| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2007 08:14:32 AM |
| Object: |
Shape of the universe?? |
Accelerating space inflating shows us the shape of the universe is
round. We have to relate that the horizon is curved. Flat or saddle
shape can't be;. If the universe is spinning that means its out of
round. Mother nature loves the curve. Bert
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Shape of the universe?? |
03 Jun 2007 08:59:53 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Accelerating space inflating shows us the shape of the universe is
round. We have to relate that the horizon is curved. Flat or saddle
shape can't be;. If the universe is spinning that means its out of
round. Mother nature loves the curve. Bert
There is evidence indicating that the observable universe as a whole
is not rotating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Shape of the universe?? |
03 Jun 2007 10:40:08 AM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 7:59 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Accelerating space inflating shows us the shape of the universe is
round. We have to relate that the horizon is curved. Flat or saddle
shape can't be;. If the universe is spinning that means its out of
round. Mother nature loves the curve. Bert
There is evidence indicating that the observable universe as a whole
is not rotating.
wrt what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Shape of the universe?? |
10 Jun 2007 04:57:44 AM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 11:40 am, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:59 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Accelerating space inflating shows us the shape of the universe is
round. We have to relate that the horizon is curved. Flat or saddle
shape can't be;. If the universe is spinning that means its out of
round. Mother nature loves the curve. Bert
There is evidence indicating that the observable universe as a whole
is not rotating.
wrt what?
Rotational motion is an acceleration. It is absolute.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Nature doesn't start at _ Our _ limited horizon. |
14 Jun 2007 02:04:07 AM |
|
|
The 4-D Universe as modeled by Lambda-CDM is flat.
This strongly suggests that, on the largest scales,
there was _ Never, Ever _ a center of gravity anywhere.
But, thanks to Dark Energy ( a.k.a. Cosmic Entropy )
this euclidean ( flat ) 4-D Minkowskian spacetime
accrues hyper ( 4-D ) volume with cosmic time.
That makes Cosmic Time the fifth spatial dimension.
First we discovered time is the fourth, now this.
Time is not truly directional because randomness is just ignorance.
Go back far enough, 13.7 giga years,
and the known Universe becomes too small for us to observe.
Q.: Physically, what does it mean when we can't observe something ?
A.: Nothing. Nature doesn't start at _ Our _ limited horizon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Shape of the universe?? |
05 Jun 2007 06:11:12 PM |
|
|
The visual field is round.
The visible universe has an edge where stars going away go away at c.
Outside the universe the stars go away faster then c .
OR at the edge of the universe TIME becomes a strait line .
Time is a line from the center of the atom to the edge of the universe
..
The line of time from the center of te atom to the edge of the atom is
longer then the time line from the atom to the edge of the univese where
time became a stait line.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: 99 gigayears ago, the Milky Way was much heavier and much smaller. |
10 Jun 2007 04:22:15 AM |
|
|
From where you stand right now, at the virtual center of the big bang,
you can see photons from a 13.7 gigayear old, 2.725 kelvin blackbody
coming from a sphere that _ would be _ 45 Giga Light Years away
if our 4-D Euclidean cosmos was static, instead of expanding.
That's the edge of the known Universe
and it's growing at the speed of light.
Cosmic Entropy ( a.k.a. Dark Energy, a.k.a. the false arrow of time )
makes the galaxies fly out of view even faster than that, faster than c.
Randomness is ignorance, an artifically created notion.
The galaxies are 100 percent evicted from our view,
not just red-shifted to " zero ".
Like infinity, zero is a metaphysical, non-empirical notion.
But, as you ( Frazir ) noted, our inability to see
" high-z " ( low frequency ) galaxies has distorted
Lambda-CDM, the concordance model of cosmology.
I bet super massive, Ãœber Alles, galaxies
did exist before the birth of the C.M.B. ( instead of a plasma )
but are now simply too red-shifted for us to observe.
After all, the Milky way is estimated to be
the same age as the known Universe,
.... 99 gigayears ago, it was probably much heavier, much smaller
with _ a lot _ more company... that's Cosmic Entropy for ya;
like Thee God Almighty, it creates/destroys all " life ".
But there are lesser gods,
....I'm a god to my prisoners and a prisoner to my gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: 99 gigayears ago, the Milky Way was much heavier and much smaller. |
10 Jun 2007 09:23:47 AM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2007_Jun_10__2_22_AO@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
I bet super massive, Ãœber Alles, galaxies
did exist before the birth of the C.M.B. ( instead of a plasma )
but are now simply too red-shifted for us to observe.
After all, the Milky way is estimated to be
the same age as the known Universe,
... 99 gigayears ago, it was probably much heavier, much smaller
with _ a lot _ more company... that's Cosmic Entropy for ya;
like Thee God Almighty, it creates/destroys all " life ".
You can bet what you like. Its wrong though.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Shape of the universe?? |
05 Jun 2007 11:35:16 AM |
|
|
Well, we should predict some irregularity of shape. If we could
observe, measure, it properly it SHOULD be irregular, in some peculiar
way or other.
That is because the universe should not be predicted to be a singular
ex nihilo event.
To predict that would be a religion, not a science. Old paradigm, and
unscientific.
Much more probable that there was something before the universe of
something else
shoving up against what was there, and pushing much, maybe most, of it
aside as it expanded outwards from its origin.
Some bits would be predicted to have been engulfed. We should be able
to find some of that somewhere. Most of the stuff would have been
pushed outwards. Irregularity of shape would result from different
amounts of stuff that existed before this universe's origin - that it
had to push against to expand. It would not be predicted to be the
same everywhere - rather irregular rather than homogenous.
Robert Morpheal.
On Jun 3, 9:14 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Accelerating space inflating shows us the shape of the universe is
round. We have to relate that the horizon is curved. Flat or saddle
shape can't be;. If the universe is spinning that means its out of
round. Mother nature loves the curve. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
