A wonderful video about the true size of the universe extending past the visible universe.
Cosmic Journeys: How Large is the Universe?
By Dan8267 Follow Mon, 6 Feb 2012, 10:00pm 5,582 views 37 comments
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Viewing Comments 1-37 of 37 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member Dan8267 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
If the Universe is "Everything" but it's expanding...
Then where is it going?
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
The GOP says
Our universe can expand without expanding into anything. Space itself is expanding. The total volume of existence is getting bigger.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
The GOP says
COSMOS is EVERYTHING known to man. But that ain't squat.
HEY GOP. that question is as interesting as , What was here before the big bang ? Hubble showed the universe is expanding at an ACCELERATING RATE. Is the Earth also expanding ? Many Scientists still argue that subduction is the only way continents move.
Why do you suppose Our Solar system resembles and acts like an ATOM
Morgan Freeman did a series called "Through the Wormhole". Most are about space & Time and do either of them exist. Attempts to solve the clash between The Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. etc.
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
I would bet the universe if we could stand back far enough to see it in scale the universe would be more like a magnetic field. Rising up into a big plume then collapsing down into the northern pole going through the rod coming out the southern pole, rising back up the side then spewing back over the top to collapse back down into the tube. No matter where we would see in it would appear the universe is expanding. When in reality it's just stuck on a loop.
There's plenty of plausible ideas and theories, the Church of the Science High priestess wont hear any of it though, it's like blasphemy. At this rate, in another twenty years, well be locking non believers in the tower and disemboweling free thinkers. For saying nebula are only illusions of the trillions upon trillions of particles in space spread out over space of quintillion of miles. But from our perspective, it looks like a mass and our earthly spectrometers says it's beer gas, when in reality. It's just dust in the wind.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
The GOP says
The latest news is , "dark matter" is the adhesive that holds atoms, solar systems, galaxies and everything in the cosmos from flying apart.
But scientists agree we will probably never prove it exists.
This guy will NOT be holding it together.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
- What was here before the big bang ?
We have yet to develop a model of time that includes anything outside of the consequences of the Big Bang. When and if we do develop such a model, it might not be anything like the conventional interpretation of time (linear and constant).
- Is the Earth also expanding ?
No. Space itself is expanding due to tiny pressure exerted at the quantum level. But as that pressure exists throughout the billions of light-years, it all adds up to something significant. The Earth, however, remains the same size. What increases is the distance between our galaxy and others that are not gravitationally bound to ours.
- Why do you suppose Our Solar system resembles and acts like an ATOM
It doesn't. Not even remotely. The planets orbit the sun in close to elliptical orbits that obey Kepler's Laws of Motion.
The Law of Ellipses
The path of the planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun being located at one focus.
The Law of Equal Areas
An imaginary line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet will sweep out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
The Law of Harmonies
The ratio of the squares of the periods of any two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their average distances from the sun.
In contrast, the orbits of electrons are way more complex and unpredictable. Two electrons will pair up with opposite spin maintaining an equilibrium of distance between them. An electron or electron pair will not follow an elliptical orbit around an atomic nucleus. Rather, the electron will map out the space of a sphere even changing its distance from the nucleus according to the equation
Don't worry, this equation isn't as complex as it looks. Basically, it gives the probability of an electron being between distance r1 and r2 (r is for radius, distance to the nucleus). It's an integral, but if you notice the radius is part of the multiplication. So there's a 0% chance of the electron being in the same location as the nucleus. The most probable radius is called the Bohr's Radius.
But the core idea is that the electron is flying around at close to the speed of light chaotically because it's a very low mass (low inertia) particle that is affected by the electric and magnetic fields produced by the nucleus and other electrons. However, the net result is a statistically spherical distribution of the electron's negative electrical field around the nucleus.
Follow
Befriend (1)
145 comments
Fairfax, VA
As you never seem to like my sources Dan, i'll let u verify what i say with simple Google search
Dan8267 says
M theory deals with pre-big bang. We do have a model, it isnt complete.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Nomenclature, Nomenclature. Let's not argue syntax.
PersainCAT says
Working in industry rather than academia, I typically take the view that you don't have a model until it's ready to release to production (reasonably complete). While you're still experimenting you have an idea and parts of a model.
For example, if you have a steering wheel, three wheels, and half a transmission but no engine, you don't quite have a car yet.
But then again that's all nomenclature, and I'm tired of arguing with people over silly semantics.
Follow
Befriend (1)
145 comments
Fairfax, VA
Dan8267 says
fair enough then again if you take that approach u cant view string theory, the "standard model" of particle physics, and many other branches of physics as having a a working theory. In fact relativity wouldn't of even qualified under your definition until the 1960's-1970's. Either way just pointing out that what you said wasnt really correct.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
PersainCAT says
No, I don't think so. If you have enough of a car to drive it on the road, it's a car. If you don't, it's not a car but rather a pile of pieces.
The test for a theory is that it makes testable predictions. The Theory of Relativity did make testable predictions when Einstein published it. In fact, it was tested in the 1919 solar eclipse and again in 1922.
But then again, I wasn't talking about theories, I was talking about models, in particular a model of time that extends past the Big Bang. I have yet to hear of one, but someone could have come up with one recently.
I expect such a model to answer a few questions like:
- Is there light in the space of membranes? And if so, how fast does it travel? This is important because time is largely connected to movement in space.
- Does the time flow at different rates depending on where you are? Are there relativistic effects?
- Is time one dimensional in brane-space like it is in our universe?
- Does time flow only in one direction?
- Is time cyclic in brane-space?
As far as I've read, nothing about membranes has been observed or tested yet, and the above questions remain unanswered or have different answers depending on who's doing the speculating.
A model, to me, allows you to discuss something in such a way that another person will understand what you are saying because they share the model. As difficult as Relativity is, it's model of space-time allows for such a discussion. I haven't seen anything as solid from M-Theory yet.
But feel free to present and explain such a model. I'm a physics junkie and can't get enough of this stuff.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
I don't have time for the video now, but here is a great way to put the size of the universe in perspective.
http://www.onemorelevel.com/game/scale_of_the_universe_2012
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
leoj707 says
Check out the sequel:
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1208594
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Dan8267 says
Ah, so there it is. It is an awesome app.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
Dan8267 says
Why might this possible expansion theory be debunked ?
An Atom and our Solar System.
Could they just be different sized ATOMS ?
Follow
Befriend
12 threads
495 comments
TMAC54 says
From my amateur understanding of electrons, I don't believe electrons travel in defined paths around a nucleus in the same manner as planets around the sun so while the picture is similar reality is different. Quantum mechanics is not my specialty (though I find it extremely intriguing) but I know enough to know that quantum physics and "classical" or observable physics are quite different. Since Dan is a physics junkie perhaps he can provide a better explanation.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
Hey Dan, I asked earlier in different words, is everything in the cosmos expanding ? Dan8267 says
The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
Is this accepted or discredited in the science community ?
Is anyone testing expansion inclusive with tectonic plate movement ? This would seem like such a simple test using Triangulation and GPS ?
Hubble has changed our thinking. If I read correctly, this telescope has recognized one galaxy at 13.2 billion light years away. Is that the edge of the universe ? Or is "redshift 10" just as far as man can see to date ?
http://carnegiescience.edu/news/hubble_sees_farther_back_time_ever
I have seen many drawings of what ATOMS look like. This is the best actual photo.
http://www.insidescience.org/research/1.917
Electrons appear as a cloud possibly because we have not designed a camera with a shutter speed that matches the speed of light ?
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
TMAC54 says
No, although this kind of fantasy is popular with science fiction, it's not the case in reality. The physics of solar systems and of quantum mechanics are very different. In addition to the differences I pointed out above there are also the following differences.
1. Planets are held in orbit by gravity. Electrons are held in orbit by the electro-magnetic force.
2. Planets have a net neutral electric charge as does the sun. The big difference between the planets and sun are the relative masses, not the relative electric charges. For atoms, although electrons have little mass compared to the nucleus, the orbits are caused by the electric charges attracting each other.
3. The nucleus of an atom are composed of a few (under 1,000) very discreet and distinguish entities called protons and neutrons. The sun is composed of a crapload -- yes, that's a scientific term -- of atomic nuclei and free moving electrons.
4. The sun will eventually run out of fuel and consume the inner planets. Nothing in an atom is analogous to this. The nucleus doesn't consume the innermost electrons.
5. Even the most massive atoms don't form black holes.
6. There is no repulsive form to prevent stars from colliding. There is a significant repulsive force to prevent atomic nuclei from colliding even if you strip away all the electrons.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
TMAC54 says
This has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. The moon is getting a boost from the Earth's oceans as discussed in your link http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
- Is this accepted or discredited in the science community ?
It's accepted.
TMAC54 says
Dude, I'm not Encyclopedia Brown. I don't know what every scientist in the world is working on. I suppose you could try a Google search to see if anyone's writing about that. But research efforts are usually not published until they have been going on long enough to bear some fruit. And if they don't bear any fruit, they probably won't get written about.
TMAC54 says
Hubble, or any telescope (visible, infrared, etc.) can only see objects that are close enough to use that the light has had time to reach us. This distance is called the Observable Universe. If you want to see farther, you have to wait for the light of more distant objects to reach us.
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
TMAC54 says
Horse shit!
Perhaps tectonic plates are shifting and moving the facility in which measures the distance, 3.8 centimeters a year further away from the spot that they first measured the distance.
We're measuring centimeters in a cosmic scale, get the hell out of town. Are my tax dollars paying these people?
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
The GOP says
Such precise measurements are possible with lasers and high speed clocks, both of which are well-developed technologies in our time. Hell, the same tech, modified, is used to protect army humvees from rocket-powered-grenades RPGs. It works well enough to save soldiers lives and it works well enough to measure long distances accurately.
The GOP says
No, your parents and grandparent's tax money went to pay for this. Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong put mirrors on the moon on July 21, 1969.
Today, anybody with a descent laser can repeat the experiment. And you can do it on multiple continents thereby factoring out continental drift.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
Perfect Science has a laugh track.
What about planetary wobble when you're dealing with 3 centimeters how do you account for that. I mean a shit if the Earths axis just by a foot, would erase or add ten years of measurements.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
The GOP says
Let's say your using a visible light laser, say green, a color right in the middle of the visible light range. Green light has a frequency of about 5.77 x 10^14 per second. That's 577,000,000,000,000 cycles per second. If the Earth or the moon were oscillating at such a frequency an at an amplitude of a foot, seismologists would be shitting their pants. Not to mention, some people would be launched into space.
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
OK so I guess scientist have never used the phrase "Our calculations were wrong/off/incorrect."?
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
The GOP says
Straw Man Argument
Person A: Dan
Person B: The GOP
A's Argument: The procedure of using a laser (in the optical or hyper-optical range) to measure the distance from the Earth and the moon by reflection with the mirrors left by Apollo 11 is highly accurate and repeatable.
B's False Argument: Scientist never make a calculation mistake.
Of course an individual can make a calculation mistake, but it will be caught by the thousands of others who repeat the experiment.
You would have been better off arguing that because the moon is in an non-circular obit, it's distance from Earth is always changing, in fact by (405,948,000 m - 359,861,000 m = 46,087,000 m) about 46 km over the course of the month.
Of course, you'd be incorrect even if you made that argument, but it would have been more challenging. To compensate for the non-circular imperfections of the moon's orbit, you simply need to sample at the min/max and/or various times in the lunar cycle. Math makes a lot of things possible.
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
OK Dan here's my Rub.
All we've done to date, is taken snap shots of deep space. We see structures and shapes, and then rather than formulating theories, about what we see in space. You're types like to talk about it, as if you've been there your self. It has gotten so bold, I've seen 3D animations presented as video hundreds of times over the last decade. I know it's a 3D animation, buy your type never likes being called out on it.
Now we think we know all about what we see billions of light years away, yet we don't know jack squat about our own Suns orbital plane. And even less about our galaxy, as for how our sun fits into the model. It's convenient to just say there's a Blackhole in the center, and then leave it at that. But that doesn't say anything.
We're learning and have made leaps and bounds, and the research has been beneficial. As we pursue Space fairy tales we actually make practical useful discoveries. And I respect that and love that part of science. The part that chaffs my Balls, is the almost religious Zealot manner folks like you. Protect theories like they are words written from God and are undisputed truths.
Deep space, we only know what we see. Yes it looks like violent explosions, super novas, and super massive black holes. I just wonder about the beings on those galaxies looking at the Nebula system we call our Galaxy, perhaps from their perspective, we've got 5 super Novas, 6 super massive black holes and are shrouded in the biggest dust and gas cloud in the whole of the Universe.
Yet from were we sit, we just can't see it in scale this close up.
So then if that were the case, these space anomalies could not be as violent as scientists think, or attributed to cosmic forces we thought by observing start formations trillions of light years away.
Don't get me wrong, I do respect and admire science and especially astronomy. But I was taught that we see is an observation only, with those observations, the best we can do is formulate theories about what is going on. Until we can actually fly out there and see first hand. Which if we started now, Our sun may have burned out by the time a space probe made it. So it's all really a moot point to argue.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
The GOP says
What do you mean by "you're types"?
The GOP says
Um, I pretty sure everybody knows that an animation of a star feeding a black hole is an animation, not a real time video feed. I know of no conspiracy to hide the fact that something is an animation.
As for the accuracy of the animations, the ones I've seen have been quite accurate, as one would expect, since astronomers have a lot of detailed data.
The GOP says
Where did you get that impression? If we knew everything, we would keep studying it. New discoveries are being made all the time. We're in a golden age of astronomy that goes back to the 1920s and hopefully will last another hundreds years.
The GOP says
I doubt get what you're saying. Are there specific questions you have about our solar system or galaxy? There's a lot of things yet to be discovered, which isn't surprising since we've only started seriously making progress in the past century. But the physics that govern other galaxies also govern ours, so by examining other galaxies we learn more about our own. And there's the added advantage of being able to see galaxies at different points in their evolution.
The GOP says
The supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy has been proven to exist and measured by it's gravitational influence on stars orbiting it. As for the significance of supermassive black holes, it is believed that galactic growth is largely influence or dependent on the presence of a black hole and that the mass of the black hole is directly relational to the mass of the galaxy.
The GOP says
Please show an example of this. I have never seen or heard anyone state or suggest that a theory, any theory, is something that should not be questioned or that the experiments should not be repeated.
What we have said is that if there is a preponderous of evidence, you should not dismiss all that evidence, as in the case of evolution. That isn't objecting to questioning. It's objecting to the refusal to accept an answer simply because you don't like it.
And remember, the word theory does not mean "guess" or "unproven idea". A theory is still a theory even after it has been proven beyond any doubt. A theory is a framework of ideas that makes testable predictions. The ability to repeat an experiment ensures that theories are always theories even after they are proven correct or incorrect.
For example, the Steady State Theory is still a theory even though it has been discredited. The Theory of Gravity is still a theory even though it has been confirmed.
The GOP says
That actually isn't true. We can know things by experiments that we perform on Earth with devices like the Large Hadron Collider. We can do this because the laws of physics on Earth are the same as the laws of physics on Mars or in another galaxy. Light travels at the same speed in a vacuum no matter where you are.
The GOP says
Observations can lead to new ideas that are combined with mathematics to develop new theories. However, observations can also confirm or discredit existing theories or refine them.
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
Oh now on a technology level I'm cool with all of this.
Science in context of politics not so much.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
Hey Dan !
I hope you don't mind my picking your brain. I have a neophyte passion for physics.
I have spent some hands on time, measuring & becoming familiar with space into the tenths of one thousands of one inch, time measuring in automotive scales, time measuring acreage and time spent measuring nautical miles as a private pilot.
I recently purchased Image stabilizing binoculars and the Moon became REAL and just hangin right there. I am now calculating the fuel needed for the trip in say a Piper Malibu.
back to reality
Are there any studies as to, Why most all galaxies are spiral in formation ?
Would it not seem logical that in the popular "BIG BANG" theory, matter would be ejected in ALL directions as opposed to spinning that material inside of some centrifugal force. Like water thrown from a rotating tire.
When science refers to THE "BIG BANG" ? (great sitcom) Does it refer to our solar system exclusively ? Does it refer only to our Milky Way galaxie ? Or do they refer to the WHOLE DAMN THING ?
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
TMAC54 says
An estimate 15-20% of galaxies are spiral galaxies.
TMAC54 says
The Big Bang did eject material in all directions. However, there was slight differences in distribution of mass and energy in the early universe as shown in the WMAP.
This tiny differences became the voids and superclusters of galaxies today.
However, all galaxies are formed by the gravitational attraction of stars and dark matter. That is why all galaxies spin. The individuals stars are all in orbits around the galactic center of mass.
As for spiral galaxies, they are just a particular common shape during some periods of galactic evolution. The spirals are "traffic jams" which move around the galaxy more slowly then the individual stars that make up the spirals. I.e., stars enter and exit spirals routinely much like individual cars entering and exiting a traffic jam that moves along the highway more slowly than the cars or even stays put.
TMAC54 says
Everything in the Observable Universe is the result of the Big Bang. If there is something in the cosmos that isn't part of the Big Bang, as some speculate, it isn't something you can see in the sky or with any telescope.
TMAC54 says
Two suggestions:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?name=S282_2
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-902-astrophysics-ii-fall-2004/
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
Dan8267 says
Thank You for those sources Dan. In my golden years, I hope to devote more time to formal research in astrophysics. In the meantime, your answers show your passion to the matter ,,,,, and anti matter... and I wonder if I have similar questions as you might have. Aren't questions almost as satisfying as answers. Kinda like anticipation of sex ?
We are all aware of many Novas and Super Novas, they each appear to me as yet another "big bang". In your personal observation, would you refer to those like we refer to aftershocks to an earthquake ? Or, Might they be referred to as "Little Bangs" ?
Do you know of any research looking backwards ? In other words, Are there any remains at the center of the theoretical "BIG BANG" ? Seemingly easy to aim at, if Focused in the opposite direction from which all matter is moving. Is that center scattered with debris or is it just an expanding void ? OR ???
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
TMAC54 says
In what way? Supernova explosions create nebula and heavy elements (atomic number 4 and above). The nebula is composed entirely of matter.
The Big Bang created the entire universe, not a nebula, including both matter and anti-matter. However, only light elements: Hydrogen, Helium, and trace amounts of Lithium were created in the Big Bang. So, the two phenomenon are quite different.
TMAC54 says
No, I don't think this analogy holds. The aftershocks in an earthquake are caused by the remaining mechanical potential energy not released in the main earthquake. It's like a spring decompressing in stages including one large stage.
The explosion of stars is the result of a rapid release of nuclear energy. This release isn't connected to the Big Bang. The cosmic background radiation is related to the Big Bang, but that's more like an afterimage that is slowly fading to 0 Kelvin.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
TMAC54 says
There is no center of the universe. The universe isn't expanding into a pre-existing three dimensional space, but rather the Big Bang created space and time as we know it. The expansion of the space is occurring in every direction from every point. So you can only say that either there is no center or that every point can equally rightfully be called the center.
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
Dan8267 says
I'd love to see a 3D animated model of that. If there are boundaries, then there is a center. If there was a bang, and the universe is expanding, then there has got to be center, and a leading edge. Otherwise space is just a never ending void, that is occasionally interrupted every million light years away or so, and Star arbitrarily forms. What if there was no bang at all? And it's the inertia of the Void creating new stars that is pulling the fabric membrane of space taught as it creates new stars, like pulling saran wrap over a bowl along the edges to seal it. now you have expansion and there is no center. As the pulling doesn't happen in all directions at once, but from apposing directions. That way, even when you think there is center to work with, it would shift on you, when it started pulling in a different direction from which you thought you established as the center.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
TPB says
The more we learn about the universe, the more we realize it doesn't have to conform to our notions of common sense, which are nothing but a product of our evolution in a very specific and narrow subset of physical conditions.
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/~korpela/astro10/solns/soln6.html
Remember the game asteroids in which you are triangle shooting polygonal asteroids? Remember how the asteroids and ship would move across the edges of the screen? That is a valid model of a two dimensional universe. The question is what is the shape of that universe?
The image below shows where a ship or asteroid moves to when it goes past the screen edge.
The important thing is to realize that the screen edges are arbitrary imaginary lines in the 2D universe of asteroids. Nevertheless, the shape of the universe can be demonstrated by folding the space so that the arrows heads touch each other in the image below.
What shape would the universe take if you did this? It would be a torus or doughnut shape.
Now, can the triangular ship tell it is embedded in this curved space? The answer is yes. The torus is my favorite 2D surface because it has all three non-fractal geometries: Gaussian, Euclidean, and Lobachevian.
You might remember learning in elementary school that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees. However, this isn't true outside of Euclidean or "flat" space. The correct law is the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is always greater than 0 degrees and less than 540 degrees. (540 degrees = 360 degrees + 180 degrees = the degrees in a circle plus the degrees in a semi-circle)
Pardon my lack of artistic ability, but below shows the division of the torus into three spaces.
There are two circles of Euclidean space at the topmost and bottommost horizontal cross-sections of the torus. Between the two circles on the inner side lies Lobachevskian space in which the interior angles sum to between 0 and 180 degrees exclusively. On the other side lies Gaussian space in which the sum is between 180 degrees and 540 degrees exclusively.
The triangular ship could tell which space it is in by measuring it's interior angles. In fact, using a formula and precise measurements, the ship could tell laterally where along the torus it is. In fact, taking enough measurements, the ship could map out the exact shape of the universe in which it exists. Essentially, we can do the same thing in our universe.
Now, the 2D asteroid universe could expand, but the surface of the torus has no center point, much in the way our universe has no center.
The only last thing to realize is that you can have a two-dimensional space that isn't embedded in a three-dimensional shape. Similarly, the three-dimensional (or more accurately, 10-dimensional) space isn't necessarily embedded in a higher dimensional shape.
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
Dan8267 says
TPB says
There's a center, the doughnut hole, and it's a magnetic center. Though it doesn't actually interact with the membrane or the fabric of the space, other than to keep it all in flux, i.e. expanding.
There's no Big Bang needed for this model either. Magnetism is the driver. Could it be this center Magnetism is the dark matter they keep talking about? I don't know, it's a big Universe. The biggest problem I have is using physics as we know it from confines of earth and the few million miles we've physically traveled beyond, it's atmosphere as trying to describe everything in the Cosmos. I just don't think it's possible, and just because a light spectrum tells we could suspect a formation be known elements, it's quite possible it's something totally different all together. While many theories are the best likely scenario, there will always be new discoveries that come along and make those theories as crazy as talk about Canals on Mars.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,970 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
To clarify, the shape of our universe might not be a hypertorus. I was using that as an example of curved space. The topology of the universe is an ongoing investigation.