Jump to content

steve69

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    comotology

steve69's Achievements

Lepton

Lepton (1/13)

0

Reputation

  1. "what are you basing these assumptions on " I know I am not 100% right, especially how I am trying to explain it, but I believe in the overall part of seeing many things over and over in a different part of "time" Why? I don't know, few days ago this thought just came to me and I have been like whoa, that makes sense!
  2. Ok, I am not trying to say everything is wrong, argue or anything! but I would like somebody to think this is a good theory or show me straight facts how it's not right or start a different type of thinking and solve this thing. Yes I read it, and read a lot of things, and they think In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that we can in principle observe from Earth in the present day, because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach us since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction—that is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered around the Earth. "Some parts of the universe may simply be too far away for the light emitted from there at any moment since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth at present, so these portions of the universe would currently lie outside the observable universe. In the future the light from distant galaxies will have had more time to travel, so some regions not currently observable will become observable in the future.." Why would something be non observable,, hasn't had enough time for it's light to reach us, if everything started from 1 big bang? There is nothing out in space that was already there, So how is something farther out then the light they are shining back? Why could it not just be a different path, which takes longer for the light to get here. So the only explanation I can find is, big bang happened, things expanded for billions of years, then light started from each of these objects and now it's starting to shine back? No objects had a light source from the beginning and therefore we can't see anything far away? That makes no sense to me, we should be able to see SOMETHING the age of the big bang, very far away, in that case. "Though in principle more galaxies will become observable in the future, in practice an increasing number of galaxies will become extremely redshifted due to ongoing expansion, so much so that they will seem to disappear from view and become invisible." It even says , and even you quoted, "If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different. A 2004 paper[12] claims to establish a lower bound of 24 gigaparsecs (78 billion light-years) on the diameter of the whole universe, meaning the smallest possible diameter for the whole universe would be only slightly smaller than the observable universe (and this is only a lower bound, so the whole universe could be much larger, even infinite). This value is based on matching-circle analysis of the WMAP data. Recently, this approach has been criticized." What space is the universe expanding into? A graphical representation of the expansion of the universe with the inflationary epoch represented as the dramatic expansion of the metric seen on the left. Over time, the space that makes up the universe is expanding. The words 'space' and 'universe', sometimes used interchangeably, have distinct meanings in this context. Here 'space' is a mathematical concept and 'universe' refers to all the matter and energy that exist. The expansion of space is in reference to internal dimensions only; that is, the description involves no structures such as extra dimensions or an exterior universe.[6] Finite space theory does not suppose space has an edge, but rather that space wraps around on itself. If it were possible to travel the entire length of space without going faster than light, one would simply end up back in the same place, not unlike going all the way around the surface of a balloon (or a planet like the Earth). The notion of more space is local, not global; we do not know how much space there is in total. The embedding diagram has been arbitrarily cut off a few billion years past the Earth and the quasar, but it could be extended indefinitely, even infinitely, provided we imagine it as curling into a spiral of constant radius rather than a circle. Even if the overall spatial extent is infinite we still say that space is expanding because, locally, the characteristic distance between objects is increasing.
  3. Can I please have a reason why this isn't possible? In certain directions you wouldn't see a complete circle, more of an oval, it all depends on the angle. If there is something pulling on EVERYTHING, and the universe is infinite, eventually the line of sight is going to come back and not straight back, so it will "orbit" like everything else
  4. "Steve69, this is an amusing hypothesis. How do you propose that it might be tested? SM " I do not know. I am not a scientist. Something like Line of sight = (mass of black hole / (mass of objects in sky + distance from that object + distance from black hole (where we are looking from)) / direction of sight from black hole)
  5. "I suspect that we can see "new" stars forming far away, but I don't know enough about space to be certain of this." I don't think there are any "new" stars forming, what you are seeing is the original star at it's birth because that "line of sight" is traveling farther, then the other "line of sight" at which we already have seen the star. So we see it at a different age, its farther away, only because our line of sight is going in circles. Spherical geometry The final possibility: If current density is larger than the critical value, then every region of space has a geometry akin to that of a sphere. Here, again, is the two-dimensional example, a spherical surface: In such a space, the angles of a triangle built from segments of straightest-possible lines (geodesics) always sum up to more than 180 degrees, and if you follow some straightest-possible lines that are parallel in some region of space, they will always converge and intersect. This is called a space of positive curvature. Interesting possibilities for large-scale geometry, and the mathematically inclined reader will react with slight regret to the announcement that, going by astronomical data, the most boring among these possibilities is realized: The geometry of our universe at cosmic scales appears to be that of ordinary high school geometry, corresponding to a universe with a density equal to the critical value. Source: http://www.einstein-.../shape_of_space
  6. "If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different." Yes that is what I am meaning. There isn't a red nova star or whatever, it's our sun, but you are seeing it at a different point in time, when it was a red nova. If you think there are a couple black holes, with the line of sight sure, there are. And everytime you see it, it will be at a different point of "time" and look like a totally new black hole. I think there is not many of what we are seeing. Only we are seeing the same thing many times, over and over.
  7. here is my theory on the universe... I think the universe is not as big as we think. I think we are seeing the same stars, planets or whatever many times over and over AND over because of gravity. I think there is a central part and when we look into space we are seeing our sight pulled by gravity. We are basically seeing the same planet but farther away, we think. Because the sight is a lot farther. The farther a planet seems away, the older it seems. think of looking in a circle, with the stars also altering the way it goes. You see the same planet but never the same spot because of all the stuff moving. The Universe never come to an end, Gravity does not allow that. It is being sucked in by some huge force.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.