Some crazy thoughts about the Universe

[Topper]

Wait, what? :blink:

Yes thats right,
because from each point of view, each other galaxy is travelling away (up to a few exceptions)
So there is no center, or you can say, you are the center of the Universe, and it dosen't matter where you are :lol:
So to my crazy theory i've added a sketch.

 

[Artlav]

It's big. Very big, and very complex in it's simplicity.
And we can't even perceive most of it, usually without even realising that.

Wait, what? :blink:

You're not allowed to dig. Two dimensions of the surface is your flatland. Try to find the centre of the Earth this way.

You're not allowed to poke holes in space. Three dimensions of the world is your spaceland. Try to find the centre of the Universe this way.

 

[HarvesteR]

So if the Universe is infinity (like i believe this, because i can't imagine that the universe has a "border".

Well, it is possible to be finite and still not have a determinable border...

Imagine being an ant walking on the surface of a bowling ball... the ball is indeed very finite... but the ant will reach no border, since it can go around and around...

Now expand that into a 3 dimensional surface for a 4 dimensional sphere, and enlarge that to a universe's size... and you will have some conception of how easy it would be to not realise you're going around

Just my uneducated ideas on how to understand a finite, yet borderless space... hopefully the analogy will be somewhat correct :thumbup:

Cheers

 

[Jamesep3]

Random... It's all made of invisible cheese!:lol:

 

[bujin]

You'll never understand the nature of the universe by thinking like a human.

 

[Firby]

1.Not infinite, but very,very large. If it's infinite, and theres a certain amount of planets, the universes population would be very close to zero if compared to the infinity.
2. D.) , Nothing can go past C (speed of light) and if we are in a black hole it would be a bit more chaotic.
3. No, nothing cant pass C
4. Steam. the "Big Bang" really released so much energy, so theres probably a LOT of steam in there so the image would be dark.
5.I think reaching the center is almost impossible because i think you will be shred in peaces on the first nanoseconds.

Good questions! :hmm:

 

[Topper]

From my point of view it's infinite.
I can tell you why:

The first question is, how you define "infinite".
I define infinite:

If the Universe is so big and / or expanding so fast, that no photon can go back to it's start point, then it's infinite.
Because nothing is faster than the speed of light, even not the reality.

 

[Rtyh-12]

Wait, what?

If I shine a laser at a mirror, so that the laser shines on itself, the photons do come back.

 

[Topper]

Wait, what?

If I shine a laser at a mirror, so that the laser shines on itself, the photons do come back.

Of course.
My argument was without using mirros.
Adopted, the Universe is bent in itself (and it should, if you adopt that the Universe is NOT infinit) , and you send a photon in one direction, and if the Universe is not expanding, than this photon will come back from the opposite one day.
Then you would be able to see yourself with a telescope.

But because the Universe is expanding, you never can see yourself in a telescope.
And because of this, it's infinit for me.

Sorry i know this is hard to understand...
And i'm not sure if iam right...

In another way:
If we take the example with the ball, witch has no center on it's surface (other people here used this example), then you should accept, that also photons will follow this surface of the ball.
And then, you can see yourself in each direction...

 

[ZombiezuRFER]

I was just reading Stephen Hawking's A briefer history of time (don't flame me!:lol, and it was going on about the friedman models and how the universe's expansion was speeding up as galaxies got further away faster. Then I had the crazy thought of why Gravity may not be slowing this down. If the galaxies are moving away so signifacntly, and gravity propogates at the speed of light, then perhaps galaxies are moving away at speeds faster than light relative to each other. I do see a flaw in it though, as that would mean we shouldn't be able to see the galaxies.

Another thought I had was the balloon universe, because if true, it would indicate that space is indeed four dimensional excluding time, meaning the alcubierre drive is even more plausible an FTL drive.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

 

[jedidia]

Einstein only say, that no object can be accelerate to a speed faster than the speed of light from the point of view of the "startpoint".

No. He said that the speed of light is the same in any frame of reference, and that nothing can go faster (look at the Lorentz equation and you'll see pretty easily WHY nothing can go faster. You can see it better in the simple equation than words could ever describe it, really).

Frame of reference is any static point, not just the starting point of the motion. Matter cannot go faster than the speed of light in any frame of reference, so you will never find any object that moves faster than light relative to your static point of observation. If you do, you have just proven special relativity utterly and completely wrong, will get a nobel price and Einstein will only be remembered for one big hell of a fluke.

So, by all means, if you find a galaxy moving faster than light relative to ours, gather some data about it, put it up for peer review and become the most famous scientist of the century. I won't stop you

 

[RisingFury]

Well, it is possible to be finite and still not have a determinable border...

Sure. A sphere has a finite surface area with no border / edge. And you'd be surprised what you can do with fractal shapes - finite surface area and infinite circumference and stuff like that.

 

[ZombiezuRFER]

Sure. A sphere has a finite surface area with no border / edge. And you'd be surprised what you can do with fractal shapes - finite surface area and infinite circumference and stuff like that.

Likely infinite circumference is a 4d shape, no?

 

[statickid]

4-d shape is just like regular shapes but if you take a sample of it, you would get 3-d shapes, like the "cross-section" of a tesseract is a cube in the same way that the cross-section of a cube is a square.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

mainly it just means you can work with relationships between sets of 4 numbers instead of 2 or 3

 

[ZombiezuRFER]

4-d shape is just like regular shapes but if you take a sample of it, you would get 3-d shapes, like the "cross-section" of a tesseract is a cube in the same way that the cross-section of a cube is a square.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

mainly it just means you can work with relationships between sets of 4 numbers instead of 2 or 3

but 2d is to a 3d being as 3d is to a 4d being.