Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Vortex Model Of Solar System Is Incorrect


hereticzero

Recommended Posts

Go here for story: 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html

 

The graphic is neat but that's about all it's worth.

 

This is an example of someone who is not a scientist/astronomer and is simply throwing garbage out onto the web and claiming it to be significant--something the religious do daily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go here for story: 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html

 

The graphic is neat but that's about all it's worth.

 

This is an example of someone who is not a scientist/astronomer and is simply throwing garbage out onto the web and claiming it to be significant--something the religious do daily.

 

This is an interesting story to me. I have been following Dr. Phil Plait for years and much of what he states is correct, but not always IMO.  One of his favorite subjects is debunking BS, primarily astronomy, but sometimes related to other sciences as well.  Dr. Plait's problem IMO is that he never thinks outside the box, as far as his criticisms are concerned. And of course he is mostly correct. But he is a doctor of astronomy/ astrophysics and sticks with mainstream theory and beliefs. Sometimes mainstream theory can be wrong, based upon its history.

 

In this case somebody made a "nice" video concerning the solar system being a vortex?  The original proposal concerning the solar system being a vortex was proposed by Rene Descartes in 1633.  The idea was relatively simple and based upon the realization that the sun was the center of our solar system. He reasoned that an aether vortex was involved with gravitation. The vortex accordingly gave the planets momentum and gravity held the planets in orbit around the sun. Since then we have determined that no vortex is needed.

 

I didn't spend really enough time to try to understand the planetary aspects of this vortex proposal since it seemed like bunk to me also. But the second proposal and related video relates to our sun, as well as other stars of our galaxy, orbiting our galaxy in a vortex. This idea has also been proposed before a number of times and is also believed to be bunk for a number of reasons, a primary reason being that science no longer believes that aether exists.

 

In a very recent physics based study I, and another author, made this same proposal of a galactic vortex based upon the existence of an aether, which we believe is the same thing as the Zero Point Field (ZPF, ZPE) observed in laboratories. Instead of the current dark matter model and proposal that requires the universe be about 85% dark matter and 15% matter, the vortex model requires only 1/5th the mass equivalence (energy) that the dark matter model requires, so that accordingly no dark matter would be needed to model the whole universe "correctly", only lesser quantities of ZPF field-flows and vortices.

 

You may not be interested in the proposal of your link, but my point is that science-theory is not always right either; it can change a lot in merely decades of time.  If our past related scientific papers are correct (myself and co-author), both the dark matter and dark energy proposals would be wrong and explainable by "simpler" alternative hypothesis.  Of course all should realize that new proposals on a grand scale are rarely accepted and never mainstream to start with  eek.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen that, it's pretty cool. It is an accurate model if the sun is moving, but my complaint is that it shows the sun moving in a straight line. I don't believe the sun moves in a straight line, if it's moving, which I'm not sure about.

 

Two models have been published expressing the motion of a galaxy.

1. The galaxy rotates (classic model)

2. The galaxy does not rotate (contemporary model)

 

Anyway, this video is accurate if the sun is moving. It's not a vortex, it just shows the planets' trails given movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link may prove instructive... https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html

 

Select preset...     Sun, Planet, Moon

Select...                Show Traces

Set slider to...       Accurate

Deselect...            System Centered, Show Grid and Tape Measure

Press Start and allow to run for a Time count of 60+

 

What you will see is the Moon spiraling around the Planet, the planet spiraling around the Sun as the Sun being dragged into a spiral path by the planet's gravity. A path that eventually takes all three objects off the screen by a Time count of 60.5  

 

Now Reset and run again, this time Selecting, 'System Centered'.

What you will see is the Moon still spiraling around the Planet, but the planet is now circling the Sun in an apparently unchanging orbit.  The planet's gravity now appears to pull the Sun into a small circular motion.

 

Both scenarios show exactly the same thing, but from different viewpoints.

The first isn't fixed and the second is.  That is the only difference.   And it is our (the observers) viewpoint that determines what we see.  So the Vortex Model of the Solar System is technically correct - but only if the movements of the Sun and the planets are viewed in a certain way.  Change the viewing conditions and you change the apparent motions of the planets and moons as the move across the sky.  That is the key to understanding this issue.  The difference between apparent motion and real motion.  So, the real motion of our solar system isn't that of a vortex, because to see a vortex an observer needs to be in a fixed position relative to the Sun.

 

In reality, nobody and nothing in the universe is ever in a fixed or absolute position.  

Everything is relative and nothing is absolute.  Working outwards from the Earth, we know that the Moon goes around us, that we go around the Sun, that the Sun goes around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, that the Milky Way orbits a common center of gravity in the Local group of (approx.) 50 / 60 galaxies, that the Local Group is in motion, relative to the Virgo Super-cluster of galaxies, which is also in motion, relative to the much larger Laniakea region of (approx.) 100,000 galaxies, which is probably part of the universe-spanning structure of sheets, knots, filaments and voids of galaxies, all of which are in motion, relative to each other and possessing no fixed or absolute frame of reference.

 

Everything moves!

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link may prove instructive... https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html

 

Select preset...     Sun, Planet, Moon

Select...                Show Traces

Set slider to...       Accurate

Deselect...            System Centered, Show Grid and Tape Measure

Press Start and allow to run for a Time count of 60+

 

What you will see is the Moon spiraling around the Planet, the planet spiraling around the Sun as the Sun being dragged into a spiral path by the planet's gravity. A path that eventually takes all three objects off the screen by a Time count of 60.5  

 

Now Reset and run again, this time Selecting, 'System Centered'.

What you will see is the Moon still spiraling around the Planet, but the planet is now circling the Sun in an apparently unchanging orbit.  The planet's gravity now appears to pull the Sun into a small circular motion.

 

Both scenarios show exactly the same thing, but from different viewpoints.

The first isn't fixed and the second is.  That is the only difference.   And it is our (the observers) viewpoint that determines what we see.  So the Vortex Model of the Solar System is technically correct - but only if the movements of the Sun and the planets are viewed in a certain way.  Change the viewing conditions and you change the apparent motions of the planets and moons as the move across the sky.  That is the key to understanding this issue.  The difference between apparent motion and real motion.  So, the real motion of our solar system isn't that of a vortex, because to see a vortex an observer needs to be in a fixed position relative to the Sun.

 

In reality, nobody and nothing in the universe is ever in a fixed or absolute position.  

Everything is relative and nothing is absolute.  Working outwards from the Earth, we know that the Moon goes around us, that we go around the Sun, that the Sun goes around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, that the Milky Way orbits a common center of gravity in the Local group of (approx.) 50 / 60 galaxies, that the Local Group is in motion, relative to the Virgo Super-cluster of galaxies, which is also in motion, relative to the much larger Laniakea region of (approx.) 100,000 galaxies, which is probably part of the universe-spanning structure of sheets, knots, filaments and voids of galaxies, all of which are in motion, relative to each other and possessing no fixed or absolute frame of reference.

 

Everything moves!

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

All true, and relative motion not only embodies, but is quintessential to the meaning and our understandings of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relative motion.  Does that mean that if I'm standing on Mars, it looks like I'm fine and not moving, but you guys are all over the place out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relative motion.  Does that mean that if I'm standing on Mars, it looks like I'm fine and not moving, but you guys are all over the place out there?

 

Got it in one, Dude!  goodjob.gif

 

And that rule applies everywhere.

Which is why so many folks wrongly think that the Earth is the center of the universe.  It isn't.  It only looks that way.  Ditto, when it comes to the edge of the universe.  It only looks like an edge... but go a zillion light years in any direction and wherever you end up, that place will look and feel like the center of everything to you.  But it won't be any more than when you were on Earth.  And you'll also see an edge of the universe that's just as far away from you in your new location as it was when you were on Earth.  So, any center we think we see and any edge we think we see are just observational effects and not real ones.

 

Now, following on from that, here's a brain-quaking multiple choice question for you!

.

.

.

What do you get if you apply the no-center-and-no-edge idea to the Big Bang event..?

 

A.  

A finite universe with a boundary (edge) that expanded from a central point.

 

B.

An infinitely large universe without a boundary, where every point of space expanded away from every other one.

 

C.

A parking lot that always has free spaces, no matter how many cars drive into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Lordy, BAA, you had to bring up the edge of the Universe thing.

 

If it expanded in every direction, there must be a center from which it sprang, whether it it is finite or infinite, and if it is still expanding I'm back at the question of what is it expanding into.

 

So I don't know if A or B, but my humor suggests that C only happens if people are praying.  smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Lordy, BAA, you had to bring up the edge of the Universe thing.

 

smile.png  Your chance to make a quantum leap in understanding.

 

If it expanded in every direction, there must be a center from which it sprang,

 

If it's expanding from a center, how can it be expanding in every direction?  It can't be both. 

 

whether it it is finite or infinite, and if it is still expanding I'm back at the question of what is it expanding into.

 

Earth-bound thinking, my friend.

One infinity can be larger than another.  (I'll demonstrate how if you want.)  

 

So I don't know if A or B, but my humor suggests that C only happens if people are praying.  smile.png

 

And since we're Ex-Christians, whats the point of us praying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Me in green and black.

 

Oh Lordy, BAA, you had to bring up the edge of the Universe thing.

 

smile.png  Your chance to make a quantum leap in understanding.   BAA, let's don't start this color thing again. It complicates everything. You said before that science didn't know what the Universe was expanding into. Did something new come up?

 

If it expanded in every direction, there must be a center from which it sprang,

 

If it's expanding from a center, how can it be expanding in every direction?  It can't be both.  I'm sorry, what? How can you have every direction without a center?

 

whether it it is finite or infinite, and if it is still expanding I'm back at the question of what is it expanding into.

 

Earth-bound thinking, my friend.

One infinity can be larger than another.  (I'll demonstrate how if you want.)   Earth bound thinking is all we have. If the smaller infinity is not infinity then it isn't infinity.

 

So I don't know if A or B, but my humor suggests that C only happens if people are praying.  smile.png

 

And since we're Ex-Christians, whats the point of us praying?   Hence, the humor reference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Me in green and black.

 

Oh Lordy, BAA, you had to bring up the edge of the Universe thing.

 

smile.png  Your chance to make a quantum leap in understanding.   BAA, let's don't start this color thing again. It complicates everything. You said before that science didn't know what the Universe was expanding into. Did something new come up?

 

 

No Dude.

But it just seemed to me that with the idea of 'everything in motion and nothing fixed' being floated in this thread, I'd have another go at trying to explain things better.  That ok by you?

.

.

.

If it expanded in every direction, there must be a center from which it sprang,

 

If it's expanding from a center, how can it be expanding in every direction?  It can't be both.  I'm sorry, what? How can you have every direction without a center?

 

If things are expanding from a center, then they can't be expanding in every direction, can they?   If expansion towards the center is forbidden, then every direction can't hold can it?   For the every direction rule to hold good, expansion towards the center can't be forbidden.  So with expansion happening in every direction, there can be no center.   Or try it this way.  An infinite expanse of space goes on forever, right?  No edge.  And without an edge, you can't find where the center is.  Catch?  If there's a center, there has to be an edge and vice versa.  But in an infinity, there is no edge... so there can be no center.  Every location is as good as any other.  Every location is relative to each other.  If there were a center, that point wouldn't be relative to all other points.  it would be the absolute center.  And once you have an absolute center, you automatically generate an absolute edge.  But infinity has no edge - so it cannot have a center.  With me?

.

.

.

whether it it is finite or infinite, and if it is still expanding I'm back at the question of what is it expanding into.

 

Earth-bound thinking, my friend.

One infinity can be larger than another.  (I'll demonstrate how if you want.)   Earth bound thinking is all we have. If the smaller infinity is not infinity then it isn't infinity.

 

No Sir!  Earthbound thinking is left far behind by math.  Math allows our minds to soar between the galaxies and beyond!   As I will now demonstrate.

Count up from zero and never stop. 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.  You will never reach an end (or an edge) because infinity has no end/edge.  Now start again, counting only even numbers and never stop. 2,4,6,8,10,12, etc.  Once again, you will never come to and end/edge.  Yet the first infinity is 50% larger than the second.  Both are infinite, yet one is larger and one is smaller.   Crazy, huh?  But also mathematically sound.

 

 

 

So I don't know if A or B, but my humor suggests that C only happens if people are praying.  smile.png

 

And since we're Ex-Christians, whats the point of us praying?   Hence, the humor reference.

 

Amen to that!  wink.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Me in green and black.

 

Oh Lordy, BAA, you had to bring up the edge of the Universe thing.

 

smile.png  Your chance to make a quantum leap in understanding.   BAA, let's don't start this color thing again. It complicates everything. You said before that science didn't know what the Universe was expanding into. Did something new come up?

 

 

No Dude.

But it just seemed to me that with the idea of 'everything in motion and nothing fixed' being floated in this thread, I'd have another go at trying to explain things better.  That ok by you?

.

.

.

If it expanded in every direction, there must be a center from which it sprang,

 

If it's expanding from a center, how can it be expanding in every direction?  It can't be both.  I'm sorry, what? How can you have every direction without a center?

 

If things are expanding from a center, then they can't be expanding in every direction, can they?   If expansion towards the center is forbidden, then every direction can't hold can it?   For the every direction rule to hold good, expansion towards the center can't be forbidden.  So with expansion happening in every direction, there can be no center.   Or try it this way.  An infinite expanse of space goes on forever, right?  No edge.  And without an edge, you can't find where the center is.  Catch?  If there's a center, there has to be an edge and vice versa.  But in an infinity, there is no edge... so there can be no center.  Every location is as good as any other.  Every location is relative to each other.  If there were a center, that point wouldn't be relative to all other points.  it would be the absolute center.  And once you have an absolute center, you automatically generate an absolute edge.  But infinity has no edge - so it cannot have a center.  With me?

.

.

.

whether it it is finite or infinite, and if it is still expanding I'm back at the question of what is it expanding into.

 

Earth-bound thinking, my friend.

One infinity can be larger than another.  (I'll demonstrate how if you want.)   Earth bound thinking is all we have. If the smaller infinity is not infinity then it isn't infinity.

 

No Sir!  Earthbound thinking is left far behind by math.  Math allows our minds to soar between the galaxies and beyond!   As I will now demonstrate.

Count up from zero and never stop. 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.  You will never reach an end (or an edge) because infinity has no end/edge.  Now start again, counting only even numbers and never stop. 2,4,6,8,10,12, etc.  Once again, you will never come to and end/edge.  Yet the first infinity is 50% larger than the second.  Both are infinite, yet one is larger and one is smaller.   Crazy, huh?  But also mathematically sound.

 

 

 

So I don't know if A or B, but my humor suggests that C only happens if people are praying.  smile.png

 

And since we're Ex-Christians, whats the point of us praying?   Hence, the humor reference.

 

Amen to that!  wink.png

 

 

 

 

Ok, let's go back to the color thing. It's confusing but even more confusing without it.

 

If something is rushing toward the center, it can't be expanding out from the center at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus,  "Count up from zero and never stop. 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.  You will never reach an end (or an edge) because infinity has no end/edge.  Now start again, counting only even numbers and never stop. 2,4,6,8,10,12, etc.  Once again, you will never come to and end/edge.  Yet the first infinity is 50% larger than the second.  Both are infinite, yet one is larger and one is smaller.   Crazy, huh?  But also mathematically sound."

 

There's math, and then there is reality. Am I wrong? The ones that take science one step at a time are smarter than those that take science times two, IMHO. If one infinity can be bigger than another infinity, then WTF? 

 

How do you know that infinity has no edge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Me in green and black.

 

Oh Lordy, BAA, you had to bring up the edge of the Universe thing.

 

smile.png  Your chance to make a quantum leap in understanding.   BAA, let's don't start this color thing again. It complicates everything. You said before that science didn't know what the Universe was expanding into. Did something new come up?

 

 

No Dude.

But it just seemed to me that with the idea of 'everything in motion and nothing fixed' being floated in this thread, I'd have another go at trying to explain things better.  That ok by you?

.

.

.

If it expanded in every direction, there must be a center from which it sprang,

 

If it's expanding from a center, how can it be expanding in every direction?  It can't be both.  I'm sorry, what? How can you have every direction without a center?

 

If things are expanding from a center, then they can't be expanding in every direction, can they?   If expansion towards the center is forbidden, then every direction can't hold can it?   For the every direction rule to hold good, expansion towards the center can't be forbidden.  So with expansion happening in every direction, there can be no center.   Or try it this way.  An infinite expanse of space goes on forever, right?  No edge.  And without an edge, you can't find where the center is.  Catch?  If there's a center, there has to be an edge and vice versa.  But in an infinity, there is no edge... so there can be no center.  Every location is as good as any other.  Every location is relative to each other.  If there were a center, that point wouldn't be relative to all other points.  it would be the absolute center.  And once you have an absolute center, you automatically generate an absolute edge.  But infinity has no edge - so it cannot have a center.  With me?

.

.

.

whether it it is finite or infinite, and if it is still expanding I'm back at the question of what is it expanding into.

 

Earth-bound thinking, my friend.

One infinity can be larger than another.  (I'll demonstrate how if you want.)   Earth bound thinking is all we have. If the smaller infinity is not infinity then it isn't infinity.

 

No Sir!  Earthbound thinking is left far behind by math.  Math allows our minds to soar between the galaxies and beyond!   As I will now demonstrate.

Count up from zero and never stop. 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.  You will never reach an end (or an edge) because infinity has no end/edge.  Now start again, counting only even numbers and never stop. 2,4,6,8,10,12, etc.  Once again, you will never come to and end/edge.  Yet the first infinity is 50% larger than the second.  Both are infinite, yet one is larger and one is smaller.   Crazy, huh?  But also mathematically sound.

 

 

 

So I don't know if A or B, but my humor suggests that C only happens if people are praying.  smile.png

 

And since we're Ex-Christians, whats the point of us praying?   Hence, the humor reference.

 

Amen to that!  wink.png

 

 

 

 

Ok, let's go back to the color thing. It's confusing but even more confusing without it.

 

If something is rushing toward the center, it can't be expanding out from the center at the same time.

 

 

Ok Dude.

 

Let's back up a little and try this.

In your thinking everything expands from a central point.  This necessarily means that you have a boundary (edge) moving outwards from that point of origin.  But there's a problem.  Anything with a boundary isn't infinite - it's finite.  Worse, nothing finite with a boundary can ever become infinite.  Infinity is a condition that can never be achieved, no matter how fast the boundary expands or how long it's expansion goes on for.  The only way to achieve infinity from a finite beginning is to start without a boundary and then have the expansion take place equally, in every direction, from every existing point of space. This expansion doesn't happen from a central point, because there isn't one.  All points of space move away from each other, with new space appearing between them.  

 

 figure4.jpeg

 

This diagram is sometimes used to illustrate what we're talking about.

The usual misunderstanding people make is to think that the universe is inside the sphere - that it's expanding from the sphere's center, causing the boundary to grow and move outward.  Wrong!  The surface of the sphere is a 2-d representation of 3-d space.  We don't live inside, we live on the surface.  Now here comes the twist!  Remember we said that everything is in motion?  That there's no fixed and absolute point or frame of reference from which to observe or measure things?  Go anywhere and the view is always the same?  That's true of a sphere, isn't?  Any point on the surface of a sphere is exactly the same as any other.  So any growth or expansion of the sphere happens equally, in every direction, from every point on it's surface. 

 

Ok, now hold that thought and apply it to each square on the surface of the sphere.  

Each square is relative to each other.  Visit every single one and the view looks the same in every direction.  Also, the contents of each square (stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) are all in motion, but only relative to each other and every other square.  They're not in motion relative to the center of the sphere, because there's nothing (no space) inside the sphere.  Space itself is the surface of the sphere.  It just happens to be illustrated in a 2-dimensional way in the diagram.  

 

We have no problem understanding that a painting or a photograph is a 2-d representation of a 3-d object, right?

So, we have to apply that mental jump to this subject and realize that the sphere's surface is a 2-d representation of 3-d space.  Once we do that, we do away with a central point of origin, expansion into 'something' and the need for a boundary/edge.  That's because a sphere has no central point and has no boundary or edge.  If it expands, it does so from every point (or square) on it's surface.  Since each square is exactly equal to every other one and in no way more important than any other one, no square can be said to be the point of origin for any expansion.  They all expand and they all expand equally.  

 

Having done away with the need for a boundary, our finite volume of space now has the potential to expand... infinitely.

Which is what the four steps in the diagram attempt to illustrate.  If our entire observable universe occupies a small part of just one square and each and every square is equal and relative to every other one, then there's no location within space that we can say is the point of origin of the expansion.  And since no square has any kind of boundary (the grid is just there to illustrate growth) then there's no way we can ever see or be aware of any kind of 'edge' to the universe.  The only edge we will see is an observational horizon, but that is just a function of the finite speed of light and the age of the universe itself.  Light has only had 13.7 billion years to travel since the Big Bang, so that limits how far we can see in any direction.

.

.

.

Now, if you want a break from the mind games Dude, I can give you (in extremely simplified form) the evidence that tells us that this is how the universe is expanding.

 

Please let me know.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus,  "Count up from zero and never stop. 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.  You will never reach an end (or an edge) because infinity has no end/edge.  Now start again, counting only even numbers and never stop. 2,4,6,8,10,12, etc.  Once again, you will never come to and end/edge.  Yet the first infinity is 50% larger than the second.  Both are infinite, yet one is larger and one is smaller.   Crazy, huh?  But also mathematically sound."

 

There's math, and then there is reality. Am I wrong?

 

No you're not wrong, Dude.

But math describes reality accurately.  If it didn't then why do we use it all the time?  The disconnect between math and reality happens when what math predicts can't be tested in reality to see how accurate it is.   As you'll just have seen, I've offered to show you the evidence for how we conclude that the universe expands in this way.   That evidence covers mathematical prediction and astronomical observation to test those predictions.  From these observations we infer and deduce that expansion happens, just as the math predicts.   

 

The ones that take science one step at a time are smarter than those that take science times two, IMHO. If one infinity can be bigger than another infinity, then WTF? 

 

Hmmm... how about we put infinity on hold for a bit and just deal with expansion?  Small movements, ok?

 

How do you know that infinity has no edge? 

 

Holding pattern on this for now?  Ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine with me BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then Dude

Since we're talking about events and locations no scientist can ever directly test and measure, the accepted method is for a scientist to draw up a theory that attempts to best describe the nature of the universe.  This theory will predict things that, up to that point, haven't been detected or observed.  If the future observations agree to a high enough value with the theoretical predictions, then that theory will (generally) be accepted as being a good description of how things actually are, billions of light years away and billions of years ago.  The more predictions that are confirmed in this way, the greater our confidence that we have a good handle on what the universe really is like.

 

Back in 1922 three types of solution to Einstein's theory of General Relativity were found.

In each case an expanding universe was predicted.  Since this was the second decade of the 20th century, there was no way these predictions could be tested - the technology to construct giant observatories on earth and telescopes in space simply didn't exist.  But in the last twenty years or so, these instruments have become reality.  So these predictions were put to the test.  But before I tell you about the results, I'd better acquaint you with a brief overview of what kind of universes these three types of solution predicted we'd find. 

 

0c4516b1ffd8d3d3df0bd52d1eb998d8.jpg

 

From top to bottom, these are Closed, Open and Flat universes.

You'll see that red triangles have been mapped onto the surfaces of each universe type?  Ok, now do you see how the curvature of the closed and open universes affects the geometry of their respective triangles?  In a closed universe, the interior angles of the triangle add up to more than 180 degrees.  In an open universe, the opposite is true.  There, the interior angles of it's triangle add up to less than 180 degrees.  Only in a flat universe do the interior angles of a triangle add up to exactly 180 degrees.  So, if we could find a universe-sized triangle in the sky and measure it's internal angles, we could find out which kind of universe we live in... closed, open or flat.  Doing that would also test which of the three predictions made by general relativity was the right one.  

 

If you follow this link Dude, you'll see that just such a test was completed in 2013.  https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Scientists used two points in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) to create a triangle, with Earth at the third angle.  The CMB is the spotty thing below.

 

Planck-and-CMB-sim-revised.jpg

 

 

Seeing as the CMB is the most distant light we can detect, the sides of this triangle measured tens of billions of light years, giving us an accurate way of seeing if there was any curvature in these sides.  There wasn't.  The results indicate that the geometry of our universe is as flat as a sheet of paper.  So, even though the Flat universe diagram is shown as a grid of 800 squares (20 x 40), as far as we can tell, if you were to extend the grid, you could do so endlessly, in every direction.  We seem to be living in an infinite universe.  If the internal angles of that triangle had been found to be more or less than 180 degrees, then the other two solutions would have been favored.  

 

So this is a one major line of evidence that leads us to believe that our universe is indeed infinite.

A prediction made long before the CMB, satellites or giant telescopes has stood up to rigorous testing.

 

Dude, please let me know if there's anything I haven't explained to your satisfaction.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, I'm not ignoring this. I've read it twice and frankly, it's a bit above my head. Plus, I'm not sure I have the time to devote right now. Can we put the whole thing in a holding pattern for just a little bit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, Dude!  No problem.  You set the pace.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.......................Seeing as the CMB is the most distant light we can detect, the sides of this triangle measured tens of billions of light years, giving us an accurate way of seeing if there was any curvature in these sides.  There wasn't.  The results indicate that the geometry of our universe is as flat as a sheet of paper.  So, even though the Flat universe diagram is shown as a grid of 800 squares (20 x 40), as far as we can tell, if you were to extend the grid, you could do so endlessly, in every direction.  We seem to be living in an infinite universe.  If the internal angles of that triangle had been found to be more or less than 180 degrees, then the other two solutions would have been favored.  

 

So this is a one major line of evidence that leads us to believe that our universe is indeed infinite.

A prediction made long before the CMB, satellites or giant telescopes has stood up to rigorous testing..............................

 

 

BAA, I think there is an additional alternative to consider. 

 

Einstein made a famous statement about General Relativity that in the opinion of many then and now, has a number of important implications to it. He said:

 

"When forced to summarize the General Theory of Relativity in one sentence:" "Time and Space and Gravitation have no separate existence from matter."

 

A primary implication is that time, space, and gravity are meaningless if not within the bounds of matter. All three would accordingly be relative conditions to matter, required for their definitions. In other words all of these three inter-relationships/ interactions must have matter to give a meaning to any one of them.

 

Therefore there would be no meaning to any of them outside the bounds of matter. If matter had a finite beginning concerning its quantity and equated energy, then from this perspective, the universe will be forever limited as to the amount and extension of its matter/ energy , and therefore the universe will be forever bounded in space. Bottom line being:  within the definition of space should be included, the distance between matter, or the collective volume encompassed by matter. What would be the meaning of space outside the bounds of matter? Even if space were totally flat which observations seem to indicate, according to this perspective hypothetical space outside the bounds of matter would accordingly be meaningless (non-existent), even if infinite space beyond the bounds of matter has been imagined and hypothesized by many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.