What do galaxies orbit?

Ros,

I was playing with short wave radio at the time. We had a Halicrafters. I had heard that hum quite often and sure hoped that we could get it out. I remember being quite delighted that they had figured out what it was. It sure messed up faint transmissions.

Regretably "short wave" hasn't got that much better Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ros,

I was playing with short wave radio at the time. We had a Halicrafters. I had heard that hum quite often and sure hoped that we could get it out. I remember being quite delighted that they had figured out what it was. It sure messed up faint transmissions.

Regretably "short wave" hasn't got that much better

Hi Mech,

Apparently, you were older than I was at the time. We never knew what our parents were working on in the Labs. While you were playing with short wave radio, I was finding fossilized sharks teeth in the creek behind the Wilson's house Smile

We also found a trilobite fossil in the hill on Bell Labs property.

Those were fun times Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

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,

Ok...I get it. Basically, you're saying that like everyone else, you believe it, and you have absolutely no idea what the evidence is for it. I have been probing for evidence for a long time and so far I have not seen a single shred of evidence on any website or from any person, in real life, here, or even on the hardcore science forums. If you have ANY evidence at all, please do share...otherwise, don't tell me I should believe it!

Quote:

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

So why are there so many apparently rational people so adamant that the theory is correct? This is what has me so confused. As far as I can tell there is no evidence for it (expansion is not evidence because it is not the only model that supports expansion).

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Ok...I get it. Basically, you're saying that like everyone else, you believe it, and you have absolutely no idea what the evidence is for it.

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then there is no center. It's part of the theory.

If you don't believe BB theory is correct, then I admit, I can't prove it to you.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

As far as I can tell there is no evidence for it (expansion is not evidence because it is not the only model that supports expansion).

Evidence:

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap_3yr_param.pdf

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
As far as I can tell there is no evidence for it (expansion is not evidence because it is not the only model that supports expansion).

Evidence:

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap_3yr_param.pdf

Why does the evidence have to be so complicated. Why can't they come up with an analogy like dots on a sphere or something.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Why does the evidence have to be so complicated.

Because it is a complicated theory.

rosborne979 wrote:

Why can't they come up with an analogy like dots on a sphere or something.

An analogy to explain a theory is not the same as evidence to prove it.

"Dots on a sphere" is a way to explain a closed universe. We live in a flat universe. Therefore it is better to talk of dots on an infinite never-ending plane.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Why does the evidence have to be so complicated.

Because it is a complicated theory.

I was kidding.

I need to use more emoticons or something, my jokes are causing more serious discussion than my actual posts Wink

0 Replies

Quote:

Why does the evidence have to be so complicated. Why can't they come up with an analogy like dots on a sphere or something.

Don't patronize me, I didn't ask for an analogy. If you can't explain something you don't understand it.

Quote:

Evidence:

Reading

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
Why does the evidence have to be so complicated. Why can't they come up with an analogy like dots on a sphere or something.

Don't patronize me, I didn't ask for an analogy. If you can't explain something you don't understand it.

Calm down. It was just a joke. I think you're a very nice skull. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then there is no center. It's part of the theory.

If you insist on staying the big bang theory EXACTLY, then I am not convinced.

However, most people agree that the theory is not entirely complete and when we refer to the big bang theory we are referring actually to some more fundamental invariant property of expansion...which is possible under multiple models, and this is just one of those possible [and incomplete] models.

oralloy,

Thank you for the link. I am not a cosmologist and unfortunately I don't have the time to dedicate the years of my life that would be required to fully comprehend the background and mathematics of this paper. My life interest is in other areas, but I am still significantly interested, and like all theories, no matter how complicated they are, I know that the principles can still be explained and understood on a fundamental level without understanding all of the math required to simulate and make predictions based on the theory.

Anyway, although as I have stated I do not fully understand the math or background, it is still clear that the evidence for the hypersphere model proposed in this paper can be summed up as "real data conforms to predictions of the flat universe hypersphere model."

Nowhere in the paper does it say that "no other model conforms to the data."

Specifically, at this point, I am trying to understand exactly why it is believed that matter must be located only on the surface of an inflationary sphere in R^N as opposed to being able to exist inside a sphere of R^M.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

If you can't explain something you don't understand it.

Here is the best explanation I can muster.

Scientists have come up with theories for the structure of the universe in which there is no center or edge to it.

These theories are the only ones that fit our observations of the universe, so people tend to believe that they are correct. The only thing that will alter that belief is if we start making observations that are utterly contrary to those theories, or if someone comes up with a different theory that fits existing observations even better.

The link that I just gave you is for the most accurate observations that have been made so far, and those observations are still in agreement with the theories where the universe has no center or edge.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Anyway, although as I have stated I do not fully understand the math or background, it is still clear that the evidence for the hypersphere model proposed in this paper can be summed up as "real data conforms to predictions of the flat universe hypersphere model."

Nowhere in the paper does it say that "no other model conforms to the data."

I believe all the other models have long ago been shown to be inconsistent with observations.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
Anyway, although as I have stated I do not fully understand the math or background, it is still clear that the evidence for the hypersphere model proposed in this paper can be summed up as "real data conforms to predictions of the flat universe hypersphere model."

Nowhere in the paper does it say that "no other model conforms to the data."

I believe all the other models have long ago been shown to be inconsistent with observations.

Thank you for trying to explain. I know I'm asking a difficult question because I'm asking for the answer to be not too technical, and not too inspecific, but just right.

Exactly what evidence could be used to disprove a theory that expansion is a scale operation that is applied uniformly to all points of matter in the universe? At this point, I'm not even asking how...I just just want to know which piece of evidence it is.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
If you can't explain something you don't understand it.

Here is the best explanation I can muster.

And here's the best one I can muster...

If any point you can place yourself at in the Universe is indistinguishable from any other with regard to direction, expansion and limits (edges), then logically, there can be no center.

I realize that relies on certain assumptions, but all those assumtions are part of the general aspect of the standard model, and as noted by Oralloy, not in question at this time.

0 Replies

What exactly are the "certain assumptions" on which it is stated that the previous statement depends?

Let's hope they are not miraculous.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

If any point you can place yourself at in the Universe is indistinguishable from any other with regard to direction, expansion and limits (edges), then logically, there can be no center.

Yes, and also from those presuppositions you can conclude that there is only a single infinitessimally small point in the universe, which is uniform in all regards, including energy, and therefore there are no stars or planets or anything. We know that this is not the case, and therefore by contradiction your presuppositions must be false, and your other conclusion is not necessarily true.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I realize that relies on certain assumptions, but all those assumtions are part of the general aspect of the standard model, and as noted by Oralloy, not in question at this time.

The standard model says that gravity is a quantized particle like all the other forces. General relativity says that gravity is not quantized and is a warping of spacetime. If it is true, as you say, that nobody questions the standard model, then it would also have to be true that nobody believed in general relativity.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I realize that relies on certain assumptions, but all those assumtions are part of the general aspect of the standard model, and as noted by Oralloy, not in question at this time.

The standard model says that gravity is a quantized particle like all the other forces. General relativity says that gravity is not quantized and is a warping of spacetime. If it is true, as you say, that nobody questions the standard model, then it would also have to be true that nobody believed in general relativity.

People question the standare model all the time, they just can't offer any better models yet.

I thought we were talking about the BB model, not GR or QED.

You originally asked if there was a gravitational center to the Universe. According to the BB model, and current topologies, the answer is no.

However, I an unable to explain it in more detail.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
If any point you can place yourself at in the Universe is indistinguishable from any other with regard to direction, expansion and limits (edges), then logically, there can be no center.

Yes, and also from those presuppositions you can conclude that there is only a single infinitessimally small point in the universe, which is uniform in all regards, including energy, and therefore there are no stars or planets or anything.

That's not what I said. What I said was, "indistinguishable from any other with regard to direction, expansion and limits (edges)". Uniformity is not the point.

0 Replies

What do galaxies orbit?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know