Space Ends

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by zazzzoom

hay show me your "LOGIC" that space goes on forever and how can it expand if it goes on forever

 

No. You, as the starter of the thread, are the one that needs to show your logic. You start this thread complaining about how space ends, and just repeating the same old worthless junk over and over again, yet you feel no obligation to back up your words. The topic of the thread is that you think space ends, and you just keep repeating that without explaining why. YOU HAVE TO USE LOGIC!! This is a science forum, and science requires LOGIC. Without it, science is useless, and so are you.

 

And why is it so important that space has a shape?

[Macroscopic]

Chill monkey. It was a joke.

If you make a joke that's not obvious, you should use the emoticons.

[crzykllrghst]

hay show me your "LOGIC" that space goes on forever and how can it expand if it goes on forever

 

you people act like matter moves somewhere all of a sudden space is created so it can move there that way space is expanding no no no space has to be there for matter to move into

 

SPACE ENDS THAT WAY SPACE HAS A SHAPE

Hey, zazzzoom, are a supporter of the big bang theory

[crzykllrghst]

There are good people here....just give it a little time....

Bettina

lol Thank you

[crzykllrghst]

Do you know why?

 

Rev Prez

As i said before i'm not to knowledgable, but the way i see it is as follows, The big bang is nothing short of an explosion on a massive scale or to scale it down like a grenade. Gernade explodes sending scrap metal in every which direction like the big bang. It not like the scrap metal was instantly put to its final destination. Like the universe the expansion is the result of that explosion(big bang).

[Martin]

I got these links to redshift calculators for Crazyghost to use in his or her astronomy club. but something tells me they are not the right thing for Crazyghost. So I will do the problem myself and find out what distance corresponds to z = 2

 

Here are two good online cosmology calculators I was going to post link to

 

Siobahn Morgan's

http://www.earth.uni.edu/~morgan/ajjar/Cosmology/cosmos.html

 

and Ned Wright's

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

 

homepages for Morgan

http://www.earth.uni.edu/smm.html

and Wright

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/intro.html

 

To use Siobahn's calculator put Lambda = 0.73

Omega = 0.27

H = 71 (or leave her default value of H = 70' date=' nearly the same)

those are the dark energy and the matter densities as fractions of rho crit,

and H is the present value of the Hubble parameter

 

then put in any redshift z,

like z =1 or 3 or 10 and it will tell you how far away the thing

was when it emitted the light we are now getting from it

and how far away it is now

and how fast it was receding then

and how fast it is receding now, at the present moment.

....[/quote']

 

z = 2 means that in the light from the galaxy the wavelengths are an additional 200 percent longer. that is they are 3X what they started out.

z = 2 means frequencies are one third what they started out.

 

so what DISTANCE does that correspond to?

 

I clicked on ned wright's calculator, put z = 2 into the box

and clicked "general" (same answer as clicking "flat" in this case)

and it says the hubble-law distance is 17.1 billion lightyears.

 

with the siobahn morgan calculator you have to type in 0.27 for omega and 0.73 for lambda, and 71 for hubble parameter H, so it is more work

but you should get the same answer (and it gives other interesting information that ned wright's doesnt)

[crzykllrghst]

I got these links to redshift calculators for Crazyghost to use in his or her astronomy club. but something tells me they are not the right thing for Crazyghost. So I will do the problem myself and find out what distance corresponds to z = 2

 

 

 

z = 2 means that in the light from the galaxy the wavelengths are an additional 200 percent longer. that is they are 3X what they started out.

z = 2 means frequencies are one third what they started out.

 

so what DISTANCE does that correspond to?

 

I clicked on ned wright's calculator' date=' put z = 2 into the box

and clicked "general" (same answer as clicking "flat" in this case)

and it says the hubble-law distance is 17.1 billion lightyears.

 

with the siobahn morgan calculator you have to type in 0.27 for omega and 0.73 for lambda, and 71 for hubble parameter H, so it is more work

but you should get the same answer (and it gives other interesting information that ned wright's doesnt)[/quote']

Sorry i couldn't do it myself, for some reason or another my computer refused to load the site sorry

[crzykllrghst]

Sorry i couldn't do it myself, for some reason or another my computer refused to load the site sorry

Dude that stuff is way complicated but i'd like to understand could you explain please

[revprez]

As i said before i'm not to knowledgable, but the way i see it is as follows, The big bang is nothing short of an explosion on a massive scale or to scale it down like a grenade. Gernade explodes sending scrap metal in every which direction like the big bang. It not like the scrap metal was instantly put to its final destination. Like the universe the expansion is the result of that explosion(big bang).

 

The reason I asked is because cosmology, as a whole, not an intuitive subject. If you're genuinely excited by the subject, challenge it and yourself by gaining competence in the prereqs. For me at least, the whole thing is far more beautiful when your intuition is informed by even a minimally rigorous foundation and focused on specific cosmological questions and problems.

 

Rev Prez

[Martin]

... the whole thing is far more beautiful when your intuition is informed by even a minimally rigorous...

 

I think I understand and agree completely,

but I cant tell Crazyghost (the selfproclaimed highschool junior) to go away and come back with some knowledge of Differential Geometry.

 

the way I see it the key issue that is both good (because fascinating and making people think) and bad (because hanging so many people up and making them argue endlessly)

 

the key issue is what stretches out the lightwaves.

 

what is the origin of the observed redshift in light from distant galaxies?

 

if you say it is doppler then you have to put everything in a rigid foursquare Minkowski space and use the relativistic doppler formula and give every galaxy a velocity-----and it is really awkward and gets crazy (tho some doubtless depict the world that way)

 

if you dont say it is doppler then you have to have a dynamically changing metric on the space (you are in riemannian geometry) and as the lightwave goes along on its merry way the very space it is travelling gains distance and the wavelength of the light is stretched out.

 

and there are people-----i could throw an eraser and hit two or three right now---who will never in the world accept that idea.

 

jeez, I hope you do, you have enough background so I'd expect it

[swansont]

Space can't end.

 

The simplest model of space is this.

 

Space is infinite in all directions.

Space is a true vacuum.

It has no inertia.

It has no electrical impedance.

It's temperature is absolute zero.

Somewhere in it' date=' is the center of mass of the universe.

Space cannot stretch, it cannot bend, it cannot expand, it cannot have properties.

And lastly, it is three dimensional.

 

In over two thousand years there hasn't been a simpler model.[/quote']

 

simple <> correct

[zazzzoom]

space ends that way it has a shape

 

and outside of space there is nothing

[zazzzoom]

space ends in all directions

[crzykllrghst]

space ends in all directions

We know what you stand for now tell us why. Why does it have a difenant shape opposed to expansion

[Sayonara]

Zazzzoom has been quality controlled the hell out of here.

[Bettina]

I never could understand him....he wanted to learn but then didn't.

[Dave]

He just strikes me as a bit odd, really.

[crzykllrghst]

He just strikes me as a bit odd, really.

lol your right

[Johnny5]

For me at least' date=' the whole thing is far more beautiful when your intuition is informed by even a minimally rigorous foundation

 

Rev Prez[/quote']

 

 

That's very nice.

[Johnny5]

Originally Posted by Johnny5

Space can't end.

 

The simplest model of space is this.

 

Space is infinite in all directions.

Space is a true vacuum.

It has no inertia.

It has no electrical impedance.

It's temperature is absolute zero.

Somewhere in it, is the center of mass of the universe.

Space cannot stretch, it cannot bend, it cannot expand, it cannot have properties.

And lastly, it is three dimensional.

 

In over two thousand years there hasn't been a simpler

 

 

simple <> correct

 

I know that simple is not equivalent to correct, but it's a beginning.

[ecoli]

i see no evidence that it goes on forever

 

Then where's your proof that it ends?

[Ophiolite]

i see no evidence that it goes on forever

Consult an optician.

[eeemmm]

SPACE ENDS

 

 

Space ends' date=' space does not go on forever and ever it ends.

The difference between space ending or not ending is if space does not end then space does not have a shape but once you understand that space ends then space can take a shape and that shape can move from one shape to another shape.

 

Yes space ends and moves.[/quote']

 

YES!

[chatlack]

space ends that way it has a shape

 

and outside of space there is nothing

 

 

Then, can we move with a spaceship out of it?? If we can it means space doesnt end. If not explain...

[who_knows]

You could be the first person to ever prove it ends.Not even Einstein new if there is an end.

The thing is that gets me about the Big Band is they claim there was a begining of all things,but soon fails when they can never find the end