My theory on the universe

[steve69]

here is my theory on the universe...


I think the universe is not as big as we think.

I think we are seeing the same stars, planets or whatever many times over and over AND over because of gravity.

I think there is a central part and when we look into space we are seeing our sight pulled by gravity. We are basically seeing the same planet but farther away, we think. Because the sight is a lot farther.

The farther a planet seems away, the older it seems.

think of looking in a circle, with the stars also altering the way it goes. You see the same planet but never the same spot because of all the stuff moving.

The Universe never come to an end, Gravity does not allow that. It is being sucked in by some huge force.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Phi for All
Increased font size

[Blahah]

--> speculation

[Spyman]

If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different. A 2004 paper [Link] claims to establish a lower bound of 24 gigaparsecs (78 billion light-years) on the diameter of the whole universe, meaning the smallest possible diameter for the whole universe would be only slightly smaller than the observable universe (and this is only a lower bound, so the whole universe could be much larger, even infinite). This value is based on matching-circle analysis of the WMAP data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

[steve69]

"If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different."

Yes that is what I am meaning. There isn't a red nova star or whatever, it's our sun, but you are seeing it at a different point in time, when it was a red nova.

If you think there are a couple black holes, with the line of sight sure, there are.

 

And everytime you see it, it will be at a different point of "time" and look like a totally new black hole.

 

I think there is not many of what we are seeing. Only we are seeing the same thing many times, over and over.

Edited February 17, 2011 by steve69

[John Cuthber]

I suspect that we can see "new" stars forming far away, but I don't know enough about space to be certain of this. If we can then the theory is a bit odd.

 

Also I think Olber's paradox would mess things up unless you accept that the Universe has only been around for a finite time.

[steve69]

"I suspect that we can see "new" stars forming far away, but I don't know enough about space to be certain of this."

 

I don't think there are any "new" stars forming, what you are seeing is the original star at it's birth because that "line of sight" is traveling farther, then the other "line of sight" at which we already have seen the star.

 

So we see it at a different age, its farther away, only because our line of sight is going in circles.

 

 

Spherical geometry

The final possibility: If current density is larger than the critical value, then every region of space has a geometry akin to that of a sphere. Here, again, is the two-dimensional example, a spherical surface:

 

 

In such a space, the angles of a triangle built from segments of straightest-possible lines (geodesics) always sum up to more than 180 degrees, and if you follow some straightest-possible lines that are parallel in some region of space, they will always converge and intersect. This is called a space of positive curvature.

 

Interesting possibilities for large-scale geometry, and the mathematically inclined reader will react with slight regret to the announcement that, going by astronomical data, the most boring among these possibilities is realized: The geometry of our universe at cosmic scales appears to be that of ordinary high school geometry, corresponding to a universe with a density equal to the critical value.

 

 

 

 

Source: http://www.einstein-.../shape_of_space

 

 

Edited February 17, 2011 by steve69

[SMF]

Steve69, this is an amusing hypothesis. How do you propose that it might be tested? SM

[steve69]

"Steve69, this is an amusing hypothesis. How do you propose that it might be tested? SM "

 

I do not know. I am not a scientist.

 

Something like

 

Line of sight = (mass of black hole / (mass of objects in sky + distance from that object + distance from black hole (where we are looking from)) / direction of sight from black hole)

Edited February 18, 2011 by steve69

[steve69]

Can I please have a reason why this isn't possible?

 

 

In certain directions you wouldn't see a complete circle, more of an oval, it all depends on the angle.

 

If there is something pulling on EVERYTHING, and the universe is infinite, eventually the line of sight is going to come back and not straight back, so it will "orbit" like everything else

Edited February 19, 2011 by steve69

[Spyman]

Can I please have a reason why this isn't possible?

Did you not read my post or the link inside it?

 

It has been tested and within a radius of 39 billion lightyears we have not found any duplicated images of what we see.

[steve69]

Ok, I am not trying to say everything is wrong, argue or anything! but I would like somebody to think this is a good theory or show me straight facts how it's not right or start a different type of thinking and solve this thing.

Yes I read it, and read a lot of things, and they think

 

In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that we can in principle observe from Earth in the present day, because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach us since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction—that is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered around the Earth.

 

"Some parts of the universe may simply be too far away for the light emitted from there at any moment since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth at present, so these portions of the universe would currently lie outside the observable universe. In the future the light from distant galaxies will have had more time to travel, so some regions not currently observable will become observable in the future.."

 

Why would something be non observable,, hasn't had enough time for it's light to reach us, if everything started from 1 big bang? There is nothing out in space that was already there, So how is something farther out then the light they are shining back? Why could it not just be a different path, which takes longer for the light to get here.

 

So the only explanation I can find is, big bang happened, things expanded for billions of years, then light started from each of these objects and now it's starting to shine back? No objects had a light source from the beginning and therefore we can't see anything far away? That makes no sense to me, we should be able to see SOMETHING the age of the big bang, very far away, in that case.

 

 

"Though in principle more galaxies will become observable in the future, in practice an increasing number of galaxies will become extremely redshifted due to ongoing expansion, so much so that they will seem to disappear from view and become invisible."

 

 

It even says , and even you quoted, "If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different. A 2004 paper^[12] claims to establish a lower bound of 24 gigaparsecs (78 billion light-years) on the diameter of the whole universe, meaning the smallest possible diameter for the whole universe would be only slightly smaller than the observable universe (and this is only a lower bound, so the whole universe could be much larger, even infinite). This value is based on matching-circle analysis of the WMAP data. Recently, this approach has been criticized."

 

What space is the universe expanding into?

A graphical representation of the expansion of the universe with the inflationary epoch represented as the dramatic expansion of the metric seen on the left.

Over time, the space that makes up the universe is expanding. The words 'space' and 'universe', sometimes used interchangeably, have distinct meanings in this context. Here 'space' is a mathematical concept and 'universe' refers to all the matter and energy that exist. The expansion of space is in reference to internal dimensions only; that is, the description involves no structures such as extra dimensions or an exterior universe.^[6]

 

Finite space theory does not suppose space has an edge, but rather that space wraps around on itself. If it were possible to travel the entire length of space without going faster than light, one would simply end up back in the same place, not unlike going all the way around the surface of a balloon (or a planet like the Earth).

 

The notion of more space is local, not global; we do not know how much space there is in total. The embedding diagram has been arbitrarily cut off a few billion years past the Earth and the quasar, but it could be extended indefinitely, even infinitely, provided we imagine it as curling into a spiral of constant radius rather than a circle. Even if the overall spatial extent is infinite we still say that space is expanding because, locally, the characteristic distance between objects is increasing.

 

Edited February 19, 2011 by steve69

[Blahah]

Why would something be non observable,, hasn't had enough time for it's light to reach us, if everything started from 1 big bang? There is nothing out in space that was already there, So how is something farther out then the light they are shining back? Why could it not just be a different path, which takes longer for the light to get here.

 

So the only explanation I can find is, big bang happened, things expanded for billions of years, then light started from each of these objects and now it's starting to shine back? No objects had a light source from the beginning and therefore we can't see anything far away? That makes no sense to me, we should be able to see SOMETHING the age of the big bang, very far away, in that case.

 

Right, the space in between objects is (and has been) expanding, so that's one reason why it takes so long for the light to reach us. And surely the something we can see of the big bang is in the form of the cosmic background radiation? (I could be wrong, only just coming to grips with this stuff myself)

[sound]

here is my theory on the universe...

 

 

I think the universe is not as big as we think.

 

I think we are seeing the same stars, planets or whatever many times over and over AND over because of gravity.

 

I think there is a central part and when we look into space we are seeing our sight pulled by gravity. We are basically seeing the same planet but farther away, we think. Because the sight is a lot farther.

 

The farther a planet seems away, the older it seems.

 

think of looking in a circle, with the stars also altering the way it goes. You see the same planet but never the same spot because of all the stuff moving.

 

The Universe never come to an end, Gravity does not allow that. It is being sucked in by some huge force.

what are you basing these assumptions on

[steve69]

"what are you basing these assumptions on "

I know I am not 100% right, especially how I am trying to explain it, but I believe in the overall part of seeing many things over and over in a different part of "time"

Why? I don't know, few days ago this thought just came to me and I have been like whoa, that makes sense!

[Spyman]

First I have to say steve69 that you need to make it more clear where your quotes and your personal arguments starts and ends.

 

Ok, I am not trying to say everything is wrong, argue or anything! but I would like somebody to think this is a good theory or show me straight facts how it's not right or start a different type of thinking and solve this thing.

There is nothing basically wrong with your idea but it has been tested and if we are observing the same objects more than once then their images are at least 78 billion lightyears apart, almost as big as our observabel universe with a diameter of around 93 billion lightyears.

 

So if we look in one direction, the close to farthest objects we can see might be the same objects that are almost the farthest we can see in the opposite direction.

 

 

Why would something be non observable,, hasn't had enough time for it's light to reach us, if everything started from 1 big bang? There is nothing out in space that was already there, So how is something farther out then the light they are shining back? Why could it not just be a different path, which takes longer for the light to get here.

We don't know how or if the Universe started or if it has always been, we also don't know what shape it has or if it's finite or infinite. The Big Bang theory starts out in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly but doesn't cover what was before that or how big this initial Universe was.

 

If the Universe is infinite now then it was infinite right after the Big Bang also, and likewise if it was finite then it will always be finite too. The important thing to understand is that the Big Bang was huge, something could have been very far away at the event of the Big Bang and the light from that object might not have reached us yet.

 

Secondly there is no limit on how fast the Universe might be expanding, so objects that where very close back then and sending out light towards the position Earth is in now, was brought away from us faster than light, making the travel time for their light to reach us much much longer than without expansion.

 

 

So the only explanation I can find is, big bang happened, things expanded for billions of years, then light started from each of these objects and now it's starting to shine back? No objects had a light source from the beginning and therefore we can't see anything far away? That makes no sense to me, we should be able to see SOMETHING the age of the big bang, very far away, in that case.

Close to the Big Bang event, (~377 000 years after), space was filled with hot plasma which didn't let light through but later on when the desity and temperature falls hydrogen and helium atoms begin to form and captures electrons. This aera is called the Recombination and at the end of it photons where able to travel freely, the Universe had become transparent. The first free photons from this time still arrives here on Earth and we call it the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Spyman

[Cosvis1]

I find it a very interesting theory, the possibility of seeing the same galaxies again and agin, from a different angle. I always thought the universe is continously evolving, from its very beginning. First the elements were formed, than the particles, suns, planets and galaxies. The stars will eventually explode, galaxies will collide and die out by means of neuclear reactions. At the same time, new stars and galaxies are continuosly formed. It could mean that we see new galaxies and stars and not the one of a previous genereration.

[smokingman]

Steve69 - Of course you are right and of course you are wrong. This is likely not something we are supposed to understand, or rationalise for that matter. Good on you for thinking about it.

 

Your theory would indeed seem possible. Let's review what we know in 1 and 2 below.

 

1. the visible universe either to the eye or telescopes never existed at one instant in history in the way it appears at the time you observed it. eg. Many of the stars we see are extinct by the time their light reaches our eyes or telescopes. We see a collage of many things that existed throughout time.

 

2. everything in the universe is constantly moving and changing, therefore the tests within 39 billion lightyears would be superfluous and unable to prove or disprove this theory as you would never be able to generate a "match" at the instant in time you ran the test. any match the test generated would need to have many more simulation assumptions than your original theory.

 

If you put 1 and 2 together, I see no evidence that it couldn't be the same stars over and over again, at different points in their history and at different locations in the universe (explaining your reflection) - giving the illusion of an infinitely massive Universe. Then again, we have no evidence that they are indeed the same stars because of Number 2) above so you could be right or you could be wrong...

 

There was a good reason our ancestors were led to believe by those in power in the existence of God. There's a good reason we are being led to believe the Universe is infinitely large right now.

[Phi for All]

There was a good reason our ancestors were led to believe by those in power in the existence of God. There's a good reason we are being led to believe the Universe is infinitely large right now.

 

!

Moderator Note

This is NOT a religious or political topic. Please don't introduce these off-topic aspects to a scientific speculation.

[MigL]

Please stop using the tiny font. It hurts my old (relatively) and problematic eyes.

[Spyman]

Note: This is an old thread, steve69 has not been online since Mars 06, 2011.

[Airbrush]

Please stop using the tiny font. It hurts my old (relatively) and problematic eyes.

Yes I hate that tiny font and I bet everyone else does too. They just don't want to complain.