Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Gaping hole found in universe

  1. #1 Gaping hole found in universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    65
    http://www.reuters.com/article/email...29057520070823

    http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/index.shtml


    What do you have to say about this new discovery? Amazing huh?


    The team at the University of Minnesota said the void is nearly a billion light-years across and they have no idea why it is there.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851


    Profound.


    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17
    "Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly colder temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6-10 billion light-years from Earth,"

    key word
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Gaping hole found in universe 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by VMStudent
    http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSN2329057520070823

    http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/index.shtml


    What do you have to say about this new discovery? Amazing huh?


    The team at the University of Minnesota said the void is nearly a billion light-years across and they have no idea why it is there.

    Could be the face of God......"they have no idea why it is there"?

    Also by Reuters:

    http://www.ucg.org.au/offers/ge.asp?...FQflhgodtg9LQA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Swordsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The infinite reaches of the net.
    Posts
    50
    Cool, but dark matter is still pwnsauce.

    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?

    Just a thought.
    "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." - As Laplace said when Napoleon wondered how the famous mathematician could write his book without mentioning God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    71
    Strange, what's in the hole do you think ? Don't say nothing. Nothing is such a crap word it's only used when we do not know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Cool, but dark matter is still pwnsauce.

    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?

    Just a thought.

    What's the difference between "iorkjlhsdkj" (aka as God.....to some) and where the big bang started.........and continues to be a feature of this universe....it would seem.......for the sake of conversation?

    This question is as relevant as anyone else's question on the gaping holes in contemporoary scientific theory.........that.........tries to...........do what..........without............who?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Swordsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The infinite reaches of the net.
    Posts
    50
    Let's try to keep your religious prosletyzing in the religion forum.

    The big bang is not a religous theroy, it has no need of "God."

    One simply needs to examine the red shift the cosmos is undergoing to see that it happened.

    Admittedly, it is not fully understood what caused the Big Bang, but to simply see a blank spot on science's road map and fill it with "God" is bad science and fosters ignorance.
    "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." - As Laplace said when Napoleon wondered how the famous mathematician could write his book without mentioning God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Warpboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Let's try to keep your religious prosletyzing in the religion forum.

    The big bang is not a religous theroy, it has no need of "God."

    One simply needs to examine the red shift the cosmos is undergoing to see that it happened.

    Admittedly, it is not fully understood what caused the Big Bang, but to simply see a blank spot on science's road map and fill it with "God" is bad science and fosters ignorance.
    Well said.

    I wonder if it would be possible to determine the "shape" and/or density of this large gaping hole. Whether it be spherical or polyhedral or something different. This discovery is sure to be a compelling piece added to the current golden age of astronomy we are currently in. All we can do is wonder for the time being, until this 'gaping hole' is observed to a further degree.

    This was on ABC news, CNN and a good deal of other news stations last night.
    Scienta Vos Liberatis
    "Mistakes are the portals of discovery." -- James Joyce
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Cool, but dark matter is still pwnsauce.

    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?

    Just a thought.
    I was thinking the same thing. This could be proof for the big bang.

    We might just be another step closer to finding out the origin of the universe :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Let's try to keep your religious prosletyzing in the religion forum.

    The big bang is not a religous theroy, it has no need of "God."

    One simply needs to examine the red shift the cosmos is undergoing to see that it happened.

    Admittedly, it is not fully understood what caused the Big Bang, but to simply see a blank spot on science's road map and fill it with "God" is bad science and fosters ignorance.

    The "who" I was referring to was the successful theorist of a possible space-time theory.........but, I do admit, it would be of biblical proportions, you know, establishing the complete theory........don't you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    56
    A bit of a long shot, but couldn't this say something about the idea that the universe looks the same in all directions? I can't remember what that theory that idea is part of (though it may be red shift). But yeah.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman Swordsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The infinite reaches of the net.
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Let's try to keep your religious prosletyzing in the religion forum.

    The big bang is not a religous theroy, it has no need of "God."

    One simply needs to examine the red shift the cosmos is undergoing to see that it happened.

    Admittedly, it is not fully understood what caused the Big Bang, but to simply see a blank spot on science's road map and fill it with "God" is bad science and fosters ignorance.

    The "who" I was referring to was the successful theorist of a possible space-time theory.........but, I do admit, it would be of biblical proportions, you know, establishing the complete theory........don't you think?
    I guess you meant Steven Hawkings. He's pwnsauce to. And if you mean biblical proportions as in: totally epic, then I guess we can at least agree on that.

    However, we already know the big bang happened. (Redshift) but we don't know the origion. That empty space may be it.
    "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." - As Laplace said when Napoleon wondered how the famous mathematician could write his book without mentioning God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Let's try to keep your religious prosletyzing in the religion forum.

    The big bang is not a religous theroy, it has no need of "God."

    One simply needs to examine the red shift the cosmos is undergoing to see that it happened.

    Admittedly, it is not fully understood what caused the Big Bang, but to simply see a blank spot on science's road map and fill it with "God" is bad science and fosters ignorance.

    The "who" I was referring to was the successful theorist of a possible space-time theory.........but, I do admit, it would be of biblical proportions, you know, establishing the complete theory........don't you think?
    I guess you meant Steven Hawkings. He's pwnsauce to. And if you mean biblical proportions as in: totally epic, then I guess we can at least agree on that.

    However, we already know the big bang happened. (Redshift) but we don't know the origion. That empty space may be it.
    Steven Hawkings Once told a catholic priest that was pissing him off about him being wrong about the big bag "Don't make me get out of this chair"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Let's try to keep your religious prosletyzing in the religion forum.

    The big bang is not a religous theroy, it has no need of "God."

    One simply needs to examine the red shift the cosmos is undergoing to see that it happened.

    Admittedly, it is not fully understood what caused the Big Bang, but to simply see a blank spot on science's road map and fill it with "God" is bad science and fosters ignorance.

    The "who" I was referring to was the successful theorist of a possible space-time theory.........but, I do admit, it would be of biblical proportions, you know, establishing the complete theory........don't you think?
    I guess you meant Steven Hawkings. He's pwnsauce to. And if you mean biblical proportions as in: totally epic, then I guess we can at least agree on that.

    However, we already know the big bang happened. (Redshift) but we don't know the origion. That empty space may be it.

    I guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Lightingbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    63
    Very interesting. Almost scary in a sense. My biggest wonder is whats in the hole? Not to mention...

    Is there something on the other side?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightingbird
    Very interesting. Almost scary in a sense. My biggest wonder is whats in the hole? Not to mention...

    Is there something on the other side?
    We should build a ship and call it Event Horizon to investigate whats on the other side

    Cool discovery :wink:

    the universe is not as homogenous as was imagined, I wonder if there are other such regions with 'less matter' than what is more prevalent in general.

    But on the other hand, that whole idea thingy about the presence of matter itself being some form of energy booster for photons is quite astounding to me, much more than a larger region of more void than average. What was that about?

    Come to think of it Ive never really understood why we cant date the age of the universe if theres no way to know if the universe is twice as large as what's visible or if its 99 gazillion quadrillion larger than anything our brains can imagine (in which case I dont know how they calculate the age). Hum I'll have to go over to wikipedia and look around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    The age of the universe is calculated by redshift. If you see something going away from you at almost lightspeed, then this thing already is as far as you can see, and the distance between you and it it's the distance between you and the big bang.

    If the faster/farther matter it's 10 billion light years from you, then the universe is roughly 10 billion years old.

    The "only" problem with this method is to calculate the distance... And we're really short of having finished our homework on this.


    And, by the way, there is not a hole where Big Bang started. Big Bang was not a explosion in the sense we're used to. Big Bang created BOTH matter and the void between matter. There is not a "ground zero" for Big Bang, as the "ground zero" for Big Bang it's the whole universe itself... we are the explosion... :wink:
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    If the faster/farther matter it's 10 billion light years from you, then the universe is roughly 10 billion years old.
    But how do you know that this matter 10 billion light years away is actually the farthest matter there is, how do you know there's no matter 10 quadrillion billion light years away so far that no photon from that super remote over there region will ever reach our region of the universe before a quadrillion billion years in the future (or that our instruments are unable yet to detect photons so remote and so old)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    If the faster/farther matter it's 10 billion light years from you, then the universe is roughly 10 billion years old.
    But how do you know that this matter 10 billion light years away is actually the farthest matter there is, how do you know there's no matter 10 quadrillion billion light years away so far that no photon from that super remote over there region will ever reach our region of the universe before a quadrillion billion years in the future (or that our instruments are unable yet to detect photons so remote and so old)?
    Because if it already is going away from the observer at nearly the speed of flight, then it's almost the Big Bang itself -and there can't be nothing beyond the Big Bang.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    the big bang didn't occur inside the universe, it was the universe, while all matter was concentrated to 1 point at an infinite high temperature, which then expanded in an explosion.

    since we know that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light it is possible to say how old the minimum of the universe is by calculating the distance between galaxies, then calculating the avrege and multiplying it by the estimated amount of galaxies in the universe.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 This black rift of nothingness. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3
    I think that you have to think of varying dimensions in regards to this.

    A dimension of pure matter and a dimension of pure energy seperated by a dimension of nothing.

    Now add an event that merges the energy and matter dimensions in the dimension where nothing exists.

    That kind of thing would create a big bang as the 2 dimensions collide spewing matter and energy in all directions. It makes sense to me that there would be a rift of nothingess in the center "Everything that would have been there would have been obliterated"?

    Although I have a theory that the universe follows the same laws that stars do.

    Stars expand and then when they reach a certain point they collapse. I believe the universe does the same, but in my opinion it's probably still in the begining stages of growing.
    "Be strong in your Ignorance." : )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?
    I was thinking the same thing. This could be proof for the big bang.
    No colleagues,you are mistaken. The Big Bang happened everywhere. There is no centre to the Universe. There is no point from which everything expanded, or rather everywhere is that point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman FractalMind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?
    I was thinking the same thing. This could be proof for the big bang.
    No colleagues,you are mistaken. The Big Bang happened everywhere. There is no centre to the Universe. There is no point from which everything expanded, or rather everywhere is that point.
    Please explain. Maybe nobody responded because they slapped themselves in the forehead and remembered what I don't. But, I'll wager to guess I'm not the only soul curious to know what you've heard. I can't see the universe having not expanded from a single point (though current evidence may point elsewhere). Meh...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by FractalMind
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?
    I was thinking the same thing. This could be proof for the big bang.
    No colleagues,you are mistaken. The Big Bang happened everywhere. There is no centre to the Universe. There is no point from which everything expanded, or rather everywhere is that point.
    Please explain. Maybe nobody responded because they slapped themselves in the forehead and remembered what I don't. But, I'll wager to guess I'm not the only soul curious to know what you've heard. I can't see the universe having not expanded from a single point (though current evidence may point elsewhere). Meh...
    If we accept that the Big Bang occured then the the entire Universe, all space, expanded from something that was not much larger than a point, Everywhere is therefore equally the centre of that expansion. Its just one of the fundamentals, one of the axioms on which cosmology is based. We are not at, and nowhere else in the Universe is at, an especially privileged point.
    These are basics - otherwise I wouldn't be aware of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    But is there matter behind the hole?

    Could be that there is some phenomenon in the middle of it that is creating anti gravity.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Cool, but dark matter is still pwnsauce.

    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?

    Just a thought.
    Nope....You are thinking that the big bang was an explosion in an already massive void. But that is not correct. The matter and energy has always been in existence, it was just a vast (in our perception) expansion of space.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quick question: If the space between matter expands, would some body more than +-15 billion ly away be moving away from us at > C? Would that count as a violation of the limit of C, as it is not the same as an object moving through space? SARU suck balls
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Good question.

    It would NOT violate the law of C as it is space that is expanding, and not matter moving. Matter would appear to move, although it doesnt. Just as light appears to "bend" around a gravitational source; although it doesnt.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by FractalMind
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?
    I was thinking the same thing. This could be proof for the big bang.
    No colleagues,you are mistaken. The Big Bang happened everywhere. There is no centre to the Universe. There is no point from which everything expanded, or rather everywhere is that point.
    Please explain. Maybe nobody responded because they slapped themselves in the forehead and remembered what I don't. But, I'll wager to guess I'm not the only soul curious to know what you've heard. I can't see the universe having not expanded from a single point (though current evidence may point elsewhere). Meh...
    If we accept that the Big Bang occured then the the entire Universe, all space, expanded from something that was not much larger than a point, Everywhere is therefore equally the centre of that expansion. Its just one of the fundamentals, one of the axioms on which cosmology is based. We are not at, and nowhere else in the Universe is at, an especially privileged point.
    These are basics - otherwise I wouldn't be aware of them.
    But, if the universe did not have a point from which it expanded, all (x,y,z)points would expand at the same rate. (Im speaking of points to keep it simple)
    So, if there would be 2 rectangles, one smaller than the other:
    expanding at the same rate, both rectangles would grow, without noticing it, because the 4 coordinates of the rectangles would stay at the same distance to each other. As long as the distance between the coordinates expand at a linear rate, there is no change to the squares.

    If the Universe started out with 2*2*2*2 points of space, the growth of space like you describe it only is the expansion distance between the points, which would mean the the universe to this very moment is only 2*2*2*2 of size.

    For the universe to grow, new points must be created. and therefor the starting of the universe of 2*2*2*2, must to be in the middle. The way humans have defined points in the universe make it complicated to define the starting though.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    No colleagues,you are mistaken. The Big Bang happened everywhere. There is no centre to the Universe. There is no point from which everything expanded, or rather everywhere is that point.
    I respect your posts Ophiolite and this is not meant as offensive, but we only assume that because of the perception of the universe we have and the time light, time etc has taken to get to us. It could well actually be the centre of where everything came from, and it could also be just a natural void. There is very strong evidence supporting both the 'everywhere' big bang and the 'central' big bang as I and others like to call it . But I just wanted to point out to everyone that there is more than one theory of that, but as I said earlier, I respect your comment and am not doubting what you said-just to inform others of the multitude of theories that are equally justified.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    65
    If anyone knows about any development on this discovery I would be glad to know about it. If you do, please share it. It has been such a long time since the publication but the scientific community never came to a definite conclusion, which is quite odd…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Guest
    Have heard nothing recently. maybe it is a black hole closer than we might think, this might prevent any detectable radiation from reaching us, it could be the Anus Universus and we are close to being ejected!

    Incidentally the picture of the galaxy on the page says, 'click here for full size' which rather appeals to my sense of humour.... :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Big Bang 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1
    [quote="Ophiolite"][quote="FractalMind"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmith
    Hey, maybe it's the spot where the big bang started, throwing all the matter away from that particular spot, thus resulting in the largest "hole"?
    I was thinking the same thing. This could be proof for the big bang.
    No colleagues,you are mistaken. The Big Bang happened everywhere. There is no centre to the Universe. There is no point from which everything expanded, or rather everywhere is that point. If we accept that the Big Bang occured then the the entire Universe, all space, expanded from something that was not much larger than a point, Everywhere is therefore equally the centre of that expansion. Its just one of the fundamentals, one of the axioms on which cosmology is based. We are not at, and nowhere else in the Universe is at, an especially privileged point..
    I have a problem with the logic in this. Yes, in the beginning, all matter and energy were confined to a single point in space? Non-space? If matter, energy, space and time were all unleashed by the big bang, then what was that point in? But I guess that's a question for another time.

    Anyway, yes, it was all there in that one point. Then it all burst out. Now, every point in the universe was that one point, until that moment. It seems to me that, if the universe is finite and expanding, it is expanding from a specific point.

    And maybe that point is the center of the void. Although the age of the universe is estimated to be 13 billion years, being 6-10 billion isn't so big a deal. I mean, we're not the center of the universe, and neither is it likely that we're on the edge, apart from certain portions of New Jersey.

    Given that as I understand it, no-one had actually anticipated a billion-ly-wide void existing in the universe, isn't it possible that the every-point-is-the-center concept might not necessarily be correct? I see it like two balloons, one inside the other. The outer one is the edge of the universe, the inner one the edge of the void.

    Granted, I only have a few astronomy courses to my name, and only one of them a cosmology course, but it still seems reasonable to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I see it like two balloons, one inside the other. The outer one is the edge of the universe, the inner one the edge of the void.
    For a 2D representation, rather think of an infinitaly small rubber ball. It suddenly starts inflating and if you cover it in dots, they would start to move away from each other at the same rate. If you draw a line from one dot, you would never reach an edge and would eventually end up where you started. On this ball there is also no point you could identify as the centre. The rubber represents space-time. So you could not think of the inside centre of the ball as the centre, as that does not exist in space-time, nor did it ever exist in terms of space-time. The whole surface of the ball would be the centre. The same goes for space-time.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •