# Welcome to Gaia! ::

ok, so what if the universe is like astroids, the arcade game? go off one side, come back the other. this would explain some things.

there is an experiment done with light to find the center of the universe. it kinda works like the Doppler Effect. if moving right, the sound waves clump together in front, and separate in back. lower pitch in back, higher pitch in front. they are doing the same with light to find out which way the earth is moving. so far, nothing.
but think about it. if we are moving 15mph through the void of space, and throw sand in all directions at the same time, an orb would spread out equally in all directions from us, because the dust isn't connected to anything, unlike the sound waves of earth which are connected to the earth by gravity holding the air that vibrates to create sound.

there is nothing to "hold" anything in space, which i believe suggests there is no "center". nothing that ultimately determines frame of reference..

this also explains a theory that eventually all bits of mass will come together, form a near infinite density, and explode, big bang all over again. with no edges, how would they come back together?

Fanatical Zealot

If the universe is infinite in size then there is no center; the Doppler effect wouldn't help you determine frame of reference unless something was moving, and even then it could be tricky, and so determining the frame of reference for the center of the universe through the Doppler effect is ludicrous; regardless, there really isn't any light waves coming off of just raw space, so unless we can see "space waves" it wouldn't work, and even then it would most likely be distorted.

However, if we assume that the big bang is, then the direction of the cosmic radiation and how old we think everything is could tell us far away we are from the center, and even potentially what direction (but our big bang could have just been our little corner of the universe from a massive black-hole/star system that created all that we know, not all that was) but not the size of the universe itself; we could have a minimum though.

If we assume that the radiation has been moving at the speed of light unhampered, which we can't really given everything in space.

In any case drugs are bad.
Suicidesoldier#1
If the universe is infinite in size then there is no center; the doppler effect wouldn't help you determine frame of reference unless something was moving, and even then it could be tricky.

well, i didn't say infinite. i said like "astroids". you only have X amount of space, but leaving one side lands you on the other. that's also why the universe can still have a "shape" in that it can't be a sphere. if you put a sphere next to another sphere, there is a gap

)( <-see? unlike flat edges of a square ll <-

Fanatical Zealot

n7m6e7
Suicidesoldier#1
If the universe is infinite in size then there is no center; the doppler effect wouldn't help you determine frame of reference unless something was moving, and even then it could be tricky.

well, i didn't say infinite. i said like "astroids". you only have X amount of space, but leaving one side lands you on the other. that's also why the universe can still have a "shape" in that it can't be a sphere. if you put a sphere next to another sphere, there is a gap

)( <-see? unlike flat edges of a square ll <-

Theoretically there could still be a center even if the shape is irregular.
Suicidesoldier#1
n7m6e7
Suicidesoldier#1
If the universe is infinite in size then there is no center; the doppler effect wouldn't help you determine frame of reference unless something was moving, and even then it could be tricky.

well, i didn't say infinite. i said like "astroids". you only have X amount of space, but leaving one side lands you on the other. that's also why the universe can still have a "shape" in that it can't be a sphere. if you put a sphere next to another sphere, there is a gap

)( <-see? unlike flat edges of a square ll <-

Theoretically there could still be a center even if the shape is irregular.

true, but if one side leads the other, there is no way to determine a center. if the "universe" were only 10yds cubed, you'd see yourself standing 10 yds in front, behind, left, right, up, and down. take a step forward, all the other "yous" would do the same. no way to determine where the edges are
We shouldn't expect a Doppler effect of any sort, at least not from light that we're sending out ourselves. Sound waves have a Doppler effect because of relative movement between the thing sending out the sound and the thing hearing the sound. Similarly, when we observe celestial objects that are moving relative to us, there is a Doppler effect on the light waves. But if we're the ones sending out and receiving the signals, then we shouldn't expect anything interesting to happen (modulo the slight acceleration due to the Earth not moving quite in a straight line), because there's no relative movement between the source and receiver.

As for the overall shape of the universe, we don't actually expect the universe to start contracting again; the rate of expansion actually seems to be increasing, so we expect the universe to keep expanding forever, even if the universe is finite in size.

Fanatical Zealot

n7m6e7
Suicidesoldier#1
n7m6e7
Suicidesoldier#1
If the universe is infinite in size then there is no center; the doppler effect wouldn't help you determine frame of reference unless something was moving, and even then it could be tricky.

well, i didn't say infinite. i said like "astroids". you only have X amount of space, but leaving one side lands you on the other. that's also why the universe can still have a "shape" in that it can't be a sphere. if you put a sphere next to another sphere, there is a gap

)( <-see? unlike flat edges of a square ll <-

Theoretically there could still be a center even if the shape is irregular.

true, but if one side leads the other, there is no way to determine a center. if the "universe" were only 10yds cubed, you'd see yourself standing 10 yds in front, behind, left, right, up, and down. take a step forward, all the other "yous" would do the same. no way to determine where the edges are

It's difficult to do easily, that's for sure.
Layra-chan
We shouldn't expect a Doppler effect of any sort, at least not from light that we're sending out ourselves. Sound waves have a Doppler effect because of relative movement between the thing sending out the sound and the thing hearing the sound. Similarly, when we observe celestial objects that are moving relative to us, there is a Doppler effect on the light waves. But if we're the ones sending out and receiving the signals, then we shouldn't expect anything interesting to happen (modulo the slight acceleration due to the Earth not moving quite in a straight line), because there's no relative movement between the source and receiver.

As for the overall shape of the universe, we don't actually expect the universe to start contracting again; the rate of expansion actually seems to be increasing, so we expect the universe to keep expanding forever, even if the universe is finite in size.

but if it only expands, eventually it'd end up that each individual atom would be spaced ((let's say)) a mile apart from eachother. life would end entirely. of course since mass attracts eachother no matter the distance, it will eventually attract back to eachother...but the amount of time would be...inconceivable. take the largest number known, and that's no where near the number of zero's in the number of centuries it would take.

Fanatical Zealot

n7m6e7
Layra-chan
We shouldn't expect a Doppler effect of any sort, at least not from light that we're sending out ourselves. Sound waves have a Doppler effect because of relative movement between the thing sending out the sound and the thing hearing the sound. Similarly, when we observe celestial objects that are moving relative to us, there is a Doppler effect on the light waves. But if we're the ones sending out and receiving the signals, then we shouldn't expect anything interesting to happen (modulo the slight acceleration due to the Earth not moving quite in a straight line), because there's no relative movement between the source and receiver.

As for the overall shape of the universe, we don't actually expect the universe to start contracting again; the rate of expansion actually seems to be increasing, so we expect the universe to keep expanding forever, even if the universe is finite in size.

but if it only expands, eventually it'd end up that each individual atom would be spaced ((let's say)) a mile apart from eachother. life would end entirely. of course since mass attracts eachother no matter the distance, it will eventually attract back to eachother...but the amount of time would be...inconceivable. take the largest number known, and that's no where near the number of zero's in the number of centuries it would take.

Yup.

Although, sense the universe would still be expanding, faster than the speed of light, they would never be able to reach each other.
no, that's what i'm saying. everything has a pull on everything. even if it is so small, no one could even hope to detect it, it's there, and slowing down the planets as they speed away. they will evetually stop, and drift back into the center

Fanatical Zealot

n7m6e7
no, that's what i'm saying. everything has a pull on everything. even if it is so small, no one could even hope to detect it, it's there, and slowing down the planets as they speed away. they will evetually stop, and drift back into the center

Because space is expanding the way it is, and the particles are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light (not really, space is expanding and so they aren't technically moving, but basically), they will be moving away too fast for their attraction to do any good.

So fast and so far that their attraction would be overcome, basically.

Unless of course, the expansion of the universe slows down or comes to a stop.

Then, it may work.

Hence the potential 100 billion trillion year cycles the universe goes through.

Space may not be expanding, matter may be expanding through space until it essentially reaches a wall, and then slows down, and due to their innate attraction comes back together.
n7m6e7
ok, so what if the universe is like astroids, the arcade game? go off one side, come back the other. this would explain some things.

A universe spatially like Asteroids is toroidal. That's one of the possibilities, but there's no evidence that the universe is actually a torus. People don't like it because (theoretically) it makes the universe anistropic on the large scale and (observationally) it makes models of the universe have one extra parameter that does nothing at all (if it did, there would be evidence for a toroidal universe).

A similar possibility is more like a sphere. In terms of Asteroids, it'd be like going off one side and coming back an adjacent rather than opposite. That's usually considered a more serious contender for a finite universe. Another one is again like Asteroids but coming back the opposite side with flipped position and direction.

n7m6e7
there is nothing to "hold" anything in space, which i believe suggests there is no "center". nothing that ultimately determines frame of reference..

The universe has no center. No standard Big Bang models include such a thing, anyway. There are no priveged frames of reference in the sense of being distinguished by laws of physics. There is a 'special' frame of reference in terms of having the cosmic microwave background look the same in all directions (or more specifically, having zero dipole anisotropy), which is the frame of reference at rest with the bulk of the matter in the observed universe.

Suicidesoldier#1
However, if we assume that the big bang is, then the direction of the cosmic radiation and how old we think everything is could tell us far away we are from the center, ...

It most certainly does not do this.

Suicidesoldier#1
In any case drugs are bad.

(:

n7m6e7
that's also why the universe can still have a "shape" in that it can't be a sphere. if you put a sphere next to another sphere, there is a gap

)( <-see? unlike flat edges of a square ll <-

What? I think you're confused about intrinsic geometry. The universe has no edges in any sensible model. A sphere in particular also has no edges and no center. You're confusing a manifold ('suface') with its extrinsic properties while embedded in higher-dimensional space. They have no relevance because there's nothing outside the universe, or at least, no evidence for any such thing that's physically relevant.

Fanatical Zealot

VorpalNeko
n7m6e7
ok, so what if the universe is like astroids, the arcade game? go off one side, come back the other. this would explain some things.

A universe spatially like Asteroids is toroidal. That's one of the possibilities, but there's no evidence that the universe is actually a torus. People don't like it because (theoretically) it makes the universe anistropic on the large scale and (observationally) it makes models of the universe have one extra parameter that does nothing at all (if it did, there would be evidence for a toroidal universe).

A similar possibility is more like a sphere. In terms of Asteroids, it'd be like going off one side and coming back an adjacent rather than opposite. That's usually considered a more serious contender for a finite universe. Another one is again like Asteroids but coming back the opposite side with flipped position and direction.

n7m6e7
there is nothing to "hold" anything in space, which i believe suggests there is no "center". nothing that ultimately determines frame of reference..

The universe has no center. No standard Big Bang models include such a thing, anyway. There are no priveged frames of reference in the sense of being distinguished by laws of physics. There is a 'special' frame of reference in terms of having the cosmic microwave background look the same in all directions (or more specifically, having zero dipole anisotropy), which is the frame of reference at rest with the bulk of the matter in the observed universe.

Suicidesoldier#1
However, if we assume that the big bang is, then the direction of the cosmic radiation and how old we think everything is could tell us far away we are from the center, ...

It most certainly does not do this.

Suicidesoldier#1
In any case drugs are bad.

(:

n7m6e7
that's also why the universe can still have a "shape" in that it can't be a sphere. if you put a sphere next to another sphere, there is a gap

)( <-see? unlike flat edges of a square ll <-

What? I think you're confused about intrinsic geometry. The universe has no edges in any sensible model. A sphere in particular also has no edges and no center. You're confusing a manifold ('suface') with its extrinsic properties while embedded in higher-dimensional space. They have no relevance because there's nothing outside the universe, or at least, no evidence for any such thing that's physically relevant.

Well, if it's limited to light speed and it's traveled for a certain amount of time we may be able to tell the distance traveled but...

It's basically impossible and given the wide range of variables present wouldn't be an accurate measurement anyways, given everything that could have slowed it down and the expansion of space.
n7m6e7
Suicidesoldier#1
If the universe is infinite in size then there is no center; the doppler effect wouldn't help you determine frame of reference unless something was moving, and even then it could be tricky.

well, i didn't say infinite. i said like "astroids". you only have X amount of space, but leaving one side lands you on the other. that's also why the universe can still have a "shape" in that it can't be a sphere. if you put a sphere next to another sphere, there is a gap

)( <-see? unlike flat edges of a square ll <-
Just because the edge is not flat in 3 dimensional space doesn't mean it cannot fit in n-dimensional space. If this would indeed work like asteroids it would probably be something like a multi dimensional torus. Like the maps from the early Final Fantasy games. Seriously, what kind of planet do those people live on?