What about defining a possible time/event horizon for the known boundaries of the universe?

Using other wavelengths than visual light, objects possibly even farther away may be detected.

Supposedly it is 13.8 billion years old, but does is then happen to be 13.8 billion light years in diameter as well?

This implies a radius of 6.9 billion light years and if someone is able to tell me what is located in the middle and also where this happens to be in space, I would like to know.

Though not certain: the shape of the universe would tend to be some sort of sphere. It did undergo faster than light expansion and still does. The actual diameter of the Universe has been estimated to be 56 billion light years across.

Though not certain: the shape of the universe would tend to be some sort of sphere. It did undergo faster than light expansion and still does. The actual diameter of the Universe has been estimated to be 56 billion light years across.

Sphere? Why not an ellipsoid? Why not a torus? Why not some string like structure? Why a sphere?

---

Sphere?

As I said it is uncertain. If you believe that the Universe started from a single point and then expanded at a nearly uniform rate in all directions then the resultant shape would be a spheroidal structure. I don't think that these assumptions are improbable. Other configurations would require a more convoluted set of assumptions. I believe Nature would choose the simplest path.

Some put the diameter at as much as 92 billion light-years.

What about defining a possible time/event horizon for the known boundaries of the universe?

Using other wavelengths than visual light, objects possibly even farther away may be detected.

Supposedly it is 13.8 billion years old, but does is then happen to be 13.8 billion light years in diameter as well?

This implies a radius of 6.9 billion light years and if someone is able to tell me what is located in the middle and also where this happens to be in space, I would like to know.

Not as such...as Universe size is expanding faster than light (even now), so we can only se the limit of the 28GPc...
link for beginers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Size

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Though not certain: the shape of the universe would tend to be some sort of sphere. It did undergo faster than light expansion and still does. The actual diameter of the Universe has been estimated to be 56 billion light years across.

Sphere? Why not an ellipsoid? Why not a torus? Why not some string like structure? Why a sphere?

the total observable space is a Sphere...that doesn't mean that we are in the middle of it...nor that that we see the total of it!

only that we have limits of seeing light from distance... ;)
(read link in previous post)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Sphere?

As I said it is uncertain. If you believe that the Universe started from a single point and then expanded at a nearly uniform rate in all directions then the resultant shape would be a spheroidal structure. I don't think that these assumptions are improbable. Other configurations would require a more convoluted set of assumptions. I believe Nature would choose the simplest path.

Some put the diameter at as much as 92 billion light-years.

I do they they are a bit unlikely. Nearly everything we know of rotates, no reason the think the universe doesn't have angular momentum. If it do, then it will not be a sphere. Also miniscule deviations from perfect near the plank time would have huge effects today.

---

A sphere has angular momentum if it rotates. You are living on one right now. If not for what we call "Gravity" you would be flung off into space. Gravity would also tend to form a sphere out of any irregular or rough surfaces. As evidence of this consider that all of the celestial bodies of large size are spheres : not perfect spheres; but spherical in shape none the less.. I haven't yet found a torus out there in the Cosmos.

A sphere has angular momentum if it rotates. You are living on one right now. If not for what we call "Gravity" you would be flung off into space. Gravity would also tend to form a sphere out of any irregular or rough surfaces. As evidence of this consider that all of the celestial bodies of large size are spheres : not perfect spheres; but spherical in shape none the less.. I haven't yet found a torus out there in the Cosmos.

The real question here is: what would anti-gravity form as a perfect object? An anti-gravity like th Dark energy...
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Oh, should I now believe in anti-gravity in the same way as I am supposed to believe in the existence of worm holes?

Is the presence (or not) of such objects in the universe a question about being able to "prove" whether or not such objects exist at all.

Or should we perhaps leave such questions to the mathematicians and physicists.

Of course it should be legal to speculate about the possible existence of such objects and even making some hypotheses regarding these subjects, but in the end it all becomes only speculation.

So it goes. A never ending story.

Anti-gravity wouldn't form any object as such. It would simply be a force that counteracts gravity. If you sat in a flying saucer and switched anti-gravity on it would hover rather than stay on the ground.

What if there is a way to turn off the effects of the Higg's Field , would not that be a form of Anti-Grave ?

The Universe is a bubble in Cosmic Soup that will some day far off in the future will Pop ! and there will be no universe , Unless this pop itself starts the whole thing off again ?

I guess a even bigger question is what is the Cosmic goop made of and where did it come from for our universe to exist in the first place

---

Your bubble in a cosmic soup idea is very close to my own Glenn, keep going, you're getting there :-)

Universe bubble

There is no evidence that Black holes explode...only evaporate!

If you think different, prove it to me with some science papers...and what is the limit of the "evaporation" after which Black hole explodes?
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Anti-gravity wouldn't form any object as such. It would simply be a force that counteracts gravity. If you sat in a flying saucer and switched anti-gravity on it would hover rather than stay on the ground.

If you put "anti-gravity field" in some Space that expands in vacuume...what is the SHAPE of that field?
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

A sphere has angular momentum if it rotates. You are living on one right now. If not for what we call "Gravity" you would be flung off into space. Gravity would also tend to form a sphere out of any irregular or rough surfaces. As evidence of this consider that all of the celestial bodies of large size are spheres : not perfect spheres; but spherical in shape none the less.. I haven't yet found a torus out there in the Cosmos.

A torus of material can exist as an accretion ring.

More interestingly...

All that we see in our universe rotates and has angular momentum which is a form of energy...

Could it be that what we describe as 'dark energy' is actually an artefact of our entire universe rotating in or through one or multiple dimensions?...

Could the big bang have a rotational component?...


Unfortunately, one observation against the rotation idea is that for the visible galaxies so far surveyed, the sum of their rotations balance to zero.


Next idea?

Keep search in'
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Another unanswerable question: If "space"'s time has no beginning, or ending, then how can we exist as a point of time, in it?

Yet, we obviously do.

Another unanswerable question: If "space"'s time has no beginning, or ending, then how can we exist as a point of time, in it?

Yet, we obviously do.

I think everything is connected somehow, past, present, future, time, space. We only speak of time because humans invented the word. I also think existence goes beyond the material world and death. The word existence has different connotations too.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

We have decided to base our time system on two levels. For general use we take one revolution of our planet and call it a day, then sub-divide it into smaller portions. For scientific applications we use periods of radiation which is more accurate. On the planet Zog they may base their durations on the average speed of a Yobba ray and sub divide it into yingtongs.

The one slight variation on all the above is the MS Access Database which was designed to handle dates by assuming a beginning on 1st January 1900. Each "point in time" as you term it since then, has a value in the number of days from that initial date, making it a simple mathematical task to calculate time durations.

For me, one revolution is one year. One rotation is one day.
Tullio

---

We have decided to base our time system on two levels. For general use we take one revolution of our planet and call it a day, then sub-divide it into smaller portions. For scientific applications we use periods of radiation which is more accurate. On the planet Zog they may base their durations on the average speed of a Yobba ray and sub divide it into yingtongs.

The one slight variation on all the above is the MS Access Database which was designed to handle dates by assuming a beginning on 1st January 1900. Each "point in time" as you term it since then, has a value in the number of days from that initial date, making it a simple mathematical task to calculate time durations.

For me, one revolution is one year. One rotation is one day.
Tullio

Spoken like a true astronomer Tullio:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Could it be that what we describe as 'dark energy' is actually an artefact of our entire universe rotating in or through one or multiple dimensions?...

This is a gut feeling that I also have held for a long time. Is there a way to verify this ?

I go back to my experience of stirring a cup of black coffee and then sprinkling in powdered creamer and watching a miniature galaxy form due to the rotating liquid. Try it--you might just have a Eureka moment.

A sphere has angular momentum if it rotates. You are living on one right now. If not for what we call "Gravity" you would be flung off into space. Gravity would also tend to form a sphere out of any irregular or rough surfaces. As evidence of this consider that all of the celestial bodies of large size are spheres : not perfect spheres; but spherical in shape none the less.. I haven't yet found a torus out there in the Cosmos.

A torus of material can exist as an accretion ring.

More interestingly...

All that we see in our universe rotates and has angular momentum which is a form of energy...

Could it be that what we describe as 'dark energy' is actually an artefact of our entire universe rotating in or through one or multiple dimensions?...

Could the big bang have a rotational component?...


Unfortunately, one observation against the rotation idea is that for the visible galaxies so far surveyed, the sum of their rotations balance to zero.


Next idea?

Keep search in'
Martin

If you could stand on the Earh core & look at the mantile...would the core rotate? What the lava rotate? And would the Mantile rotate?

What I'm saying: inflate the baloon...draw stars on the baloon...roate the baloon, and see if stars rotates...
Now, put the camera inside the baloon...inflate the baloon, same one with the stars...rotate the baloon & look at the camera...do the stars still rotate?

Back to drawing board! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU