It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It depends on how you define space. There appears to be a few rare molecules even in interstellar space, and I'm not sure about intergalactic space, there may be some molecules which are even more rare. The space between the planets in our solar system would tend to have a greater concentration of matter compared to interstellar or intergalactic space. The solar wind for example would be one source of this mass, another would be leftover cosmic dist which still hasn't accreted into any planet, moon or other large body. There are some estimates of the relative matter densities of these various types of space. There also appear to be temperature differences. Some areas of interstellar space have extremely high temperatures.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Is the space in between the planets of the solar system the same kind/brand of space as between galaxies?
I have no idea if the universe is finite or infinite...I entertain both possibilities. If it's infinite, then there is no space outside the universe.
is the space between galaxies the same kind of space as the space outside the universe? ( i know you dont and cant know but what would you think?)
Because the galaxies at the edge of the universe which emit light in all directions emit light outwards towards and beyond the edge before that galaxy itself ever gets to travel that area,,, so where would that light be going?
Note that if the Universe is spherical, if you could travel in one direction long enough, you would return to your original position.
I only share that to show there are other ideas, and to refute the idea that everyone is stuck in dogma. That is not a dogma concept.
What is the shape of space is a long-standing question in cosmology. In this talk I review recent advances in cosmic topology since it has entered a new era of experimental tests. High redshift surveys of astronomical sources and accurate maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) are beginning to hint at the shape of the universe, or at least to limit the wide range of possibilities. Among those possibilites are surprising "wrap around" universe models in which space, whatever its curvature, may be smaller than the observable universe and generate topological lensing effects on a detectable cosmic scale. In particular, the recent analysis of CMB data provided by the WMAP satellite suggests a finite universe with the topology of the Poincare dodecahedral spherical space. Such a model of a "small universe", the volume of which would represent only about 80% the volume of the observable universe, offers an observational signature in the form of a predictable topological lens effect on one hand, and rises new issues on the early universe physics on the other hand.
Yes you're right. You can have an infinite set of even numbers 2, 4, 6, 8..... which would be a subset of an infinite series of whole numbers 1, 2, 3, 4.... and I have no problem with that.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
" If it's infinite, then there is no space outside the universe. "
what do you mean by this? things in nature can be described as infinite and yet be contained within a larger system?
No. You need to read this link, however it's esoteric reading so it still might not make sense.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
ok and by flat in regards to dimension you mean a rectangle? so when the big bang occurred instead of energy flowing out in infinite directions from a point or if it did,, laws of physics pulled it all together to travel more "straight/flat/ rectangularly" outwards?
You may be right. This is in the area of emerging research and I haven't kept up with all of it, but I have read some of it. My superficial take is that some scientists are positing something like what you said.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
the section you shared was something i have thought of before,, what if our looking out into space is like a cosmic hall of mirrors, with light refraction, and lensing,, and mixing up galaxies,,, because I do trust the scientists who map the galaxies enough to use extreme caution and care,,,, but they still can be beyond their control for now wrong...
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes you're right. You can have an infinite set of even numbers 2, 4, 6, 8..... which would be a subset of an infinite series of whole numbers 1, 2, 3, 4.... and I have no problem with that.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
" If it's infinite, then there is no space outside the universe. "
what do you mean by this? things in nature can be described as infinite and yet be contained within a larger system?
However if the size of the universe is infinite. I don't see how that concept applies because we are now talking about an infinite dimension which is different than in infinite series of numbers, maybe you can explain your thoughts on that. I would argue that if you can show something like space OUTSIDE the universe, you've just demonstrated that the size of the universe isn't infinite. My other question would be on what basis you can claim the space you found outside our universe isn't part of our universe. My conclusion would be that the only way you could make such a claim is if you are using a definition of "universe" that is unfamiliar to me since my definition is more or less, "everything" or to use Merriam Webster: "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated ".
Of course there's multiverse theory, but that involves parallel universes, and I'm talking about our universe. I'll probably have to see some evidence of a parallel universe to believe it, but even if such a thing exists, I don't think it contradicts my statement.
Originally posted by MassOccurs
The entire Dark Energy/ Dark Matter aspect of physics is so little understood that it almost seems to me like an easy way out.
"Ehh, Dr. Scientist, we're pretty sure there's some kind of force that we can't really see. And it's doing a bunch of crazy stuff."
"Well done Professor Telescope! Can't see it, you say? Call it Dark!"
I kind of miss how this relates to my post.
Not exactly.
The assumption is that faster moving bodies have more red shift. A correlation exists between the brightness of objects and their red shift, less bright object have more red shift. It is also assumed that objects that are less bright are farther away. That leads to the logical conclusion that objects that are farther away have larger red shift and thus are moving faster. And that leads to the idea that the universe is expanding. There is no expansion in any of the assumptions.
This is not circular reasoning. One problem with these assumption are quasars, which do not seem to be in agreement with the observation that less bright objects have more red shift.
It depends on the maximal possible shift in frequency before objects are no longer visible. I don't know this figure by hearth and would have to look it up. If the maximal red shift is relatively small before objects are no longer visible, then your assumption that the frequency can get that low is wrong to start with.
I completely disagree but I very little care about what attitude you like or not. I may be a bit blunt, but I think this is grossly off-topic.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Didn't expect you to catch it, honestly.
It's really quite simple. Many people believe they understand something and have provided an accurate representation of it because they are familiar with it.
People who use relativity to argue for spatial expansion use it out of familiarity. If they understood relativity and the larger whole of physics pertaining to the material universe - then they would realize that using relativity to support volumetric expansion is fundamentally flawed.
They believe they know what they need to resolve a solution, but their presented solution fails several functional checks (that they neglected to consider).
Red shifting of spectra by any means is going to reduce the luminosity, regardless of proximity.
Without direct measurement of distance by means of triangulation, we have no reliable measure of distance in the cosmos.
I would be willing to bet that many of our problems in cosmology (dark energy and dark matter) will become much less pronounced as we develop the means to more accurately and directly measure cosmological distances. That's not to say the phenomena will completely disappear - but that many of our current problems are due to complete guesswork in terms of distances.
Yes - it's circular.
Quasars don't really play nice with anything we think we know.
Since we haven't taken a trip to one yet or created a smaller version in a lab - it's a little difficult to tell what's going on there.
Of course, it could also be that Quasars are, somehow, a more true picture of relative velocity and distance compared to the galaxy at large (why could be anyone's guess).
It's really hard to tell when we can't perform more direct measurements of distance (the most basic of which would be triangulation).
There's absolutely no reason for this threshold to exist. You can red-shift completely into the ELF spectrum. With luminosities of the levels that stars have, they should still be perfectly detectable over billions of light-years down into the microwave spectrum. Particularly if you are willing to use synthetic apertures that can behave as an antenna with a 2 AU diameter (or larger, if you want to launch a small satellite network in solar orbit).
..stuff..
Originally posted by tkwasny
What in science affirms, not theorizes, the absolute composition of empty space? What is the composition of any existence that can limit or contain space? If gravity is space warped because of mass what is the composition of what is space? Imagine a room without any particles or energy, now imagine it without space. Can't do it can you?
Space is an infinite fabric composed of time that is no longer transitioning from all the future into all the past. Space is infinitesimal duration "the present" as a string of instances at Planck frequency.
Why time stops is key and the reason for space to exist. It's because of influence UPON the Singularity.edit on 13-8-2012 by tkwasny because: Addition
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Phractal Phil
pretty cool!!
in your view what are atoms, why did they form.. and how do they relate to the material of the aether?