Is There a Correct Way to View the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MartinJH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of orientation when viewing the universe, questioning whether there is a "correct" way to perceive it. Participants note that terms like "up" and "down" are arbitrary and primarily serve as conventions for communication, often based on Earth's north pole. The idea of being "upside down" lacks physical significance in the broader context of the universe. It is acknowledged that different viewing methods, such as using a Newtonian telescope, can create an inverted image. Ultimately, the conversation concludes that the notion of orientation is subjective and not inherently meaningful in the study of the universe.
MartinJH
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
I again apologise if this is in the incorrect section and it sounds a dull question.
I've just thought to myself about the universe and how we view it I suppose in the fashion we do now but how do we know the way we view it is the 'correct' way up i.e. not upside down.

How would we determine whether its the correct way up, relative to what?

Does it really matter?

Have I missed something lol.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
I have never seen the term up or down in reference to our view of the universe. Usually the top of a picture (milky way, etc.) is determined by the Earth's north pole.
 
I didn't like to use that term either but with my limited knowledge of words that was all I could think of :).

Edit: So you're saying we can relax on the first question because of the use of the poles as a reference.

I think that's a good point you've made.
 
I don't think the concept of "upside down" has any meaning in this context. There is no up or down to our OU. As mathman said, we use the Earth's north pole as a convention, but that's just so we can all have some reference point in talking about pictures of the U, it has no attached physical meaning.
 
Of course, if you are looking at the universe through a Newtonian reflecting telescope, then it is "upside down". Is that what you mean?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top