I The observable Universe and its shape

[Droidriven]

Am I right in thinking that we can only measure the size of the universe and indeed the rate of expansion by observations made on physical objects we can detect. So aren't those measurements only telling us how that matter behaves? And therefore can we treat the space around that matter as a separate entity? If so can we have an infinite space but a finite area that the mater within that space spans?

No, the expansion is happening "faster" than the force of gravity can "grab" it and pull it back, as is the case with local groups being gravity bound and having no expansion.

To imply a finite expansion within an infinite space requires gravity being the dominant force to limit how "far" it can expand, that isn't the case, with no gravity to resist the expansion then, in theory, the expansion will continue to expand until the finite limit is reached (if the universe is finite) or continue to expand into infinity(if the universe is infinite). I've seen it discussed that expansion is "slowing" but I don't think that means it will ever stop because there is no verifiable opposing force to "stop" it. Expansion happens in the spaces that are void of "normal" matter(not counting the theorized dark matter which may or may not be the force causing the expansion, that is also debated), not within the boundaries of spaces occupied by accumulated matter, such as galaxies or groups of galaxies that are relatively close enough for gravity to be a factor in their associations.

If you are implying that space itself may be infinite but the "space" occupied by matter in the universe is a finite amount inside of a boundary within that infinite space, then, no would be the theorized/debated answer.

I'm not exactly clear on that because of a lot of things that are said, my understanding is that matter has always occupied the entirety of space from the beginning, only the expansion of that space has changed.

 

[tobyr65]

Phinds re: No. 47
OMG Okay, the singularity caused time space and matter and something from nothing….

Then a force pushed this something outward. Something we call a universe.

Most likely NOT an explosion, due to lack of spherical evidence. ( message 36)

I don’t want to discuss curvature vs. flat because curvature infers the universe runs into force obstacles to make it curve whereas the original ‘pushing’ gravity is snap back and did not stop the galaxies from separating much less causing the universe to sphere. It’s all guess work there for now anyway.

Still the outrunning gravity was my point for commenting on 36.

But tomorrow … and apparently yesterday, I thought partial spherical sounded right. I know I’ve seen something in the past inferring round and it may have been the microwave picture, you know the one it looks like the world globe laid out flat, but today I’m all for flat universe.

The ring of Saturn has a relatively minor thickness as it circles Saturn. Hell our universe is probably part of a ring around a giant we can’t see for all we know. Flat and moving at such a distance we can’t see the curve until its behind us a few billion years and appears as a ‘big bang’ instead of the density of objects in the distance.

Thank you for the reading you and the others made me do. I enjoy the reading. Yours and the professional findings out there to date.

 

[phinds]

Phinds re: No. 47
OMG Okay, the singularity caused time space and matter and something from nothing….

No, we don't know that. Again, "singularity" means we don't KNOW what was going on.

Then a force pushed this something outward. Something we call a universe.

Most likely NOT an explosion, due to lack of spherical evidence. ( message 36)

No, it was not "most likely not" an explosion, it was NOT an explosion. The evidence is clear on that.

I don’t want to discuss curvature vs. flat because curvature infers the universe runs into force obstacles to make it curve whereas the original ‘pushing’ gravity is snap back and did not stop the galaxies from separating much less causing the universe to sphere. It’s all guess work there for now anyway.

I have no idea what that means.

Still the outrunning gravity was my point for commenting on 36.

I think I get what you mean and although it's an awkward way to phrase it, it's correct. The accelerated expansion will not be reined in by gravity.

But tomorrow … and apparently yesterday, I thought partial spherical sounded right. I know I’ve seen something in the past inferring round and it may have been the microwave picture, you know the one it looks like the world globe laid out flat, but today I’m all for flat universe.

That picture, and no other picture, ever implied that the universe is spherical. That is a mis-interpretation on your part. The OBSERVABLE universe is spherical for sure and that may be where your confusion comes from.

The ring of Saturn has a relatively minor thickness as it circles Saturn. Hell our universe is probably part of a ring around a giant we can’t see for all we know.

This is nonsense and you need to be careful about that. It sounds like an unsubstantiated personal theory and the mods don't like those.

Flat and moving at such a distance we can’t see the curve until its behind us a few billion years and appears as a ‘big bang’ instead of the density of objects in the distance.

Once again, I have no idea what you are saying.

 

[tobyr65]

That picture, and no other picture, even implied that the universe is spherical. That is a mis-interpretation on your part. The OBSERVABLE universe is spherical for sure and that may be where your confusion comes from..[/QUOTE]

Are you saying spherical as in flat circle or as in ball shape?

 

[Droidriven]

Are you saying spherical as in flat circle or as in ball shape?

A flat circle and a sphere are two different things, a circle is 2D and a sphere is 3D.

And please learn to use the reply buttons correctly or learn how to properly quote if you are doing it manually. The way you are doing it forces anyone that is quoting what you post to have to edit our posts to correct how you quoted whoever you're responding to.

 

[tobyr65]

This is nonsense and you need to be careful about that. It sounds like an unsubstantiated personal theory and the mods don't like those..[/QUOTE]

It isn't nonsense nor is it my theory. I am not educated enough to have theories. We are in the middle of discussing universal shape. The universe does not appear ball shaped by the pix I looked up. Here is a cut and paste of the only three theories I've found:

Whichever one wins, right now, it appears that we are on a 'flat' area of the model.

I read something. If the reading makes sense to me I tend to believe it until I read something that contradicts it that makes more sense. Then I read something else. My thoughts change with new information that may or may not be correct. If my statements are unsubstantiated I can still point to who said/published it first.

Do I think the universe is a blip on a immeasurably large ring around an immeasurably large body? I have no opinion but, in the Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13, In press Journal of Cosmology.com February-March 2011, Joseph Rhawn, Ph.D. (Cosmology.com) makes a case for it (not his intention) when he writes on patterns. Infinity, Patterned Symmetry, Pythagoras, and the Black Hole at the Edge of the Universe ( 1. REPEATING PATTERNS ARE THE LAW OF NATURE & THE COSMOS).

But if you want to refer me to your proof, I'll read it.

I would use bold and underlines and italics in the last paragraph but I never learned to properly site references.

I am not being argumentative so much as explaining my remark... which you appear to have understood to have maybe been my personal theory ...and nonsense. I am not the best common correspondent much less the best scientific correspondent so I am truly not offended by our mutual confusion.

 

[tobyr65]

Re: number 55... ugh, I thought I had it!

 

[rootone]

Chill everybody.
We don't know if the Universe is infinite or not.
We do know that our observable universe is spherical and the centre of it is somewhere between your eyeballs.

 

[Droidriven]

Re: number 55... ugh, I thought I had it!

Lol, you did it again, look at your post.

I think you're improperly editing the posts you are quoting, make sure the QUOTE tabs are correct before and after the post you are quoting before you send.

 

[Droidriven]

the centre of it is somewhere between your eyeballs.

From whatever vantage point you are in at the time.

 

[rootone]

From whatever vantage point you are in at the time.

Yes, but 'frame of reference' is the usual term

 

[tobyr65]

I think you're improperly editing the posts you are quoting, make sure the

if I do this correctly the 'Lol, you did it again, look at your post.' will be missing.

 

[Droidriven]

if I do this correctly the 'Lol, you did it again, look at your post.' will be missing.

You got it, you just needed to the first quote tab with my username and post to be at the beginning of my post, then my entire post after that and a quote tab on the end and my whole post would display.

You don't see a "quote" button or a "reply" button under everyone's posts? Are you using PC/mobile browser or a mobile app to view the forum?

Anyway, this is off topic, I'm just trying to help save the confusion of quoting everyone and everyone quoting you.

 

[tobyr65]

You don't see a "quote" button or a "reply" button under everyone's posts? Are you using PC/mobile browser or a mobile app to view the forum?

Anyway, this is off topic, I'm just trying to help save the confusion of quoting everyone and everyone quoting you.

I see them, I first used the reply but was told to use the info/help to do it right. That said to use the quote button which I do. But then I was deleting all but the quote part I wanted and leaving the bracketed, back slash QUOTE at the end. So to be clear I should leave in the beginning bracketed content and the end bracketed content?

 

[Droidriven]

I see them, I first used the reply but was told to use the info/help to do it right. That said to use the quote button which I do. But then I was deleting all but the quote part I wanted and leaving the bracketed, back slash QUOTE at the end. So to be clear I should leave in the beginning bracketed content and the end bracketed content?

Yes, leave the first quote bracket with the username, post number and member ID number inside the bracket, then the quoted post with a quote bracket on the end.

 

[tobyr65]

Yes, leave the first quote bracket with the username, post number and member ID number inside the bracket, then the quoted post with a quote bracket on the end.

And what is this reply do?

 

[Droidriven]

And what is this reply do?

Quote quotes, reply just replies

Now, back to topic

 

[newjerseyrunner]

We do know that our observable universe is spherical and the centre of it is somewhere between your eyeballs.

From whatever vantage point you are in at the time.

To be as exact as I can be: The observable universe is a sphere centered between the average location of all your sensors looking outwards from your position in time looking backwards.

 

[bapowell]

Everybody: the observable universe is not positively "spherical" in the sense of having positive curvature. The curvature of the observable universe is zero to within a percent, making it consistent with flatness. The universe *does* have spherical symmetry, on account of global isotropy.