It's picture time! I did a little doodle of my theory as to why
the Universe is infinite. This goes with my previous post.



As you can clearly see, the absence of 'stuff' in space does not
mean that you can't go any further.


* "The Universe's growth is accelerating."

Could it be the 'great pull-apart' instead of big bang? Since
explosions don't grow in speed.

I love the diagram!

---

that would have worked if you hadn't stopped me

It's picture time! I did a little doodle of my theory as to why
the Universe is infinite. This goes with my previous post.



As you can clearly see, the absence of 'stuff' in space does not
mean that you can't go any further.


* "The Universe's growth is accelerating."

Could it be the 'great pull-apart' instead of big bang? Since
explosions don't grow in speed.

The Universe expanded faster than you could travel, it's far reaches are going away from us at faster than the speed of light--and if it didn't you would simply go around and around just as a fast bug would do on a balloon that is blowing up to be larger and larger. The mass/Energy in the early universe would warp space to where it had almost infinite curvature.

Regards,

Bill

---

That was good read.

I have a question.

is it possable that our universe is expanding faster in some locations than others? And even some loactions of our universe is not expanding at all. And some may be even collapsing? We may just sit in a part of the universe that is expanding, because that is all that we can see.

---

Cyrax_Darkmual@yahoo.com
Cyrax Darkmaul 94th Druid. Mob Killer
life is not measured by the breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath.

Would it make sense if the entire universe was spinning? I.e., could a spinning universe account for so-called "dark matter"? "Dark matter" simply being the centrifugal force?

My initial reaction to this was impossible! I mean, if the universe was spinning, then that would mean there has to be a center/axis for it to spin around and we don't see evidence of that. Also, the speed of light would make it impossible for the outer edges of the universe to keep up with the inner portions and again we'd see evidence of spirals in the larger structure of the universe.

Then I realized that I was thinking 3 dimensionally. When a sphere spins in 3 dimensions, the '2D' inhabitants on its surface would not see the sort of evidence above, but it would still spin. If the universe was spinning in 4D space (or 5D if you include time as a dimension), then just maybe we would see these effects (spiral galaxies/expanding space) without the universe wrapping itself into a knot.

[edit]BTW - it's "Dark Energy" that's blamed for the universe expanding, not "Dark Matter". [/edit]

Thanks for the correction. Actually, after thinking about it again with my silly brain, I started thinking that you wouldn't necessary need a spinning universe to get those pinwheel galaxies. I mean, if you were able to grab a bunch of stars and lump them all together, the gravity of the stars would cause them to form into a pinwheel?

RE: The exploding grenade... Ok, help me out on this one... Could a spacecraft get "in front of" the exploding fragments? I thought the Big Bang created (is continuing to create?) space itself... No? From what I have read, I also didn't think that the Big Bang was an "explosion" with stuff "flying outward".

Damn, two questions that I hope are answered in our lifetimes:

1. What the hell is the true nature and form of our universe.

2. Why does matter, when conditions are right, form a consciousness that asks these types of questions.

I hope that we are able to come up with answers to these questions to, but I don't think that we will ever really know the answers. Right now the best bet to solving these problems is M-theory. Even if we work out M-theory in a way that it explains everything and accounts for many predictions we still can't prove rather or not it is true. So, in my opinion, it will never be known with out a doubt the true nature of the universe or why we have the capability to even ask such questions.

---

ok some basic answers to some of your questions,

1. the univers is expanding and is expanding faster and faster all the time at the moment, it is believed by some that the mass of the univers is enough to eventualy slow it down and perhapps stop it expanding at some distant future, some sientists believe the mass in the univers is enough to stop the expansion and cause a balance that will allow the univers to exist for all time or at least till all the suns run down and it goes black and cold, some believe it will expand for ever untill all the suns burn out and it goes black expanding for ever, and some believe it will beguin to shrink untill it returns to the point it started as a big bang and we get a big crunch, personaly i believe we will expand and grow dark eventualy.

2. the univers is spinning, the solar syatem spins, the galaxy spins, and so the univers spins, not all galaxies are in equilibrium with each other so yes some parts are moving faster than others and in a difrent direction from other parts, such that we can see the result of one galaxy smashing into another galaxy, like 2 buckets of water thrown at each other in the air, they leave the trail of destruction between them, as some of the galaxys travel on, and the two edges that met leave a trail between them.

3. most galaxys have a large black hole in the center, not to say that a black hole is needed to cause the galaxys to spin, and some scientists believe that there is a super black hole in the center of the univers, it just seems thats the way it is.

if you traveled to the edge of the univers, there are a few things that could happen, A. you would disapear if you crossed the boundary of existing space time , as time dosnt exist out side the univers thiether could you. B. you would not be able to leave the univers and would find yourself starveling at the speed the univers is expanding no matter how fast your ship could travel beyond that speed. C. you would disapear from the point you left the univers and instantainiously apear at the oposit side of the univers from your departure point.

4. it has been stated by einstein i think, that the univers is shaped like a saddle, though dont ask me what kind of saddle, presumably not a womans side saddle, but who can tell :).

5. no one asked this but ill say it anyway, 90% of all the matter in the univers is unacounted for, we cant see it, nor give any resonable clue as to what or were it is.

Most likely the b

S
Mathematically, adding another dimension and then differentiating Einstein's equations of general relativity in three dimensions yields Maxwell's equations. It was really Maxwell who showed that the speed of light is not dependent on the speed of the observer. Does this mean that there really is a fourth spatial dimension (or 10 or 25) that we can't see? I would think, "yes" but Math doesn't always yield reality all of the time--just most of the time.

Regards,

DADDIO

ok blah blah blah new dimentions, this is a cop out that many scientists use, because their formula just dont cut it, so get get a handle on the stuff they dont understand, they invent a new dimention, and use it as a tool, to gain an insite to what they think the math is saying, and as far as it gores that works, but, they still dont have any real proof that these dimentions exist, you could just as easily say, that the observations and calculations, express a new way for matter to interact, with the existing dimentions we have, but we just dont know what what this new way is, and were too lazy to spend 50 years trying to undersatnd this, since it easyer to make the world more complicated and invent new dimentons, well we'll just do that, and hope we can tie it all together later.

The sphere analogy....

I guess the definition of "infinite" would be in question in that scenario, at least from a layman perspective if you can "go on forever and never find and end" i guess that's "virtually(subjectively?) infinite" if its not , lets say "objectively infinite".

I assume there has got to be standard definitions for these concepts somewhere. The stuff i read is all 'general reader" stuff (Brain Greene , Carl Sagan etc) and they tend to use analogies , rather than the actual terms i guess.

i understand there are at least 2 kinds of infinity, one is the infinity of space time, represented by a synbol like an 8 on its side, the other is the one used with fractions, as in 3.999999 recuring, this meens 9 goes on for ever.

if you want to understand infinity, start trying to say a number out loud to a freind and have him say a higher one, it must be a number, between 1 and 9, not just saying a million,a zillion a zillion million etc,but a number, and soon you will just be saying plus one to each other over and over, thus you will see what infinity is.if you have the time that is.

<<<<<<<<<<
I guess this is almost a philosophical question.

Spacetime is expanding yes? So if we took a snapshot of the universe as it is now its "not infinite" but its continually expanding right? So its um... "potentially infinite?"

If its not currently infinite, what is at the "edges"? Nothing? So if you somehow fly in a spaceship to the edge of the current universe.. what happens? You hit a wall of "nothing" not even empty space?

______

If you travel on the surface of a sphere you can go on forever without finding any boundary. And the radius of the sphere might be expanding.
Tullio
>>>>>>>

If you travel on the surface of a sphere, you are always accelerating to remain on that surface. Whether due to gravitational attraction toward the interior masses, dark matter or whatever, it is still needed. Using internal mass to provide that thrust will not work for long.

duke

yes this is philosophical, we arnt on a sphere, and time has no real meaning without space, in fact its debatable if time can exist without space, thus we get spacetime, what the univers is made of, and since there is no space time outside the univers, to make refrence to its size as compared to out side makes no sence, we have no idea of the size or the age of the univers, some say its 13.7 billion years old, but thats from mesurments taken of the most distant galaxys we can image, but we have no way to be certain they are the farthest galaxys, thay are just the farthest we can see, and since the light took that time to get to us, well there is light still in transit that must be at least that old again unless those galaxys have died since that light left them, but it shows how little we realy know, we are blind men in a dark cave wistling to work out how far we are from a wall, and detecting an echo thst might be a wall or just a lump of rock in out path.

[quote]That was good read.

I have a question.

is it possable that our universe is expanding faster in some locations than others? And even some loactions of our universe is not expanding at all. And some may be even collapsing? We may just sit in a part of the universe that is expanding, because that is all that we can see.

Also if the universe is spinning, would it be safe to say that the universe will become like a disk?

---

Cyrax_Darkmual@yahoo.com
Cyrax Darkmaul 94th Druid. Mob Killer
life is not measured by the breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath.

This thread brings up a lot of questions that i'd like to ask addtional questions too but recently i've been thinking about how the big bang "model" was arrived at.

Its mostly based on Relativity correct? Not Newton and Not Quantum Mechanics. As i understand it, Newton, QM, and Releativity cannot all be correct , and that they just are good at describing the observed motion of matter/energy at different scales and making predictions.

The "Scale" of each Small (QM) , Newton (Medium) , Large (Relativity). But the asumption is that one of these systems of mathmatical thinking is correct (or none of them are) and everything we are talking about here is based on one of them?

If so doesnt that call into question even the most basic asumptions about what the universe might actually be?