|
0 registered members (),
1,094
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Big Bang
[Re: Blattsalat]
#84703
08/25/06 19:10
08/25/06 19:10
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
the issue with the infinite universe has the problem that science shows that it is finite in space and time.
the issue is more if it is the only one or not and how the whole system works together.
I thought scientists actually thought the universe is infinite, as in 'expanding in volume and no sign of stopping anytime soon'? Besides, we don't life long enough to fully determine wether or not something is infact infinite, apart from not being able to really look far enough into the past.
When I'm not mistaken, we can't trully see the boundaries of the universe, or at least we think we can't. The best bet we got is based upon a theory which could be wrong, eventhough it sounds pretty reasonable to me.
web page
Quote:
i agree with phoemox's universal discription, it's infinate, although a human mind may not be able to understand that it is infinate, and that anything can be infinate, it is. you do not have to understand the universe for it to exist the way it does.
That's what I meant indeed. We can't see as far as might be needed to see the boundaries, if there even are any. And if there are no boundaries to be seen, will it be simply because we can't look far enough, or because it's infinitely further away because the universe is infinite? It's a 3 to 1 situation, where 'infinite universe' still has the upper hand if you ask me, or?
I'm still looking for some good reading material on the expansion of the universe, since I do not understand how they actually have found out this is happening. Well, seeing several galaxies move further and further away is one thing, but concluding the whole universe is expanding is another step. I'm especially curious about the details why and how they exactly came to that conclusion. 
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Big Bang
[Re: PHeMoX]
#84704
08/25/06 20:53
08/25/06 20:53
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 246
Alberto
OP
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 246
|
Quote:
Well, seeing several galaxies move further and further away is one thing, but concluding the whole universe is expanding is another step. I'm especially curious about the details why and how they exactly came to that conclusion.
Cheers
As far as I know this is the only reason why they come to that conclusion
At the beginning , Einstein did not beleive in an expanding universe but Hubbles succeeded in convincing him
The theory of the relativity itself admit any kind of universe : expanding - stable - contracting
|
|
|
Re: Big Bang
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#84706
08/26/06 10:48
08/26/06 10:48
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 246
Alberto
OP
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 246
|
Quote:
you can only predict what you cant see, not assume.
The idea that the Universe is just all that we can see from Earth is bound to be false.
Well , you should should reject 99 % of science discoveries, then !!!
If billions galaxies are moving away from earth and just a few of them are getting closer it is defintly unlikely that the situation is different in the remote part of universe
However the expansion of universe is also supported by the theory of relativity, up to a certain extent,even though it is not the unique solution of the Einstein's cosmology equation
According to the theory of relativity , space is not just an empty box, rather it is a sort of protuberation of matter
Imagine some ants (the galaxies) walking on the surface of a ball (The space)
If the radius of the ball increases than also the distance among the ants alwayes increase even though the ants move to random directions
This is the reason why some galaxies move away at a speed higher than the speed of the light
The speed limit does not take into account the deformation of the space
Beside an non uniform deformation of the space, is not consistent, as far as I know with the theory
|
|
|
Re: Big Bang
[Re: MathewAllen]
#84709
09/15/06 18:50
09/15/06 18:50
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 246
Alberto
OP
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 246
|
Quote:
WOAH
What happens if we're moving the speed of light
The point is that this question does no make sense
People (I include myself of course ) can not fully get rid of their ego centric view of the universe
According to the theory of relativity all the observers can considered themselves as still.
|
|
|
Re: Big Bang
[Re: Alberto]
#84711
09/17/06 15:36
09/17/06 15:36
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
On the contrary it is hard to eliminate the "Absolute 3d Coord system "
I might not understand you correctly, but this doesn't even exist. To determine distance differences and/or relative location you'd need to know the location of 2 (2D-distance) to 3 (3D distance+direction) 3D points. Those 3 points can have any location (value) you'd assign to them, as long it's correct in relative comparison to eachother. Even with an empty box, you'd need matter to be able to compare locations, especially when you don't know the boundaries, hence absolute locations do not exist.
In a universe that's expanding, there's no location that keeps the same coordinates, always. Simply put, a universe that's expanding can have a central point that's moving, because it's boundaries change. Off course you could simply define a location and calculate it's deviation by the expansion of the universe over time, but what good would that be when distances, time and direction are all relative to other things (matter) as Einstein figured out? An artificial grid of absolute coordinates makes absolutely no sense in my opinion.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
