Jump to content

Shape of the universe


Recommended Posts

Having been over this subject many times, I have still to find a satisfactory answer matching my dull wittedness. So, if I may, let me try again

Could a nuclear blast be comparable in design and distribution to that of the Big Bang? While the actions of such a device would be infinitely smaller, if a test could be performed under pristine conditions such as in a continuum, with no forces acting upon it, would the explosion be hyperbolic, flat, or spherical in design as one might expect? Even with all of natures forces acting against them, each of the following explosions try remaining globular in shape. Why?

 








 

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

You compare the birth of the Universe, to the explosion of a giant nuclear bomb.

 

This is a very interesting comparison. But does it work, for example, why aren't we all suffering from radiation sickness?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You compare the birth of the Universe, to the explosion of a giant nuclear bomb. This is a very interesting comparison. But does it work, for example, why aren't we all suffering from radiation sickness?

My explanation was suggested only as a comparison to creative semantics. If the BB was a static balancing act of all materials located in the continuum at one point as a singularity, then, to my thinking, any explosion should have been distributed spherically, vectorially and equally in all directions. Hope this gives you a better understanding of my view?

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta try once more. It is now theorized the universe is flat. My question! Since I've never seen a flat balloon unless deflated, how come it is suspected to exist in such a configuration now?

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang was not an explosion, propelling matter outward from a central place. The BB is the expansion of every point in space from every other point in space. There is no spherical shape, and there is no center of the universe.

 

When it is said that the universe is flat, it means that the value of mass density is just what is needed to keep the universe expanding forever, as opposed to contracting into a big crunch.

 

When being used on a local level, a flat universe means one undistorted by gravitational fields, where Euclidean geometry is true and the angles of a triangle total 180 degrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang was not an explosion, propelling matter outward from a central place. The BB is the expansion of every point in space from every other point in space. There is no spherical shape, and there is no center of the universe.

 

When it is said that the universe is flat, it means that the value of mass density is just what is needed to keep the universe expanding forever, as opposed to contracting into a big crunch.

 

When being used on a local level, a flat universe means one undistorted by gravitational fields, where Euclidean geometry is true and the angles of a triangle total 180 degrees.

Unfortunately I can't argue the physics and calculus necessary to extrapolate such logic. My main question again is, why does everything in the universe seem to be rounded? This, from galaxies, suns, planets, moons, orbits and even on down to include tear drops? To say the BB was not an explosion is as delusional as my protesting that it was nothing more than that. What proof is there that the universe is flat or hyperbolic, other than the crunching of a bunch of numbers?

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I can't argue the physics and calculus necessary to extrapolate such logic. My main question again is, why does everything in the universe seem to be rounded? This, from galaxies, suns, planets, moons, orbits and even on down to include tear drops? To say the BB was not an explosion is as delusional as my protesting that it was nothing more than that. What proof is there that the universe is flat or hyperbolic, other than the crunching of a bunch of numbers?

The US and Russia conducted many Nuclear Tests back in the 60s. Inerestingly enough, this test was done at Johnsons Atoll in 1962. If nothing more than conjecturel, read the difference between "atmospheric bursts and those done in outer space".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion#Differences_from_atmospheric_tests

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

To say the BB was not an explosion is as delusional as my protesting that it was nothing more than that.

 

This is argument from incredulity.

 

read the difference between "atmospheric bursts and those done in outer space".

 

Interesting but not germain.

 

Again, the BB was not an explosion. It was not a sudden release of energy propelling matter into a pre-existing space. There was no pre-existing space. The BB happened, and is still happening, everywhere at once. Every point in space is expanding away from every other point (outside of gravitationally bound entities)

 

other than the crunching of a bunch of numbers?

What a drag, isn't it? It would be so much easier if you could just know, without having to learn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your quote: Again, the BB was not an explosion. It was not a sudden release of energy propelling matter into a pre-existing space. There was no pre-existing space. The BB happened, and is still happening, everywhere at once. Every point in space is expanding away from every other point (outside of gravitationally bound entities), unquote

I suppose my ignorance is what keeps me (keeping on, keeping on). While I've never professed to being the sharpest nail in a keg, I try to use logic. To make such an unproven hypothesis as you have stated, leaves me with little wiggle room. While I'm not saying your findings are wrong, it's only that I simply can't rationalize such a concept. If you could go into some detai to explain it, I would be more than appreciative.

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the shape of our universe would be determined by the impact that caused it. Atomic bombs don't cause things to solidify. If they had a vaccuum that followed the explosion the it would cause things to solidify, but that also requires priors

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, a dandelion is the best I can do in describing how our universe works. It seeds, grows into adulthood, comes to fruition and dies, only to begin all over again,

https://lacamw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1mb87vD20Ls0M5dxr53lsyjKLMEYQ-8IlyTN7a8fFahQfQpHVrSGy-B3azrF_dFvlwOw4KADE_xmrPlil3G7GrX4Smd-2rA8CTazRRBgrzMqI/DandelionSeedhead.jpg?psid=1

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

RIP Popcorn

 

But yea, it seems that all solidified matter in the universe is the result of compaction. I want to say that an impact cause a substance to spiral rapidly enough to create a solidified surface (like an air bubble). If you look at all the diagrams they show about gravity being the flex of space, you can also conclude that the flex might be a result of the draft of an object and the space converging at the furthest point. This type of flex is seen everywhere astronomically. But the draft and prior substance seems to be necessary for solidification. The prior substance could be the closest thing to nothing there is, but it would still solidify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your quote: Again, the BB was not an explosion. It was not a sudden release of energy propelling matter into a pre-existing space. There was no pre-existing space. The BB happened, and is still happening, everywhere at once. Every point in space is expanding away from every other point (outside of gravitationally bound entities), unquote

I suppose my ignorance is what keeps me (keeping on, keeping on). While I've never professed to being the sharpest nail in a keg, I try to use logic. To make such an unproven hypothesis as you have stated, leaves me with little wiggle room. While I'm not saying your findings are wrong, it's only that I simply can't rationalize such a concept. If you could go into some detai to explain it, I would be more than appreciative.

Probably the most common analogy is dots on a balloon. Take an uniflates balloon and cover it in dots from a marker. Now blow up the balloon. The distance between all of the dots will grow as the balloon expands.

 

The same is true of the universe. The Big Bang is not really a "big bang" at all. The universe used to be much smaller, with all the matter compressed together because that's all the space there was. As space expanded, the distance between points of matter grew. Space is still expanding and matter is still growing apart over large distances (i.e. where gravity and other attractive forces aren't strong enough to hold it together).

 

There is no central point that exploded and which everything is moving away from anymore than the dots on the balloon exploded away from a central point. There's just more room now and it's increasing at every point in space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not ungrateful for your explanation, but somehow such logic simply flies by my ability to process it. Am I totally ignorant? Possibly! But there are too many variables to decipher for me conceding 'carte blanche" to such an idea. Firstly, the dot game gives me "the willies". If the universe is indeed expanding, why aren't the dots also expanding ? I've read somewhere that it's because gravitational forces hold galaxies together, etc.Then I find that our Milky Way and Andromeda will lock horns at some future date. While the possibility of billions of years may be needed for this happening, it doesn't say much for expansion, in that sense. While I believe our universe began at a central point, it may not have been as a Big Bang, but more like a dandelion. Ran across this bunch of Q. and As. And while I can't bring myself to believing in most of them, some do make sense. Enjoy!

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/uns_answer.html

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I can't argue the physics and calculus necessary to extrapolate such logic. My main question again is, why does everything in the universe seem to be rounded? This, from galaxies, suns, planets, moons, orbits and even on down to include tear drops? To say the BB was not an explosion is as delusional as my protesting that it was nothing more than that. What proof is there that the universe is flat or hyperbolic, other than the crunching of a bunch of numbers?

Might be just BS: A sphere is one of the simplest shapes, where every point on its surface is equidistant to a particular point. If the universe had a definite center, and a shape, then "spherical" would be quite a simple shape. Planets etc. have a center of mass. A sphere is like... the best approximation of "flat" across the entire surface of a 3d shape, maybe??? Like... flat land is closer to a spherical Earth than are mountains. Gravity pulls things toward the center of mass, roughly, filling the valleys and tending toward a spherical shape as a stable shape. Same with water droplets: "mountains" have more surface area than flat land; surface tension also tends toward flatness as stable.

Again, the BB was not an explosion. It was not a sudden release of energy propelling matter into a pre-existing space. There was no pre-existing space. The BB happened, and is still happening, everywhere at once. Every point in space is expanding away from every other point (outside of gravitationally bound entities)

It wasn't a point or dense ball that exploded in 3d space. Time and space didn't exist "before" the Big Bang into which it could explode.

 

Is it okay to say that at time 0, the universe was 0-dimensional?

 

There is a theory or speculation (I could look it up if anyone cares) that the universe wasn't 3-dimensional in its very early forms, but had fewer dimensions.

 

BS again: I imagine a point, being split in 2 directions (everything expanding uniformly but in only 1 dimension). As soon as you can measure distance between anything, you can measure time. As you separate the matter of the universe along this line, maybe there's curvature or something that allows you to measure a straight-line distance between some pairs of points as shorter than along the curved 1-d line, and it is consistent so that you can treat it as an additional spatial dimension. Perhaps fractional dimensions can appear as an increasingly curved space until at some point it can be consistently measured as an additional dimension. Perhaps space (and/or time) on a large enough scale will appear increasingly curved until a 4th spatial dimension is measurable.

 

This is how I currently envision the Big Bang. Obviously it doesn't make clear sense in my mind, and I don't know if there's any value in the description.

Edited by md65536
Link to post
Share on other sites

md65536 Posted Yesterday, 04:54 PM

Might be just BS: A sphere is one of the simplest shapes, where every point on its surface is equidistant to a particular point. If the universe had a definite center, and a shape, then "spherical" would be quite a simple shape. Planets etc. have a center of mass. A sphere is like... the best approximation of "flat" across the entire surface of a 3d shape, maybe??? Like... flat land is closer to a spherical Earth than are mountains. Gravity pulls things toward the center of mass, roughly, filling the valleys and tending toward a spherical shape as a stable shape. Same with water droplets: "mountains" have more surface area than flat land; surface tension also tends toward flatness as stable

 

rigney: Try as I might, there is no way for me to describe the universe spherically without giving it boundries and dimenson. So, I'll I use the dandelion for demonstrational purpose. Think of each seedlet without its connecting tendril as an individual galaxy moving away vectorially from a fixed central point, out into an endless continuum. With no peripheral boundaries, ie. (creation of new space and time) to impede velocity and direction, you might think each galaxy would keep on course forever? But not so! While a galaxy must try following its basic trajectory and speed laid out at the time of formation, these rules can and will be broken over time. For instance, we know our moon is moving away from earth constantly. And even though the separation is very subtle, something like 1/8" inch per year, it is happening none the less. What will be the nightmare when this attraction is lost and each goes its seperate way?

Planets, moons and asteroids, down to the last speck of free moving dust in each galaxy is controlled by a perpetual constant of the overall universe. Time!, undoubtably billions of years was needed to fine tune this balancing act we witness today. How else could a planetary system such as our own, even exist? What is written here are mostly ideas I have plagiarized from others or hype with no substance. Take your pick.

https://lacamw.bay.l...head.jpg?psid=1

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

The shape of the universe should be spherical on an overall view (spacetime itself) as it will identically expand in every direction since it is guided by the laws of nature, which are applied in the overall universe, providing the same physical setup.

The energy and matter present in it could be spherical, flat or a torus on the overall view depending on the general impact of mass on the visible physical reality. 

Edited by 1x0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.