baigligan Posted March 11, 2003 Posted March 11, 2003 the light comming from each subgect in the space moving to red spectrum.thats because the space between each galaxy getting bigger and bigger-they are dispersing.thats because the BIG BANG.galaxy wich started with high speed than other fo 12-15 zilion years will traverse longer distance.its calculated that galxys that we can observe are 12-13 zil.light years far from the imaged center where big bang started.thiese galaxys travel (away from center)with 80% of speed of light.others (we just suppose) beyond have too big red displacement.by direction of this galaxys they calculated where is the centre of our universe(there isnt any reason to be shure that our big bang is the only one in the space)but i just wonder about other thing. ACCORDING Einstain when subgect travel by speed close the speed of light its mass grovong extreamly,and at the speed of light it should be infinite. MY qestion is. what mean that. FIRST wheter this subgect itself is small black hole or SECOND its mass is infinite for us but for other sobject wich(for exsample) fliyng the same direction and at the same speed its normal.??what u think?? MY ENGLISH ISNT PERFECT BUT WHETER THAT IS IMPORTANT. REGARDS
Skye Posted March 11, 2003 Posted March 11, 2003 I have a few questions on the balloon idea... Assuming it's relatively flat is the universe something like a balloon the fat person Aman mentioned sat on? How thick is the skin of this balloon, if everything is moving at c it must be getting close to nothing. Could something stretch the skin by moving perpendicular to it, or must you move along/within it? Can the balloon burst?
blike Posted March 12, 2003 Author Posted March 12, 2003 The New York Times is reporting that data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe suggests a donut or cylinder shaped universe here (free reg. required)
Skye Posted March 12, 2003 Posted March 12, 2003 Interesting but a little dodgy with... But in a paper posted on the physics Web site (at arXiv.org/pdf /astro-ph/0302496) late last month, the three cosmologists wrote that it was "difficult not to be intrigued" that their results bore all the earmarks of what are variously called small, compact, finite or periodic universes. How credible is a paper posted to a Web site? Computers used by scientists need a 'more research needed button', it would save so much time.
baigligan Posted March 12, 2003 Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by blike The New York Times is reporting that data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe suggests a donut or cylinder shaped universe here (free reg. required) cylinder shape. hmmmm.what make the universe to take this shape.why not pyromid??
Radical Edward Posted March 12, 2003 Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by Skye I have a few questions on the balloon idea... Assuming it's relatively flat is the universe something like a balloon the fat person Aman mentioned sat on? How thick is the skin of this balloon, if everything is moving at c it must be getting close to nothing. Could something stretch the skin by moving perpendicular to it, or must you move along/within it? Can the balloon burst? the balloon analogy is just that, an analogy. basically imagine the 2d skin of the baloon as 3 dimensional space. when you blow air into the baloon, the 2d surface expands and everything gets further away from everything else, and for us, it´s 3d space doing the same. furthermore, space isn´t expanding at c, yet.
MajinVegeta Posted March 12, 2003 Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by chris isnt a hologram kinda like a mirage. something we think is real but isnt? Reality is undefined, and therefore, your definition of what is real is real. Anyway, I simply dislike this balloon anology. For one, it makes the universe seem that it is finite. Even then, in this anology, the universe would have to strat somewhere. One thing that makes it tenable is how, as the balloon is enflated, it goes a certain direction. This is like an increase in entropy, and therefore is like time. The universe, (according to Stephen Hawking's best selller "The Universe In a Nutshell") is a sphere. He says that multiple histories are lined up on the external surface of a sphere perpendicularly. what do u guys think?
fafalone Posted March 12, 2003 Posted March 12, 2003 It's probably a donut, that's what the latest WMAP analysis says, I'll do a writeup for the news section soon.
MajinVegeta Posted March 12, 2003 Posted March 12, 2003 The donut, is also known as "tolariod". But I find that it doesn't make sense. Does anyone else?
fafalone Posted March 13, 2003 Posted March 13, 2003 Does anything about cosmology really make sense?
aman Posted March 13, 2003 Posted March 13, 2003 It does if you have a really big head and concentrate real hard. A planet travelling near the speed of light from the big bang 14 billion years ago has its own time reference compared to a planet that travelled only 100 miles from that initial point relative to us. Gives me a headache Just aman
Skye Posted March 13, 2003 Posted March 13, 2003 Mmmm donuts... Maybe a smoke ring is easier to visualise. They are made of an ever expanding ring of particles. Either way the donut idea is based on irregularities in the data from that WMAP, which might just be errors.
MajinVegeta Posted March 13, 2003 Posted March 13, 2003 The tolariod universe implies an open universe. You know, I was thinking, and it occured to me that if a singularity/blackhole were to bend space, then on "the other side", there would be a concave dent there.....and it'd be a white hole. What do you think?
Radical Edward Posted March 13, 2003 Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by MajinVegeta The tolariod universe implies an open universe. You know, I was thinking, and it occured to me that if a singularity/blackhole were to bend space, then on "the other side", there would be a concave dent there.....and it'd be a white hole. What do you think? again you have to be careful you don´t stretch the analogy too far.
DocBill Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 Beyond 600 mpc, the cosmos is both uniform and homogenious. Hence it is seen as "smooth and uniform." At least that is what the latest data implies. Bill
Guest Geoff_Partridge_30 Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 The question about the centre point of the universe is a very interesting one. From what I have read there seems to be a lot of discusssion about the universe maybe being a balloon. When going through looking at pics on the universe, I came accross this one, which in the web site explains the universe as a funnle that spreeds out. Please lets open the debate on this.... Like you all, I would like to know how do we find the centre of the universe.... http://www.cnn.com/.../0104/ hubble.images/content2.html (click here) Regards Geoff
Martin Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 ... Like you all' date=' I would like to know how do we find the centre of the universe.... [/quote'] this point may already have been made (at least once) in this thread---I didnt read every post----but it can be argued that every point is the center or else there is no center but we can tweak the question and get something interesting, if you actually did find the center, from which the expansion started, and it was a point in our universe (caution, this may not be possible) then you would have found a stationary frame of reference you would have a reference frame that is not moving with respect to the expansion of the universe so that is a question that is related to yours you say "how do we find the center?" a related question, more chance of being answered "how do we find what it means to be not moving? how do we find a perspective that is not moving with respect to universe expansion?" have to go but may come back to this
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now