11
   

What do galaxies orbit?

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:26 am
Oralloy, the universe may or may not continue to expand into infinity, however the evidence there is inconclusive - debatable, in fact, and strongly so. That there was a Big Bang destroys youir proposition, in that the Big Bang itself defines a boundary, establishes a dimensional limit, evidences a horizon beyond which we cannot see. Infinity has to work both ways; there cannot be a start point for it.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:47 am
This recent article has some interesting things to say on infinity and boundedness of the universe

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4250
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 12:07 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Oralloy, the universe may or may not continue to expand into infinity, however the evidence there is inconclusive - debatable, in fact, and strongly so.


Flat universes go on forever.



timberlandko wrote:
That there was a Big Bang destroys youir proposition, in that the Big Bang itself defines a boundary, establishes a dimensional limit, evidences a horizon beyond which we cannot see. Infinity has to work both ways; there cannot be a start point for it.


The big bang is a temporal boundary, not a spatial boundary.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 12:10 pm
Maybe this will help:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_content.html

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/Slug1_CompositeS.jpg
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 12:11 pm
there is no boundary between tine ansd space, orraloy, they are conjoined, interdependent, inter-relational attributes of the same thing.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 12:23 pm
timberlandko wrote:
there is no boundary between tine ansd space, orraloy, they are conjoined, interdependent, inter-relational attributes of the same thing.


Yes. So?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 12:41 pm
Oralloy, first you were saying that there was an infinite amount of energy in the universe, and then you switched to saying that the coordinate space is infinite. I guess you believe both but they are not the same thing...
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 05:26 pm
I am afraid that this thread has turned into religion. I find it amusing to muse on how quickly this happens. :wink:

There happen to be several possible Universes which fit most of our possible observations. All of these Universes have relatively well educated champions. May I briefly describe the universes so we can decide which one we want to argue about.

So in no particular order---

1)A universe created by a superior intelligence using the laws of physics in a way which we may be able to understand someday----

2)A universe "Created" by a God in such a way that we will never be able to understand it---

3)A universe created by human perceptions. ("I think therefore I am", writ large)---

4)A universe created by a "Big Bang" which is an expansion of space, not within space---

5) The "flat" or "steady state" universe in which matter is formed at a sufficient rate to maintain an observed density----

6)The infinite universe that always was and always will be at a density similar to what we observe now (No boundries in time or distance)----

7)The infinite-evolving universe in which a "Big Bang"(within space) describes the horizon between classical-relativistic physics and Quantum Mechanics---

8) The multi dimensional universe in which the four observable dimensions are containing or contained within five to eleven other dimensions---

9) The mortal universe in which a Big Bang event fades off onto the distance never to reassemble----

10)The Rebounding universe in which a "Big Bang" is followed by a "Big Crunch" presumeably Banging out again and again ad infinitum---

You will notice that some of these universes have boundries in time, some have boundries in distance. some don't Confused Some require a temporary suspension of belief in the laws of physics. Some don't.

My point is that we are argueing theories as fact. There is a certain amount of evidence supporting all of them. It helps to be unpicky about what constitutes evidence. Unfortunetly it doesn't narrow the quest for a universe very much when you do get picky about the evidence Sad

Personally I prefer #7,but it'd probably be better if we all argued the same universe. Very Happy Or maybe not Confused
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 06:09 pm
I gotta go with a universe conforming to 4) and 8), with a touch of 7)
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 06:13 pm
akaMechsmith,

Well I am still trying to understand the theory. I can't make a decision until I do. You seem to be confident in understanding them. Can you explain why the hypershere model says that points are on the surface of the hypersphere and not within the volume, according to theory?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 06:23 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
4)A universe created by a "Big Bang" which is an expansion of space, not within space---

5) The "flat" or "steady state" universe in which matter is formed at a sufficient rate to maintain an observed density----

8) The multi dimensional universe in which the four observable dimensions are containing or contained within five to eleven other dimensions---



Note that when I use the term "flat" I am not referring to something like #5.

#4 and #8 both accurately describe the universe.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 07:24 pm
stuh505 wrote:
2) My astronomy teacher also said that the matter was on the surface of a sphere. In fact he was quite convinced of it...but he didn't know why.


The Sphere is just an analogy. It is not precise. Remember, Space and Time are aspects of the Universe Topology.

Spheres as analogies are oversimplifications of the actual topology, which we cannot visualize.

None the less; there is no 'center' to the Universe, either gravitationally or otherwise.

Best Regards,
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 03:58 pm
The latest results from the study of microwave background radiation:

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap_3yr_param.pdf
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 05:35 pm
Stuh--

Hypersphere-- A shape that is similar to a sphere but exists only within a space of more than three dimensions.

Hyperspace is described as a space that has more than three dimensions.

Nobody as far as I know has shown that a hyperspace exists or is possible. I have no notion as to why a hyperspace (beloved by science fiction writers) is impossible but so far it has not been shown to exist outside of imaginations Sad

Carl Sagan loved "wormholes" as a hyperspatial conduit but even he had to resort to fiction to use them. His book "Contact" used them.

Another thought is that if a hyperspace existed then time travel would be possible. So far that hasn't happened yet either.

Klein jugs and Mobious strips are attempts to explain these things but they don't work in three dimensional space. Unless it can be shown that space somewhere may have more than three dimensions + time I can't visit your universe.

The Klein bottles for sale on the web are beautiful pieces though.

Google Klein +bottles It's worth the trip Exclamation Sorry, I lost the link. It's somewhere in cyberspace I presume :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 05:50 pm
What's 13 odd billion years when it's at home.

There's a big £4 billion job going off here which is set to prove what happened a milli-micro second after the BB.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 06:05 pm
Oralloy,

I have been following the various Cosmic Microwave Background Emissions probes with some interest for quite a while. I was in high school when Pensas and Wilson were trying to get rid of the background hum in their telephony equipment.

IMO--- The microwave hum was satisfactorily explained in 1949 by Hoyle. He called it "tired light". It is predicted in the "Big Bang-Expanding Universe Theory"and is also predicted in the "Infinite-Evolving Universe Theory" .
Relativity theory also predicts it as a result of the observations taken during the eclipse of 1929 in South Africa. This is kind of ambiguous Question

I view it merely as light that has been subjected to considerable space time and consequently has been red shifted to the microwave potion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

For more complete explanations you may enjoy Googling "Red Shift" and also look at the pictures provided by the "Hubble Deep Field Telescope" web page. Think about them for a little while.

Anyhow if you visit me you will probably find me in Universe #7.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 06:11 pm
Spendius,
You sound like a "True Believer". The powers that be spend far more than that trying to prove that the Christian Imagintion is Greater than the Muslim Imagination. Big Deal Exclamation Exclamation
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 06:27 pm
Ros,

Why cannot we visualize or imagine such a shape or conformation Question

Since humans are not known to be notably lacking in imagination I tend to wonder why it cannot be comfortably described.


Rutherford-- "If your theory is any good it can be explained to a bar girl".

That is the biggest single reason that I tend to doubt the existences of multi dimensional or hyper universes with their attendant theories concerning "Ultimate Questions" Confused
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 06:32 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
I was in high school when Pensas and Wilson were trying to get rid of the background hum in their telephony equipment.


Hi Mech, I was in elementary school at this time. And I was playing Kick-the-Can in Bob Wilson's front yard with his son, and having picknicks on telegraph hill beneath the horn antenna. The Nobel prize wasn't announced until years later. Us kids never knew what was happening around us, and the adults were just going about their lives, doing what they do. Little did we all know...
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 07:02 pm
Timberlanko,

Unfortunetly the "Big Bang-Expanding Universe" scenario requires a space that isn't space to expand into. Perhaps "Chaos" would be a place to put your universe but I doubt that a truly chaotic place ever existed outside the realm of quantum mechanics. Yet even in the most extreme extrapolations of QM gravity still seems to persist thus bringing some sort of order into Chaos.

Another thought. The Hubble "Deep Field" telescope shows a place that loks pretty much like home. If space itself was expanding then the average separations of galaxies should be a good bit closer than they are today (Average density of the universe should have been greater six or eight billion years ago than it is now.) There also should be a greater percentage of young stars. This does not seem to be the case Sad
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 02:02:54