The 3Dimentions of Space

[mooeypoo]

Well, this discussion is probably for Metaphysics, General Science and this forum. Depending on which answers will go on here, but I guess the first logical place is this forum, so here it goes.

 

I have a question that actually quite bothers me for a while now.

 

We all know about the big bang theory - about the "explosion" of the universe that created the stars and planets as we see them today. As I know the theory (i might be wrong here, but this is how i understood things) - our own solar system was made from a smaller explosion of our own sun - creating the rest of the solar system's planets.

 

Now.

 

Explosions are 3 Dimentional. Look at water explosions.. particles "fly" to all directions INCLUDING "up" and "down". So - why is our solar system built in a 2 Dimentional way?

All the planets are circling the sun in paths that look as if placed on a flat table -

 

If the explosion in space was indeed 3 dimentional - which it SHOULD have been since it is space - why aren't there any planets circling the sun from "top" to "bottom" ?

 

why aren't we seeing the paths of the planet around the sun like the path of the electrons in an atom - a NON paralel circles?

They're flat!!

 

How can that be?

 

~mooeypoo

[Sayonara]

The orbitals of the planets do intersect horizontally, so they aren't completely in the same plane.

 

I would imagine that the gravitational attraction of the other planets could ease a 'rogue' planet's orbital into a similar plane to the others, but I suspect it has something to do with the disc of stellar matter from which planets form.

[Janus]

mooeypoo said in post #1 :

As I know the theory (i might be wrong here, but this is how i understood things) - our own solar system was made from a smaller explosion of our own sun - creating the rest of the solar system's planets.

~mooeypoo

 

Yes, you are wrong here. The planets weren't created by an explosion from the sun. They were created from material left over from when the sun intially condensed from a nebula. Since this nebula was spinning in one direction, the planets and the sun all ended up revolving more or less along the same axis.

 

I think you might being confused by the fact that the much of the material that formed our Solar system was created in an explosion of another star when it went supernova.

[mooeypoo]

Hmm. Okay, that explains it.

 

But still - doesn't it seems weird that most of the universe - galaxies, solar systems and so on - have 2D axis instead of 3D ??

 

Well, fine, it's not EXACTLY on the same axis -- but concidering the fact space is empty enough to allow an easy 3 dimentional movement - its close enough.

 

So it explains this specific solar systems (though there are still weird facts in this entire thing) - what about the rest of the solar systems? and the galaxy?

 

It just makes no sense.... a 2D behaviour in a 3D universe...

 

[Neurocomp2003]

Janus is right in that the planetary objects/meteors were made outta the nebula/space that was perhaps previously pushed out

but not necessarily by a supernova some time ago.

 

FOr you explosion idea, not all explosions are spherical symmetrical. If it was static,symmetrical in nature and slow moving then yes it would seem relatively symmetrical. But

if it was rotating relatively fast then no it would it. THink about

a dog when it gets wet and it twists its body, the water doesn't

come off very symmetrically

 

As for your rotation question it has to do with rotational axis as seen in great effect by i think what is called the accretion disk (haven't taken astrophysics in a while). basically as one large thing starts spinning, the small things around it start moving and in time become relatively coherent with the axis of rotation of the large object in your case the sun. But the small things themselves can great a rotational system of their own. So you must thing in terms of scales.

 

FOr example galaxies spin around a point/axis, and each galaxy has its own axis and each star system has its own and so on.

Thats why our universe and our solar systems do not lie in perfect planes. since these smaller systems can have their own behaviour in their local region

 

hope that helps.

[swansont]

mooeypoo said in post #4 :

But still - doesn't it seems weird that most of the universe - galaxies, solar systems and so on - have 2D axis instead of 3D ??

 

 

Travel in 3D leads to collisions, which will tend to eliminate the particles in these orbits, over time.

[mooeypoo]

Really? I don't know, the electrons in the atom don't really collide all that much do they?

 

Besides, even if it's true - you're suggesting the universe has a sonsciousness. Interresting thought - but.. weird, I must say. Changes everything, doesn't it?

[mooeypoo]

Neurocomp2003:

 

Yeah thanks that made things a bit more clear, though i must say it still sounds weird. I could understand if the "flat explosion" thing (Static) would happen to SOME of the galaxies or solar systems -- but to ALL of them?

 

I just thought about soemthing - is it possible we're missing something?

I know that the observation that the galaxy is "flat" like a plate was made through long star-observations and lights/trigonometric calculations and all, but still - are we ABSOLUTELY sure its all flat?

 

Your explanation sounds reasonable but its still all seems weird. Our universe is 3 dimentional, and still seems to "behave" 2 dimentional.

 

Maybe we are missing something....?

[Neurocomp2003]

welll your right in a sense that the system would start out 3D, over time however, because of the rotational axis/heavier objects concept, things start to become uniform..

another example to further my explanation is the centrifuge(unless you know some stuff about dynamical systems/chaotic theory) which has to do with matter-heavier matter moves to the bottom of the glass while lighter matter moves to the top.

 

Now in our case if you think of a cylinder spinnin on its middle axis

the matter starts to collect in this 3D rotational way like the dog spraying water but now in terms of matter and the centrifuge, heavier stuff starts to move to the normal middle plane of the axis(by "gravitational pull") like you see the centrifuge matter move to the bottom but in this case the middle because on earth you'd have to have a tube that runs from the southpole to north poel to see this effect.

And as heavier stuff moves closer it pulls in other sorts of matter.

 

so in essence you got 3 things working here,

(1) cylindrical rotation-something heavy in the middle creates

this effect.

(2) planar middle rotation-the centrifuge idea that heavier

stuff tends to move towards the middle normal plane.

(3) matter at the poles- you still can get local systems rotating near the poles but because of the centrifuge idea they still have attraction tot he middle.

 

2 things to note

A)This is over a large amount of time so is very slow.

B)The get a better idea of these effects you need to know some

general physics/mechanics concepts of conservation.

[Neurocomp2003]

and for whats missing?

well as it stands we are missing stuff, for all the motion in the

universe the "VISIBLE MATTER" (based on conservative law) cannot account for it all thats why there is such a high pursuit for the theory of dark matter.

 

Some ideas that i believe are possible

1) LIGHT actually has negligible mass

2) multiuniverses

3) Dark Matter in the essence like meteors and planets that we can't see because the light does not reflect towards us

4) "negative matter"

[booper54]

This is a good topic cause I was wondering the exact same thing a few days ago.

 

And another question: Are all the planets moving at the same SPEED around the sun, just different revolution periods?

[mooeypoo]

Well:

 

Now in our case if you think of a cylinder spinnin on its middle axis the matter starts to collect in this 3D rotational way like the dog spraying water but now in terms of matter and the centrifuge, heavier stuff starts to move to the normal middle plane of the axis(by "gravitational pull") like you see the centrifuge matter move to the bottom but in this case the middle because on earth you'd have to have a tube that runs from the southpole to north poel to see this effect.

And as heavier stuff moves closer it pulls in other sorts of matter.

 

Uhm, a centrifuge is a 2dimentional "tool" -- its made of a cylinder. The matter is pushed AWAY -- not necesseraly to one of the axises -- unless of course you're ROTATING it directly TO one of the axises - and that shouldn't have had any reason of happening in space.

 

Let's take something a bit more similar to 3D movement in space -- WATER.

 

Water allows a 3Dimentional movement without PHYSICAL limitations like a in a cylinder. Shouldn't the movement be the same as in molecules and atoms?

 

And by the way, if dark matter doesn't reflect the light -- but its still a MATTER, shouldn't we have seen a black-hole phenomena instead?

 

(2) planar middle rotation-the centrifuge idea that heavier stuff tends to move towards the middle normal plane.

 

A SPHERE is equal in all planes... there is no "middle" normal plane in a 3dimentional sphere. I'm not reffering to EARTH because that is not a sphere - but in space we shouldn't have physical boundries, so it still doesn't make sense.

[VendingMenace]

Really? I don't know, the electrons in the atom don't really collide all that much do they?

 

Well, as far as we know the electrons do not collide much, but then again the electrons are not orbiting the nulceous either, so that is not a valid comparison.

 

Besides, even if it's true - you're suggesting the universe has a sonsciousness. Interresting thought - but.. weird, I must say. Changes everything, doesn't it?

 

That is not what was suggested at all. What swansont ment was this;

Objects in orbit that collide with eachother will most likely knock eachother out of orbit. Thus, over time, such objects will be eliminated. That is to say that orbits that interfere with eachother are mutually unstable.

 

Of course this does not quite really explain why all the orbits that would be left over by such a process of elimination would nessesarily be in the same plane.

 

Cool

[Neurocomp2003]

the centrifuge isn't really 2D. I'd have to draw it out for you.

[mooeypoo]

I know it's not exactly 2D, but it's not 3D either -- its probably something in between. The point is that you rotate a matter inside the centrifuge in ONE axis - which makes it "2D" in my current debate.

 

By the way, the entire point of CENTRIFUGE is "2D". I am talking about something higher than that .

 

AND don't forget a rotation was initially CREATED by those powers i'm talking about - so saying that the rotation created the "flat" axis is like saying the ocean is blue because it reflects the color of the skies, and the skies are blue because they reflect the color fo the ocean.

 

Tautology..