Epic Discovery: Our Colossal Universe -"250 Times Bigger than What We See"

reply to post by dubiousone


I can't help but ask for some one to explain some of the replies I am getting in English

Some times I can understand bits and pieces of English. You see, I was raised speaking
American, and there is a difference.

In reality, I do understand much of what is being said; I just seem to have a problem
connecting these replies to my own statements.

It could easily be me, but I can't help but think someone is in way over their head!

I believe the universe is "participatory", by that I mean it reacts to us. If astronomers keep looking for the edge of the universe, the universe is just going to keep getting bigger. The act of looking actually expands the universe, we will never find the edge. Physicists are looking for smaller and smaller particles than the atom, right now the theory is strings. If they look for something smaller than strings, well guess what, they are going to find something even smaller than strings. The act of looking for it will create it. We will never find the smallest fundamental objects.

reply to post by CLPrime


what i am suggesting is mechanisms capable of producing "red shift"

here is a conservation of energy explination using lenses



our helio sphere has different medium densitys and reflective indexes in the various layes
helio shock, helio pause, and bow shock these provide a "helospherical lense"
all light leaving this medium density must then travel in the new medium outside of the helospherical "bubble"
conservation of energy laws come into play.

first the medium density changes as does the reflective index of the medium as each boundry is transversed
this affects the light as different mediums allow light to travel at different speeds depending on density and reflective index.
what happens to light as it travels from a thick medium (heliosphere) into a thinner medium (galaxy "bubble")
conservation of energy requires a constant in the new medium so some wave lenght and some amplitude is "compensated to allow for the new speed in the new medium.

so each star has a dense "cloud" of gas around it,



and light is required by conservation laws to travel in the new density without gaining "energy" so the wave length and amplitude "shift" down to allow this transition into the new medium.

the galaxy also has a medium density "bubble" and boundry where the light again has to transition from one medium density (galaxy "bubble") to the extra galaxy medium, and again the conservation of energy laws require a shift of wave length and amplitude to "account" for the new medium density and the reflective index encountered "outside" the lense of the galaxy




if different mediums lense or shift the light then we can account for alot of red shift
with the transition of different medium densitys reflective indexes as light travels throught them.




this diagram is to show the different reflective indexes in the different mediums inside our galaxy and helio sphere.

red shift is the shift caused by changing from one medium density reflective index to another in complying with the conservation of energy laws.

one thing to note is a recent observation, predicted by my model
looking for "shifted" sub millimeter or infra red light just outside the heliosphere to find gravity lenses.

As with a normal glass lens the alignment is crucial, requiring the position of the lens -- in this case a galaxy -- to be just right. This is very rare and astronomers have to rely on chance alignments, often involving sifting through large amounts of data from telescopes. Most methods of searching for gravitational lenses have a very poor success rate with fewer than one in 10 candidates typically being found to be real.

Herschel looks at far-infrared light, which is emitted not by stars, but by the gas and dust from which they form. Its panoramic imaging cameras have allowed astronomers to find examples of these lenses by scanning large areas of the sky in far-infrared and sub-millimetre light.

Dr Mattia Negrello, of the Open University and lead researcher of the study, said: "Our survey of the sky looks for sources of sub-millimetre light. The big breakthrough is that we have discovered that many of the brightest sources are being magnified by lenses, which means that we no longer have to rely on the rather inefficient methods of finding lenses which are used at visible and radio wavelengths."

link

there explination is that hot dust clouds "near" the lenses is "projecting" sub millimeter and infra red light from another source illuminating outside the lense.

i how ever suggest that this is "shifted" light that has been "shifted" down by the conservation of energy laws.
and if some sources are "too far" from the described hot dust clouds then the source of the red shifted light has to be the lense itself.

there is a survey underway at the moment that should corrolate the lenses with hot dust clouds or show that this light source is in all cosmic lenses even ones no where near "hot dust clouds"

there is also a recent nasa release where the light from a star has optically changed from red to blue as shock wave fronts have raced out from the stars center through its medium density changing the "colour" of the light emitted. when the shock wave had reached the outer edge of the medium density, the shock wave "retreated" back towards the suns center the "colour" changed back to red (optically changed colour).

so does light get "optically shifted" from these dynamic medium densitys?
you bet they do
does the expansion and collapse of these shock waves create spectrum red shift?
i would say they follow the doppler red shift as the medium itself is moving.

xploder

reply to post by hdutton


This is where the "s come in. The universe is "flat", it's not flat. By "flat", I mean that there is no 4th-dimensional curvature to our 3-dimensional space. Just like a 2-dimensional surface curves around a 3-dimensional space to form a ball, a "closed" universe would be a 3-dimensional space curved around a 4-dimensional volume.

And, the Big Bang was not an explosion. Theoretically, it was an inflation of space itself, not of the things in it. This is another thing that mainstream science tends to oversimplify. It's the difference between bread rising in an oven and blowing the bread up with C4. The universe "rises", or expands, it does not explode.

reply to post by smurfy


A metric expansion is an expansion where every point in space is being stretched. This differs from the layman view of the Big Bang, where stuff explodes...our universe did not explode, it expanded (specifically, it inflated...theoretically). And there are reasons why this is the case, but the main one is the remarkable uniformity of the universe at the largest scales. In every direction, once you reach the size of galaxy superclusters, the large-scale structure of the universe becomes one of filaments and voids, and these filament-void systems are identical no matter where you look. In contrast, an explosion would spread things chaotically throughout the universe, leaving things much less than uniform on the grand-scale and, in fact, making it much less likely than so many stable star systems could form. In an exploded universe, things get clumped with no grand uniformity - in an expanded universe, things get evenly spread out.

This uniformity is actually SO great that expansion, itself, isn't even enough to explain it. What's needed for that is a time of really, really, really, really, really, really fast expansion... called inflation.

reply to post by CLPrime


yes, it's fractal.

The truly revealing thing is we can witness this ourselves, everyday: it's in everything ... from the quantum to the macro.

The best visual representation of our 'known' universe to date....enjoy!

reply to post by XPLodER


I don't know how much this will mean, coming from someone you don't even know, but...after reading what you've posted, and considering what you're saying, I have one very important thing to say:

I am impressed.

I would have to consider the full implications of what you're saying and what it would mean for all of the observational evidence I'm aware of, but you don't need my approval or endorsement, so, yeah... very impressed.

Overall the OP is right. We are literally living in the Past.

Originally posted by Griffo515
The best visual representation of our 'known' universe to date....enjoy!

Top stuff. Great find.

Originally posted by mr10k
Overall the OP is right. We are literally living in the Past.

Superb.

I find it amazing how we learn more and more about our Universe and our origins each year.. better yet, how we don't even know if we're right about a lot of the things , everything is just theory! What happens when our wildest theories become fact

Truly interesting times we live in

Thanks for sharing!

Mike

Greetings Fellow Nano-Earthlings,

Now this may "EMP YOUR BRAIN"... what if... just what if!!!... Now this is a BIG what if, Our Nano-Bio-Space-Ship-Earth was just a small cell in God's great body (kind of like a blood cell in our own flesh body) what would that make dark matter ...~~

But of course we're such a narcissistic planet that we think we are the biggest thing out there and our plant is large from out side the globe too

Can any ATS-R-US tell me what direction the Earth is moving??? and I don't mean spinning in place

They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you."

He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment."

Mr Planet-X

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I think logic shows their theory is still fundamentally flawed.

So if it took 45 billion ly to get here, that makes the Universe 90 billion ly across?

This puts us smack dab in the middle of the Universe. It's entirely illogical at it's core.

What is more logical, is that our Devices will continue to see further and further as we develop more sophisticated sensory technology.

This could potentially go on indefinitely. That is unknown, and may never be known for sure.

Not to mention that Big Bang is thrown around as though it is the Truth. Remember, it is still just a theory; one that was initiated by a Vatican Priest (worked well with the idea of creationism), deposed by Hoyle and loved by the modern day physics folk.

I recall a recent show on Discovery or some channel, where two guys came up with an alternative theory. At the time of filming, they were waiting to get results back from a satellite to prove either Big Bang or this theory. This theory had to do with multiple dimensions, where as the energy introduced a universe occurs when these dimensions temporarily collide. Interesting.

Nice presentation, OP.

reply to post by alyoshablue

Not to mention that Big Bang is thrown around as though it is the Truth. Remember, it is still just a theory; one that was initiated by a Vatican Priest (worked well with the idea of creationism), deposed by Hoyle and loved by the modern day physics folk.

Indeed, the religious overtones have been pointed out by others. and the RCC sure latched onto it pretty quickly.

There are a quite a few other theories such as the Steady-State Theory which uses the observed fact that particles and even hydrogen atoms just materialize or go from being virtual to actual and cause the inflation expansion of the universe.

The Big Bang Theory is referred to as a "Fiat Lux" type theory by Peter Caroll's CMT [Chaos Magical Theory] who posits a "Fiat Nox" type origin of the universe in which it literally materializes out of The Void/Nowhere.

I think I proved to myself that the universe IS finite... hear me out:

- If it were infinite, then space-time would also be infinite.
- If space-time were infinite, then there would be an infinite number of parallel universes.
- This would also mean that every place and every time that could be would be right here and right now.
- This would also mean that, if I asked out loud for somebody "out there" to come to my house and introduce itself to me, I would see immediate results, given that there would be somewhere in reality a being who would be looking for me since all scenarios exist...

Needless to say, I hurt my brain that day and don't think about it, anymore!

This post is to test out my new keyboard.

It has nothing to do with this thread.

But I do want to say that 250x isn't really that much bigger if you consider the possibility of the multiverse.

Originally posted by Cuervo
- If space-time were infinite, then there would be an infinite number of parallel universes.

This is a bit of an assumption. An infinite space-time could simply be one infinite universe. Parallel universes are fringe science, no matter what String Theorists tell you.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by smurfy

 

A metric expansion is an expansion where every point in space is being stretched. This differs from the layman view of the Big Bang, where stuff explodes...our universe did not explode, it expanded (specifically, it inflated...theoretically). And there are reasons why this is the case, but the main one is the remarkable uniformity of the universe at the largest scales. In every direction, once you reach the size of galaxy superclusters, the large-scale structure of the universe becomes one of filaments and voids, and these filament-void systems are identical no matter where you look. In contrast, an explosion would spread things chaotically throughout the universe, leaving things much less than uniform on the grand-scale and, in fact, making it much less likely than so many stable star systems could form. In an exploded universe, things get clumped with no grand uniformity - in an expanded universe, things get evenly spread out.

This uniformity is actually SO great that expansion, itself, isn't even enough to explain it. What's needed for that is a time of really, really, really, really, really, really fast expansion... called inflation.

edit on 2-2-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

As a layman I don't really have much opinion of the Big bang, other than that is what is given to us, one way or the other, or whatever. However when you mention inflation of the universe, that must mean everything in the universe is inflating, That would include our humble rock in itself, and just about every other rock, or right down to any molecular level that can be imagined. There is also the aspect of light which is not properly understood, but has a big part in this thread.

reply to post by smurfy


The effect of the expansion of the universe on light is the stretching (redshift) of its wavelength. This is known as Cosmological redshift and is what is used to "date" objects in the observable universe.

As far as that expansion also leading to the physical expansion of everything in it, this is prevented by gravity. (Again, theoretically) gravity is the inward warping of space-time, and, in the immediate vicinity of a gravity well, it effectively counteracts the outward expansion. This allows objects to hold themselves together while the space around them stretches.

The universe NEVER ends.
I cant get my head round that, and never will.
I am not saying the entire universe has matter in it.

But it goes on for infinity. As a human we cant deal with that. We close doors behind us, get in cars, drive to a place etc, etc. There is always an end somewhere.

The human brain cant comprehend the fact that the universe, no matter what way you go, will never, ever end.

How do you get your head round that?
I mean there isnt a brick wall at the end of it. If there was. how thicks the wall and whats behind it.

Mindboggling stuff !!!

Cheers for sharing !