Do you ever think about the shape of the universe?
How would you describe the shape of the whole thing?
We can talk about the center of the universe as well if you like.
The Shape of the Universe.
Posts
Total:
195
-->
@Paul
all planets have elliptical orbits
all planets orbit the sun
all planet's are round
what a coincidence
if evolution created life would not the planets rotate in random directions. They would not all go in the same shape around the sun.
is it not a coincidence that the sun is round the moon is round and look all the planets are round.
its not a shape
the disc around around Saturn is round.
it just so happens that the other planet that i oget name of has perfect disc two
what a confidence
-->
@crossed
Okay so the universe is round like a ball? Interesting. Would that mean that the center of the universe is at the center, like the center of a ball?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What not a shape.
-->
@Paul
idk what you mean. But that sounds right
-->
@crossed
We talked about how God's glory is shown in space. God's glory is infinite so space is infinite and infinity has no shape
-->
@Dr.Franklin
circle triangle square oval
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ok i hear ya
-->
@crossed
Plus, anyone can dispute anybpdy
The universe was shaped by God. God created man in his image. What is the ultimate symbol of masculinity?
Yes, that's right. The universe is phallic.
-->
@crossed
Are you talking about the solar system?
-->
@dustryder
Well there will be balls to, to be a man you kinda need em.
-->
@Paul
Under the Einsteinian view, the big question was whether the universe was open, meaning it would keep expanding forever, or closed, meaning its expansion would eventually slow down and stop, at which point a giant contraction would begin. Which scenario would occur depended only upon the average density of matter over the entire universe. If the density was high enough, then the universe was closed. Otherwise it was open.
The discovery in the 1990's that the expansion of the universe was actually accelerating threw a wrench into this view. The current hypothesis is that this is some unknown form of energy, named dark energy, although really we have no clue what it is. "Dark energy" is just a placeholder for "that which causes space to expand" .
With dark energy and an accelerating expansion, it now seems clear that the expansion of the universe will go on forever. And because the expansion is accelerating, there are places in the universe that will never be observable from other places. They are beyond each other's event horizons. It's fascinating to think that there may already be more beyond our own even horizon than within it--perhaps much, much more.
-->
@Stronn
I'm familiar with what you are talking about, but let me tell you why I started this thread.
I was talking with a fellow and I asked him what the big bangs shape was after one seconds time. He said, “It started as a point and expanded spherically from there.” I asked him to Google “center of the universe” on his phone. He read what he found then said, “If it has no center now than it had no center then either, did it?” I said yeah, then he said, “It must be a shape I can't visualize."
So my question is, what shape is it?
Anybody?
-->
@Paul
I vaguely remember a long time ago watching a show on the science channel that said the universe was some funky twisted torus-like shape.
Do not quote me on this. Because it was so long ago there is a high probability that I am remembering incorrectly or that this information was valid then but has since become outdated.
-->
@Stronn
@Paul
Under the Einsteinian view, the big question was whether the universe was open, meaning it would keep expanding forever,
1} this statement inherently means our known Universe is finite and not infinite. Why so few people can grasp this rather simple, rational, logical and common sense pathway of thought is perplexing to me,
or closed, meaning its expansion would eventually slow down and stop, at which point a giant contraction would begin.
2} again only a finite occupied space can expand, stop and then contract,
Which scenario would occur depended only upon the average density of matter over the entire universe. If the density was high enough, then the universe was closed. Otherwise it was open.
3} gravity overrides any density and entropic heat death as very large { finite } very flat{ longest frequency } single photon, and again a single photon of any size is still
The discovery in the 1990's that the expansion of the universe was actually accelerating threw a wrench into this view. The current hypothesis is that this is some unknown form of energy, named dark energy, although really we have no clue what it is. "Dark energy" is just a placeholder for "that which causes space to expand" .
We know that it is the opposite of Gravity and if Gravity can be considered to be associated with the outside peak of convex{ positive shaped } curvature associated with geodesic torus, then there exists only one obvious answer as to what Dark Energy is,
the peak of concave { negative shaped } curvature. Old news for me ( )( ).
With dark energy and an accelerating expansion, it now seems clear that the expansion of the universe will go on forever.
This assessment is incorrect conclusion since Gravity coheres energy { matter and bosons } at any distance ergo energy{ occupied space } cannot be destroyed and no new occupied space{ energy } is created.
Gravity is on the outside and eventually wins out. And on the other end is contraction { pulling-Inward gravity } leads to pushing-Outward{ dark energy }.
The brain only sends one kind of signal to the muscles and that is to contract. When the signal stops, the muscles expand via relaxing from being tight.
When a woman pushes-Out the baby/fetus it is resultant of pulling-In contractions of the muscles. Dark Energy and all other pushing-Out phenomena is a resultant of pulling-In phenomena. This is the path of least resistance.
Dark Energy )( expanding Space is Universe relaxing just as a muscle expands when is relaxed. At least that is one option.
And because the expansion is accelerating, there are places in the universe that will never be .observable from other places.
That may be true, however, no distance is immune to Gravity ( ). This is common sense even if Gravity operates at exactly the same speed as EMRadiation, yet we know speed-of-radiation can vary. Ex in a vacuum or not. There exists no true vacuum inside of our finite Universe.
And if Gravity operates from the outside, then it may be that Gravity is operating at a speed that is some ultra-factional differrence of greater speed than EMRadiation.
They are beyond each other's event horizons. It's fascinating to think that there may already be more beyond our own even horizon than within it--perhaps much, much more.
Incorrect conclusion again, because Gravity ( ) has no distance limits. Yes we have observable limits --via EMRadiation-- ergo we cannot observe what is going on inside of a black hole. However may be able to make some calculations{ deduce } based on what we observe being emitted from the event horizon surface, if we ever able to observe the outer event horizono surface emissions.
-->
@Paul
How would you describe the shape of the whole thing?
Dynamically lumpy and one analogy I use is consider how flares are dynamic in going outward from sun.
Another dynamic graphic Iver referenced for many years is Greg Egans Schilds Ladder page
We can talk about the center of the universe as well if you like.
Again the center of our finite, occupied space Universe is relative dynamics of a lumpy Universe that is in constant change at is event horizon surface where we find on that outside surface ultra-thin set of gravitions we collectively call Gravity ( ).
The problem you may have to grasp the rational, logical common sense pathways of thought and the resultant conclusions Ive arrived at may have to do with your education and pre-conditiontion ways of thoughts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dare to be naive"... R. B. Fuller
"My education has been of my biggest impediments to my learning"...A. Einstein
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."...R Feynman
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I vaguely remember a long time ago watching a show on the science channel that said the universe was some funky twisted torus-like shape.Do not quote me on this. Because it was so long ago there is a high probability that I am remembering incorrectly or that this information was valid then but has since become outdated.
Like this?
Here are some more pictures.
From the page at the link above: “It's important to remember that the above images are 2D shadows of 4D space, it is impossible to draw the geometry of the Universe on a piece of paper, it can only be described by mathematics.”
These pictures are like the expanding balloon analogy. Put dots on a partially inflated balloon then blow it up to see the dots all move away from each other. They do that to give you an idea of why everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else. It is also used to illustrate the idea that the universe has no center. Nowhere on the surface of the balloon is the center because there isn't a center on the surface. This is another 2D representation of 4D space.
Here's some more complications. The big bang was not an explosion of matter into empty space it was an explosion (or rapid expansion) of space itself. What was there before that if anything is unknown. When we look at space we tend to think of it as nothing but every bit of space is filled with the Higgs Field. All of space is also boiling with activity known as Vacuum Fluctuations. Space can be bent and curved and contains energy known as the Vacuum Energy, so space is not really nothing. We don't know what nothing looks like or if it exists at all.
Does the universe have an outside? Scientists talk about the multiverse so people tend to think that the universe has an outside. We don't know if there is a multiverse, it is speculation, we also don't know if the universe has an outside. As far as we know it does not.
-->
@Paul
Like this?
Yeah probably. Honestly too long ago to remember for sure. Seems right though.
I think it was the same show (possibly the same episode even) that said the universe was basically finite in size but infinite in the sense that it was not possible to go outside it because of the way it curved/was shaped. The analogy I rember was those early 'asteroid' video games where any object going off the edge of the screen simply re-entered on another point of the edge.
-->
@ebuc
When a woman pushes-Out the baby/fetus it is resultant of pulling-In contractions of the muscles. Dark Energy and all other pushing-Out phenomena is a resultant of pulling-In phenomena. This is the path of least resistance.Dark Energy )( expanding Space is Universe relaxing just as a muscle expands when is relaxed. At least that is one option.
You're talking out of your ass. Modern science has no idea how or why dark energy works or what it is.
Your idea that dark energy will eventually 'tire out' or be 'overpowered' by gravity in the long term is completely unfounded.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You're talking out of your ass.
So does it take an a__hole to know when an A__hole is speaking?
Modern science has no idea how or why dark energy works or what it is.
Wow, did you just learn that recently. Welcome to Darek Energy 101, please have a seat make attempt to learn and disscuss with rational, loigcal common sense and decency or hit the road jack, and dont you come back no mo, no mo no mo...hit the road jack and dont you come back no mo.....Ray Charles
Your idea that dark energy will eventually 'tire out' or be 'overpowered' by gravity in the long term is completely unfounded.
Since you or "modern science" has no idea what Dark Energy then you really have no idea what you talking about and
Unlike my many patwhays of rational logical common sense Ive been laying out for others with clarity,
you offer nothing but hot air ---or is that methane from some hole,of yours--- that adds too or invalidates any of my comments stated.
Often times those with nothing of significant relevance offer only disdain and disrepect on other who do offer signifcant and relevant pathways of thought based on what many humans and modern scientist have observed.
-->
@ebuc
So does it take an a__hole to know when an A__hole is speaking?
No, but it doesn't hurt.
-->
@ebuc
By the way I never called you an asshole and I never insulted you in any way.
I said you were speaking out of your ass. In America (where I am from) and several other countries the phrase "speaking out of ones ass" is equivalent to saying that someone is "making it up as they go along."
If you are not from somewhere where this is a common saying then I understand the confusion and hope that clears things up.
-->
@ebuc
So does it take an a__hole to know when an A__hole is speaking?
Naw, you know an a_hole is talking when it's lips are moving.
Visualize that.
-->
@Paul
Naw, you know an a_hole is talking when it's lips are moving. Visualize that.
Humans do that all of the time so that is easy visualization. What is not easy for you is to place your ego and preconditioned education to the side and even attempt to follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought. Sad :--(
Is it truly a wonder why humanity appears to be headed toward extinction. Not when were dealing with closed and narrow minds.
-->
@ebuc
Education is conditioning rather than preconditioning.
Ergo, variable data output is relative to variable conditioning.
Ergo, differences of opinion.
In that sense you are just as narrow minded as everyone one else is.