PDA

View Full Version : The universe is flat like a plate, not sphere, obloid or egg shaped



sdowney717
April 28th, 2012, 02:53 PM
flat like a plate, like a Frisbee which the creator flung out into space time.
Fascinating as intuitively you would think big bang would make a sphere, globule growing out like a balloon.
If the universe is flat and galaxies are moving faster than light speed (huh??, mentioned in the video), then what is above this or below this surface texture of galaxies?
What is nothing, is it something? How can something be nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqb1lSdqRZY&feature=relmfu

zombifier25
April 28th, 2012, 03:06 PM
I didn't watch the video (I had no speaker ATM) but I think the universe is limited, but has no boundaries, e.g. you can't get off the universe, pretty much like you can't fall off Earth, the difference is the universe is 3D, while the Earth's surface is 2D.

VTPoet
April 28th, 2012, 03:25 PM
Fascinating as intuitively you would think big bang would make a sphere, globule growing out like a balloon.

Heh! I can't resist this subject.

String theory posits that the universe was created by the collision of "extra" dimensional branes. This theory appeals to me because it allows one to imagine the initial "bang" not as a single point that expanded like a balloon, but as two infinite branes or "sheets" that collided. In this latter sense, the big bang truly happened "everywhere" at the same time. Kinda' cool.


If the universe is flat...

Best to think of this in a more metaphorical, than literal sense (since those who posit this are working in more than 3 dimensions).


...and galaxies are moving faster than light speed (huh??, mentioned in the video)...

They're only moving faster than light in relation to us, not in relation to their local space. Space is expanding (like an infinitely stretchable sheet) and galaxies are themselves moving on that sheet/space. Eventually, according to some theories, space itself will be expanding so fast that even the nearest galaxies will disappear from view; and then, eventually, our galaxy and even our very solar system. Our sun (say we were still around trillions and trillions of years from now) would be moving away from the earth so fast that it's light couldn't reach us.) And then? Then our planet and the very molecules in our bodies would start moving apart from each other. We would all be torn apart by expanding space. Pretty bleak, huh?

forrestcupp
April 28th, 2012, 04:19 PM
They're only moving faster than light in relation to us, not in relation to their local space.

That's an interesting idea I've never thought about before. So if I could set two opposing flashlights parallel to each other in a vacuum and turn them on at the same time, the light would be traveling twice the speed of light in relation to the other light. :)

mips
April 28th, 2012, 04:23 PM
You guys have it all wrong :)

http://multiply.com/mu/goodstuff4u/image/LDKVrYZeAYXTvGsBrgZyog/photos/1M/300x300/5907/dis-1.jpg?et=JzJIfq6PUKYL0Lp7QOcFDw&nmid=0

VTPoet
April 28th, 2012, 04:27 PM
That's an interesting idea I've never thought about before. So if I could set two opposing flashlights parallel to each other in a vacuum and turn them on at the same time, the light would be traveling twice the speed of light in relation to the other light. :)

:-s I'm not so sure about that experiment. How do you figure that?

Paqman
April 28th, 2012, 04:36 PM
the light would be traveling twice the speed of light in relation to the other light. :)

Only if you managed to make the space between them expand at light speed at the same time. If the space wasn't expanding then each beam would still only be moving at light speed relative to the other.

forrestcupp
April 28th, 2012, 05:00 PM
:-s I'm not so sure about that experiment. How do you figure that?

My thought is kind of like two cars coming from opposite directions on a road, both going 60mph. One car is going 60mph relative to the road, but if they collided head on, it would be like hitting a wall at 120mph.

mips
April 28th, 2012, 05:13 PM
My thought is kind of like two cars coming from opposite directions on a road, both going 60mph. One car is going 60mph relative to the road, but if they collided head on, it would be like hitting a wall at 120mph.


Nah, does not apply to light, hence the c constant.

Edit: The last person to say something related to that recently resigned his post :biggrin:

Paqman
April 28th, 2012, 05:16 PM
My thought is kind of like two cars coming from opposite directions on a road, both going 60mph. One car is going 60mph relative to the road, but if they collided head on, it would be like hitting a wall at 120mph.

That's actually a common misconception. Hitting a wall at 60mph is exactly the same as hitting another car with the same energy, they both push back exactly the same amount. If you think back to learning Newtonian physics at high school: to bring you to rest the wall would have to exert a force equal to your kinetic energy. Likewise the other car would have identical kinetic energy. So the forces involved are the same.

It's somewhat counter-intuitive for static objects like walls to exert forces in this way (reaction forces), but that is how it actually works.

I think what you were actually thinking of was the car's relative speeds anyway, not their relative energies.

JDShu
April 28th, 2012, 05:30 PM
That's an interesting idea I've never thought about before. So if I could set two opposing flashlights parallel to each other in a vacuum and turn them on at the same time, the light would be traveling twice the speed of light in relation to the other light. :)

From what I remember in high school, this is related to the special theory of relativity (precursor to the more famous general theory of relativity) by Einstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_f rame

Basically, no matter what velocity you're going at, the absolute fastest you can observe another object to be going is c.

jockyburns
April 28th, 2012, 05:55 PM
Surprisingly (or not), if two objects were travelling away from each other and both were travelling at 3/4 of the speed of light, then neither one would be observable by the other.

VTPoet
April 28th, 2012, 06:01 PM
Surprisingly (or not), if two objects were travelling away from each other and both were travelling at 3/4 of the speed of light, then neither one would be observable by the other.

:-s Actually, that's the same as forestcupp's comment but in reverse. Even if two objects were traveling away from each other at 3/4 the speed of light, they still would be observable to the other.

sdowney717
April 28th, 2012, 06:37 PM
here is a very good video talking about faster than light speed of galaxies.
makes the point that when redshift exceeds 1.4 the speed of light, we will see them freeze and then slowly fade away, vanish from site.
Some galaxies have measured redshifts of 8.
How many will simply vanish from sight in the distant future? And the heavens be starless at night.
How many already have vanished?
How much bigger might the universe be then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=myjaVI7_6Is

aeroflotsam
April 28th, 2012, 08:52 PM
Hey Guys,

Just read any of Sir Terry Pratchett's Diskworld series novels and you will get a clear picture of what a planar world is like. You'll also rot what's left of your mind just as I did while enjoying every minute.

"Lords and Ladies", "Soul Music", and "Reaper Man" to name a few. I'm 70 but laughed my **** off with these insane books.

Enjoy!!

layers
April 28th, 2012, 09:17 PM
That's actually a common misconception. Hitting a wall at 60mph is exactly the same as hitting another car with the same energy, they both push back exactly the same amount. If you think back to learning Newtonian physics at high school: to bring you to rest the wall would have to exert a force equal to your kinetic energy. Likewise the other car would have identical kinetic energy. So the forces involved are the same.

It's somewhat counter-intuitive for static objects like walls to exert forces in this way (reaction forces), but that is how it actually works.

I think what you were actually thinking of was the car's relative speeds anyway, not their relative energies.

well explained. It sort of rings back to the days where people were trying to tell me that a plane on a treadmill won't fly off...

You(or anyone here) should try to explain to me the reference frame thing. If I am travelling with a space ship and you are travelling with another, a bit faster than me, and there is a beam if light passing between us, and to both of us, the light goes with c, doesn't that mean after some time, the light will be at different locations?

alexfish
April 28th, 2012, 09:28 PM
flat like a plate, like a Frisbee which the creator flung out into space time.
Fascinating as intuitively you would think big bang would make a sphere, globule growing out like a balloon.
If the universe is flat and galaxies are moving faster than light speed (huh??, mentioned in the video), then what is above this or below this surface texture of galaxies?
What is nothing, is it something? How can something be nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqb1lSdqRZY&feature=relmfu

Billions and Billions of Nothing

Gremlinzzz
April 28th, 2012, 09:33 PM
Any ideas what the universe is expanding against or into? what do they call it the nothing? Was watching how the universe was created on youtube sounds like fiction.I mean things like the universe as small as a marble and you could have fit it your hand!If big bang theory is correct then why doesn't Hadron Collider create universes?There banging particles around:popcorn:

alexfish
April 28th, 2012, 09:43 PM
Any ideas what the universe is expanding against or into? what do they call it the nothing? Was watching how the universe was created on youtube sounds like fiction.I mean things like the universe as small as a marble and you could have fit it your hand!If big bang theory is correct then why doesn't Hadron Collider create universes?There banging particles around:popcorn:

Infinite monkey theorem

MadCow108
April 28th, 2012, 09:44 PM
the universe does not expand into anything, its just the scale that changes, so yes the big bang did occur everywhere at once followed by a rapid inflation of the scale which is our explanation to why the observable universe is homogeneous and flat.

mehaga
April 28th, 2012, 09:46 PM
That's an interesting idea I've never thought about before. So if I could set two opposing flashlights parallel to each other in a vacuum and turn them on at the same time, the light would be traveling twice the speed of light in relation to the other light. :)

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15046/speed-of-light-flashlights-question

mips
April 28th, 2012, 10:31 PM
Billions and Billions of Nothing

Carl, is that you?

lisati
April 28th, 2012, 10:39 PM
Billions and Billions of Nothing

Don't you just love the way "nothing" is defined in terms of what it's not, i.e. no thing.... This definition seems to work well enough for everyday use. :D

Bandit
April 28th, 2012, 10:42 PM
:-k
Who in their right mind thinks the universe is flat.. /sigh
Sounds like a harvard educated numskulls idea or is it one of Steven Hawkings, they are about as blind sided.

The universe is infinate and expands in all directions with no bounderies, hence the word "infinate". Trying to say its flat is just another tiny human mind trying to comprehend something it doesnt understand by applying a system of measurement it does understand.. Like associating the word cherry with red..

/rant..

alexfish
April 28th, 2012, 10:50 PM
Carl, is that you?

put it to the test : The Sit down when sober Theory

Look at this .................................................. .................................................. .....................................):P

Close your eyes







What do you see



PS : it don't work when your asleep

alexfish
April 28th, 2012, 11:15 PM
Don't you just love the way "nothing" is defined in terms of what it's not, i.e. no thing.... This definition seems to work well enough for everyday use. :D

NO :P ,, that THING == 2

0/2 =

so it has to exist , how many there are , I'm still counting :(

Gremlinzzz
April 28th, 2012, 11:45 PM
the universe does not expand into anything, its just the scale that changes, so yes the big bang did occur everywhere at once followed by a rapid inflation of the scale which is our explanation to why the observable universe is homogeneous and flat.

Still i just don't get it universe to grow had to fill some kind of void.there must have been some kind force or space to contain the universe.my guess is dark matter would be the answer. but then comes the question what is dark matter and where did it come from?:popcorn:

VTPoet
April 28th, 2012, 11:53 PM
OK. Just to keep things honest. Nobody knows if the universe is really flat, obloid or egg shaped. Figuring this out is actually a fascinating subject because it involves knowing the actual distances to the furthest galaxies when even the distances to the nearest galaxies are approximate. Even the use of parallax with the closest galaxies is inadequate. It's the reason the age of the universe, presently given as around 14 billion years, is approximate. Knowing the shape of the universe will also decide it's ultimate fate: Is it steady state, will it expand into nothingness, or will the expansion of space eventually reverse and the universe collapse in on itself. No one knows. Yet.

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 28th, 2012, 11:57 PM
Don't you just love the way "nothing" is defined in terms of what it's not, i.e. no thing.... This definition seems to work well enough for everyday use. :D

LOL


Still i just don't get it universe to grow had to fill some kind of void.there must have been some kind force or space to contain the universe.my guess is dark matter would be the answer. but then comes the question what is dark matter and where did it come from?:popcorn:

Why do you think there must be a void for the expansion to occur? A void is something unlike nothing.

VTPoet
April 28th, 2012, 11:58 PM
Still i just don't get it universe to grow had to fill some kind of void.there must have been some kind force or space to contain the universe.my guess is dark matter would be the answer. but then comes the question what is dark matter and where did it come from?:popcorn:

If string theory is right, there *was* no void. The entirety of the universe was the collision between two branes (short for dimensional membranes). Of course, that begs the question, what were those "branes" in? But when one starts talking about 11 dimensions, questions like these start to get -- strange. :cool:

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 29th, 2012, 12:01 AM
I think some people may be misunderstanding what flat means in this context. I doesn't mean the universe is shaped like a plate. It is referring to whether space is curved or not, and how it is curved.

The universe could be spherical in shape; however, be flat when considering spacial curvature.

Gremlinzzz
April 29th, 2012, 12:02 AM
OK. Just to keep things honest. Nobody knows if the universe is really flat, obloid or egg shaped. Figuring this out is actually a fascinating subject because it involves knowing the actual distances to the furthest galaxies when even the distances to the nearest galaxies are approximate. Even the use of parallax with the closest galaxies is inadequate. It's the reason the age of the universe, presently given as around 14 billion years, is approximate. Knowing the shape of the universe will also decide it's ultimate fate: Is it steady state, will it expand into nothingness, or will the expansion of space eventually reverse and the universe collapse in on itself. No one knows. Yet.

Wait a minute i heard that the earth is round now the universe is flat.
I believe it except now its more confusing than ever:popcorn:
everything in space seems round you would just assume that the universe is too.

MadCow108
April 29th, 2012, 12:13 AM
Still i just don't get it universe to grow had to fill some kind of void.there must have been some kind force or space to contain the universe.my guess is dark matter would be the answer. but then comes the question what is dark matter and where did it come from?:popcorn:

again the universe does not really grow. Its expands in its internal scale, everything moves further away from everything as time progresses, there is no common outward direction or even a center from which it could expand from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
the universe could be infinite, we don't know we can only observe a part of it due the limited light speed.
It may even not be homogeneous and not flat beyond the observable part making all our nice theories moot :(
but thats beyond the realm of science.

Gremlinzzz
April 29th, 2012, 12:43 AM
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, like going all the way around the surface of a balloon (or a planet like the Earth)[citation needed].

The notion of more space is local, not global[clarification needed]; 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.

I understand what is being theorized.believe it as fact not so sure
:popcorn:

sdowney717
April 29th, 2012, 01:02 AM
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, like going all the way around the surface of a balloon (or a planet like the Earth)[citation needed].


The notion of more space is local, not global[clarification needed]; 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.

I understand what is being theorized.believe it as fact not so sure
:popcorn:

here is another fun one to watch.
About what the universe is expanding into.
Looks the same pretty much everywhere they look, hence cosmic smoothness. New empty Space time is being created all the time.
No evidence of a boundary yet.
"Space time dynamic and new cosmic real estate is continually injected between galaxies."
What is this nothing that is being injected? And if it is nothing it sounds abstract not real, but of course nothing must become something.

Looks like the universe was and is made from nothing. Which sounds familiar in a religious context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6w28&feature=relmfu

alexfish
April 29th, 2012, 01:32 AM
http://community.us.playstation.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-30991668-6028/darth-vader.jpg
Still i just don't get it universe to grow had to fill some kind of void.there must have been some kind force or space to contain the universe.my guess is dark matter would be the answer. but then comes the question what is dark matter and where did it come from?:popcorn:

Gremlinzzz
April 29th, 2012, 02:09 AM
here is another fun one to watch.
About what the universe is expanding into.
Looks the same pretty much everywhere they look, hence cosmic smoothness. New empty Space time is being created all the time.
No evidence of a boundary yet.
"Space time dynamic and new cosmic real estate is continually injected between galaxies."
What is this nothing that is being injected? And if it is nothing it sounds abstract not real, but of course nothing must become something.

Looks like the universe was and is made from nothing. Which sounds familiar in a religious context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6w28&feature=relmfu

Great video explains allot but i kind of hope its wrong and we do find the edge.

Lucradia
April 29th, 2012, 05:26 AM
I've always known that the universe is a flat plane with 3 Dimensional cylinder walls that curve around the frameworks of dark matter and energy.

Also, when we see a dark matter / energy "River" it's just empty space on both sides of the river, which light can't pass through due to dark matter / energy interfering. When this happens, the walls are still present, but shape to this "River."

it's more like a disk than a plate.

Paqman
April 29th, 2012, 09:23 AM
Still i just don't get it universe to grow had to fill some kind of void.

It's a bit hard to wrap your head around, but the key point to understand is that the universe (pretty much by definition) contains all points in space. It can't be expanding into anything, because if there was a point beyond it, then that would be a measurable volume of space, and therefore part of the universe.

The idea that there's a space outside the universe (or a time before it) are meaningless. The universe contains all space and time, because space and time are properties of the universe.

It's a bit like the way the economy keeps expanding. The economy contains all the money in circulation. There doesn't have to be some kind of "potential money" for it to expand into, new wealth is created sort of like the way new volume of space keeps getting created.

alexfish
April 29th, 2012, 09:27 AM
I've always known that the universe is a flat plane with 3 Dimensional cylinder walls that curve around the frameworks of dark matter and energy.

Also, when we see a dark matter / energy "River" it's just empty space on both sides of the river, which light can't pass through due to dark matter / energy interfering. When this happens, the walls are still present, but shape to this "River."

it's more like a disk than a plate.

I thought it look more like a flat doughnut

Gremlinzzz
May 1st, 2012, 02:19 PM
Watched through the wormhole {Dark Flow}:popcorn:
Which suggest theres not only a edge to are universe! but multiuniverse
Our universe is sliding steadily in a specific direction, in what researchers are calling "the dark flow."
Some suspect the flow is caused by the pull of gravity from another universe.
One way to detect the flow is seeing how galaxy clusters scatter radiation left over from the Big Bang.:popcorn:

http://news.discovery.com/space/dark-flow-universe.html