jizum3434 Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 has anyone ever thought that maybe the universe isnt so big as we think.. lets say its the same concept as a mirror when you put two mirros on both sides of you and look into one the image goes on and on and is endless to our eyes.. maybe this is the same thing as in the universe, of course it doent have big mirrors, but maybe somthing we have not discovered could be refracting and sending back that light and it is inreturn beng sent back in a different refraction and then we keep getting all of these different pictures of a huge universe full of diversity when really its just the same thing veiwed differently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Do you have any evidence to back up your theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 lets say its the same concept as a mirror when you put two mirros on both sides of you and look into one the image goes on and on and is endless to our eyes.. The possibility that the universe may in fact be smaller than we think (ie, that we see regions which are just repeats of another region) has been studied, and nobody has found anything to back up such a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 the possibility of such a "false" measurement is indeed possible, if the universe is like the surface of a sphere. (but then iin 4 dimensions). This spherical sollution is indeed a good sollution for the laws describing our universe. However measurements (the most recent and accurate is by the WMAP experiment: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ) turn out that our universe isen't spherical, but flat. (here: http://www.hypography.com/scienceforums/showthread.php?t=1003 i explained how these measurements work) Bo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 i had come across a read that it could be in the shape of a torus (like a doughnut with a singularity at its centre). And so whatever comes from the singularity goes back to it on and on. Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 don't know any details, but a doughnut shape would violate something which is called the cosmological principle; which -in part- says that the universe looks the same in all directions. With a doughnut this is not the case... Bo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 I think the various shapes used to describe the universe are mathematical constructs -- representations that let us imagine something other than a three dimensional object we can actually relate to. None of thm do much good for me, especially some of the string theory diagrams. Maybe I just don't have a very abstract immagination.:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aki Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 The universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html this talks about the size of the universe and the hall of mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 The size and age of our universe has been determined by the red shift of light coming to us from distant objects. My question is, if our universe is expanding at the incredable rate that some suggest, must we consider the effect that time dilation will add to the mix. Is it possible that our universe is not nearly as large and old as it appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 The size and age of our universe has been determined by the red shift of light coming to us from distant objects. My question is, if our universe is expanding at the incredable rate that some suggest, must we consider the effect that time dilation will add to the mix. Is it possible that our universe is not nearly as large and old as it appears. (Sorry for reposting this - I posted as my wife during a test session...) :) Welcome, infamous! We have discussed this several times at Hypography. First of all, the age of the universe is not determined by redshift only. There are other ways to measure it. The age of the Sun and the Earth is not measured by redshift, for example. Yes, it is possible that the universe is younger and smaller than it appears, but the current observations support an age of about 13,7 billion years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Thanks Tormod, But I'm still a little confused. From point Big Bang to the present it would seem for us and our immediate surrounding as though this amount of time has passed. But what about the origin, would't point 0 time have passed more slowly because of time dilation. I'm certainly no expert on the matter but could you explain to me why there would be another explaination. The red shift we see is coming from objects much closer to time zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Thanks Tormod, But I'm still a little confused. From point Big Bang to the present it would seem for us and our immediate surrounding as though this amount of time has passed. But what about the origin, would't point 0 time have passed more slowly because of time dilation. I'm certainly no expert on the matter but could you explain to me why there would be another explaination. The red shift we see is coming from objects much closer to time zero. Where does time dilation enter into the equation? Basically, if we accept the redshift theory (as most do except BlameTheEx :) ) then the explanation for the age of the universe is not found in the redshift itself but why it exists. It is due to the expansion of the universe (ie, stretching of space) which causes the wavelengths to change over time. This has nothing to do with time dilation. I can't explain why there is another alternative because I must admit I do not understand your question. Maybe you can rephrase it? Why is time 0 of any interest? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Maybe I'm wrong to assume that our frame of reference and point 0 are moving at different velocities. If they are for example, time dilation would come into play. Am I wrong about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Yes. The universe has no point zero. The entire universe (again, according to the Big Bang - or BB - theory) came into being with the BB, and the inflation and expansion is what caused space to be so big. Everywhere in the universe is the center, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Even if there was no point zero, there is a relative position and time of existance for everything in the universe, right? It's my understanding that our solar system is about halfway from the BB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Thanks Tormod;I think I'm getting the drift, even though our human experience is so limited, it's truly amazing that we can understand anything about the big picture as it were. Like I said, I'm not an authority on the subject but it really interests me anyway. I have another question that you might help me with. My current interest revolves around calculations about the five superconstants. I believe that I have figured out an equation for G using these five constants that is balanced and dimensionless. Who in your staff should I correspond with concerning this topic. Thank You for your help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Even if there was no point zero, there is a relative position and time of existance for everything in the universe, right? It's my understanding that our solar system is about halfway from the BB. No, this is a misconception. The BB is not a "place" but an event. We are as close the the BB as every other place in our universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts