All planitary bodies stars icy balls all form spherical shapes. It seems a sphere is the most common form in the universe. Why couldnt the universe be a sphere and we can only see out to the horizon maybe at 15 billion light years. Maybe the lost matter in space is beyond our field of vision. There are still galaxies out at 15 billion LY away. They would have to be older than the 15 billion years old to form that far away at the dawn of the universe thought to be the big bang. What lies beyond?

There's a VERY specific reason large bodies form spheres: Gravity.

A sphere is the most stable (and efficient) form for a massive object to take since gravity pulls towards the center of mass.


This effect of gravity to make objects above a certain mass assume a spherical shape has no relevance whatsoever to the shape of the universe because;
The universe did not form from the accretion of separate clumps of matter which gradually coalesced into a sphere due to the force of gravity; it expanded from a singularity.

A few things you're not taking into account with your idea of the universe as a sphere and how we observe light.

- The further away we look, the further back in time we look since light travels at a finite rate of speed. When astronomers are looking 13.7 billion light years away from us, they are in a sense looking at the "edge" of the universe, but not an edge in the way you're thinking; they are observing the earliest period in which light was visible in the universe; it's an edge along the dimension of time.

- The universe could be *envisioned* as a sphere for the sake of convenience, but your line of sight and perception curves along the edge of that sphere, not to its horizon.

You have to realize that there is no space "outside" of the universe, there is no "emptiness" that the universe exists inside of. Also, the universe has at least four dimensions; the three dimensions of space that you percieve and one dimension of time. Modern physics postulates that there are additional dimensions as well.

So there's actually no physical "edge" of the universe within the three-dimensional space that we observe. Even if you were able to surpass the speed of light and the rate at which the universe expands, you would never reach an edge or boundary between the universe and what's beyond; there is no such boundary in the dimensions that we can perceive.

Another question that should be asked. Does the universe spin?

And another question that should be asked is. Did the force of gravity exist before the big bang?

I have read that some people now think that time was not created with the big bang event but was here all along. And there have been many big bang events in witch universes are being created all the time.

---

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.

I suggest you to read the book of Martin Rees ''What we still don't know''.It's one of the best books i've read the last years.

---

SETI

All planitary bodies stars icy balls all form spherical shapes. It seems a sphere is the most common form in the universe. Why couldnt the universe be a sphere and we can only see out to the horizon maybe at 15 billion light years. Maybe the lost matter in space is beyond our field of vision. There are still galaxies out at 15 billion LY away. They would have to be older than the 15 billion years old to form that far away at the dawn of the universe thought to be the big bang. What lies beyond?

As for the universe being a sphere, absolutely. That is actually one of cosmological models for our experienced universe. Well, not a sphere, but the surface of a hypersphere. This is the "finite, but unbounded" model.

A hypersphere is a sphere that has four spatial dimensions. We could very well be living our three spatial dimension lives out on the surface of a hypersphere. You can't make a (correct) model of a hypersphere in our three dimensional universe, but you can mentally picture it using an easy analogy.

(Analogy shamefully stolen from Sagan, but it works great.)

Analogy:

Imagine a make believe universe, and everything in it, that is two dimensional. We have a "left", we have a "right", we have a "forward", and we have a "backward". However, we don't have the dimension that is 90 degree offset from those: "up" and "down".

Now imagine that we live our two dimensional lives on the surface of a three dimensional balloon that is inflating. Since we are two dimensional and live on the surface of the balloon, our universe appears to be infinite. We don't see any boundaries. Through observation, we are smart enough to see that everything seems to be expanding away from each other. We also observe that there appears to be some strange curvature going on. Finally, we have a really smart two dimensional guy that observes that there is a strange link between space and time. Our curved space is expanding as time passes. What are we expanding into? We don't know because we don't have any experience of whatever is on the "outside". Remember, we don't know about "up" and "down". Perhaps we are expanding into a mystical third spatial dimension? Sounds like science fiction, but maybe..

Now, take it up a notch. Imagine that expanding balloon being a four dimension hypersphere. We live on the three dimensional surface of the four dimensional hypersphere that is also inflating. We know about "left", "right", "forward", "back", "up", and "down", but don't experience the directions that are 90 degree offset from those. It is this direction that the hypersphere is expanding into.

As for the entire universe spinning, I've also pondered that as well. How would you be able to tell though? Literally everything would be spinning in the same relation and there is no "outside" reference point you can use since it is outside our experience. I've wondered if it would be possible by looking for patterns in galaxies? If the entire universe is spinning, perhaps there would be patterns in the way galaxies are spinning? Kinda like how the coriolis effect causes hurricanes to spin in different directions depending on which hemisphere there are in...

I think one of the main thoughts is that it is sort of saddle-shaped, curved over a fourth spacial dimension. Of course, it has been years since I have studied this, and much may have changed in 23 years ;)

Anyway, I believe it is curved over to some degree - I don't know if it would be a sphere though - but I would not rule it out.

---

Steve Pomeroy
Master of math magic and math tricks.

As for the entire universe spinning, I've also pondered that as well. How would you be able to tell though? Literally everything would be spinning in the same relation and there is no "outside" reference point you can use since it is outside our experience. I've wondered if it would be possible by looking for patterns in galaxies? If the entire universe is spinning, perhaps there would be patterns in the way galaxies are spinning? Kinda like how the coriolis effect causes hurricanes to spin in different directions depending on which hemisphere there are in...

The universe cannot be spinning, at least not in the 3-dimensional space that we perceive.

Firstly, if it was spinning as a rigid body, there would have to be a definite center for it to spin (or rotate) around. If that was happening, then the points in space farthest from the axis would be traveling in excess of light-speed... an impossible situation.

Secondly, if it was not spinning as a rigid body, then your aforementioned Coriolis effect would result in the universe wrapping itself up in a visible spiral... which we don't see happening.

Thank you for your insite on this. randyc

Now think about this. If the universe is a sphere and the sphere is spinning this would explain some things and raise more questions.

Maybe... as we are on the surface of this sphere, and as the sphere spins, the sphere expands. thus we see everything racing away from us. ( IE red shift ) The universe may just be just a membrane that one day will tare its self apart.

I think the universe is very young and still is in creation mode.

---

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.

As for the entire universe spinning, I've also pondered that as well. How would you be able to tell though? Literally everything would be spinning in the same relation and there is no "outside" reference point you can use since it is outside our experience. I've wondered if it would be possible by looking for patterns in galaxies? If the entire universe is spinning, perhaps there would be patterns in the way galaxies are spinning? Kinda like how the coriolis effect causes hurricanes to spin in different directions depending on which hemisphere there are in...

The universe cannot be spinning, at least not in the 3-dimensional space that we perceive.

Firstly, if it was spinning as a rigid body, there would have to be a definite center for it to spin (or rotate) around. If that was happening, then the points in space farthest from the axis would be traveling in excess of light-speed... an impossible situation.

Secondly, if it was not spinning as a rigid body, then your aforementioned Coriolis effect would result in the universe wrapping itself up in a visible spiral... which we don't see happening.

Hi,

I think I'm understanding what you are saying, but I don't see why the outer edge would have to be spinning faster than the speed of light? The center could be turning very slowly?

If we are on the edge of a hypersphere, I'm also not picking up on why we would see our entire universe as a spiral? We only experience the very edge of the hypersphere.

If we are on the edge of hypersphere, I'm mentally picturing being able to look at the entire hypersphere from the "outside". Wouldn't looking "down" at the hypersphere be kind of like looking at the Earth from space? Looking at our (experienced) universe from this perspective would be like looking at the weather patterns on the surface of the Earth? You see the surface, but can't see the "inside".

Maybe what we perceive as "time" is actually an artifact of a fourth spatial dimension and that is why it is observed to be linked to space in spacetime? At the 4D level, the artifact of "time" is actually a fifth spatial dimension? ...and so on

Hell, I don't know. It is just fun to try to wrap your noggin' around such stuff. :-)

Always been fascinated on how closely spiral galaxies and hurricanes resemble one another. I've read how that spiral galaxies get their shape by left over angular motion, black matter, and such, but can't help but wonder if it is also because of some other motion we don't directly experience.

I would assume that the entire universe would spin same as the gas around a star spirals. All stars and plantary bodies spin around an axis and the universe i could concieve as spinning also. At the universe central area which I assume we might be on the outer edge. Our galaxy is spinning and also speeding off towards the Virgo galaxy cluster at nearly 3 million miles an hour!. What could cause this the extreme distance between the galaxies have any influence at all but yet we are crusing thru space at extreme speeds. I think at about 1/10 the speed of light. What outside force could accelerate our galaxy at this speed. If indeed the universe is a sphere we cant see the horizon which at our present ability to see more than 15 billion light years. At 15 billion light years there are still stars and galaxies and more behind those. I would belive as we all see the vastness of the universe is indefinate and a sphere of some sort would seem to be in order. As for spinning spinning is caused by the condensation of gases into tighter and tighter circles until it condenses into a star or planatary body and this promotes the spin.

The universe cannot be spinning, at least not in the 3-dimensional space that we perceive.

Firstly, if it was spinning as a rigid body, there would have to be a definite center for it to spin (or rotate) around. If that was happening, then the points in space farthest from the axis would be traveling in excess of light-speed... an impossible situation.



My Reply:

I also have thought that maybe the Universe (SPACE) itself is spinning--that is why matter is being flung apart. We should be able to calculate the speed of rotation by looking at the centrifugal force that would create the acceleration that we see --minus of course the pull of gravity-- This certainly would require a preferred location --in some (higher ?) dimension as the center of rotation.

Try this as I noticed one day while drinking free coffee at a car dealership--sort of an Eureka moment for me-- --get a cup of black coffee and stir it vigorously; then while it is still spinning sprinkle some powdered creamer on top. Presto you will see a spiral galaxy form with the particles of creamer moving outward. Perhaps this is our "dark energy" that overcomes the attraction of gravity.

Seems like a model of the universe could be based on this that might be more comprehensible than what we have now to explain the expansion that we think we see. Probably there may be no experiment that we could devise to prove this --sort of like someone in Einstein's elevator not knowing if he were accelerating or otherwise in a Gravitational field.

If there were a limit on relative speed of matter that could be applied --then the maximum size of the universe would be known--or would rotational speeds and vectors actually add to exceed the speed limit of light ? Then, space might also be contained within this limit or it may exist beyond the matter portion of our universe. But, maybe space itself( like the photon) is not subject to the confining laws of relativity since it has no mass as we choose to define it.

The farthest reaches of Space are in fact receding from us at a speed that is faster than light. Some say Space itself is expanding. It is easier for me to believe and get my mind around the fact that matter is being thrown into space which is already there. It's either that or some god is continuously blowing up (inflating) the n-dimensional ballon of the Universe

Just some pipe dreams and musings--

Bill

The universe cannot be spinning, at least not in the 3-dimensional space that we perceive...

My Reply:

I also have thought that maybe the Universe (SPACE) itself is spinning--that is why matter is being flung apart. We should be able to calculate the speed of rotation by looking at the centrifugal force that would create the acceleration that we see --minus of course the pull of gravity-- This certainly would require a preferred location --in some (higher ?) dimension as the center of rotation.

Try this as I noticed one day while drinking free coffee at a car dealership--sort of an Eureka moment for me-- --get a cup of black coffee and stir it vigorously; then while it is still spinning sprinkle some powdered creamer on top. Presto you will see a spiral galaxy form with the particles of creamer moving outward. Perhaps this is our "dark energy" that overcomes the attraction of gravity. ...

Very good observation there.

You will get some form of coriolis effect in any system that has some form of 'influence', 'motion' and 'inertia' in a curved gradient.

On a different scale, your coffee cup creamery could indeed be a galaxy or even a cluster of galaxies...


But what does it all mean?

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

I find it easier to wrap my noggin' around the idea that (our) universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere (or n-sphere), rather than everything is expanding out into "3D space that already exists" like some sort of explosion.

Wondering if this would be an easy way to find evidence of the hypersphere:

Hubble once took a picture of deep space that was called "the most important image ever taken". The picture shows the faintest galaxies that can be seen by Hubble. I think I remember reading that these were pictures of the earliest galaxies that formed, so they are on the "edge of time".

Could they take two sets of pictures? Take one set just like the above pictures were taken and take the second set about six months later. Six months later the Earth would be on the opposite side, 180 degrees offset from when the first set was taken. Calculate where the "exact opposite" position in the sky would be. Probably have to take the curvature, lensing, etc, etc, into consideration so it wouldn't be exactly 180 degree opposite. (Someone do the hairy math.)

If the second set of pictures shows a mirror image of the same galaxies in the first set of pictures, wouldn't that be enough to show evidence of a hypersphere?

I find it easier to wrap my noggin' around the idea that (our) universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere (or n-sphere)...

... opposite. (Someone do the hairy math.)

If the second set of pictures shows a mirror image of the same galaxies in the first set of pictures, wouldn't that be enough to show evidence of a hypersphere?

There is a theory about that...

Any searches been done?

Rather than use Hubble, I'd take a look at the microwave background for a first 'quick look see'...

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

I find it easier to wrap my noggin' around the idea that (our) universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere (or n-sphere)...

... opposite. (Someone do the hairy math.)

If the second set of pictures shows a mirror image of the same galaxies in the first set of pictures, wouldn't that be enough to show evidence of a hypersphere?

There is a theory about that...

Any searches been done?

Rather than use Hubble, I'd take a look at the microwave background for a first 'quick look see'...

Keep searchin',
Martin

Hi,

Really? Got any URL's on it? Really didn't know it already was an established theory. I'd love to read every and anything about it.

Yeah, do it at the microwave wavelengths too. Heck, any and all wavelengths that are possible. Wonder if Chandra can see XRays out that far?

Wouldn't that be a really wild discovery? The implications of such a discovery would be mind boggling. It would be one of the greatest discoveries ever.

I find it easier to wrap my noggin' around the idea that (our) universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere (or n-sphere)...

... opposite. (Someone do the hairy math.)

If the second set of pictures shows a mirror image of the same galaxies in the first set of pictures, wouldn't that be enough to show evidence of a hypersphere?

There is a theory about that...

Any searches been done?

Rather than use Hubble, I'd take a look at the microwave background for a first 'quick look see'...

Keep searchin',
Martin

Hi,

Really? Got any URL's on it? Really didn't know it already was an established theory. I'd love to read every and anything about it.

Yeah, do it at the microwave wavelengths too. Heck, any and all wavelengths that are possible. Wonder if Chandra can see XRays out that far?

Wouldn't that be a really wild discovery? The implications of such a discovery would be mind boggling. It would be one of the greatest discoveries ever.

Here's one for you from 2003: Soccer ball shaped universe.

I find it easier to wrap my noggin' around the idea that (our) universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere (or n-sphere)...

... opposite. (Someone do the hairy math.)

If the second set of pictures shows a mirror image of the same galaxies in the first set of pictures, wouldn't that be enough to show evidence of a hypersphere?

There is a theory about that...

Any searches been done?

Rather than use Hubble, I'd take a look at the microwave background for a first 'quick look see'...

Keep searchin',
Martin

Hi,

Really? Got any URL's on it? Really didn't know it already was an established theory. I'd love to read every and anything about it.

Yeah, do it at the microwave wavelengths too. Heck, any and all wavelengths that are possible. Wonder if Chandra can see XRays out that far?

Wouldn't that be a really wild discovery? The implications of such a discovery would be mind boggling. It would be one of the greatest discoveries ever.

Here's one for you from 2003: Soccer ball shaped universe.

I find it easier to wrap my noggin' around the idea that (our) universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere (or n-sphere)...

... opposite. (Someone do the hairy math.)

If the second set of pictures shows a mirror image of the same galaxies in the first set of pictures, wouldn't that be enough to show evidence of a hypersphere?

There is a theory about that...

Any searches been done?

Rather than use Hubble, I'd take a look at the microwave background for a first 'quick look see'...

Keep searchin',
Martin

There is a book out that posits multiple reflections of distant galaxies--it also calculates that the reflections are too far away to be seen. I think that the idea is that the universe is actually folded back upon itself--The book is on the Scientific American Book Club site. i read it but don't know enough about topology to comment on it.

As for the entire universe spinning, I've also pondered that as well. How would you be able to tell though? Literally everything would be spinning in the same relation and there is no "outside" reference point you can use since it is outside our experience. I've wondered if it would be possible by looking for patterns in galaxies? If the entire universe is spinning, perhaps there would be patterns in the way galaxies are spinning? Kinda like how the coriolis effect causes hurricanes to spin in different directions depending on which hemisphere there are in...

The universe cannot be spinning, at least not in the 3-dimensional space that we perceive.

Firstly, if it was spinning as a rigid body, there would have to be a definite center for it to spin (or rotate) around. If that was happening, then the points in space farthest from the axis would be traveling in excess of light-speed... an impossible situation.

Secondly, if it was not spinning as a rigid body, then your aforementioned Coriolis effect would result in the universe wrapping itself up in a visible spiral... which we don't see happening.

The universe cannot be spinning, at least not in the 3-dimensional space that we perceive...

My Reply:

I also have thought that maybe the Universe (SPACE) itself is spinning--that is why matter is being flung apart. We should be able to calculate the speed of rotation by looking at the centrifugal force that would create the acceleration that we see --minus of course the pull of gravity-- This certainly would require a preferred location --in some (higher ?) dimension as the center of rotation.

Try this as I noticed one day while drinking free coffee at a car dealership--sort of an Eureka moment for me-- --get a cup of black coffee and stir it vigorously; then while it is still spinning sprinkle some powdered creamer on top. Presto you will see a spiral galaxy form with the particles of creamer moving outward. Perhaps this is our "dark energy" that overcomes the attraction of gravity. ...

Very good observation there.

You will get some form of coriolis effect in any system that has some form of 'influence', 'motion' and 'inertia' in a curved gradient.

On a different scale, your coffee cup creamery could indeed be a galaxy or even a cluster of galaxies...


But what does it all mean?

Keep searchin',
Martin

I used to have to account for the Coriolis effect when calculating the trajectory of an artillery shell. The flight time of a shell might be around a minute and depending on the latitude it has to be taken into account that the Earth moves under the freely falling shell during this minute.