The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: I have noticed that in space something always seems to revolve around something?  (Read 6744 times)

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Is it possible that space is a large sphere around which galaxies revolve?  And, if this is true, could the galaxies be on their way around the sphere of space?  As a neophyte, that seems perfectly logical to me.  I also find it a little disconcerting to hear people say that the Galaxies are going nowhere.  They compare it to raisins in a large ball of dough.  I find that hard to believe.  The rising dough has a stopping point.  The expansion of space appears to have no limit in its' expansion.  I also find this hard to believe.  Does space have no form at all?  The Big Rip theory suggests that the acceleration will continue until it tears everything apart.  I think that this theory is not so popular as it was 4 or 5 years ago.  Now you scientists that understand everything about space, will you please start with space, you may consider space as the universe, and what we now call a universe call a subset, and show what is happening to everything back to a planet?  It appears to me that we should be able to simplify our expansion without a bunch of Mumbo Jumbo.  The politicians call it bloviation.  I have a much more succinct word for it but it should not be used here. Thanks for listening to me and I look forward to hearing from you.  Joe L. Ogan
« Last Edit: 27/11/2009 22:09:05 by Joe L. Ogan »


 

Ethos

  • Guest
Is it possible that space is a large sphere around which galaxies revolve? 
I really don't view space with any shape at all myself. I realize this is not a very popular view these days but I understand space to be just that, an infinite nothingness where energy and information reside.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Is it possible that space is a large sphere around which galaxies revolve?  And, if this is true, could the galaxies be on their way around the sphere of space?  As a neophyte, that seems perfectly logical to me.  I also find it a little disconcerting to hear people say that the Galaxies are going nowhere.  They compare it to raisins in a large ball of dough.  I find that hard to believe.  The rising dough has a stopping point.  The expansion of space appears to have no limit in its' expansion.  I also find this hard to believe.  Does space have no form at all?  The Big Rip theory suggests that the acceleration will continue until it tears everything apart.  I think that this theory is not so popular as it was 4 or 5 years ago.  Now you scientists that understand everything about space, will you please start with space, you may consider space as the universe, and what we now call a universe call a subset, and show what is happening to everything back to a planet?  It appears to me that we should be able to simplify our expansion without a bunch of Mumbo Jumbo.  The politicians call it bloviation.  I have a much more succinct word for it but it should not be used here. Thanks for listening to me and I look forward to hearing from you.  Joe L. Ogan

Well, space probably has some kind of shape.. the there is the saddle-shape for instance. According to the math, if Omega is found less than 1, then it has a negative curvature and so will have a shape like a saddle. According to the geometry of this universe, parallel lines do not meet and the interior angles of the triangles sum up to less than 180 degrees. There are three distinct existences, open, (the one which has a saddle-shape). Open just means that the universe will continue to expand so:

The evolution of the universe depends on three mathematical states.

If Omega is is equal to 1, then it will be flat and expand forever (1). And if Omega is less than 1, then it will result in a big freeze. But if Omega is greater than 1, then it will experience a gravitational collapse.

(1) - all observational evidence points to expanding forever unless effected by a big rip.
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.  I am going to give my theory of space and activities and let you guys shoot me down but not just yet.  You did not answer my challenge.  And I do not blame you.  Thanks for your input.  I shall talk to you later.  Regards, Joe L. Ogan
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Fools rush into what angels had said,
analogous to rules that they have tread.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote
I have a much more succinct word for it but it should not be used here. Thanks for listening to me and I look forward to hearing from you.  Joe L. Ogan
I suspect the initials for the term are BS; and I suspect you are correct; and those of us who have achieved the highest honours are licensed to dispense it; and we do it freely.  ;D

My view of space itself is that it is empty nothingness with at least two properties, maybe more that we can not sense. The two properties are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. These two properties give us the only real things that that we can sense. They give us the electromagnetic universe.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2009 11:32:10 by Vern »
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
That is the most common sense thing I have read in a long time.  Thanks.  Joe L. Ogan
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Generally, I think that space is so HUGE that, whether it's 50 gazillion or 60 gazillion light years across or whether it is expanding at a rate of 1 or 2% every gazillion years, it has little relevance in my life or for the human race for all of eternity.

I keep in a tiny corner in the back of my mind the idea that we are 3-D Flat Earthers pondering why the universe seems to be "expanding" and be "infinite" when, someday, someone will figure out that it somehow "wraps around" on itself in a perfectly logical way that we cannot now see and that the "edge of the universe" never really existed just as the "edge of the earth" never existed for the original Flat Earthers.

We should rather be worrying about how to stabalize our sun from a catastrophic nuclear runnaway and turning into a red giant me thinks ;)
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Do you think it is possible that we can stabilize it?  How do you think that we could approach to doing that?  Joe L. Ogan
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Do you think it is possible that we can stabilize it?  How do you think that we could approach to doing that?  Joe L. Ogan

We are billions of years away from having the type of information however. We'd be classed as a type 3 civilization if we where. We are currently a zeroeth type due to our... barbarism.
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
I certainly agree with the barbarism.  It appears that we are getting worse rather than better.  Is there any scientific answer to that?  Joe L. Ogan
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Joe, to go back to your original question galaxies are interacting in local clusters of different sizes and they are frequently in rather unstable orbits around very large elliptical galaxies at the core of their clusters that deals wil galaxy motions on the small and medium scales.  as to the very largest scales it should in teory be possibel to observe if the whole of the visible universe is in motoin about a common centre even if this centre is not within our visible universe and very considerable efforets are beinf expended to identify common motions on this vast scale.  From time to tome it has been suggested that they mifgt have been observed but so far nothing has held up to detailed scrutiny but there is some hope that eventually it might be observed.  please note that the universe may actually be either larger or smaller than the visible universe and it could still be very difficult to prove it either way. 

I personally have strong reasons to expect that the universe is in fact rotating and probably consists of a toroidal surface, but that is beyond the scope of this page and belongs in the "new theories" area  look up "evolutioinary cosmology" for a certain amount of insight into this thinking.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
I certainly agree with the barbarism.  It appears that we are getting worse rather than better.  Is there any scientific answer to that?  Joe L. Ogan

There is a inerent gene theory.

 All i could say, is that in evolution our genes drive our will to survive, sometimes in the more complexicated world of the mans ego and the womans ego, is that same gene effecting why we struggle so much... since afterall, the struggling is between most of ourselves.

So i would scientifically-justify that we are machines of evolution, and mans intention is never truely desirable at lengths core.
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
I know what a man's intentions are but I always tried to conceal it from the female gender.  A woman has a right to change her mind and a gentleman has the right to conceal his true intentions.  Are we talking about the same thing?  And is the Great Attraction a part of our Universe?  I am kidding a little bit.  Please excuse me.  Regards, Joe L. Ogan
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3825
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Talk of the universe rotating is nonsense, the universe by definition is all there is ! where do we stand to view this rotation ?.
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
OK, It may not rotate.  But where do we stand to view the Universe which is standing still?  Thanks.  Joe L. Ogan
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Talk of the universe rotating is nonsense, the universe by definition is all there is ! where do we stand to view this rotation ?.
Newton proved that rotation is something that is absolute and Einstein wasn't able to defeat this proof. Newton used the experiment of a spinning bucket to show that in a rotating object, there is, effectively, a force directed outwards from the centre of rotation. This means that a rotating object will bulge.

Because of a number of physical principles, we expect that collapsing collections of dust will begin to rotate. These collections form stars, solar systems, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. But this doesn't mean that the collection of all these things should begin to rotate. Since the universe seems to homogeneous, we shouldn't expect that it should begin to rotate.

But is it rotating to begin with? Well, there are various ways to test this, many of which look for the kind of bulge that we expect for rotating objects. The results of such tests are not definitive, but they have limited the amount of possible rotation to something fairly low.

But there is another big problem. If the universe is rotating, then the farther away from the centre of rotation one gets, general relativity tells us that the time out there is seriously slowed down relative to the centre. At a certain point, time farther away from the centre actually forms loops. Mathematician Kurt Godel worked out these model universes and many believe that such behaviour from a rotating universe rule out the possibility that the universe is rotating.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Is it possible that space is a large sphere around which galaxies revolve?  And, if this is true, could the galaxies be on their way around the sphere of space?  As a neophyte, that seems perfectly logical to me.
We've simply got no evidence to support this view, Joe. 

I also find it a little disconcerting to hear people say that the Galaxies are going nowhere. They compare it to raisins in a large ball of dough. I find that hard to believe. The rising dough has a stopping point. The expansion of space appears to have no limit in its' expansion. I also find this hard to believe.
You shouldn't. Observations support the idea that the universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is increasing, but that this expansion is occurring between the galxies rather than within. And don't forget Einstein's stress-energy tensor. That's describing space, and since stress is essentially pressure, it means space has an innate pressure. Things that are under pressure, surrounded by nothing, do expand.

Does space have no form at all? The Big Rip theory suggests that the acceleration will continue until it tears everything apart. I think that this theory is not so popular as it was 4 or 5 years ago. Now you scientists that understand everything about space, will you please start with space, you may consider space as the universe, and what we now call a universe call a subset, and show what is happening to everything back to a planet? It appears to me that we should be able to simplify our expansion without a bunch of Mumbo Jumbo.  The politicians call it bloviation.  I have a much more succinct word for it but it should not be used here. Thanks for listening to me and I look forward to hearing from you.
No, space doesn't have any form. If you examine it through a microscope you can't see that it's made out of anything. People talk about virtual particles, but they are virtual, you can't actually see them. And besides, I think it's best to think of them as transient ripples on the surface of an oean, and then remember that the ocean isn't "made" out of these ripples.

I'm not a fan of the "Big Rip" hypothesis myself. It's kind of like saying if you start with a squeezed-down stress ball and let go, it will expand so much that it destroys itself. Some regions of space can't expand because they're bound, either gravitationally bound, or bound up as matter. And whatever happens to gravity, it's very weak compared to the strong force that holds matter together.   
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Hi, I thank you for your insight.  I went into the "Ask a Scientist"  and asked what is the thinking about the form of the Universe.  They told me that three shapes had been considered:  1.  A flat shape.  2.  A saddle shape.  3. A globale shape.  Now I have not seen where there is any shape such as Flat shape or Saddle shape.  Is it not logical to assume that the Global Shape is the answer.  Nowhere have I seen reference to No Shape at all.  I await your comment about this.  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan
« Last Edit: 30/11/2009 03:01:26 by Joe L. Ogan »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Hi, I thank you for your insight.  I went into the "Ask a Scientist"  and asked what is the thinking about the form of the Universe.  They told me that three shapes had been considered:  1.  A flat shape.  2.  A saddle shape.  3. A globale shape.  Now I have not seen where there is any shape such as Flat shape or Saddle shape.  Is it not logical to assume that the Global Shape is the answer.  Nowhere have I seen reference to No Shape at all.  I await your comment about this.  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan
When scientists give answers like this, they are not talking about shape in the normal way. What they are talking about is the overall geometry of space. In a spherical geometry, the angles of a very large triangle sum to less than 180 degrees. In a saddle geometry, the angles of a very large triangle sum to more than 180 degrees. In a flat shape, the angles sum to 180 degrees.

It is possible that there is an overall shape to the universe in the sense that one can define boundaries that when one moves through these boundaries, one appears on the other side of the universe. The placement of these boundaries would be somewhat arbitrary, in that we could choose which particular volume to bound. It wouldn't matter where we chose to make the centre, because the physics would work out the same. If the universe is infinite in extent, then all we could day about the shape is the overall geometry as described above.
 

Offline kmiller755

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • how to attract a man
When scientists give answers like this, they are not talking about shape in the normal way. What they are talking about is the overall geometry of space. In a spherical geometry, the angles of a very large triangle sum to less than 180 degrees. In a saddle geometry, the angles of a very large triangle sum to more than 180 degrees. In a flat shape, the angles sum to 180 degrees.

Yes, the 'shapes' that are given, such as "saddle" or "sphere" are in analogy with our intuition of 3D geometry.  In the analogy, the space under consideration is 2D but "embedded" in 3D.  For our 3D world, we might imagine that it's embedded in 4D (as Einstein did when he started GR, but discarded it later when he realized the embedding is not necessary mathematically).  The "shape" of the 3-space in the 4-space is what scientists mean by the shape.

PhysBang's reference to the angles of the triangle are one means by which we can measure this curvature of space.  We may set up a triangle by means of three lasers, as lasers travel in "straight lines" (or "geodesics" in the language of general relativity), and then proceeding to measure the angles subtended by each joining pair of lasers.  The sum of the angles indicates the curvature. 

You can analogize by thinking of what it would be like for 2D creatures living on a sphere to shine a beam of light.  The light ray would be forced to travel in the 2D space, tracing out a "straight line" in 2-space but in reality curving in the embedding 3-space.  In this case, a straight line is simply one which minimizes length.  A triangle drawn with light rays on a sphere this way would not have angles that add up to 180.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
My definition of space. It is where energy is stored. There is not a single cubic millimeter of space that does not contain radiation.No radiation no space. Space was blasted into existence by the radiation released in the Big Bang. Prior to the BB there was no space.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums