The edge of space

[Bobby]

Bobby, your post, while inherently interesting, appeared to have no connectivity with my own, which you quoted at the outset. What am I missing?

 

 

I haven't been on this board long enough to navigate it very well.

[Harzburgite]

I haven't been on this board long enough to navigate it very well.

That the most honest and amusing answer I have had to any post on any forum. Thank you for making me smile. :)

[Bobby]

That the most honest and amusing answer I have had to any post on any forum. Thank you for making me smile. :)

 

Some people think a lot of the stuff I post is laughable, but no one has ever said I wasn't honest in my posts. For instance, to repeat a recent post, ===>

 

Some cosmologists say that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating. I doubt that it is. My reasons are as follows. General Relativity says that time runs slower in a gravitational field ( T1 = T2 ( 1 + gh/C^2)). If the universe is expanding then the gravitatonal field between all parts of the universe is becoming weaker. If the gravitational field is become weaker then time is running faster than it did in the past. If the rate of time is speeding up, this would look EXACTLY like the expansion rate is accelerating.

 

I have posted this on other boards and I have yet to get a single response.

[EWright]

Some people think a lot of the stuff I post is laughable, but no one has ever said I wasn't honest in my posts. For instance, to repeat a recent post, ===>

 

Some cosmologists say that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating. I doubt that it is. My reasons are as follows. General Relativity says that time runs slower in a gravitational field ( T1 = T2 ( 1 + gh/C^2)). If the universe is expanding then the gravitatonal field between all parts of the universe is becoming weaker. If the gravitational field is become weaker then time is running faster than it did in the past. If the rate of time is speeding up, this would look EXACTLY like the expansion rate is accelerating.

 

I have posted this on other boards and I have yet to get a single response.

 

I like your argument. Here's some "food for thought" (fun).

 

Would the gravitational force of the overall universe not remain the same though? Also, if time runs faster for all parts of the universe equally and for all components, our clocks would run faster at the same relative rate and therefore we would be unable to detect an increase in the rate of time because it would be faster for all points and clocks.

 

Also, there seems to be a mechanism that caused the universe to BEGIN accelerating in its expansion, I believe roughly half way through its current age. Before that I believe the universe was actually slowing in its expansion believed to be caused by the initial big bang.

[Bobby]

I like your argument. Here's some "food for thought" (fun).

 

Would the gravitational force of the overall universe not remain the same though?

 

Yes. Since energy and mass are essetially the same thing, the total of all mass/energy would no change and the overall gravitational field would not change.

 

 

 

 

Also, if time runs faster for all parts of the universe equally

 

but it doesn't. Clocks run slow in a gravitational field.

 

 

 

 

and for all components, our clocks would run faster at the same relative rate and therefore we would be unable to detect an increase in the rate of time because it would be faster for all points and clocks.

 

 

 

 

That's a very good point. If everything varies by the same factor then basically there has been no change. I don't think this happens however. Consider that time as we knoe it is thought to have begun 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. If after this everything changed at the same rate, then the universe would not have evolved beyond that point.

 

 

 

>>universe to BEGIN accelerating in its expansion, I believe roughly half way through its current age. Before that I believe the universe was actually slowing in its expansion believed to be caused by the initial big bang.

 

 

Every time I do s net search of the acceleration of the expansion, all I get is a lot of maybes and ifs and answers that aren't answers. For instance, some sites say that the expansion isn't simply that everything is moving apart, but it is the very FABRIC of spacetime that is expanding. OK, fine. Now tell me what the FABRIC of spacetime is.

[EWright]

Every time I do s net search of the acceleration of the expansion, all I get is a lot of maybes and ifs and answers that aren't answers. For instance, some sites say that the expansion isn't simply that everything is moving apart, but it is the very FABRIC of spacetime that is expanding. OK, fine. Now tell me what the FABRIC of spacetime is.

 

When my theory comes out I will. And you'll understand why light and gravity seem to travel at the same rate, why galaxies rotate faster than they should, why the universe is expanding at an accelerated pace, and that relativity is fundamentally wrong.

[Bobby]

When my theory comes out I will. And you'll understand why light and gravity seem to travel at the same rate, why galaxies rotate faster than they should, why the universe is expanding at an accelerated pace, and that relativity is fundamentally wrong.

 

 

I would be very interested in your theory. I might not agree with it, but so what?

 

Re: Speed of gravity and light. I don't have a problem with this. I assume I could find out why if I spent the necessary time but as they say "so much to do, so little time."

 

Re: Rotating galaxies. Again, I don't have a problem with it. I understand that some kind of dark matter is the leading candidate.

 

Re: Accelerating rate of expansion. I don't believe it.

 

Re: Relativity being fundamentally wrong. Relativity seems to have been a pretty successful theory and even Einstein never though it was the last word, but being fundamentally wrong? I'll stick with relativity until I find something better.

[EWright]

I would be very interested in your theory. I might not agree with it, but so what?

 

Re: Speed of gravity and light. I don't have a problem with this. I assume I could find out why if I spent the necessary time but as they say "so much to do, so little time."

 

Re: Rotating galaxies. Again, I don't have a problem with it. I understand that some kind of dark matter is the leading candidate.

 

Re: Accelerating rate of expansion. I don't believe it.

 

Re: Relativity being fundamentally wrong. Relativity seems to have been a pretty successful theory and even Einstein never though it was the last word, but being fundamentally wrong? I'll stick with relativity until I find something better.

 

I should clarify, relativity is not wrong as a precise tool for measurements, calculations, or any of its 'duties'. It's just that it is a perspective based approach and that I believe some of the things it describes (thought it does so with precision) can be viewed in a way that is more 'universally' accurate in its description and may explain some things that relativity does not.

[jerryo]

How far should we go to reach the edges of Space- our Universe? 15 billion light years?

According to scientists, how will this edge look once we reach it? Everyone can say 'nothing', but how would it feel if we are able to reach it? Is there some sought of barrier?

 

 

While on the topic, is it safe to assume that our Universe has a spherical shape?

 

 

...'Space' is simply the distance between material objects.

 

There is no such a 'Thing' as Space,

its just an expression

 

:)

[EWright]

...'Space' is simply the distance between material objects.

 

There is no such a 'Thing' as Space,

its just an expression

 

:)

 

Interesting view. So how far can we travel then before we run out of things for there to be distance between? :)

[jerryo]

Interesting view. So how far can we travel then before we run out of things for there to be distance between? :)

 

 

if you come to the end of the universe...whats on the other side ? :)

[infamous]

if you come to the end of the universe...whats on the other side ? :)

Another universe, ours may be only one of an infinite number.

[EWright]

if you come to the end of the universe...whats on the other side ? :D

 

Same thing that was there before the universe began :) :D :)

[EWright]

Another universe, ours may be only one of an infinite number.

 

Relative to what? If others don't exist within our spacetime, do they even exist relative to us and our universe? And if they exist within our spacetime, are they not just an extension of our own universe? If not, then galaxies could be considered other 'universes'. There was a time when we thought all the stars in the sky belongs to just our galaxy. When we discovered others beyond our own, we still included them within our own universe. If we discovered another larger body beyond what we consider our universe, would we then include it as part of the whole?

 

Brane theory predicts two 3-branes that collieded as the method of the beginning of our existence. So does it then predict another universe or is this other brane part of our universe? It is supposedly "within" a millimeter from us, but separated by dimensional constraints. So does the theory then say there is another universe that infuences our own, or that there's an extention of our own universe that we are out of phase with?

[jerryo]

"things are not what they seem,nor are they otherwise"

Buddha :)

[EWright]

"things are not what they seem,nor are they otherwise"

Buddha :)

 

How very scientific of you.

[Bobby]

...'Space' is simply the distance between material objects.

 

There is no such a 'Thing' as Space,

its just an expression

 

:)

 

 

 

Originally Posted by amt7565

How far should we go to reach the edges of Space- our Universe? 15 billion light years?

According to scientists, how will this edge look once we reach it? Everyone can say 'nothing', but how would it feel if we are able to reach it? Is there some sought of barrier?

 

 

While on the topic, is it safe to assume that our Universe has a spherical shape?

 

 

We use words and concepts with which we are familar to describe things. Sometime we simply don't have the proper words or concepts. Our Universe probably doesn't have an edge as we usually use the word edge. Some people describe the Universe use a balloon as an example to show how the is no edge. If you could somehow use the example of the two dimensional balloon but expand the balloon to three dimension, this might be a better example.

 

The General Theory of Relativity says time has different rates depending on gravity. This implies that the "shape" of the Universe depends on the amount of mass. If you took two spaceships and sent them off in opposite directions, then the rate of time and therefore their velocity and position would depend on the gravitatiuonal fields through which they pass.

 

Scientists use other ways to try to determine the shape of the Universe. If you construct a triangle with equal sides and measure the angles of the triangle, each angle will be 60 degrees and the total will be 180 degrees. If you take three stars many light years apart and measured the angles between the stars the three angles would either be equal to a80 degrees, less than 180 degrees or greather than 180 degrees. If the angles add up to 180 degrees the universe is what is called Euclidian. If the angles add up to more than 180 degrees the shape is that of the outside of a balloon. If the angles add up to less than 180 degrees the shape is that of a negative balloon which I can not visualize.

 

Spacetime follows the equation X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 - (CT)^2 = 0. To make it easier to understand, the equation can be rewritten as x^2 - (CT)^2 = 0 where X is the spatial position and CT is the time factor. This equation X^2 - (CT)^2 is the general equation for a hyperbola and the shape is said to be hyperbolic.

 

 

Even though these shapes may seem odd, they are still within our ability to describe. When you get into subjects such as relativity, things are not quiet so simple. Shapes seem to look one way to one person and another way to another person. Indeed, even the concepts of space and time become fuzzy. Exactly what is space and exactly what is time? The best examples of space and time that I can come up with is space (or distance) is the separation (or extension) between two points and time is duration. While this seems to make some sense, it also seems to imply that without two points there would be no space or time. My personal opinion is that matter or energy is not necessary for there to be space and time. In other words, space and time exists as a "fabric" andr matter and energy interact with this fabric. IMO It may turn out that this "fabric" is the gravitational field associated with mass.