Is our universe round?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I have all ways fancied myself a big picture kind of guy. I may now know all the little details but I have the ability to see the big picture. I often think about the, alleged, vastness of our universe and I also think about the multi verse. How can they co-exist? Wouldn’t it make sense that our universe is round? Think about it, atoms are round, our planet is round, the solar system, our galaxy. Why not the universe? Think of a gumball machine filled with round gumballs. Each one is a universe. Just curious what you all think?




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal
 


I think the latest consensus is that the known universe its more like a web...




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal
 



The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements have led NASA to state, "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error."[1] Within the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal
 



The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements have led NASA to state, "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error."[1] Within the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model

en.wikipedia.org...


what the hell does "flat" mean

2d?

or rectangular prism?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal
 


No, it's not round, it's the shape of a universe.


I always imagine the universe being a single page in a book. A very large book with endless pages and no cover.
I think we're on page 4,731,684,902. I could be wrong about that page number though. Maybe someday we'll figure out how to get to those other pages. Ok, probably not, but it would be great to see what else is in this strange book.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by okamitengu
 



what the hell does "flat" mean

It means flat in a 3D sense not a 2D sense. It means the universe is not round or curved. In a round universe if you looked far enough you'd see the back of your own head because space would curl around back in on its self. In a flat universe it's just infinite in all directions. Infinite flat space.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I always assumed that the universe was a sphere not only because of atoms, planets etc.
But also because if the "Big Bang" was an explosion it would expand in all directions.
So if the universe is flat then what forces have contained the explosion to form it this way.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by okamitengu

what the hell does "flat" mean

2d?
or rectangular prism?


I'd like to hear any flat universe proponents thoughts on this subject as well.
This flat universe thing is based on Euclidian Geometery that intuitively doesnt seem applicable given all of the examples we have observed within "nature" so far.

In the Euclidian Geometry universe, the earth is a 3d spherical body rolling around a depression in flat space time ( we have all seen the gravity graphic).

If space is flat ( having only 2 D) how does a 3d object occupy a none 2d position within it?
Surely the depression in space itself (for the earth to roll around) has to be a 3rd dimension.

Edit at ChaoticOrder....ahhhh I see so it's 2D in all directions...sort of like 3D..obviously not your fault but if that is a correct description that is a very confusing way to describe flat.



edit on 29-5-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-5-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Jukiodone
 



In the Euclidian Geometry universe, the earth is a 3d spherical body rolling around a depression in flat space time ( we have all seen the gravity graphic).

That graphic is highly misleading, but it is the best way to get the idea across without confusing people. In reality the depression that a mass creates in space-time also happens in a 3D sense, but it's much easier to just graphically depict it as a concave depression in a 2D surface.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LeLeu
 



I always assumed that the universe was a sphere not only because of atoms, planets etc.
But also because if the "Big Bang" was an explosion it would expand in all directions.

If the Universe really is flat and infinite it would indicate that the big bang was not responsible for the creation of space-time. It may be that our big bang was merely a spontaneous release of energy within an infinite sea of space. That's the only way I can make sense of it, and it seems a lot of people have yet to realize this or accept it.
edit on 29/5/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by LeLeu
 



I always assumed that the universe was a sphere not only because of atoms, planets etc.
But also because if the "Big Bang" was an explosion it would expand in all directions.

If the Universe really is flat and infinite it would indicate that the big bang was not responsible for the creation of space-time. It may be that our big bang was merely spontaneous release of energy within an infinite sea of space. That's the only way I can make sense of it, and it seems a lot of people have yet to realize this or accept it.


That's interesting, thanks



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Jukiodone
 



In the Euclidian Geometry universe, the earth is a 3d spherical body rolling around a depression in flat space time ( we have all seen the gravity graphic).

That graphic is highly misleading, but it is the best way to get the idea across without confusing people. In reality the depression that a mass creates in space-time also happens in a 3D sense, but it's much easier to just graphically depict it as a concave depression in a 2D surface.


Thats a problem as well as there is absolutely no scientifically agreed evidence to suggest that Mass creates Gravity to facilitate any depression.
Matter maybe but Mass per say seems very unlikley given the latest CERN data.

I think a more common sense answer is Space itself (and the infentissimal quantisations in their own dimensional positions that make it up) generates gravity.... and gravity, as we perceive it, is just the gradient of space density.

How about this as a local example that can be extrapolated right out to black holes:

Space is most dense in our locality in the middle of the Sun.
Accordingly the Earth moves in a straight line though "normal space"- defined as the average density we observe, towards the Sun through 3D Space along the commonly observed recognised path of energy conservation.
Because this is in 3D space, this movement is perveived as circular as all parts of the Event (the Earth) need to move an equal distance in 3D space at the same time to maintain integrity.

No need for flat space, Gravitons, dark matter etc etc and suddenly we imagine ourselves suspended within space rather floating atop.





edit on 29-5-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
You misunderstood the term "flat" - it doesn't mean anything like a tablecloth (in 2D) or a billiard ball (in 3D), but that there is really no difference between a cubiclightyear of space here compared to a cubiclightyear in (for example) Andromeda. Or near the Sloans Great Wall.

There is another problem:

How do you define the shape of something? By defining its barriers, its boundaries. Does space have boundaries? Nope. As space itself is the definition of a 3D-volume, there can't be anything outside...

Even more difficult to understand: There is no center of the universe, no place of origin!
How do you find the center of a volume? By measuring from its boundaries. But there are no boundaries...

Usually, there are words like "hypersaddle", or "hypersphere" to describe the possible shape of the universe (see here for a much, much better explanation of this than I could ever present). Nevertheless, those words does mean near to nothing in a 3D-universe. You would have to see its hyper-shape - which we are incapable of..
edit on 29-5-2013 by ManFromEurope because: grammar, my old fiend! we meet again, I see!



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I'm no scientists, or highly intelligent person, but I've wondered about the Flat idea after seeing something about it on a documentary. It showed some sort of satellite revolving around gathering swathes of information from a three dimensional 'universe', and that information being un-wrapped/laid flat to gain a clearer picture. Like we do when showing a map of the earth in a book.

Would the way this information was manipulated account for the finding that the 'universe' is flat ? Or is that a truly stupid question to ask ?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It is said that galaxies are contained within dark matter. I believe that galaxies are actual universes in themselves contained within bubbles and that when wee see them, they are the milti-verse. And all of it is contained within a black hole.

And yes, it is round.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I think its going to be round(sphere)... because round i the most stable, strong, symmetrical, equilibrium'ed, shape.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This comes strictly from personal philosophy, but I have difficulty accepting any explanation that involves infinity. It just doesn't make sense, UNLESS by infinite they mean nothing. Infinite nothingness could make some sense. It would just be the default state. If energy is injected into this nothingness, it displaces it, causing the warping, gravitational effects and much more. I have trouble believing that space-time came with the big bang. I feel like what we consider space-time (the space between energy and matter), was already there, and the big bang was energy crossing from one dimension to the other. I think the answer really lies in black holes and possible white holes. Perhaps the big bang was a massive white hole that shot energy into this realm of existence. Black holes could be the energy returning to where it came from. `



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I imagine that each universe is flat then funnels into another flat universe through black-holes on and on and on.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal
 



The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements have led NASA to state, "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error."[1] Within the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model

en.wikipedia.org...




Yes and not that long ago scientist where certain the earth was flat. Round seems to be the universal norm.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal
 




Think of a gumball machine filled with round gumballs. Each one is a universe


I imagined the universe was like a slice of bread and the multiverse as a collection of such slices aligned parallel-y and connected to each other by a Black Hole / White Hole / Worm Hole

I cannot rule out the possibility that the universe can be Round in structure

edit on 29-5-2013 by CosmicQuest because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join