the expanding universe

oldschoolmojo · Aug 25, 2007

"The problem is that the thread was "derailed" with talk of universal coordinate systems and magnetic poles, which really are a separate issue from the original posters question.." The only "problem" we have at the moment is that you either weren't paying attention to the original post or you didn't really understand it. Nearly every response in this thread has been entirely within the aegis of Eric's (the original poster) queries pertaining to the presumed expansion of the Universe as opposed to a possible original center. To reiterate the original spirit of his post, Eric asked two questions regarding whether we can (a) "measure that we are expanding outward" and (b) if so, can we "look at the exact opposite direction" for a possible original expansion point which would thus serve as a Universal center. Most of us have made posts well in line with the incipient spirit of these questions. The thread was never "derailed" as you put it, except by the occasional complaint by those whom couldn't follow along (...) I'd like to address your several statements here, which seem very absolute in light of what is actually known about such matters. You said: "We cannot measure that we are expanding "outward"all we can measure is that everything else seems to be expanding away from us, and we think this would be true wherever you are in the universe." Who is "we" you refer to? Many credible scientists have noted that the Red-Shift expansion seems to be illusive. There are many unexplained anomolies which derail this Dopplar Effect such as huge jumps or spikes in Red-Shift from observed stars and nearby quasars, as if they are leaping unreal distances away from us when in fact they are not. Scientists trying to salvage the theory offer the explanation that something between us and the objects is making the light appear to speed up. Other objects we know to be speeding away from us don't appear to match up with their proper Red-Shift.

Saiph · Aug 25, 2007

I don't have tons of time to reply to your post in detail, but one thing did jump out at me (thanks to the bold type):<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Your statements that: "When we look outwards, we look back in time, towards the beginning of time in every direction" and "The first objects in this universe are the most distant objects we see, and we see them in all directions at the edge of our observable universe" are also extremely illogical. Didn't you already (absolutely) say that there is no "center of expansion"? IF THIS WERE ACTUALLY TRUE THERE WOULD BE LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN THE AGES OF THE FARTHEST GALAXIES AS COMPARED WITH NEAR ONES. They would all be basically the same age.<hr /></blockquote> There is a way for further objects to look younger in a centerless universe: A universe that has a definite beginning. At this point, all galaxies are really 13 billion years old or so. Problem is, we can't see them as they are now, because they're so far away. The further away they are, the greater the time delay between how they are and how they appear. So if we look at a galaxy 5 billion ly away, we don't see it at it's real age of 13 billioni years old, but at 8 billiion years old. This way, the further you look the younger things appear. It actually doesn't rely at all on the existence of spatial center to the universe. Anyway, gotta run, I'll try to look over more of your post later, as you do raise some good points (and some of the more dubious ones too) as I skimmed over it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

oldschoolmojo · Aug 25, 2007

"If there is a point and/or surface then they must be so with respect to an external reference frame, otherwise how can they be described as a 'point', 'surface' etc?" Precisely. Keep going with this logic. "The surface and what is within it, they are obviously correlated, but once again a surface implies an external reference, and the internal implies the surface." Very nice. "As for the Big Bang starting everywhere, it fits and makes sense." Whoops! You just "derailed" as speedfreak might put it. Give me one single example of any massive explosive force which begins "everywhere" at once. It isn't possible and totally contrary to all laws of Thermodynamics and for that matter, all laws of Physics. Can you see that the two concepts of 'point-expansion' and 'everywhere-at-once' cannot possibly be part of the same dynamic? I myself would suppose that if it were true, the 'everywhere-at-once' dynamic is more of a Big 'Flash' than a bang, but there is as yet still no provision for a "Flash" which can occur "everywhere" in space (no matter how small) at the same time. "It also implies it is still occurring, and will keep occurring, so long as our particular dimensional setup does." Very good. More and more it seems that the postulated Black Hole at the center of our Galaxy goes through occasional phases of a quick explosive expansion and slow contraction (which may yet lead to an eventual explosive Big-Crunch), breathing in and out as it were. It has been theorized that the matter sucked into Black Holes is degenerated and reorganized into a spinning ball of metalized neutrinoes. As the ball grows it eventually reaches the point where its mass experiences quantum fluxuations, or neutrino quakes if you will, which destabilize it until it explodes outward. This process would emulate the Big Bang, with the neutrinoes then experiencing phased recombinant transitions into heavier elements. Rather than

SpeedFreek · Aug 25, 2007

I will let Saiph do the heavy work as he is far more suited to the task than I am, but... Many credible scientists have noted that the Red-Shift expansion seems to be illusive. There are many unexplained anomolies which derail this Dopplar Effect such as huge jumps or spikes in Red-Shift from observed stars and nearby quasars, as if they are leaping unreal distances away from us when in fact they are not. Firstly you refer to Doppler effect, but cosmological redshift caused by the metric expansion of space has nothing to do with any (relativistic) doppler effect. And what do you mean by "nearby quasars"? With anything closer than around 5 billion light years away, we consider an objects redshift to be dominated by relativistic doppler effect, caused by the objects relative inertial motion when compared to ours. For objects over around 5 billion light years away (which cannot be considered as "nearby"), their redshift is considered to be dominated by cosmological redshift, caused by the metric expansion of space. Relativistic doppler effect causes an apparent redshift, whereas the expansion of space causes an absolute redshift. The problem is how to tell if an objects redshift is caused by its relative motion or the expansion of space. So how close are these "nearby" quasars you refer to? When I say "everything" is expanding away from us at the largest scales, I mean that we have found no blueshifted objects that seem to be over 5 billion light years away. Now the metric expansion of space causes light to redshifted absolutely, and the effect is cumulative. The more expanding space the light has travelled through, the larger that objects cosmological redshift. So how come we measure very similar redshifts for objects at the furthest distances in all directions. Sure, there are anomalies, but they are the exception rather than the rule. We have mea <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

nimbus · Aug 25, 2007

"There has as yet been not one whit, yod or tittle of evidence supplied for a "center is everywhere" dynamic" Isn't this the inflating balloon mechanic? That space is curved into itself, with no edge? How is there a center to expand from in that space? I'm no specialist to astrophysics by any means, but that's how I understand it reading the posts of this forum and pages like this one: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html I'm all ears. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

oldschoolmojo · Aug 25, 2007

"We can only describe the universe from "the inside". We see the universe is expanding, and imagine it as an expanding volume of space and matter. But all empty space is inside that volume... there doesn't have to be an "outside" for space to expand into, the universe might well be self-contained dimensionally." Self-contained compared to what? To itself? This is nonsense. It would have to exist in a boundless dimension, the true Tohu of the Abyss. And if this is the case, it would be entirely possible and extremely probable that there are an uncountable number of sister-Universes which also exist in this uber-dimension. And the beat goes on. "At the risk of bringing a sci-fi theme into this discussion, but to use it simply as an example, consider Doctor Who and his Tardis. The Tardis is much bigger on the inside than it is from the outside. Theoretically it could be as large as it wants inside, whilst the outside always stays the same size. It could be continually expanding, creating more and more volume inside, whilst never growing from the outside (The idea for the TARDIS was probably developed using concepts from general and special relativity)." The Tardis came from the Hindu concept of the Pushpaka, a divine airship which was very much bigger on the inside than on the out. But neither Tardis nor Pushpaka are infinite on the inside and thus both inside and outside can be measured. And there is the damning point isn't it... that there IS an outside topography with its (damning to your argument at least) central point. You are speaking of manifolds again and so I say again to you (again) that there never was a manifold which can be theorized for which a relative center can't be calculated. "This doesn't mean that there isn't an outside of the universe, it means there is no need for us to consider it." How dismissively cavalier of you. "In fact, we cannot consider it, for if we did it would

Saiph · Aug 25, 2007

okay, this is gonna be a doozy. You really did generate a lot of text here. <hr />Who is "we" you refer to? Many credible scientists have noted that the Red-Shift expansion seems to be illusive. There are many unexplained anomolies which derail this Dopplar Effect such as huge jumps or spikes in Red-Shift from observed stars and nearby quasars, as if they are leaping unreal distances away from us when in fact they are not. <hr /> I take it you are refering to the Arp quasars? The currently controversial claims that some objects with high redshifts and thus currently classified as quasars aren't nearly as far as they appear due to their apparent interaction with much closer galaxies? Do not that it's interactions between galaxies and quasars, not stars that's in question here. These are interesting results and may develope into a new class of object, such as the ejection of highly active galactic nuclei (i.e. a core supermassive BH got ejected via three-body interactions). It doesn't necessarily derail the entire expansionary redshift arguement since quasars aren't even a critical link into it. Quasars distances are derived from expansionary redshift measurements. They are not used to support or derive expansionary redshift. So if many quasars, or all quasars are at a much closer distance, it means that we're mis-applying a tool from the cosmological tool-kit, not that the tool doesn't work. Fingers of god: Are caused by galaxies own "peculiar" motions altering the overall cosmological redshift. You'll note that these fingers are more strongly observed closer to us, as the peculiar motions are much more significant compared to the expansionary motions. This relationship drops, as the expansionary motions are more important at further distances, which would result in less cohesive fingers at longer distances (which we observe). I.e. the fingers are a measurement artifact that m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Aug 25, 2007

ack! Two more huge posts after that one.... slow down man! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

oldschoolmojo · Aug 25, 2007

Me: "There has as yet been not one whit, yod or tittle of evidence supplied for a "center is everywhere" dynamic" Nimbus: "Isn't this the inflating balloon mechanic?" No. The original queries of the thread are concerning a possible Universal coordinate system. The Big Bang keeps being mentioned: an incredible explosion of matter from a 'primordial-seed' as so many put it which is inherently a center-out gestalt. The balloon inflates from a central point. The inflated balloon has a measurable diameter and thus a calculable center. Both reasonably defeat the center-is-everywhere gestalt and for the life of me I can't understand why this isn't convincing in and of itself. ..."That space is curved into itself, with no edge?" All Einstein proved was the gravitational bending of light. He never said that space was curved "into" itself; a recent postulate proffered by the manifold crowd which, if true, would nonetheless NOT prove there was "no edge" to the Universe. All indications are that there is in fact an edge, about 156 billion light years in diameter (see the hyperlink supplied in the post you are responding to). We can debate the shape, but whether it is a toroid, ellipsis, magnetosphere (a type of manifold) or any number of other manifolds, there is an edge, no? Try drawing out a manifold and you can clearly see right there is the edge, right? It is amusing how so many keep combining thing and no-thing to make their points on this subject. "How is there a center to expand from in that space?" Indeed! This is the very question I keep asking of others in this thread. They keep borrowing from a center-out Big-Bang expansion to validate a center-is-everywhere gestalt. The two ideas are mutually exclusive and I for one would be relieved if some few of us can understand that once and for all. I am quite familiar with the website you linked to and have often used it as a perfect example of

SpeedFreek · Aug 25, 2007

Self-contained compared to what? To itself? This is nonsense. Not if the universe really is "all that there is". And if this is the case, it would be entirely possible and extremely probable that there are an uncountable number of sister-Universes which also exist in this uber-dimension. And the beat goes on. But if there is an uber-dimension, that doesn't necessarily mean the universe is expanding into it, does it? And will we ever be able to know if those other universes exist? But neither Tardis nor Pushpaka are infinite on the inside and thus both inside and outside can be measured. And there is the damning point isn't it... that there IS an outside topography with its (damning to your argument at least) central point. The outside might be measured, but if its "outside" size isn't increasing, then from any point of view in that outside dimension it would seem like our universe stays the same size. So how could our universe, in this scenario, be expanding into that dimension? It would be expanding from the inside point of view, but from the outside point of view it could be static, or even a "point", just like one of those 7 dimensions in string theory, curved in upon themselves. "In fact, we cannot consider it, for if we did it would have to be part of our universe,"... Don't you mean that YOU "cannot consider it", for if you did you would have to evolve your whacky and wonderful suppositions? Now you are calling the current mainstream model in cosmology whacky and wonderful! This is descending rapidly into ad-hominem territory. .."and become part of the inside!" Whacky. And wonderful. As in, I wonder how, when and if speedfreak could possibly substantiate an outside is inside hy <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

SpeedFreek · Aug 25, 2007

Einstein suggested the distant edge of space was curved and that light would _bend_ until it arrived back where it started. What this sites author (I presume it is a gent) is saying is that a ship could nonetheless EXIT the Universe only to wind up ENTERING the opposite side. This is wormhole theory and has little or nothing to do with the bending of light into a curve. It is not "wormhole theory", it is an illustration of how the topology of the universe might be such that, if it were possible to travel fast enough for long enough in one direction you would end up coming back from the other direction. It is not about exiting and entering the universe (what a preposterous notion!), it is about the concept that the topology of the universe curves back on itself dimensionally. Using this model, if there was no expansion and light had enough time to propagate, you might be seeing the same region of space when looking in opposite directions, but you may not recognise that region as you might be seeing the same space but during different epochs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Saiph · Aug 25, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />No. The original queries of the thread are concerning a possible Universal coordinate system. The Big Bang keeps being mentioned: an incredible explosion of matter from a 'primordial-seed' as so many put it which is inherently a center-out gestalt. The balloon inflates from a central point. The inflated balloon has a measurable diameter and thus a calculable center. Both reasonably defeat the center-is-everywhere gestalt and for the life of me I can't understand why this isn't convincing in and of itself.<hr /></blockquote> You're missing one key point in the balloon analogy. The 3d spatial dimensions are encompassed by the surface of the balloon only. I.e. for the sake of mental conception we've mapped the 3d real space onto the 2d surface. The third spatial dimension of the balloon, the radial line from the center, out through the surface at a 90 degree angle is not an analog to a spatial dimension in "space". It has instead been assigned the meaning of time. Any motion along that radial line in the balloon analogy is tracking forwards or backwards in time, with the intersection between the line and the surface representing the present. Now, the surface is all three dimensions of space, and there is no center to the surface of a balloon or sphere. This shows how there doesn't have to be a center to the universe. If you track back and find the center of the balloon (inside the balloon) you are moving along that radial line, and as such finding the center doesn't exist anymore, but it did back when the entire balloon existed in the center, at the very beginning before we inflated it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nimbus · Aug 25, 2007

Exactly Saiph. I don't have time to read your entire reply, oldschoolmojo, but what I meant and what the page I linked to means is that there is no edge. A spaceship wouldn't exit the universe and enter it again from one side and the other respectively, but seemlessly return to where it started from the same way a bullet could circle the earth, or the ISS doubles back into a previously travelled orbit. There is no edge, but presenting it as on that webpage is a good compromise to aid in picturing the closed space paradigm. I will read the rest of your reply when I'm done with work, thanks oldschoolmojo. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

oldschoolmojo · Aug 25, 2007

"I take it you are refering to the Arp quasars?" Correct. "It doesn't necessarily derail the entire expansionary redshift arguement since quasars aren't even a critical link into it." Sez you. All Cosmological Red-Shift shall serve as a "critical link" to Universal Cosmology. Any attempt to dismiss a single part or parcel of evidence is antithetical to Cosmological philosophy. "Quasars distances are derived from expansionary redshift measurements. They are not used to support or derive expansionary redshift." Of course not, because they are among a body of evidence which pokes holes in what is obviously a still as-yet a developing theory. This being the Lorentz Transformation which suggests a velocity boost for electromagnetic radiaton over and above classical mechanics, a boost postulated to be due to the ever-faster metric expansion of space itself. This supposition, while interesting, has yet to be proven with direct observation and I strongly suggest it never will be, because it is an grand illusion. It may yet be found that this quickening is due to the anisotropic lensing of light itself. In other words, due to the fact that light itself creates a gravity-warping lense, the farthest observable objects are given the illusion of movement away from us. Nearly everything we can see in the Universe indicates it is self-organizing at the smallest and largest levels. What Cosmological Red-Shift is suggesting is that the Universe instead is entropic and will decay into a very cold place within a matter of X number of billions of years; not a very logical argument when compared with what we can actually observe all around us using our senses. Even when we enhance our senses using telescopy and microscopy we see self-organization. You are suggesting that this is for some reason defeated at the highest level, which never made any sense to me. As Sagan himself said: "There is never

SpeedFreek · Aug 26, 2007

This thread now belongs in phenomena. Ask the astronomer is the section where people ask questions of mainstream science. Mine and others posts have been reflecting what mainstream science has to say on the subject that the original poster asked, whereas your posts are continually refuting mainstream science. If cosmological redshift is wrong, and is not caused by the light being "stretched" by the expansion of the space as it passes through it, then that means it must be doppler shift causing the shift in the emission and absorption line in those objects spectra, and those objects really are receding inertially at speeds a lot faster than light. If z=1.5 is considered to be recession at the speed of light and we have measured objects with redshifts up to z=15, would you care to explain this? Or are you claiming that relativistic doppler effect is incorrect too? Oh, that's right, you are! And now it seems you are refuting the Lorentz Transformation too! Boy, you really want to turn modern science on its head, don't you! I hadn't realised when I was replying to you quite what kind of argument I was dealing with. You almost had me convinced I had been missing some major breakthroughs there for a while... The Lorentz Transformation needs to be applied when working out an objects "relativistic mass", length contraction in the direction of travel and time dilation. You are throwing all this out of the window when we have no experimental evidence that refutes it! The experiments done at CERN are a constant test of relativity, of which the Lorentz Transformation is a fundamental part, and time and time again results are consistent with relativity. There is little point in refuting mainstream science here. This forum will not get alternative theories accepted by the mainstream. This forum is for people who want questions answered by mainstream science. Once an alternative theory is accept <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

oldschoolmojo · Aug 26, 2007

"You're missing one key point in the balloon analogy. The 3d spatial dimensions are encompassed by the surface of the balloon only. I.e. for the sake of mental conception we've mapped the 3d real space onto the 2d surface." When using simplistic analogies to describe something very complex it is helpful to understand the thing one is describing to the best of our abilities. So let us do so here and now. There are two 'mental conceptions' involved with the balloon analogy. The one you just tapped is used to teach students about metric expansion because it is something they can see. We draw dots on the balloon representing Galaxies, blow it up, and they expand away from each other. The problem with this particular analogy of course is that with Hubble Expansion the Galaxies aren't expanding like the dots on the surface, only the space between them. So we explain that to the students and ask them to disregard this fact so they can concentrate on the truths of the lesson. This first lesson with all of its flaws is only to be used to introduce the second (and primary) lesson involved with the balloon analogy, which is the expansion of the gaseous volume of space inside of the balloon. We explain to the students that the 2nd dimension can only be represented on a flat surface. We explain that the 3rd dimension adds height and depth to the width of the 2nd-dimension. We do not however assign outright the "meaning of time" (as you put it) to the 3rd dimension, because of course, time has to do with the 4th dimension. Time is like space in that both are meaningless unless compared with something else. Time shows the linear development of space, but should be understood in its proper context which can be very difficult to grasp. I'll go into details in a few paragraphs. We only say "the surface (of the balloon) is all three dimensions of space" for the purposes of the inciting the imagination, because of course the surface of a

Saiph · Aug 26, 2007

gack!!! That's a lot of text. Is there any chance we can break things down a bit here? On Arp's Quasars: First, you'll notice that despite all of Arps objects and the claims he makes that they aren't nearly as distant as their redshift implies (via hubble's law calculations) that they are all redshifted. He has yet, to my knowledge, to find a blueshifted object that's actually far away. So, if his observations are correct, and that some quasars with high redshifts really are much closer, then all he has done is point out that we must be careful to apply the hubble law's distance calculation, along with the fact that we may not fully understand what quasars are. Same goes for the "fingers" arguement. The fact that most of those fingers are actually local clusters is determine not by hand waving of a possible answer, but by other independent distance rubriks. Sure, there may be some objects that are actually in those clusters, but whose high proper motions depart an insanely high redshift...but that does not invalidate the entire explaination. There is a lot of other evidence in favor of a distance to redshift relationship out there. For instance the thousands of galaxies and clusters that have had their distance determined via other means, and then plotted with their distance vs redshift all show a direct relationship. Now, as quasar distances are determined solely by their redshift (with the exception given to the efforts of Arp and a few others) due to the difficulty of other methods, they are not, and cannot be used to derive hubble's law. Saying that they aren't as far as hubble's law predicts does not require that hubble's law is wrong, only applied to objects that do not qualify, as they have incredibly high peculiar motions. So, I say in brief, yet again: Arp's findings, if correct, do not disprove Hubble's Law, but instead point out the over-application of said law. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

oldschoolmojo · Aug 26, 2007

"what I meant and what the page I linked to means is that there is no edge." Unfortunately the site you linked to described the Universe as both having an edge a space-ship could exit and also described the Universe as not having an edge. Very contrarian and nonsensical. "A spaceship wouldn't exit the universe and enter it again from one side and the other respectively" Unfortunately this is precisely what the sites author stated would happen, which has more to do with Worm-hole theory than Universal Cosmology. (But the ship) "seemlessly return to where it started from the same way a bullet could circle the earth" This is not an analogy used by the sites author and is not what Einstein was saying when he said that space was curved. "There is no edge, but presenting it as on that webpage is a good compromise to aid in picturing the closed space paradigm." We see evidence of an edge with COBE and IRAS, which indicated that there is an event-horizon at the extremities of our Universe where energies of incredible magnitude are playing out. The CMBR snapshot shows us the exact center of the Universe as compared with this outer edge. Despite that research beginning in the late 90's indicated that the Universe is Hyperbolic (open), I agree with your perhaps misunderstood statement that it is "closed"-- its gravity combined with the dampening effect of its onion-layers of scalar fields extending to the original one surrounding the nebula from which it collapsed have contained it. Further, we can see this has already happened and things have long since stablized into a 'steady-state'. The well-developed filimentation of plasma into Galaxies combined with the well-developed multipole system at Universal center inform us of what Hubble and Arp already knew-- the Hubble Expansion or Cosmological Red-Shift is an illusion.

SpeedFreek · Aug 26, 2007

"Further, we can see this has already happened and things have long since stablized into a 'steady-state'. The well-developed filimentation of plasma into Galaxies combined with the well-developed multipole system at Universal center inform us of what Hubble and Arp already knew-- the Hubble Expansion or Cosmological Red-Shift is an illusion." Well at least that model may preclude the need for a first cause, so it might merit further investigation. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

weeman · Aug 27, 2007

Oldschoolmojo, your post up above is one of the longest I've ever seen on this board, lol <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> This is certainly a topic that people like to dive into. I'd like to respond to you, Speedfreek, about your post a few before this one. I've also been trying to read up on the idea that space is curved back in on itself in such a way that if you travel in one direction for a long enough period of time, you end up back where you started. Would this be like playing a game of Pacman? You travel off the screen to the left through the little opening, and come out on the opposite side <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

SpeedFreek · Aug 28, 2007

"Would this be like playing a game of Pacman? You travel off the screen to the left through the little opening, and come out on the opposite side" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Something like that, from the viewpoint of a pac-ghost sitting in the middle of the grid. From your own viewpoint it would be a continuous journey, apparently in a straight line. It might simply be more like someone watching you fly off in a westerly direction and then seeing you return from the east, after circumnavigating the world! Or like when you draw a line on a mobius strip and find that the line joins up without your pen leaving the paper, but has written on both sides. But of course, these are all thought games, as the apparent expansion of space seems to preclude us from travelling all the way across the universe... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

kyle_baron · Aug 28, 2007

Would this be like playing a game of Pacman? You travel off the screen to the left through the little opening, and come out on the opposite side A nice example, is in the movie Matrix Revolutions. Neo is trapped in the train station. He jumps down to the tracks and runs in one direction, only to return to his starting position from the opposite direction. Then he says sh*t. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> This is called a 3 dimensional (spacial) torus, with no edges or boundries, because it wraps around. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

weeman · Aug 29, 2007

But of course, these are all thought games, as the apparent expansion of space seems to preclude us from travelling all the way across the universe... So then lets say, hypothetically, that we freeze the expansion of the universe. If you traveled in your ship far enough and long enough, would you eventually calculate that the univere has a seemingly torus shape? So lets say you hypothetically froze all movement of the universe so that Earth is frozen in place as well. You blast off out of Earth's orbit, and travel in what appears to be a straight line. However, since the universe is "frozen" in place, you should come right back to Earth, having circumnavigated the entire universe. With this you could conclude that the universe has no apparent or visual "edge", correct? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

SpeedFreek · Aug 29, 2007

would you eventually calculate that the universe has a seemingly torus shape? Not likely - the torus is just an example used to describe the surface topology of a certain kind of 2D manifold similar to the balloon model. We would need to use a "shape" with more dimensions, which is where our attempts to visualise the problem break down and so we either simplify the model to help us understand the principle, or knuckle down and learn the maths to model it properly, which might leave us with a "shape" that we cannot visualise, but we can have some understanding of the topology/geometry which might be involved. With this you could conclude that the universe has no apparent or visual "edge", correct? Well, you say "apparent" or visual edge... which complicates your question. The speed of light is still finite, so there may indeed always be an edge to your observable universe, wherever you are situated. But if you carried on in a straight line you might find that the "apparent" edge stays the same distance from you, and previously unseen stars are coming into view in front, whilst stars you have passed are disappearing behind, until you find yourself heading back towards where you started from the other direction! (This is all just one possible scenario) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

ajna · Aug 30, 2007

Speedy, the 'expanding into itself' idea is elegant and makes sense, but it is not mutually exclusive to saying there is a dimensional framework that holds what we call 'the universe'. The tardis example is great, because, for balance, we would also need a polar opposite 'expansion' outwards. There is nothing yet known by 'credible scientists' that exists without a cause. By implicating that there is no 'holding framework' for the universe is akin to saying it was 'created'. If the BB was not a 'creation event', then there must be a cause in physics, ergo there is something else besides the universe we know of. Oldschool: "There are many unexplained anomolies which derail this Dopplar Effect such as huge jumps or spikes in Red-Shift from observed stars and nearby quasars, as if they are leaping unreal distances away from us when in fact they are not." Is this effect caused by the passage of photons through different time-frames on its journey? The anisotropy variances describe this don't they? I'm sorry if this is a bit basic, but Gen Relativity tells me that time is not a constant, and nor therefore is the apparent speed of light throughout the universe. I think this is postured behind the scenes by dimensional setups outside of the dimensional setup the we sense directly, but we see the effects as dark energy. This dimensional framework could theoretically be roughly worked out from the anisotropy data, don't you think?

the expanding universe

oldschoolmojo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

nimbus

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nimbus

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

weeman

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

weeman

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

ajna

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page