It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various, independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG and Planck for example) confirm that the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional space-time of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat, but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Sokolov-Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by 2-dimensional lattice).
Shape of the universe - Wikipedia
If the argument is then, that the space has always been there and so have the elements etc to create the galaxies etc then we wouldn't be here.
Source: wikipedia on this topic.
The glow is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe.
TextOf course some will point out that the universe could simply be so large we are unable to detect the curvature, however there are several reasons myself and many scientists tend to believe the universe is infinite and flat. All our analysis of the CMB indicates there's no curvature and a flat universe will conserve energy because a curved universe will have a positive or negative energy density, meaning some energy must have been created from nothing, whereas a flat universe is modeled as a zero-energy universe where an equal amount of negative and positive energy exist, making it the most mathematically elegant and physically plausible solution.
- What about the Hubble-constant? How does that fit into "infinity and beyond"?
- What about the age of the universe? Still 14B years?
- What about the Cosmic microwave background?
What is as a zero-energy universe where an equal amount of negative and positive energy exist? If there is zero energy. Where is the neg and pos energy?
The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.
Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia
do know is that our current theories cannot hold up to serious scrutiny and seem to have more holes than swiss cheese. Hopefully I managed to make a fairly strong case for my stance on this issue, I know people don't like it when their most sacred scientific concepts are questioned, but I'd remind them science isn't a religion.
originally posted by: dan121212
not your theory at all, i read this the other day>>www.forbes.com...
I know people don't like it when their most sacred scientific concepts are questioned, but I'd remind them science isn't a religion.
Now. If, like i also suggested to you. Energy decays to zero. Does it then become part of the already zero energy universe constant, but have an effect on expansion of the universe? What i mean is. Even though the constant has a value of zero. Could decay of energy add to the zero energy universe constant?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I find the idea of infinity physically existing to be just as dubious as something coming from nothing.