Parallel lines

[rigney]

If our universe was the result of the BB, is it spherical with everything moving away in lines of radii from a center, or is everything on the shell?

[Nano]

I've seen some images calculated and generated by a computer of how the universe might look like on a big scale. The matter doesn't seem like it's moving in straight lines, probably due to the gravitational influence, and it is spread out pretty smoothly all over the cosmos. If you are asking if the universe itself is moving in straight lines, it's really hard to tell since the fabric of the universe itself is invisible to us.

 

The universe as a shape is really hard to imagine, atleast from the outside. From the inside it might look like a sphere, but after what I've understood you can't define a center of the universe where the BB occured. If there's no center, then how can it be a sphere?

[StringJunky]

Its best to imagine the Universe as only the surface of an expanding balloon with currants stuck on it...as it expands the distance between the currants increases...space is created between them. It's important to realise that there is *nothing inside or outside above or below this balloon... the surface is all there is...it doesn't expand into anything...there is no volume of space around the balloon. the surface of the balloon is all there is.

 

This is only an analogy but it shows how the distance increases between objects without having an edge...spherical surfaces lack an edge. The Universe was much smaller than it is today but current models suggest that it was still infinite in dimension...get your head round that!

 

*Total absence of anything..not even space.

 

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

[rigney]

Thanks guys for your response. I'm not educated in our universe but I have a lot of questions. I'd like to keep this thread open if only to get answers to some of these ideas.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

While I hate the expanding balloon theory, what if we could look at it as a balloon inside a ballon, inside a balloon, inside a balloon, etc! Perhaps millions or even billions of levels deep? "Just not balloons". Would that make sense?

Edited May 24, 2010 by rigney
emphasis

[Nano]

what if we could look at it as a balloon inside a ballon, inside a balloon, inside a balloon, et

That reminded me of a story told by Stephen Hawkin. Someone was lecturing a group of people about the cosmos. At the end of the lecture an old lady got up and said "You are wrong. The earth is resting on the back of a giant turtle." The teacher smiled and asked her: "And what is the turtle standing on?" The lady answered: "You're very clever, young man. Very clever, but it is turtles all the way down..."

 

As StringJunky emphasized, the balloon is an analogy where you have to look at only the surface as the universe. Not in any direction leading away from the balloons material. Think that you were a reeealy smal person living at the balloon surface. You'd see all the other galaxies move away from you as the balloon expands. If you could travel superfast in a straight line, you'd after a while end up at the same place where you started. I think that is also how the universe is expected to work, and one of the reasons we can never reach the end of the universe.

[rigney]

StringJunky (Atom) Today, 11:11 AM #3

Its best to imagine the Universe as only the surface of an expanding balloon with currants stuck on it...as it expands the distance between the currants increases...space is created between them. It's important to realise that there is *nothing inside or outside above or below this balloon... the surface is all there is...it doesn't expand into anything...there is no volume of space around the balloon. the surface of the balloon is all there is.

 

This is only an analogy but it shows how the distance increases between objects without having an edge...spherical surfaces lack an edge. The Universe was much smaller than it is today but current models suggest that it was still infinite in dimension...get your head round that!

 

*Total absence of anything..not even space.

 

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

______________

"If I have seen a little further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants" -Isaac Newton

 

" The man who never made a mistake never made anything. "

 

Stringman(junkie)

 

If this analysis is possible for a single surface area, could not the same be applied for multiple inside layers also? The currant thing?

 

"Probabelity" is the thought that something may happen!

Edited May 24, 2010 by rigney

[rigney]

Was just reading a thing Stringjunky left. http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html.

While I can't or won't dispute it, I do wonder at its validity? Not a Physist by any stretch, I just can't imagine an explosion, large or small; not being spherical if possible.