Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is our universe stationary ?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 61 of 69 (138366)
08-31-2004 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
08-30-2004 6:46 PM


Re: Questions????
It's even worse than your analogy suggests.
Firstly constant motion is just a relative concept - at least with the car there is the issue of acceleration which legitiamtely lets us say that it is the car that is moving.
Secondly there is the problem that it would be SPACE itself that would have to be moving for the idea to make any sense - and so far as I can tell that makes no sense either...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 08-30-2004 6:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 08-31-2004 10:39 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 69 (138389)
08-31-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nipok
08-31-2004 12:19 AM


Re: Questions????
A few questions.
Why do you think the most distant stars would be near the edge of the universe?
Since we can see back at leat 14 billion years in time, why have we not seen both your stars suddenly forming at one point and suddenly disappearing 180 degrees away?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nipok, posted 08-31-2004 12:19 AM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nipok, posted 08-31-2004 11:00 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 69 (138402)
08-31-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
08-31-2004 6:44 AM


Re: Questions????
Firstly constant motion is just a relative concept - at least with the car there is the issue of acceleration which legitiamtely lets us say that it is the car that is moving.
That is why I removed acceleration from my example.
Secondly there is the problem that it would be SPACE itself that would have to be moving for the idea to make any sense - and so far as I can tell that makes no sense either...
That is why I made the universe a closed system. With all of the windows painted we canot see or sense anything beyond the hypothetical universe, which is actually the situation we are in.
I believe that it is time for nipok to visit Flatland
This message has been edited by jar, 08-31-2004 09:39 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2004 6:44 AM PaulK has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 69 (138407)
08-31-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
08-31-2004 9:59 AM


Re: Questions????
A few questions.
Why do you think the most distant stars would be near the edge of the universe?
Since we can see back at leat 14 billion years in time, why have we not seen both your stars suddenly forming at one point and suddenly disappearing 180 degrees away?
I do not know based on a stellar map where the Milky Way is situated in our known universe so there may be one edge much closer to us then another. I was referring to the fact that from our planet in any direction the farthest stars in any direction would be closer to the edge of our STC. You seem to understand we are not talking about an edge to The Universe which is good, because we are not. We are talking about the outer edge of our POST, pocket of space time, a pocket of space time that was directly created as the result of what we call our big bang. This assumption is made because as the universe is expanding the outer most edge carries with it part of the same POST that we exist in. There are points a billion light years in every direction past this edge that may contain a void that our POST has not expanded into yet. It is this region between our POST and what is outside our POST that I call the outermost edge of our STC or POST. The stars and galaxies that lie near this edge are the farthest away from our planet in any given direction. Some may be further, some may be closer, but they are all the farthest away from us in a specific direction from us.
As far as seeing back 14B that does not automatically imply our ability to find the front and back of our trajectory without first recording and analyzing the data. This hypothetical event may only happen once a decade or once a century and we do not have enough recorded data on every portion of the outermost edge of our POST to make any decisions or deductions at this point. A point I was making is that it could easily take 100,000 or a million years of data capture and analysis before we could find out IF any of the three hypothetical events that I propose may be observable at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 08-31-2004 9:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 08-31-2004 11:17 AM nipok has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 69 (138415)
08-31-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by nipok
08-31-2004 11:00 AM


Re: Questions????
When you look at stars and galaxies, are those furtherest away actually near the edge or simply older? Are you looking away, or back in time? Is there any reason to think we are not on the edge of what you call the bubble?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nipok, posted 08-31-2004 11:00 AM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nipok, posted 09-01-2004 1:46 AM jar has not replied
 Message 69 by thgar, posted 11-17-2004 11:58 PM jar has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 69 (138704)
09-01-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
08-31-2004 11:17 AM


Re: Questions????
When you look at stars and galaxies, are those furtherest away actually near the edge or simply older? Are you looking away, or back in time? Is there any reason to think we are not on the edge of what you call the bubble?
There are stellar cartography maps that attempt to provide Cartesian coordinates to the stars and galaxies we have been able to map out so far. The have been done by measuring radiation, light, and other visible and non-visible wavelengths. They approximate the extent of our big bang’s expansion to look something like an oval or oblong spherical shape.
A) Big bang whatever it was began to expand
B) Big bang continued to expand
C) You and I have let others measure and map its expanse
D) They draw a picture
E) We look at picture
F) Picture has an approximate edge or boundary
Is this the edge of the matter that was once contained in our point singularity or only the edge of that part of the original matter we are able to measure or detect? Not having first hand access to the actual data I must assume that what they have mapped out is what they believe to be the matter that was at one time contained in our big bang singularity or they would not have been so quick to make it an oval. The fact that others have placed a boundary on what they have mapped out and it is not a perfect sphere leads me more towards our ability to measure the extent of our big bangs expansion and not our inability to measure the extent of our big bang expansion.
So I submit that farther does mean older and YES what we see is looking far back in time but relative to our time right now that puts these older objects at the edge of the POST created by our big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 08-31-2004 11:17 AM jar has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 67 of 69 (150702)
10-18-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by happy_atheist
08-26-2004 12:31 PM


Re: your #6 of 7th post
apparently doing so did not help with translating Croizat's ITALIAN in terms say of any TREE in CENTRAL PERK/PARK, friends, I'm fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by happy_atheist, posted 08-26-2004 12:31 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 69 (154477)
10-30-2004 7:28 PM


One kind of detectable motion
The question not of a moving universe, but of a rotating universe (this is one we can test for) was adressed both in 1937 and 1949.
W.J. Van Stokum noticed a peculiar consequence of relativity. If there was a very dence infinitely long cylinder that was rotating and you traveled around the cylinder counter to it's rotation the whirlpool like warping of space, theorized by Einstien, would allow you to arrive back at your original starting point BEFORE YOU LEFT.
"That's great," you might say, "It's a realy handy use for all these infinitely long hyperdence rotating cylinders I have that are just lying around." It wasn't until many years later that Pysiisists discovered that you didn't nessesaraly need the cylindinder, if SPACE were rotating then the universe could act as one giant time machene. An object that leaves in a straight line would actualy spiral around and could return to any point in time at any point in space as long as it travels for long enough.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) there is no evedence to suggest that the universe is rotating.

  
thgar
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 69 (160821)
11-17-2004 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
08-31-2004 11:17 AM


Re: Questions????
There is a reason for why we cannot be on the edge of the bubble. We are, but not in a 3D sense. Just as we view the edge of the universe as the farthest back in time we can see with our telescopes, something viewing us in the future from far enough away (the radius of the observable universe) will see us as on the edge of the bubble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 08-31-2004 11:17 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024