universe is "flat". Of course I cannot ignorant to the idea because I'm sure a lot of science & research has gone into this... and some of the greatest minds in the world have pondered & studied this very concept. If anything I posted this topic to purhaps help out with the study in my own way. If anything from this thought I had suddenly come to me one day helps some astro-physist, scientist, astronomer or researcher step back for a moment and something in this topic jumps out at them as an explanation for something they observered or gives them a different persepective to look at... then I'll think it was worth it If not, then I cannot explain why just suddenly out of the blue such a thought would come to me.BTW, did you use photoshop to make that image? Just curious as I do some digital art as well. Like this one below:</p>http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5508/rippleoftimern0.jpg <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find it hard to believe that mainstream believes the universe is "flat". Of course I cannot ignorant to the idea because I'm sure a lot of science & research has gone into this... and some of the greatest minds in the world have pondered & studied this very concept.<br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>When they say the universe is flat, what they mean is that the sum of the angles inside a triangle add up to 180 degrees in a flat (Euclidean) universe. They don't mean a flat shape like a pancake, of course.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

So in your opinion, what shape does the universe take on? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>