Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago
    I do not have the background to say more than I like to observe an increase in factual knowledge about the universe and its origins, but I also note that the 'best fit' model for those observations changes quite frequently.

    Like Robert Fl, I wonder how one would distinguish between a flat universe and an immense one with a curvature that is beyond our current ability to measure.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      There is supposed to be an experiment going on to answer that question. The answer is best explained with reference to the book flatlanders, which is about two dimensional beings living on a 3D sphere. They cannot see that they live on a sphere, but from geometry they know if they live on a plane then the sum of the angles of a triangle will add up to 180 degrees. If they live on a sphere the angles will be greater than 180 degrees..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago
        I read that book in high school and loved it - for a variety of reasons.

        It still comes down to a question of tools, though: One must have good enough tools to measure a tiny difference. If the sphere is many times larger than the Hubble limit, we may not be able to measure the difference...yet.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 3 months ago
      yes! . I "know" that the earth's rotation accelerates slightly when
      I move west on its surface, and it slows slightly when I move
      east. . but measuring the difference is currently impossible.
      and if we can "only" see at the speed of light, parts of
      the universe would have to be receding faster than that
      to become invisible to us. . maybe that's the infinite part!!! -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 9 years, 3 months ago
    If space is flat, is it still also curved?
    What if it is curved (sphere) but we perceive it as flat? How can we trust our observations?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      There is supposed to be an experiment going on to answer that question. The answer is best explained with reference to the book flatlanders, which is about two dimensional beings living on a 3D sphere. They cannot see that they live on a sphere, but from geometry they know if they live on a plane then the sum of the angles of a triangle will add up to 180 degrees. If they live on a sphere the angles will be greater than 180 degrees..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 9 years, 3 months ago
    Of course it's infinite. If you could go to the edge of the universe and look out, what would you see?
    You'd either see something beyond (so, you weren't at the edge) or, you'd see yourself looking back in.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jbaker 9 years, 3 months ago
      Would it have to be one of those two things? Why would you see your reflection if you were at the edge? Would photons necessarily have to "bounce" back?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RobertFl 9 years, 3 months ago
        Think balloon. If you were inside it and went to the edge of the balloon that is where it stops because it goes no further.
        Unless you push and stretch the balloon beyond - then you have extended the boundary.
        If space does not exist beyond as far as we can see, does it exist? Not until you go look beyond. If you can't look beyond, then anything would have to be reflected back in.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      I happen to agree with you but Rand and Aristotle disagreed. They said infinite is never something it is a potential. My counter would be counter would be that if you express 1/3 as a decimal then it is infinite and then if you add 3 of these infinite series you have 1 is equal to .9999bar.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jbaker 9 years, 3 months ago
        Yeah, when counting you can't have an infinite number of things - even digits. 1 = .999... is true, but I think the best way to look at is that there is no number that you can name between .999... and 1 and that is why they are equal. They are the same number, represented in different ways.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago
          Ahh, the historic argument between Engineers and Mathematicians.
          Put an Engineer and Math major against one wall in a room and a naked woman on the opposite wall.
          Each is allowed to move towards the woman 1/2 the separation distance each step
          Can they reach her?
          The Math major says he can never reach her. The Engineer replies that he'll get close enough.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 3 months ago
            Yes! . if I can't approximate a math answer closely enough to
            guarantee, say, public safety, then I won't do the job. . as my
            first father-in-law said, "Good enough is perfect." -- j
            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
              Indeed. When dealing with safety issues, an understanding of the safety factors, the uncertainties, and the assumptions are all critical. I see too many engineers straight out of college who do not have an appreciation for this. I spend some of my time teaching them that just because the computer model says something will last for 142.98 years doesn't mean you can ignore it for 142.97 years before replacement. In most cases, the safety factors will keep them from doing anything dangerous, but shaving away at the safety factor is not a good practice - that's not why they exist.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 3 months ago
                yes;;; people forget that assumptions compound -- if you make
                an assumption (there are probabilities in everything) that
                the steel has a strength of 100,000 psi and that the car has a weight
                of 3,000 pounds, the variabilities (plus or minus) will magnify
                when the steel has an actual strength of 90,000 psi and
                the car actually weights 3,300 pounds, full of vacation gear.
                then, the outdoor temperature will drop to minus ten degrees
                and the whole family is in jeopardy. . Check Your Premises!!! -- j
                .
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          There are still mathematicians that have problems with calculus because of its use of infinites. I do not think they should be dismissed, but I think they are wrong.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago
      A=A, If the Universe is everything, then it can have no edge. An edge implies something beyond and that's mystics. In fact the 'Big Bang' idea came from a Catholic priest/astronomer. Mystics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
        I read a physics blog one time that used the balloon analogy, and went as far as to claim that the question "what's outside the balloon" was not valid and had no meaning.

        I can't grasp that, but hey, I'm a mere engineer, not an astrophysicist. Seems to me that either the universe is infinite, or if there is a boundary, there must be something (another universe?) on the other side.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 3 months ago
    These theories change every few decades, and I expect them to change many more times before we get enough probes outside the solar system to learn anything useful. We're still almost totally guessing, even though the pros don't want to admit it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 9 years, 3 months ago
    I'll wait for a consensus to settle out.

    Personally, I have strong reservations about applying the word "infinite" to the physical world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago
      why? (yes, I see what you did there)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zero 9 years, 3 months ago
        Hey K!
        (Good article - love this stuff! - should have said that. Oh and whatever I "did there" was probably an accident.)

        I wrote about the whole infinity thing a little while back so I won't go into at length here.
        But the short answer is that I think that concepts of "infinity" are fine - as concepts - but are problematic when applied to the physical world.

        I think "infinity" says more about the limits of our understanding than the "limits" of the physical world.

        Here's the link if you're interested.
        http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

        It wasn't particularly well received but - oh well. Not my problem! Ha!
        (So embarrassing - I couldn't figure out how to fix the typo in the title. The TITLE for christ sake! That's probably why they didn't like it. Yeah - that's the ticket! Ha!)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jceockwood 9 years, 3 months ago
    I saw somewhere that the gravitational constant is not that constant and that values for big G have been changed over time. Is there any truth to that?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ProfChuck 9 years, 3 months ago
      Big G is extremely difficult to measure and the variations over time fall within the statistical error bar. However, there is a theory that G may be related to cosmological space-time curvature. If this is the case G may have been different in the distant past but would not be expected to change over recent time frames.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      When I was taking General Relativity in grad school, there were no measurements of G and really no answer on how to ever measure G. Thus the mathematicians were allowed to play and come up with all sorts of universes. I think that they have tried to measure G now and I think that a flat universe requires a certain value for G, but I do not know for sure..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 3 months ago
        We "know" the masses of planets by timing the orbits of their moons. But that equation really has two unknowns (the mass of the planet and G), so it can be regarded as "measuring" either one of these values only if the other value were known. What this really means is that we know approximations of both, but are guessing about the exact values since we can't exactly put the planet on a scale and weigh it.

        If G (and thus the gravitational pull of each object) were decreasing, the fact could in principle be observed, because all planets and moons would shift into slightly larger orbits. But the assertions I've seen that this is happening posit a very slow increase, taking at least millions of years to be significant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
    I find this stuff fascinating. The Hubble Deep Field (showing hundreds of galaxies in a "dark" portion of the sky) is my desktop background.

    This discovery raises all sorts of speculative fantasies. A "relatively flat, infinite universe" sounds a lot like a disk or spiral galaxy. A galaxy of galaxies.

    But where are we in this universe? I hoped to find a "map" showing our location - are we close to the edge? If we are supposed to be close to the center, that sounds very familiar and somewhat medieval ;-) But I think it may say more about either how far we can see, or how old the universe is. If it's only ~14billion years old, we could only see 14 billion light years. Assuming a constant speed of light. But I've also heard that the speed of light may not be constant over time, especially in the early fractions of a second after the big bang.

    If this discovery doesn't make the big bang a quaint, old fashioned notion. Wait a minute ... isn't the big bang "settled science"? ;-)

    Ah, the possibilities!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 3 months ago
    The big bang, general relativity and gravity as the controlling force are just about history now. The 'Electric universe' is a most promising concept and not only explains what we know but also what we had to abort the rules and call exceptions.
    Have you seen the work of Laniakea-our home super cluster? It's fascinating!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyy...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      I'm about to cry big crocodiles. All these years of study and they tried to jump ahead of me. I'll fool them. I'll write my own book! Do you have any references besides u tube? I don't have the bandwidth ...grump grump grump does that mean the simiple explanation of chaos is out the window too? Skip that the first five or six was some Queen wannabe's . Then i found electricuniverse.info. Good stuff ! I have a use for that in my Universal Theory of Relativity Model. Actually it's fascinating. Just when you think Science Fiction has outstripped Science - Science fools you and leaps bravely forward where no man has ever gone. That solved the question. Is there enough static electricity to power all those motors? Another late night read and thanks again for the tip!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 3 months ago
        No other resource I can think of for Laniakea. As far as the 'Chaos' theory, I recently read a piece on chaos verses order in Scientific America, Aug 2015, entitled: Planet Hard Drive. It's fascinating and proposes that knowledge is order as a bit in a hard drive. The only way to combat 'Chaos' is with Order. Order grows the universe or more properly...Creation, ( the cosmos if you prefer) Another great conscious expanding read.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
    The universe keeps getting bigger, which means, relatively speaking, we get smaller. How does this affect Einstein's space/time prognostications? I was just finally beginning to mentally get my brain around it. I'll wrap my head in duct tape so that it'll stay together when it explodes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      I used to be six feet tall. Now I'm 5'10" tall. I used to have a 28" waist now it's 36" That goes with the theory of the flat universe shorter and wider. Einstein also pointed out speed of light varies.

      In the end there are three truths. Birth, life, and death. One per customer. the proofs are statistically indisputable. If not show me the statistics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
        M.A.
        We must suffer from the same human conditions. I was 5'11.5" (pretty close to 6). I am now 5'9.5" and counting. In between birth & death is a roller coaster ride we call life. Unlike a roller-coaster, however, we are in charge of everything except the unexpected. Hmm - I can carry this analogy on for several more paragraphs. BORING!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 9 years, 3 months ago
    Imagine a sphere with a radius of 13 billion light years. If you can only see about 1000 light years, your sample size is too small to really say anything about the structure of the universe.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 9 years, 3 months ago
    It is a symptom of the poor philosophical state of modern physics that physicists will blithely accept the possibility of actual spatial infinities without blinking.
    As there is no evidence that the universe is actually "flat" - there is no way to exclude very slightly "positively curved" spacetime, which implies a finite but unbounded universe - there is no scientific justification for claiming such a infinity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
    Wow! I just created my science fiction version last night while the wifi was down. Big Bang begets dough nut shaped expansion something like a dough nut balloon. As it expands out ward it also expands inward. As the outward expansion begets planets and system that eventually succumb to super novas intelligent life moves outward. As the dough nut expands to the center it eventually reaches the prime location of the Big Bangs The whole thing starts again.In one of the evolutions our heroes discover a library that proves they have been there before. The theory is as the super novas unrelenting time approach they make the jump further out and when the outer limits are reached jumpt back to the center at an earlier time and start over again. Finally the ask if everything is removed from the universe except space and space itself is removed ....? One discovers a door to true outer space......the area beyond the limits of the effects of the Big Bang! Mankind is saved once again. Only to find out they are now in an infinitely larger universe and so it goes.....But if you look at an expanding doughnut from the side and envision it in a lenticular way such as the clouds that produce green flash events.....very flat and seemingly infinite.

    The door to true outer space of course is one of many and always marked '51.'

    See what happens when the wifi shuts down?

    We also found static motors.

    Cheers!

    Edit I forgot the Universal Theory of Relativity. The answer to that is how the door was located. First remember that the speed of light is not a constant. There is only one constant in the Omniverse.....the location of the most interior bang!

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Watch for the Movie ...Music by Bryan May
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 9 years, 3 months ago
    I don't see how anything could be "infinite" and
    never-ending, including the universe. It is what it
    is. But it could be that it is round, (either spherical,
    or flat-round), and that at some point, there is the
    end, and it starts all over again.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo