Full Version: What's At The End Of The Universe
I found a video on the net that was about the universe. It showed a pic the Hubel Telescope took of the universe 47 billion lightyears away. The end of the uiverse. Yes the universe is 47 billion light years in radius. I always thought there was no end. Now that I know there is an end I wonder, what is at the end? If we flew past the end where would we be? Would we be back at the begining?
QUOTE(Turtleguy @ Jun 3 2007, 02:53 AM) [snapback]1706378[/snapback]
I found a video on the net that was about the universe. It showed a pic the Hubel Telescope took of the universe 47 billion lightyears away. The end of the uiverse. Yes the universe is 47 billion light years in radius. I always thought there was no end. Now that I know there is an end I wonder, what is at the end? If we flew past the end where would we be? Would we be back at the begining?
Good question maybe another dimension
show the video on here you!!!
Indeed. We may have to go to more dimensions, to liftoff from the observed universe. Is there an edge? Remember, we are seeing a snapshot in time, when we look billions of lightyears away. The shape of a monolitihic universe may be roundish, or discoidal. It appears that way from the distribution and density of matter and energy.
Here is a basic lecture on the early universe, which actually only touches on the issue of beyond the edge. But, the current theory is that we live in a "flat" universe, which may have expanded into a larger region or dimension. What we observe may only be a portion of a vastly larger universe.
Link (1 hr.)
Here is a basic lecture on the early universe, which actually only touches on the issue of beyond the edge. But, the current theory is that we live in a "flat" universe, which may have expanded into a larger region or dimension. What we observe may only be a portion of a vastly larger universe.
Link (1 hr.)
Here's a link as to the size of the universe:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/myst...day_040524.html
The universe is 13.7 billion years old, light from the earliest galaxies have been traveling to us for at least 13 billion years, so we'd think the diameter of the universe would be 13.7 x 2 = 27.4 billion years. However, the universe has been expanding since its beginning, so the distance covered by the light gets increased by this expansion. So that early galaxy is now 78 billion light years away. It's as if you mark one inch on a rubber band, streach the rubber band and now that one inch measures three inches. The diameter of the universe is 158 billion light years looking 90% of the way back in time. This is from the link.
This would be the diameter of just the observable universe. The actual size of the total universe may be 10 - 1000 times larger.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/myst...day_040524.html
The universe is 13.7 billion years old, light from the earliest galaxies have been traveling to us for at least 13 billion years, so we'd think the diameter of the universe would be 13.7 x 2 = 27.4 billion years. However, the universe has been expanding since its beginning, so the distance covered by the light gets increased by this expansion. So that early galaxy is now 78 billion light years away. It's as if you mark one inch on a rubber band, streach the rubber band and now that one inch measures three inches. The diameter of the universe is 158 billion light years looking 90% of the way back in time. This is from the link.
This would be the diameter of just the observable universe. The actual size of the total universe may be 10 - 1000 times larger.
The Universe has no edge so it therefore has no end.
QUOTE
The Universe has no edge so it therefore has no end.
and you know this how?
I thought the universe had no center and no edge. Before you ask me how I know, I don't. I just read that. I don't know how true or not it is.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=84457
the end of the universe..sounds so decisive.
the end of the universe..sounds so decisive.
I picture it as some sort of space warp... You go to the western edge of the universe, move forward, and suddenly you're on the eastern edge. You go to the northern edge of the universe, move forward, and suddenly you're on the southern edge (using a terrestrial direction system 'cause I don't know a more sophisticated system).
the begining of nothing or the beginning of something 
Our univers does not have a clearly defined edge. It is just energy and light expanding. And it is becoming more dilute the further it expands. Like if you drop a rock into a calm pool. The waves are still present far away but hard to notice. Until they die away. And for it to expand, it must expand into something. And in this case nothing is something (Space).
QUOTE(Turtleguy @ Jun 3 2007, 04:53 AM) [snapback]1706378[/snapback]
I found a video on the net that was about the universe. It showed a pic the Hubel Telescope took of the universe 47 billion lightyears away. The end of the uiverse. Yes the universe is 47 billion light years in radius. I always thought there was no end. Now that I know there is an end I wonder, what is at the end? If we flew past the end where would we be? Would we be back at the begining?
Dont take everything you see too seriously, just remember that it is all theories so we aint sure if it is true or not. Modern day scientist cant say the exact size of the universe. Modern day scientists can't say that the universe is infinite or finite, so they make theories. The hubble thing.... it is just a theory, so dont be so sure that there is an end. There is also a theory that the universe is infinite, so it never ends, but this isnt secure, because it is just a theory. The 47 billion light year size of the universe is just a theory, as I said before, modern day scientists can't say the exact size of the universe if it is finite.
We are free to think and believe what we want, thats why theories are there.
QUOTE(Captain Kolak @ Jun 7 2007, 01:21 AM) [snapback]1712423[/snapback]
Our univers does not have a clearly defined edge. It is just energy and light expanding. And it is becoming more dilute the further it expands. Like if you drop a rock into a calm pool. The waves are still present far away but hard to notice. Until they die away. And for it to expand, it must expand into something. And in this case nothing is something (Space).
I totaly agree with this, the universe is just a huge pile of matter, and like all matter it has a limit, coz if you say that matter is infinite than you must say the a simple football is infinite in size. So........ this matter ( the universe ) must be somewhere to exist no? Well this somewhere is Space. What is space? Space is the emptyness where the universe exists, the universe like all matter must exist somewhere, this somewhere is space. So yes space is nothingness, emptyness filled with a huge amount off matter and energy ( the universe) so if you take a super fast space craft and travel to the end of the universe you will be able to go on, nothing is gonna stop ya, but since you left the universe you will be travelling in nothingness, emptyness...... everything will be black because not even light will be there. So... if space is the emptyness and nothingness where the universe resides then we can say that space is infinite. How could you say that emptyness is finite?? How could someone say that complete nothingess has an end? So I think that space is the infinite one, the universe wich is matter in space is finite because all matter has to end. A football end somewhere, a pencil end somewhere, a house ends somewhere, the earth ends somewhere in space too, it's size cannot be infinite because then only the Earth would exist.
Its not that the universe ends its just that there comes a point where there is no more matter(stars, planets, etc.) and the point where no energy has reached. If you where to travel to the point where the universe 'ends' you wouldn't hit a wall or anything you would just find yourself in a place where there is nothing.
Or at least thats what I think...or what I think I think.
Or at least thats what I think...or what I think I think.
Many seem to be under the false impression that "the Universe" is just the matter and energy. It's not, it's the space too.
So, no, you wouldn't find yourself somewhere where there is only space and no matter or energy - that's still the universe and there is no such "empty" place in it anyway, if the Big Bang theory is correct.
Even empty space is boiling with the creation and almost instantaneous destruction of particles of matter and antimatter, if you look on a small enough scale.
Given the big bang, which created the universe (and this includes the space as well as the matter/energy,) if there were an edge of the universe, it would be just as dense with matter/energy as any other place. After all, that part of the universe will have started out in exactly the same point as all the rest of the universe, IOW, the cosmic egg.
One way to think of an "edge" of the universe is to consider a singularity to be the edge. It is, by definition, anyway.
Another way is to think of the edge as the beginning or the end (if there ever is an end) of the universe in time. After all, the universe is composed of spacetime, right?
Whether the universe actually has an edge in the usual sense depends solely on the spacetime geometry.
The idea that one could travel outward and end up back home corresponds to a closed universe (a gigantic black hole, IOW,) which has a spherical shape. This sort of universe is bounded, so I suppose you could say it has an edge, but you can't see it unless you step up into higher dimensions.
A universe without an edge (in 3-D,) infinite IOW, corresponds to an open geometry - sometimes referred to as hyperbolic.
The hyperbolic and spherical shapes are not 3-D shapes, they are 4-D shapes of spacetime geometry, which is why you end up back at home in the closed universe.
Kind of complicated but if you think on it, you can get it.
Harte
So, no, you wouldn't find yourself somewhere where there is only space and no matter or energy - that's still the universe and there is no such "empty" place in it anyway, if the Big Bang theory is correct.
Even empty space is boiling with the creation and almost instantaneous destruction of particles of matter and antimatter, if you look on a small enough scale.
Given the big bang, which created the universe (and this includes the space as well as the matter/energy,) if there were an edge of the universe, it would be just as dense with matter/energy as any other place. After all, that part of the universe will have started out in exactly the same point as all the rest of the universe, IOW, the cosmic egg.
One way to think of an "edge" of the universe is to consider a singularity to be the edge. It is, by definition, anyway.
Another way is to think of the edge as the beginning or the end (if there ever is an end) of the universe in time. After all, the universe is composed of spacetime, right?
Whether the universe actually has an edge in the usual sense depends solely on the spacetime geometry.
The idea that one could travel outward and end up back home corresponds to a closed universe (a gigantic black hole, IOW,) which has a spherical shape. This sort of universe is bounded, so I suppose you could say it has an edge, but you can't see it unless you step up into higher dimensions.
A universe without an edge (in 3-D,) infinite IOW, corresponds to an open geometry - sometimes referred to as hyperbolic.
The hyperbolic and spherical shapes are not 3-D shapes, they are 4-D shapes of spacetime geometry, which is why you end up back at home in the closed universe.
Kind of complicated but if you think on it, you can get it.
Harte
QUOTE(Harte @ Jun 10 2007, 07:19 AM) [snapback]1716900[/snapback]
Many seem to be under the false impression that "the Universe" is just the matter and energy. It's not, it's the space too.
So, no, you wouldn't find yourself somewhere where there is only space and no matter or energy - that's still the universe and there is no such "empty" place in it anyway, if the Big Bang theory is correct.
Even empty space is boiling with the creation and almost instantaneous destruction of particles of matter and antimatter, if you look on a small enough scale.
Given the big bang, which created the universe (and this includes the space as well as the matter/energy,) if there were an edge of the universe, it would be just as dense with matter/energy as any other place. After all, that part of the universe will have started out in exactly the same point as all the rest of the universe, IOW, the cosmic egg.
One way to think of an "edge" of the universe is to consider a singularity to be the edge. It is, by definition, anyway.
Another way is to think of the edge as the beginning or the end (if there ever is an end) of the universe in time. After all, the universe is composed of spacetime, right?
Whether the universe actually has an edge in the usual sense depends solely on the spacetime geometry.
The idea that one could travel outward and end up back home corresponds to a closed universe (a gigantic black hole, IOW,) which has a spherical shape. This sort of universe is bounded, so I suppose you could say it has an edge, but you can't see it unless you step up into higher dimensions.
A universe without an edge (in 3-D,) infinite IOW, corresponds to an open geometry - sometimes referred to as hyperbolic.
The hyperbolic and spherical shapes are not 3-D shapes, they are 4-D shapes of spacetime geometry, which is why you end up back at home in the closed universe.
Kind of complicated but if you think on it, you can get it.
Harte
So, no, you wouldn't find yourself somewhere where there is only space and no matter or energy - that's still the universe and there is no such "empty" place in it anyway, if the Big Bang theory is correct.
Even empty space is boiling with the creation and almost instantaneous destruction of particles of matter and antimatter, if you look on a small enough scale.
Given the big bang, which created the universe (and this includes the space as well as the matter/energy,) if there were an edge of the universe, it would be just as dense with matter/energy as any other place. After all, that part of the universe will have started out in exactly the same point as all the rest of the universe, IOW, the cosmic egg.
One way to think of an "edge" of the universe is to consider a singularity to be the edge. It is, by definition, anyway.
Another way is to think of the edge as the beginning or the end (if there ever is an end) of the universe in time. After all, the universe is composed of spacetime, right?
Whether the universe actually has an edge in the usual sense depends solely on the spacetime geometry.
The idea that one could travel outward and end up back home corresponds to a closed universe (a gigantic black hole, IOW,) which has a spherical shape. This sort of universe is bounded, so I suppose you could say it has an edge, but you can't see it unless you step up into higher dimensions.
A universe without an edge (in 3-D,) infinite IOW, corresponds to an open geometry - sometimes referred to as hyperbolic.
The hyperbolic and spherical shapes are not 3-D shapes, they are 4-D shapes of spacetime geometry, which is why you end up back at home in the closed universe.
Kind of complicated but if you think on it, you can get it.
Harte
But the Universe has to be somewhere no? Welll we call that somewhere space. As simple as that.
Before the Big Bang all the matter or the universe was compressed in one place, like in one huge ball, but this compressed matter had to be somewhere to exist, this somewhere is what we call space, when the Big Bang occured alll this matter expanded in that somewhere wich we call space.
whats at the end of the universe? a brickwall lol
kidding
wouldnt it be the start of another universe?
kidding
wouldnt it be the start of another universe?
QUOTE(Ghostkol @ Jun 10 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]1717129[/snapback]
But the Universe has to be somewhere no? Welll we call that somewhere space. As simple as that.
Nope, it's not as simple as that. The universe includes the space it occupies. When they say "the universe is expanding," what they mean is that space itself is expanding, not just that the materials that are floating in space are moving away from each other.
QUOTE(Ghostkol @ Jun 10 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]1717129[/snapback]
Before the Big Bang all the matter or the universe was compressed in one place, like in one huge ball, but this compressed matter had to be somewhere to exist, this somewhere is what we call space, when the Big Bang occured alll this matter expanded in that somewhere wich we call space.
Nope. Space was part of the "cosmic egg" that exploded. IOW, space itself exploded outward from this.
It ain't my fault that you don't comprehend. Truth actually is stranger than fiction.
Harte
What is the universe, energy expanding.......... (that includes matter), what is space. Nothing. So the universe is expanding into nothing but that nothing is figuratively SOMETHING.
Only a few years ago scientists/Astronomers had to come clean in admitting that they got it completely wrong about Pluto being a planet... and thats just our solar neighbor?!
It's also been said that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light and now they apparently have that wrong too.
Now they claim to know whats outside the known universe?!...
It's also been said that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light and now they apparently have that wrong too.
Now they claim to know whats outside the known universe?!...
There is no end of the universe. It's current expansion is happening everywhere simultaneously. To state that the universe 'expanded from a centre/cosmic egg' is misleading, because here never was a centre/cosmic egg for it to expand from, or rather the centre/cosmic egg was everywhere at once.
From our perspective, using radio-astronomy, it appears the universe expanded from a central point some few billions of years ago and is now a certain size based on the rate of universal expansion. However, go to any other point of the universe (it would have to be relativistically far away from here) and you would find the universe expanding from another centre based on the radio-astronomical observations from there.
The size of the universe is defined for us by the speed of light and the rate of expansion. You could go to the current edge of the observable universe and it would still be the same size in all directions.
How about the start of our own
From our perspective, using radio-astronomy, it appears the universe expanded from a central point some few billions of years ago and is now a certain size based on the rate of universal expansion. However, go to any other point of the universe (it would have to be relativistically far away from here) and you would find the universe expanding from another centre based on the radio-astronomical observations from there.
The size of the universe is defined for us by the speed of light and the rate of expansion. You could go to the current edge of the observable universe and it would still be the same size in all directions.
QUOTE(jesspy @ Jun 10 2007, 04:43 PM) [snapback]1717432[/snapback]
whats at the end of the universe? a brickwall lol
kidding
wouldnt it be the start of another universe?
kidding
wouldnt it be the start of another universe?
How about the start of our own
QUOTE(REBEL @ Jun 11 2007, 03:53 AM) [snapback]1718339[/snapback]
Only a few years ago scientists/Astronomers had to come clean in admitting that they got it completely wrong about Pluto being a planet... and thats just our solar neighbor?!
It's also been said that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light and now they apparently have that wrong too.
Now they claim to know whats outside the known universe?!...
It's also been said that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light and now they apparently have that wrong too.
Now they claim to know whats outside the known universe?!...
LOL REBEL
QUOTE(Captain Kolak @ Jun 10 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]1717549[/snapback]
What is the universe, energy expanding.......... (that includes matter), what is space. Nothing. So the universe is expanding into nothing but that nothing is figuratively SOMETHING.
Sorry, but that's just not the case. Space is itself expanding. It is the expansion of space itself that causes the galaxies to get further and further apart from each other. Space is four dimensional (spacetime.) Space is not expanding into anything that we can conceive of. It's certainly not expanding into more space. If you must visualize the universe expanding into something, then you're gonna have to somehow imagine the geometry of higher dimensions.
QUOTE(REBEL @ Jun 11 2007, 02:53 AM) [snapback]1718339[/snapback]
Only a few years ago scientists/Astronomers had to come clean in admitting that they got it completely wrong about Pluto being a planet... and thats just our solar neighbor?!
Rebel,
The Pluto thing is only the result of the refining and updating of the definition of what a planet actually is. Nobody was ever "wrong" on this. Going by the original definition, Pluto was a planet. Now it's not. That's all.
QUOTE(REBEL @ Jun 11 2007, 02:53 AM) [snapback]1718339[/snapback]
It's also been said that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light and now they apparently have that wrong too.
Now they claim to know whats outside the known universe?!...
Now they claim to know whats outside the known universe?!...
Nobody has claimed to "know" anything of the sort. But, like everything else in Cosmology, there are various theories about it.
You know, I love your link, and I love the fact that you included it. Bravo.
But if you had read what is at the link, you would have seen that the universe actually is expanding faster than light:
QUOTE
However, for the simplest interpretation of your question, the answer is that the universe does expand faster than the speed of light, and, perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light! As a consequence of their great speeds, these galaxies will likely not be visible to us forever; some of them are right now emitting their last bit of light that will ever be able to make it all the way across space and reach us (billions of years from now). After that, we will observe them to freeze and fade, never to be heard from again.
SNIP
To answer the broader question in detail, we need to specify what we mean by the universe "expanding faster than the speed of light." The universe is not a collection of galaxies sitting in space, all moving away from a central point. Instead, a more appropriate analogy is to think of the universe as a giant blob of dough with raisins spread throughout it (the raisins represent galaxies; the dough represents space). When the dough is placed in an oven, it begins to expand, or, more accurately, to stretch, keeping the same proportions as it had before but with all the distances between galaxies getting bigger as time goes on.
The bottom line is that different pairs of galaxies are moving at different speeds with respect to each other; the further the galaxies are, the faster they move apart. So when we ask whether the universe is "expanding faster than the speed of light," I am going to interpret that to mean, "Are there any two galaxies in the universe which are moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other?"
SNIP
In light of this, a more fair question to ask might be whether or not any galaxies in the visible universe (the part we can currently see) are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
Surprisingly, the answer is yes! Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial has a calculator which allows you to compute many quantities, including distance, for different models of the universe and for galaxies at different "redshifts" from us (the redshift is an experimentally easy-to-determine property of the galaxy's light that tells us how much the universe has stretched between the time the light was emitted and the time it was received). Using the best observationally-determined values for the universe's rate of expansion, acceleration and other parameters (which are the default inputs for the calculator), I found that if you use a value of around 1.4 for z (the redshift), you get the required distance of 4,200 megaparsecs. Therefore, any galaxy with a redshift greater than 1.4 is currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
Can we see these galaxies? Yes, we certainly can! Bright galaxies are regularly detected out to redshifts of a few; a redshift of 1.4 isn't really that much. For example, here are some pictures of quasars (galaxies with extremely active black holes in their centers) with redshifts around 5. We can even see light (although not individual objects) all the way back to a redshift of 1000 or so. (This light is referred to as the Cosmic Microwave Background and was emitted around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, right after the Universe had cooled down enough for light to get through all the intervening matter.) Meanwhile, the numbers spit out by the calculator tell us that for a galaxy with a redshift of 1.4, the light we are currently seeing from this galaxy was emitted around 4.6 billion years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was already quite well-developed.
You might be wondering how we could possibly see a galaxy that is moving away from us faster than the speed of light! The answer is that the motion of the galaxy now has no effect whatsoever on the light that it emitted billions of years ago. The light doesn't care what the galaxy is doing; it just cares about the stretching of space between its current location and us. So we can easily imagine a situation where the galaxy was not moving faster than the speed of light at the moment the light was emitted; therefore, the light was able to "outrun" the expansion of space and move towards us, while the galaxy moved away from us as the universe expanded. Keeping in mind what we learned above -- that farther objects recede faster in a proportionally stretching universe -- we can immediately see that right after the light is emitted, the galaxy is moving away from us faster than the point at which the light is located, and that this disparity will only increase as time goes on and the galaxy and light separate even more. Therefore, we can easily have a situation where the galaxy keeps on moving away faster and faster, eventually reaching or exceeding the speed of light relative to us, while the light which it emitted billions of years ago leisurely coasts on, never having to move across a region of space that was stretching faster than the speed of light, and therefore reaches us eventually.
SNIP
To answer the broader question in detail, we need to specify what we mean by the universe "expanding faster than the speed of light." The universe is not a collection of galaxies sitting in space, all moving away from a central point. Instead, a more appropriate analogy is to think of the universe as a giant blob of dough with raisins spread throughout it (the raisins represent galaxies; the dough represents space). When the dough is placed in an oven, it begins to expand, or, more accurately, to stretch, keeping the same proportions as it had before but with all the distances between galaxies getting bigger as time goes on.
The bottom line is that different pairs of galaxies are moving at different speeds with respect to each other; the further the galaxies are, the faster they move apart. So when we ask whether the universe is "expanding faster than the speed of light," I am going to interpret that to mean, "Are there any two galaxies in the universe which are moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other?"
SNIP
In light of this, a more fair question to ask might be whether or not any galaxies in the visible universe (the part we can currently see) are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
Surprisingly, the answer is yes! Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial has a calculator which allows you to compute many quantities, including distance, for different models of the universe and for galaxies at different "redshifts" from us (the redshift is an experimentally easy-to-determine property of the galaxy's light that tells us how much the universe has stretched between the time the light was emitted and the time it was received). Using the best observationally-determined values for the universe's rate of expansion, acceleration and other parameters (which are the default inputs for the calculator), I found that if you use a value of around 1.4 for z (the redshift), you get the required distance of 4,200 megaparsecs. Therefore, any galaxy with a redshift greater than 1.4 is currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
Can we see these galaxies? Yes, we certainly can! Bright galaxies are regularly detected out to redshifts of a few; a redshift of 1.4 isn't really that much. For example, here are some pictures of quasars (galaxies with extremely active black holes in their centers) with redshifts around 5. We can even see light (although not individual objects) all the way back to a redshift of 1000 or so. (This light is referred to as the Cosmic Microwave Background and was emitted around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, right after the Universe had cooled down enough for light to get through all the intervening matter.) Meanwhile, the numbers spit out by the calculator tell us that for a galaxy with a redshift of 1.4, the light we are currently seeing from this galaxy was emitted around 4.6 billion years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was already quite well-developed.
You might be wondering how we could possibly see a galaxy that is moving away from us faster than the speed of light! The answer is that the motion of the galaxy now has no effect whatsoever on the light that it emitted billions of years ago. The light doesn't care what the galaxy is doing; it just cares about the stretching of space between its current location and us. So we can easily imagine a situation where the galaxy was not moving faster than the speed of light at the moment the light was emitted; therefore, the light was able to "outrun" the expansion of space and move towards us, while the galaxy moved away from us as the universe expanded. Keeping in mind what we learned above -- that farther objects recede faster in a proportionally stretching universe -- we can immediately see that right after the light is emitted, the galaxy is moving away from us faster than the point at which the light is located, and that this disparity will only increase as time goes on and the galaxy and light separate even more. Therefore, we can easily have a situation where the galaxy keeps on moving away faster and faster, eventually reaching or exceeding the speed of light relative to us, while the light which it emitted billions of years ago leisurely coasts on, never having to move across a region of space that was stretching faster than the speed of light, and therefore reaches us eventually.
Source is the last link you gave.
Einstein showed us that all motion in space is relative. There are visible galaxies in the night sky that are actually moving away from us at speeds faster than light. To them, we are the ones moving away. To their nearby neighboring galaxies, they do not appear to be moving nearly as fast as we see them move.
The last link you gave, the one I quoted from, tells you exactly why farther galaxies have a higher velocity realtive to our position of observation than galaxies which are nearer to us.
Harte
Wow, that's quite interesting. I've always imagined a boundless space occupied with energy/matter moving outwards. With that in mind I thought once you get past the outer edge of the expanding matter/energy and keep a pace that is faster than the expansion that you may be able to look back and watch the universe expand as a whole. That would be one site to see. However being that I've never actually researched into the field, that is just an idea I had. Harte, you wouldn't happen to have a link or two I could check out perhaps? I'm very interested in knowing more about this. I may have misread, but If I understand correctly, you are saying that the "space" is attached to the matter/energy that is expanding outward as in they are "one and the same"? Correct me if I got that wrong, however that's pretty cool if I do say so myself. 
QUOTE(QuickSilver2005 @ Jun 12 2007, 11:34 PM) [snapback]1721786[/snapback]
Harte, you wouldn't happen to have a link or two I could check out perhaps?
Here's a search from Google:
Googlesearch of "Expanding Universe."
The fourth hit from the top on that page is pretty good, but not as flashy as some of the others.
QUOTE(QuickSilver2005 @ Jun 12 2007, 11:34 PM) [snapback]1721786[/snapback]
I'm very interested in knowing more about this. I may have misread, but If I understand correctly, you are saying that the "space" is attached to the matter/energy that is expanding outward as in they are "one and the same"? Correct me if I got that wrong, however that's pretty cool if I do say so myself.
Sort of. Actually, it's only space that is expanding, not the matter/energy per se. By that I mean that the matter and energy is in fact expanding, but only because it has to exist in a universe where the space is expanding.
The two analogies most often used are the dots drawn on a balloon analogy and the raisins in the raisin bread analogy.
In the first, the galaxies are dots drawn on a balloon. Only the surface of the balloon represents the universe, not the balloon's interior. When you blow the balloon up, as it gets larger, the dots (galaxies) on the surface (space itself) get farther and farther apart. If you pick one dot and measure the speeds at which the other dots are receding from that dot, at an expansion rate that remains constant (blowing air into the balloon at a constant rate, IOW) you will see that the dots farthest from your chosen dot of reference are moving away from the reference dot faster than the dots that started out nearby to it.
In the raisin/raisin bread analogy, the raisins are the galaxies and the bread is space. I think you can see where that one is going. Just add yeast, right?
By the way, the expansion of the universe does not result in galaxies expanding, or other things, like planets expanding. This is because the force that the expansion of the universe puts on any particular area of the universe is easily overcome in areas occupied by mass. The gravitaional attrraction of the Earth, for example, towards it's core is far, far greater than the force applied to the Earth due to the expansion of the universe. This is why it is only space that is expanding, while the material portion of the universe is just carried along with it.
For people that don't believe that it is space itself that is expanding, one of the reasons they originally theorized this is that no matter which direction you look, distant galaxies are all moving directly away from us. Unless the Earth is where the Big Bang originated, this one simple observation demonstrates why it must be that space is itself expanding, and not matter/energy merely expanding into empty space out there somewhere. Of course, there are many other reasons that substantiate space expanding other than this, but this is one that best exemplifies the idea while being the least complicated.
Harte
QUOTE(Harte @ Jun 12 2007, 01:15 AM) [snapback]1718782[/snapback]
Sorry, but that's just not the case. Space is itself expanding. It is the expansion of space itself that causes the galaxies to get further and further apart from each other. Space is four dimensional (spacetime.) Space is not expanding into anything that we can conceive of. It's certainly not expanding into more space. If you must visualize the universe expanding into something, then you're gonna have to somehow imagine the geometry of higher dimensions.
Rebel,
The Pluto thing is only the result of the refining and updating of the definition of what a planet actually is. Nobody was ever "wrong" on this. Going by the original definition, Pluto was a planet. Now it's not. That's all.
Nobody has claimed to "know" anything of the sort. But, like everything else in Cosmology, there are various theories about it.
You know, I love your link, and I love the fact that you included it. Bravo.
But if you had read what is at the link, you would have seen that the universe actually is expanding faster than light:
Source is the last link you gave.
Einstein showed us that all motion in space is relative. There are visible galaxies in the night sky that are actually moving away from us at speeds faster than light. To them, we are the ones moving away. To their nearby neighboring galaxies, they do not appear to be moving nearly as fast as we see them move.
The last link you gave, the one I quoted from, tells you exactly why farther galaxies have a higher velocity realtive to our position of observation than galaxies which are nearer to us.
Harte
Rebel,
The Pluto thing is only the result of the refining and updating of the definition of what a planet actually is. Nobody was ever "wrong" on this. Going by the original definition, Pluto was a planet. Now it's not. That's all.
Nobody has claimed to "know" anything of the sort. But, like everything else in Cosmology, there are various theories about it.
You know, I love your link, and I love the fact that you included it. Bravo.
But if you had read what is at the link, you would have seen that the universe actually is expanding faster than light:
Source is the last link you gave.
Einstein showed us that all motion in space is relative. There are visible galaxies in the night sky that are actually moving away from us at speeds faster than light. To them, we are the ones moving away. To their nearby neighboring galaxies, they do not appear to be moving nearly as fast as we see them move.
The last link you gave, the one I quoted from, tells you exactly why farther galaxies have a higher velocity realtive to our position of observation than galaxies which are nearer to us.
Harte
Apologies on the late reply Harte, had my pc in for a major tune up & service.
My mistake on the post not the link though...
What i actually meant to say and didn't was that science had us believing that the universe was expanding 'as fast as' the speed of light 'not faster', hence the reason for me posting the link that states that they now claim that it's actually 'expanding faster' than the speed of light.
When it comes to trying to prove science wrong i sometimes get a little ahead of myself with excitement.
As you stated on 'the refining & updating of Pluto'...you kind of lost me there.
They either got it right or got it wrong, theres no in between especially if it was taught to us in schools & in text books or whatever etc for many years and then only for them to 're-discover' generations later they had it wrong.
Lets face it here, if we were to all make our own theories on the the cosmos and somehow have them published, most of us would probably be labeled a little loopy or even space out on something...but not official science though.
Lastly on cosmology(science)basing itself on 'theories'...Don't you think it better they get their theories based on facts before dishing it out to the world and placing it in magazines and text books etc?
Just my thoughts on it anyway Harte...
QUOTE(REBEL @ Jun 14 2007, 09:40 PM) [snapback]1725315[/snapback]
Lastly on cosmology(science)basing itself on 'theories'...Don't you think it better they get their theories based on facts before dishing it out to the world and placing it in magazines and text books etc?
Just my thoughts on it anyway Harte...
Just my thoughts on it anyway Harte...
Hey, I like your thoughts!
If space is expanding and our observation of the end of the universe is 47 billion light years away, our perception of the so called end of the universe is a gabillion years ago and has expanded since at a rate stated of one light year per all those years and may really be a gazillion light years further out today in so called real time. If this is the case what is the universe expanding into? Is there folds of space, of space time? I was given this link by one of the posters in this forum someplace (I dont remember at this time who it was) and it may help in this perplexing question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-Yau_manifold
QUOTE(Leonardo @ Jun 11 2007, 07:53 AM) [snapback]1718340[/snapback]
There is no end of the universe. It's current expansion is happening everywhere simultaneously. To state that the universe 'expanded from a centre/cosmic egg' is misleading, because here never was a centre/cosmic egg for it to expand from, or rather the centre/cosmic egg was everywhere at once.
From our perspective, using radio-astronomy, it appears the universe expanded from a central point some few billions of years ago and is now a certain size based on the rate of universal expansion. However, go to any other point of the universe (it would have to be relativistically far away from here) and you would find the universe expanding from another centre based on the radio-astronomical observations from there.
The size of the universe is defined for us by the speed of light and the rate of expansion. You could go to the current edge of the observable universe and it would still be the same size in all directions.
How about the start of our own
From our perspective, using radio-astronomy, it appears the universe expanded from a central point some few billions of years ago and is now a certain size based on the rate of universal expansion. However, go to any other point of the universe (it would have to be relativistically far away from here) and you would find the universe expanding from another centre based on the radio-astronomical observations from there.
The size of the universe is defined for us by the speed of light and the rate of expansion. You could go to the current edge of the observable universe and it would still be the same size in all directions.
How about the start of our own
Harte-
Awesome, very good explanation of the process. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Memphis, TN?
I'm around an hour southeast of you at Ripley MS.
Awesome, very good explanation of the process. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Memphis, TN?
I'm around an hour southeast of you at Ripley MS.
Harte, I am sorry to be so stubborn but the universe and space if you wanna add it has to be somewhere to exist, everything has to be somewhere to exist, that is what exist is, and this place you say that the universe expanded to when the big bang is somewhere, it's ok if you dont agree with me that this somewhere is space but if it is not space than space itself has to be somewhere to then. And this somewhere is unlimited coz its nothing. Just think on it, before the big bang, you say that the universe and including space was compressed in one, well.......... where do you think they where? Well they where in complete emptyness, and in one spot of emptyness wass this huge mass of matter, because this huge mass of matter had to be somewhere for it to be there....... for it to exist, well this somewhere is what I mean by Space.
QUOTE(REBEL @ Jun 14 2007, 09:40 PM) [snapback]1725315[/snapback]
My mistake on the post not the link though...
What i actually meant to say and didn't was that science had us believing that the universe was expanding 'as fast as' the speed of light 'not faster', hence the reason for me posting the link that states that they now claim that it's actually 'expanding faster' than the speed of light.
What i actually meant to say and didn't was that science had us believing that the universe was expanding 'as fast as' the speed of light 'not faster', hence the reason for me posting the link that states that they now claim that it's actually 'expanding faster' than the speed of light.
Rebel,
Your statement about what science "had us believeing" is unfamiliar to me. Science never "had me believing" this.
The idea that the universe is expanding faster than light is a relative one anyway (no pun intended.) There are portions of the universe moving away from us at this speed based on our observations. If we were in those areas instead of here, it would be the part of the universe where the Earth is located that would be moving away that fast. Anywhere between here and there and the observation would show that neither portion of the universe is moving away from that position that fast.
There is no "center" of the universe, so there is no reference point against which to measure the absolute velocity of anything. In fact, this means that there is truly no such thing as absolute velocity. What I'm getting at here is that it's really meaningless to say that the "Universe is expanding faster than light" when clearly it depends on the position of the observer which portions are actually traveling at great speed.
The velocity cosmologists attribute to the expansion is cumulative, just like it would be in the balloon or raisin bread examples. IOW, no single dot on the ballon is traveling any faster than any other dot, as far as the expansion goes. But from the perspective of one dot that we take to be standing still - like we do the solar system - the further dots appear to us to be moving away at a faster rate. This is because there is more "space" (balloon surface) to expand between our reference dot and the far dot.
QUOTE(REBEL @ Jun 14 2007, 09:40 PM) [snapback]1725315[/snapback]
As you stated on 'the refining & updating of Pluto'...you kind of lost me there.
They either got it right or got it wrong, theres no in between especially if it was taught to us in schools & in text books or whatever etc for many years and then only for them to 're-discover' generations later they had it wrong.
They either got it right or got it wrong, theres no in between especially if it was taught to us in schools & in text books or whatever etc for many years and then only for them to 're-discover' generations later they had it wrong.
You can word it anyway you want, but what actually happened is that astronomers decided that Pluto was not a planet. They did not "discover" that Pluto was not a planet. They changed what the term "planet" means.
QUOTE(REBEL @ Jun 14 2007, 09:40 PM) [snapback]1725315[/snapback]
Lastly on cosmology(science)basing itself on 'theories'...Don't you think it better they get their theories based on facts before dishing it out to the world and placing it in magazines and text books etc?
No, I don't think this. And neither do you, apparently, since you posted this message using an electronic device that operates on theory alone.
By this logic, scientists should never publish any theory, and without theories, there is no science.
Absolute fact exists only as data. Attempts to explain data are what's known as theories. Once a theory is proposed (published,) scientists manipulate the new theory to see if it can be made to make predictions that, if born out, would provide evidence for the veracity, or at least the usefulness, of the new theory. If predictions do arise from the new theory, and if what the predictions predicted can be shown to be experimentally verified, then the theory is (usually) accepted. Until, that is, another theory comes along that explains the data and provides verified predictions that were absent from the first theory.
That doesn't mean that the theory actually explains the data. It does mean that the theory provides a workable and useful model for what's happening in the real world that resulted in the collection of the original data (facts.)
QUOTE(QuickSilver2005 @ Jun 15 2007, 12:02 AM) [snapback]1725511[/snapback]
Harte-
Awesome, very good explanation of the process. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Memphis, TN?
I'm around an hour southeast of you at Ripley MS.
Awesome, very good explanation of the process. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Memphis, TN?
I'm around an hour southeast of you at Ripley MS.
Thanks for the compliment QuickSilver2005.
I'm actually in Southaven.
QUOTE(Ghostkol @ Jun 15 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]1726097[/snapback]
Harte, I am sorry to be so stubborn but the universe and space if you wanna add it has to be somewhere to exist, everything has to be somewhere to exist, that is what exist is, and this place you say that the universe expanded to when the big bang is somewhere, it's ok if you dont agree with me that this somewhere is space but if it is not space than space itself has to be somewhere to then.
Ghostkol,
Stubborn is good. And I actually agree with you. I think we are really discussing what boils down to semantics here. Remember, I said that if you must insist on imagining what the universe is expanding into, then you're gonna have to imagine higher-dimensions. That's a rather tall order.
Our four-dimensional spacetime has it's origins in the Big Bang. That does not preclude a "place" in some higher-dimensional manifold of some sort for the cosmic egg to exist in prior to the bang.
Current extensions of string theory (collectively called "M-Theory") provide for exactly this sort of thing.
Harte
QUOTE(Harte)
I read through the first twenty posts of this thread and began typing a reply to lots of different ones, then after checking out a few more I saw that you said pretty much everything that was on my mind. Nice posts.
To tell you the truth, I actually dont believe in the big bang theory at all, maybe I am wrong but I find it very poorly scientific. How and why could all this matter and energy blast? What was the reason for it to explode? And was alll this matter and energy always there? Or was there something before it? What created all this matter and energy? It had to come from somewhere, or from something... or it had to be created coz when you come to think of it, it is just matter.
This is why I believe the big bang theory is incorrect, it is filled with questions that when you read them, the theory suddenly sounds like a stupidity. Don't get me wrong, I believe all this theories have a good base of facts and scientific data but the big bang theory is too insecure and it sounds more insecure when you ask yourself this questions.
If I were to believe that the big bang theory is true then I would believe that the universe is expanding due to the energy released by the huge blast. But then I would have to say that the universe was all expanding from one place like an explosion behaves but as you said here, that is absurd. Because then there would actually be a center of the universe and I dont think that is true.
The balloon explenation is pretty good, but I quite don't understand.... if the galaxies are the dots then what is inside of the balloon? What would be the air that is in the balloon in the universe?
This is why I believe the big bang theory is incorrect, it is filled with questions that when you read them, the theory suddenly sounds like a stupidity. Don't get me wrong, I believe all this theories have a good base of facts and scientific data but the big bang theory is too insecure and it sounds more insecure when you ask yourself this questions.
If I were to believe that the big bang theory is true then I would believe that the universe is expanding due to the energy released by the huge blast. But then I would have to say that the universe was all expanding from one place like an explosion behaves but as you said here, that is absurd. Because then there would actually be a center of the universe and I dont think that is true.
The balloon explenation is pretty good, but I quite don't understand.... if the galaxies are the dots then what is inside of the balloon? What would be the air that is in the balloon in the universe?
QUOTE(Turtleguy @ Jun 2 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]1706378[/snapback]
I found a video on the net that was about the universe. It showed a pic the Hubel Telescope took of the universe 47 billion lightyears away. The end of the uiverse. Yes the universe is 47 billion light years in radius. I always thought there was no end. Now that I know there is an end I wonder, what is at the end? If we flew past the end where would we be? Would we be back at the begining?
That's visible spectra. If you look at a newer study in the phenomenon of gamma energies, it's quite a bit larger. Not sure by how much exactly, but it's been termed the "expanse".
These radiations come from some source, and are either amplified or deamplified. When applying the correct algorithm to, you can estimate the distance between the points, given your relative distance from the closest.
The most interesting right now being star "hatcheries". Where these energies can even be cast backwards towards us, from an outlying point.
When applying these perceptible phenomenon, right now, as is my argument, no one really knows how expansive the universe is, or can be. Some estimate no end (infinite), others say in the 100's of trillions. Quite fascinating.
Then maybe the link in my previous post may work where its a never ending twist and turns into different dimensions and time the universe is expanding into, This has a picture of this theory. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1...Calabi-Yau.jpeg
QUOTE(Harte @ Jun 15 2007, 05:21 PM) [snapback]1726429[/snapback]
Rebel,
Your statement about what science "had us believeing" is unfamiliar to me. Science never "had me believing" this.
The idea that the universe is expanding faster than light is a relative one anyway (no pun intended.) There are portions of the universe moving away from us at this speed based on our observations. If we were in those areas instead of here, it would be the part of the universe where the Earth is located that would be moving away that fast. Anywhere between here and there and the observation would show that neither portion of the universe is moving away from that position that fast.
There is no "center" of the universe, so there is no reference point against which to measure the absolute velocity of anything. In fact, this means that there is truly no such thing as absolute velocity. What I'm getting at here is that it's really meaningless to say that the "Universe is expanding faster than light" when clearly it depends on the position of the observer which portions are actually traveling at great speed.
The velocity cosmologists attribute to the expansion is cumulative, just like it would be in the balloon or raisin bread examples. IOW, no single dot on the ballon is traveling any faster than any other dot, as far as the expansion goes. But from the perspective of one dot that we take to be standing still - like we do the solar system - the further dots appear to us to be moving away at a faster rate. This is because there is more "space" (balloon surface) to expand between our reference dot and the far dot.
You can word it anyway you want, but what actually happened is that astronomers decided that Pluto was not a planet. They did not "discover" that Pluto was not a planet. They changed what the term "planet" means.
No, I don't think this. And neither do you, apparently, since you posted this message using an electronic device that operates on theory alone.
By this logic, scientists should never publish any theory, and without theories, there is no science.
Absolute fact exists only as data. Attempts to explain data are what's known as theories. Once a theory is proposed (published,) scientists manipulate the new theory to see if it can be made to make predictions that, if born out, would provide evidence for the veracity, or at least the usefulness, of the new theory. If predictions do arise from the new theory, and if what the predictions predicted can be shown to be experimentally verified, then the theory is (usually) accepted. Until, that is, another theory comes along that explains the data and provides verified predictions that were absent from the first theory.
That doesn't mean that the theory actually explains the data. It does mean that the theory provides a workable and useful model for what's happening in the real world that resulted in the collection of the original data (facts.)
Thanks for the compliment QuickSilver2005.
I'm actually in Southaven.
Ghostkol,
Stubborn is good. And I actually agree with you. I think we are really discussing what boils down to semantics here. Remember, I said that if you must insist on imagining what the universe is expanding into, then you're gonna have to imagine higher-dimensions. That's a rather tall order.
Our four-dimensional spacetime has it's origins in the Big Bang. That does not preclude a "place" in some higher-dimensional manifold of some sort for the cosmic egg to exist in prior to the bang.
Current extensions of string theory (collectively called "M-Theory") provide for exactly this sort of thing.
Harte
Your statement about what science "had us believeing" is unfamiliar to me. Science never "had me believing" this.
The idea that the universe is expanding faster than light is a relative one anyway (no pun intended.) There are portions of the universe moving away from us at this speed based on our observations. If we were in those areas instead of here, it would be the part of the universe where the Earth is located that would be moving away that fast. Anywhere between here and there and the observation would show that neither portion of the universe is moving away from that position that fast.
There is no "center" of the universe, so there is no reference point against which to measure the absolute velocity of anything. In fact, this means that there is truly no such thing as absolute velocity. What I'm getting at here is that it's really meaningless to say that the "Universe is expanding faster than light" when clearly it depends on the position of the observer which portions are actually traveling at great speed.
The velocity cosmologists attribute to the expansion is cumulative, just like it would be in the balloon or raisin bread examples. IOW, no single dot on the ballon is traveling any faster than any other dot, as far as the expansion goes. But from the perspective of one dot that we take to be standing still - like we do the solar system - the further dots appear to us to be moving away at a faster rate. This is because there is more "space" (balloon surface) to expand between our reference dot and the far dot.
You can word it anyway you want, but what actually happened is that astronomers decided that Pluto was not a planet. They did not "discover" that Pluto was not a planet. They changed what the term "planet" means.
No, I don't think this. And neither do you, apparently, since you posted this message using an electronic device that operates on theory alone.
By this logic, scientists should never publish any theory, and without theories, there is no science.
Absolute fact exists only as data. Attempts to explain data are what's known as theories. Once a theory is proposed (published,) scientists manipulate the new theory to see if it can be made to make predictions that, if born out, would provide evidence for the veracity, or at least the usefulness, of the new theory. If predictions do arise from the new theory, and if what the predictions predicted can be shown to be experimentally verified, then the theory is (usually) accepted. Until, that is, another theory comes along that explains the data and provides verified predictions that were absent from the first theory.
That doesn't mean that the theory actually explains the data. It does mean that the theory provides a workable and useful model for what's happening in the real world that resulted in the collection of the original data (facts.)
Thanks for the compliment QuickSilver2005.
I'm actually in Southaven.
Ghostkol,
Stubborn is good. And I actually agree with you. I think we are really discussing what boils down to semantics here. Remember, I said that if you must insist on imagining what the universe is expanding into, then you're gonna have to imagine higher-dimensions. That's a rather tall order.
Our four-dimensional spacetime has it's origins in the Big Bang. That does not preclude a "place" in some higher-dimensional manifold of some sort for the cosmic egg to exist in prior to the bang.
Current extensions of string theory (collectively called "M-Theory") provide for exactly this sort of thing.
Harte
QUOTE(Harte @ Jun 16 2007, 02:51 AM) [snapback]1726429[/snapback]
Rebel,
Your statement about what science "had us believeing" is unfamiliar to me. Science never "had me believing" this.
Your statement about what science "had us believeing" is unfamiliar to me. Science never "had me believing" this.
You may be right Harte, just a little confusion about it all on my part i guess?
Not really my topic of discussion but always interesting topic never the less, we live and learn...
Thanks for the replys.
Later...
Expanding Confusion
The Universe, Expanding Beyond All Understanding
A cool link i found on the so called theory, if i could use that word lol! on the center of the universe...
Confusion over the center of the universe?
QUOTE(Ghostkol @ Jun 15 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]1726733[/snapback]
To tell you the truth, I actually dont believe in the big bang theory at all, maybe I am wrong but I find it very poorly scientific. How and why could all this matter and energy blast? What was the reason for it to explode? And was alll this matter and energy always there? Or was there something before it? What created all this matter and energy? It had to come from somewhere, or from something... or it had to be created coz when you come to think of it, it is just matter.
If I were to believe that the big bang theory is true then I would believe that the universe is expanding due to the energy released by the huge blast. But then I would have to say that the universe was all expanding from one place like an explosion behaves but as you said here, that is absurd. Because then there would actually be a center of the universe and I dont think that is true.
If I were to believe that the big bang theory is true then I would believe that the universe is expanding due to the energy released by the huge blast. But then I would have to say that the universe was all expanding from one place like an explosion behaves but as you said here, that is absurd. Because then there would actually be a center of the universe and I dont think that is true.
Ghostkol,
Believe whatever you want. You still have to explain why all the galaxies we see in the sky are moving away from us, no matter what direction we look in, and why the further away a galaxy is from ours, the faster it appears to be receding from us.
Imagine it as a videotape, then ask what happens if you run the tape backwards.
The physical fact of galactic receding is only part of evidence for the Big Bang. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is probably the single strongest piece of evidence for the Big Bang. It is the actual energy of the original bang. Of course it's still out there, where would it go? It started in the cosmic egg, which is what the universe before the Big Bang is sometimes referred to.(BTW, the phrase "before the Big Bang" shouldn't really be used here, since the Big Bang created not only the universe we live in, but also the time for it to exist in, since space and time are two aspects of the same thing - spacetime.)
We are still in the cosmic egg, it's just bigger now. Because it's bigger, the energy of the Big Bang is diluted, yet this very same energy can be detected, again in every single direction you look in in space. The detected values associated with this energy - wavelength, frequency, etc. - exactly match the values predicted by the Big Bang theory which were predicted before the radiation had ever been detected.
Not only that, looking very, very closely at the extremely fine variations of the background radiation between one targeted direction and the next reveals a flabbergasting observation about the universe. It appears that the matter in the universe is concentrated in certain areas, and absent in others, and these areas are actually connected over extremely vast distances, staggeringly vast distances, by strands of matter made up of galaxies. Like an unimaginably huge three-dimensional spiderweb.
Believe or disbelieve the Big Bang. It is the best theory we have right now. It explains almost all the observations we have made. Of course, it is the fate of every theory to be proven wrong eventually. But usually, there remains in new theories remnants of the older theories. Like the way Relativity contains Newton's "laws of motion" within it as a special case that is approximately correct to an extremely fine degree at velocities less than around half the speed of light.
QUOTE(Ghostkol @ Jun 15 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]1726733[/snapback]
The balloon explenation is pretty good, but I quite don't understand.... if the galaxies are the dots then what is inside of the balloon? What would be the air that is in the balloon in the universe?
Since the surface of the ballon is our universe, and it is also a two-dimensional curved plane, the inside of the balloon, as well as the outside (the area around the balloon that the balloon is expanding "into") would be a higher dimension. In this case, The Third Dimension!!! (cue scary music)
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
And that's why I prefer the balloon analogy to the raisin bread one - because the "higher dimensions" part remains intact in the analogy and not just the "galaxies moving apart" part. With raisin bread, this part of the analogy fails because you have 3-d bread expanding into 3-d space. You have to "pretend" that the area around the bread (that the bread is expanding into) is of some other dimension. With the balloon's planar surface, it's obviously another dimension. It's the same reason that even if Snoopy was alive in the comics page, he couldn't possibly see your big old eyes looking at him.
Harte
QUOTE(REBEL @ Jun 15 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]1726874[/snapback]
You may be right Harte, just a little confusion about it all on my part i guess?
Not really my topic of discussion but always interesting topic never the less, we live and learn...
Thanks for the replys.
Later...
Expanding Confusion
The Universe, Expanding Beyond All Understanding
A cool link i found on the so called theory, if i could use that word lol! on the center of the universe...
Confusion over the center of the universe?
Not really my topic of discussion but always interesting topic never the less, we live and learn...
Thanks for the replys.
Later...
Expanding Confusion
The Universe, Expanding Beyond All Understanding
A cool link i found on the so called theory, if i could use that word lol! on the center of the universe...
Confusion over the center of the universe?
REBEL,
Excellent excellent links.
Ghostkol - click on those. They explain most of this better than me.
Harte
QUOTE(Turtleguy @ Jun 3 2007, 02:53 AM) [snapback]1706378[/snapback]
I found a video on the net that was about the universe. It showed a pic the Hubel Telescope took of the universe 47 billion lightyears away. The end of the uiverse. Yes the universe is 47 billion light years in radius. I always thought there was no end. Now that I know there is an end I wonder, what is at the end? If we flew past the end where would we be? Would we be back at the begining?
"OBLIVION"
Ahh ok , believe it or not harte the balloon explenation cleared most of it for me.
Just one thing, if every galaxy is moving away from us, then how come the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us? Destined to collide with The Milky Way. Howcome we get galxies colliding if they are all moving away from each other? If the balloon is expanding the dots move away from each other then how are we getting some of the dots colliding and uniting?
Just one thing, if every galaxy is moving away from us, then how come the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us? Destined to collide with The Milky Way. Howcome we get galxies colliding if they are all moving away from each other? If the balloon is expanding the dots move away from each other then how are we getting some of the dots colliding and uniting?
QUOTE(Ghostkol @ Jun 16 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]1728076[/snapback]
Ahh ok , believe it or not harte the balloon explenation cleared most of it for me.
Just one thing, if every galaxy is moving away from us, then how come the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us? Destined to collide with The Milky Way. Howcome we get galxies colliding if they are all moving away from each other? If the balloon is expanding the dots move away from each other then how are we getting some of the dots colliding and uniting?
Just one thing, if every galaxy is moving away from us, then how come the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us? Destined to collide with The Milky Way. Howcome we get galxies colliding if they are all moving away from each other? If the balloon is expanding the dots move away from each other then how are we getting some of the dots colliding and uniting?
The Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way galaxy are both part of what astronomers call the "local group." This group of galaxies are near enough to each other that they are influenced by each other's gravitational fields.
Remember the thing about space itself expanding. That includes the space occupied at any given instant by the planet Earth. If it weren't for the gravitational attraction that the mass of the Earth has for the center of the Earth, the Earth itself would be expanding right along with the universe.
BTW, it also includes the space occupied by you, but the electrochemical bonds in the molecular structures of your body's cellular walls prevents you from expanding, because these forces are greater than that exerted by the universe's expansion.
The force that the expansion of the universe exerts in any given area is small enough to be overcome by relatively weak gravitation. The mutual gravitational attraction of the "local group" more than overcomes the force exerted by universal expansion. But the group itself is moving away from all other galxies, corrected for local motion among other galactic "groups" and/or clusters.
Harte
And we must remember the Big Bang theory is not a theory of what created the BB itself. It's a theory of how the universe evolves after the BB happened.
The earliest period of time of the universe, from t=0 to 10^-43 sec is the Planck epoch. The physics of the Planck epoch is not well understood, as during this time gravity was united with the other fundamental forces, and a theory of quantum gravity will be needed to explore this first tiny fraction of a second at the beginning of the universe. Even if we come to some understanding of the physics of the Planck epoch, it will still tell us nothing of what happened at t=0
Perhaps string theory or M-theory will be able to explain what created the BB itself.
The earliest period of time of the universe, from t=0 to 10^-43 sec is the Planck epoch. The physics of the Planck epoch is not well understood, as during this time gravity was united with the other fundamental forces, and a theory of quantum gravity will be needed to explore this first tiny fraction of a second at the beginning of the universe. Even if we come to some understanding of the physics of the Planck epoch, it will still tell us nothing of what happened at t=0
Perhaps string theory or M-theory will be able to explain what created the BB itself.
always i wanted to know this answer.but no scientists had found it yet.there is no end.........
how u r saying
how u r saying
I always thought the universe was everything that exists right now, every planet, star, etc. At the end of the universe, there's just space that goes on forever.
Ok maybe what I just said doesn't make sense, but here's a picture of the universe:
The universe is the cylinder looking thing expanding, there's black all around it, what could that be? It should be space
but then again, the picture is the big bang theory which not many people believe in so it's very possible that the universe looks nothing like that.
on the other hand, even if it did look different from the picture, i still think that there is space. i don't think space has an end, it goes on forever. it just makes sense to me. because if it ended, then what's after it ends? nothing? that would be impossible because technically, nothing is....well...nothing, its definition is something that doesn't exist. therefore, nothing doesn't exist. there's no such thing as nothing, that's why it's called nothing
Ok maybe what I just said doesn't make sense, but here's a picture of the universe:
The universe is the cylinder looking thing expanding, there's black all around it, what could that be? It should be space
but then again, the picture is the big bang theory which not many people believe in so it's very possible that the universe looks nothing like that.
on the other hand, even if it did look different from the picture, i still think that there is space. i don't think space has an end, it goes on forever. it just makes sense to me. because if it ended, then what's after it ends? nothing? that would be impossible because technically, nothing is....well...nothing, its definition is something that doesn't exist. therefore, nothing doesn't exist. there's no such thing as nothing, that's why it's called nothing
QUOTE
The universe is the cylinder looking thing expanding, there's black all around it, what could that be? It should be space
but then again, the picture is the big bang theory which not many people believe in so it's very possible that the universe looks nothing like that.
on the other hand, even if it did look different from the picture, i still think that there is space. i don't think space has an end, it goes on forever. it just makes sense to me. because if it ended, then what's after it ends? nothing? that would be impossible because technically, nothing is....well...nothing, its definition is something that doesn't exist. therefore, nothing doesn't exist. there's no such thing as nothing, that's why it's called nothing
but then again, the picture is the big bang theory which not many people believe in so it's very possible that the universe looks nothing like that.
on the other hand, even if it did look different from the picture, i still think that there is space. i don't think space has an end, it goes on forever. it just makes sense to me. because if it ended, then what's after it ends? nothing? that would be impossible because technically, nothing is....well...nothing, its definition is something that doesn't exist. therefore, nothing doesn't exist. there's no such thing as nothing, that's why it's called nothing
Sigh.
Harte
QUOTE(Harte @ Jun 19 2007, 10:11 PM) 
Sigh.
Harte
Harte
Thanks for that pic spiral flare! That pic demostrates just what I have been saying through this whole thread harte, that pic says it all, the big bang expanded all the matter through the emptyness that we call space, in that pic it is all the black sorrounding the expanding matter, of caurse space is infinite because there is nothing after it, as I said all this matter has to be somewhere no? Well of caurse it is, it is in complete emptyness wich we call space.
If we then say that space is limited then we have to say that it is somewhere too, because everything that is limited has to be somewhere. But I still say that we already know this huge unlimited amount of emptyness, and we call it space in wich expands matter, wich originates by a huge blast of matter, a huge explosion wich expanded all this matter into the emptyness, as I said everything limited has to be somewhere to exist.
The Universe is the matter and energy, the rest wich is complete emptyness is Space.
QUOTE(Ghostkol @ Jun 19 2007, 03:31 PM)
Thanks for that pic spiral flare! That pic demostrates just what I have been saying through this whole thread harte, that pic says it all, the big bang expanded all the matter through the emptyness that we call space, in that pic it is all the black sorrounding the expanding matter, of caurse space is infinite because there is nothing after it, as I said all this matter has to be somewhere no? Well of caurse it is, it is in complete emptyness wich we call space.
The Universe is the matter and energy, the rest wich is complete emptyness is Space.
The Universe is the matter and energy, the rest wich is complete emptyness is Space.
This is incorrect and I've shown you why. If you can't accept it, that's not my fault. But you should realize that you are claiming to know more than all the astrophyicists and cosmologists on Earth put together. If this is true, would you care to present us with your credentials for making such a claim? Have you published your theory in any peer-reviewed scientific journals yet? If not, why not? If so, why haven't you linked them here?
The pic simply does not show what you claim. How would you propose to illustrate graphically the expansion of the universe since the big bang?
The pic is a fancy updating of a Feynman diagram, apparently. It's just a graphical representation. If the surrounding area had been shown as purple polka dots instead of black, would you claim that the universe is really polka-dotted?
Harte
Harte, to be honest, I don't understand what you're trying to say ONE BIT! I know I'm slow, I just can't help it. All I know, is that you disagree with us and you're saying that you're right, I just don't know what you're right about, since I don't know what you're talking about. But if you're saying that we're wrong to say that space goes on forever...well then you're wrong. It does, because it only makes sense. If that's not what you're trying to say, then sorry for ever mentioning it. Putting a sad smiley face and a sigh doesn't really help. It makes me look like a complete idiot.
Well ok, since the "black part" around the universe isn't actually what is "outside the universe" then what is? It cannot be "nothing", I know that for sure. Of course now, if in the illustration there were purple polka dots instead of blackness, then they have to be something, otherwise they wouldn't be there. So that's not really a good example for backing up whatever you're trying to say.
I have read all the posts in this thread, everyone seems to be creating their own theories that don't really explain anything. But I must say, I agree with Ghostkol. Do we know what the universe actually looks like? No. Do we even know what the universe is? No. I don't know why I'm wasting my time here. Bye.
Well ok, since the "black part" around the universe isn't actually what is "outside the universe" then what is? It cannot be "nothing", I know that for sure. Of course now, if in the illustration there were purple polka dots instead of blackness, then they have to be something, otherwise they wouldn't be there. So that's not really a good example for backing up whatever you're trying to say.
I have read all the posts in this thread, everyone seems to be creating their own theories that don't really explain anything. But I must say, I agree with Ghostkol. Do we know what the universe actually looks like? No. Do we even know what the universe is? No. I don't know why I'm wasting my time here. Bye.
QUOTE
Well ok, since the "black part" around the universe isn't actually what is "outside the universe" then what is? It cannot be "nothing", I know that for sure.
You're asking for answers when only suggestions exist. There's an unfortunate tendency sometimes to mix what we know (or at least probably know) with things about which we have barely a clue, sometimes in the same breath or sentence. There are further complications in that one seemingly simple (but deep, nonetheless) question can have multiple answers depending on how technical a level one desires to go to. What's outside the universe? Well, you can set up a nice tautology such that the word "universe" itself encompasses all things and thus logically cannot have any sort of outside. But it's probably wiser to take a physical perspective. Here you run into the question of just what constitutes "the universe." If we're looking for some clearly delineated border between "universe" and "outside the universe" it would help to know exactly what we're talking about. Usually when we're talking about the universe we're talking about the visible universe--that is, the cosmos that we see. But due to certain physical constraints on how much we can see at the present time, that's not likely to be all that there is. But is there something beyond that? You could go down a hundred different roads that consider that question but they're all speculation (to varying degrees). Certain incarnations of inflationary cosmology--which is a sort of companion to and outgrowth of standard big bang cosmology (which, unless there's something drastically wrong with our understanding of physics, is pretty iron-clad science)--paint a picture of a much larger, likely infinite, cosmos beyond the visible universe with which we're familiar. Everything above our heads, everything in view of our most powerful telescopes, everything we've traditionally referred to when we spoke of "the universe" becomes merely a bubble in a much larger Universe (note the capital U). "Outside the universe" becomes a staggeringly desolate landscape, punctuated with false vacuums and inflating patches of new mini-universes like our own.
I should make a clarification here. We've moved from big bang cosmology to its big brother, inflationary cosmology (you can see that the period of inflation is marked on your diagram, by the way). The former is pretty well substantiated, being merely the result of looking at the universe and taking careful note of what we're seeing. It's the sort of framework that could have its observational roots in 1920s technology. Inflationary cosmology is a much more theoretical sort of construct (in fact, it's actually a fairly large family of different possible cosmologies) and is less than 30 years old. But it makes some predictions that have found observational support in results recently released from a space observatory known as WMAP. Even so, you can see that it's on the next rung up the speculative ladder. There are other ideas that are way, way up that ladder, ideas involving higher dimensional membranes and so on. Those are the sorts of thing that will warp your conception of what "outside" even means.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that science is a work in progress. Inevitably there are blind alleys and wrong turns. There are theories with varying degrees of observational support. Your simple question goes to the very forefront of what theoretical cosmology is trying to wrap its head around. There are no answers right now and there may never be any decently confirmed ones. I love cosmology but I won't deny that, as it exists today, it's based on a very successful theoretical framework that ultimately is not correct and it relies on a few key assumptions that are just as likely to be correct as they are to be wrong. So it's tough going. Try not to get frustrated because most of the answers are unavailable right now.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.