Flat Universe??

[mooeypoo]

I know I've asked before but I didn't settle for the answer, I'm sorry...

This is REALLY bothering me lately - to the extent of actually dreaming about someone squashing the entire universe with his dirty shoe.

 

HELP me. Please. I'm a geek, yes, but all hell -- this is too much even for me!! )

 

In any case. PLEASE, I have to understand this.

 

Three basic assumptions, I hope you all agree:

 

[*] Our universe "exists" in more than 3 dimentions.

[*] The universe began with an explossion (The big bang).

[*] The stars in the solar systems are probably material of the sun - the result of an ancient explosion of the sun.

[/list=1]

 

WHY, then, is the solar system (and, by what the observations tell us, the entire galaxy) is moving in a 2Dimentional path!? it's a CIRCLE!! it doesn't make sense.

 

If there was an explosion, the planets were supposed to move in a "chaotic" movement around the sun - much similar to what happens in atoms - the nuclae and the electrons around it -- but they DON'T. They all move around the sun in a 2D matter - like they're all layed down on a plate.

 

I don't understand. If there was an explosion - then there should ahve been another force -- a REALLY powerful one -- that "placed" them all in the same dimention....

 

 

I'm sorry for asking this for the second time - but I really didn't settle for the answers the last time. It just doesn't make sense, explosions doesn't act this way - or aren't SUPPOSED to act this way in space.

 

Besides, my physics teacher once told me that there's a theory that compares huge "objects" in space (like galaxies and solar systems) to miniature atomic reactions - like the atom, electron and so on.

If that's the case - then the flat orbit movement is even LESS logical.

 

What's going on???

 

 

~moo

[Neurocomp2003]

its sort of similar to the idea of teh centrifuge or what ever its called...the bio tool that segments the heavy from the small.

 

The local universe is still 3-D but as it rotates locally around its cylindrical axis...without getting into the mathematics of it...the result is a relatively planar result. You'll need to pick up a 3rd yr+

astrophysics book to understand teh mathematics. But the idea is that the majority of the masses starts out around teh middle

and when teh axis starts spinning ...1) it pulls closer to teh axis

2) it pulls closer to the normal middle plane of the axis.

One iffy way to picture it is 2 centrifuges joined at the bottom.

WIth gravity at the joint

 

Another similar example is the binary star system with accretion disks.

[mooeypoo]

A few things (sorry if it sounds stupid):

 

its sort of similar to the idea of teh centrifuge or what ever its called...the bio tool that segments the heavy from the small.

 

No, it doesn't.. or, well, it shouldn't be. A centrifuge is some sort of tool - usually a tool that represents 2 dimentions. The matter is being twisted in ONE AXIS *and* the edges of that tool prevents it from being thrown "up" and "down". I don't know whats the other tool you mean, it might solve up my current confusion, if you can show me an example, a picture, or send me to a place that explains it I'll appreciate it.

 

 

1) it pulls closer to teh axis

What axis?? The movement should be spherecal not circular. There shouldn't *be* one axis, there should be N axises. Endless ammount.

And the forces should be equal, too, since it's a sphere.

 

2) it pulls closer to the normal middle plane of the axis.

 

There *is no* center, it's sphere. It's SUPPOSED to be a perfect sphere. The only reason EARTH has a 'center' is because we speak about a relative center to the SUN -- and plus it's not a perfect sphere, it's an oval.

 

It still doesn't make much sense...

 

I've heard once that there's a theory about the turning of the galaxy - explained by the existance of a black hole in the middle. Well , even if that's true - a black hole is ALSO spherecal. Not circular. BASICALLY the movement should be a bit more chaotic, not circular.

 

Another similar example is the binary star system with accretion disks.

A WHAT !? I lost you

 

Other than all that - the forces that exist in the atom are SUPPOSED to be similar - why then the electrons move in a "chaotic" form, unlike the stars? It's *supposed* to be similar according to the forces and physical laws. At least similar...

 

 

Sorry to make it hard but I'm really confused on this.

If you can even send me to some sites or books on the subjects, or well... ANYTHING else, I'd really appreciate it.

 

I migth be wrong (I'm not all that good in astronomy as you might have noticed, but I know at least the BASIC physics) but it seems like there's another force that we're missing here... somethign that gathers everything towards one plane.

We can't even call that plane the "Center Axis" since the sun and black holes are spherecal.

 

There are even asteroids that move in a cheotic movement in relation to the planets and the sun...

 

thanks

 

~a confused moo

 

p.s: If you look at Asynchronous Satellites, they behave in a chaotic way since each of them has a different "starting point", even satellites with the same height move in different orbital paths... they're not "flat".

[Neurocomp2003]

I don't have my Astro text so i can't pick it up and right the 40 pages on this topic. If you can pic up the 150$ text Carroll and Ostlie that is the one i learned frmo.

 

1) only one tool...i wasn't sure if it was called a centrifuge

The centrifuge is way to neat in its separation but the analogy is the same.

2) Yes there are "N" axis but 1 axis per system scale.

eg. Earth has its own axis that its spins on...look a bit large it spins around an axis near the sun(i dont' think the sun axis

is the center of the solar system) Look abit larger ...axis of the milky way ....even larger you get axis of many galaxies

even larger you get axis of many many galaxies or some like to call it many universes. I hope you get the point

 

3) THIS AXIS IS A LINE KNOWN AS A CYLINDRICAL AXIS--> because if there was only axis forces it would create a cylinder

...now the spherical observation that you observe is actulally the axis rotating around in a higherscale axis...

 

Therefore our universe is not cylindrical because of all the "local" systems having their own axis and causing nonuniform force interaction...or gravity as some i believe call it. BUt the cylindrical axis does play into the picture.

 

4) Circular Picture results because of the cylindrical axis.

 

5) Electron in chaotic form is based on our current equipment.

However many believe that we cannot improve any further in our measurements...and the chaos comes frmo using the statistics in Quantum which I don't believe is end all in quantum

 

6) no idea about accretion disks? Well accretion disks are relatively planar, but of course they have height ....just the

width and length is alot larger. Basically ina a binary star system

one star over powers the other...sucking in whatever it does...now they are both rotating on their own axis and

around teh systems axis.. However the one sucking stuff collects

elements around its axis towards its center because of the rotation and gravity...this causes the centrifuge like effect(of course not the actual the centrifuge it self)

 

7) the chaotic motion of asteroids...can't rememebr the exact details..but it has to do with the asteroids initial state. I think it goes as follows, the asteriods are sort of wandering rocks...either they enter the system through external forces or

they are pelted off fmro some other rocks in the system., the keiper belt and the other belt are actually quite stable...just teh rocks in side them are thrashed about. I hope you can see where i'm leading to...just this is taking long.

I guess you can say like throwing rocks in a pond.

 

8) see next post

[Neurocomp2003]

now if you understand what i said in the previous post about

1) axis are cylindrical.

2) with uniformness would create circular planes-->cylindrical shape

3) accretion disks

 

then here is how the "planar universe" results. OF course its not really a plane...just from all angles..the height is alot smaller than width and length.

 

1) there is a cylindrical axis through which many galaxies rotate around. Though of course they have their own local axis.

2) this rotation is not uniform ...local systems have own forces and not all the same size and shape.... therefore not truly cylindrical still circular though.

3) along this cylindrical axis there is a "center of universe" where i hesitate to say but gravity takes into effect.

4) now putting the centrifuge/accretion idea...we must focus on a

circular plane C passing through the center perpendicular of course to the axis.

 

[CENTRIFUGE]-> heavy galaxies move closer to the plane C and towards the center. Lighter elements usual can do anything

based on where they started. REmember though not purely

CENTRIFUGE...there are heavy galaxies that wander based on

their initial start.

[ACCRETION DISK]->the center of the axis can be seen as the joint of two centrifuge-like axis. The center acts as the sucker

and as "it" rotates it sucks everything towards it and the plane. HEavier galaxies approach the plane frmo both sides either moving closer to the axis and then to the plane or to the plane and then to the axis. Search for accretion disks pics.

 

Now of course there are forces keeping it frm collapsing to true planarity...local systems... BUt the uniform motion is towards the plane. Again like your asteroids you get some chaotic motion in

what may seem as a stable system.

 

post your email if you have any more questions. Or search on accretion disks.

[JaKiri]

1. The atoms in the movement isn't 'chaotic', it's delocalised.

 

2. The planets are travelling (effectively) in straight lines in 4 dimensional space.

 

3. ANY STRUCTURE where there is a radial force will have an ellipsoid orbit (ignoring other bodies)

[Neurocomp2003]

2) yo quiero taco bell? plz explain

3) really? I thought if an object has radial force around a point the

orbit is purely circular if there is no external(other bodies) acting on it. Like the orbits in our solarsystem are spinning around in ellipsoid because the sun is not the true center of our solar system?

[Neurocomp2003]

Oh yeah I can't rememebr the term delocalized, whats the meaning.

[JaKiri]

Neurocomp2003 said in post # :

2) yo quiero taco bell? plz explain

 

Geometric explanation of gravity (assuming GR); path of least resistance.

 

 

Neurocomp2003 said in post # :

3) really? I thought if an object has radial force around a point the

orbit is purely circular if there is no external(other bodies) acting on it. Like the orbits in our solarsystem are spinning around in ellipsoid because the sun is not the true center of our solar system?

 

Nope, it's only circular if the velocity is precisely that required for a circular orbit, otherwise it'll be elliptical with the centre of gravity (as it were) at one focus.

[JaKiri]

Neurocomp2003 said in post # :

Oh yeah I can't rememebr the term delocalized, whats the meaning.

 

It means that the position of the electrons aren't pinpointed in a specific orbit, but 'spread out' over a volume.

[Neurocomp2003]

2) Ah yes path of least resistance..that i'm familiar with.

I say it once I say it again physicists terminology confuses the hell outta me. Path of least resistance and shortest path in the eye of a physicist go hand in hand. BUt they are not the same.

Though you gotta love the proofs that Calc of Variations provides for them.

 

1) Jakiri what is your definition of chaotic...we may have different interpretations.

[JaKiri]

Neurocomp2003 said in post # :

1) Jakiri what is your definition of chaotic...we may have different interpretations.

 

Unpredictable (increase in variation from very small initial differences).