| |
Main
Date: 18 Nov 2006 21:47:11
From: Eric
Subject: question on universe
|
Hypothetically of course:
If i pick a point in the sky and move towards it, no matter how far i go
things dont end, correct? Pretend you could travel faster than light with
no side effects, you could just cover distance as quickly as you wanted.
No matter how far you go, its just more of the same right? And you just keep
proceeding further and further from your starting point, space doesnt wrap.
Thanks,
Eric
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 09:55:54
From: reconair
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy!
Without precise calculations you could fly right through a star or
bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick,
wouldn't it?
Han Solo
"Eric" <NoOne@invalid.com > wrote in message
news:kM-dnbPFict9csLYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Hypothetically of course:
> If i pick a point in the sky and move towards it, no matter how far i go
> things dont end, correct? Pretend you could travel faster than light with
> no side effects, you could just cover distance as quickly as you wanted.
> No matter how far you go, its just more of the same right? And you just
> keep
> proceeding further and further from your starting point, space doesnt
> wrap.
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 16:23:19
From: Mark F.
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
SNICKER SNICKER.
"reconair" <reconair@staffnet.com > wrote in message
news:12m0s3rknbjfpc9@corp.supernews.com...
> Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy!
>
> Without precise calculations you could fly right through a star or
>
> bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick,
>
> wouldn't it?
>
> Han Solo
>
> "Eric" <NoOne@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:kM-dnbPFict9csLYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Hypothetically of course:
>> If i pick a point in the sky and move towards it, no matter how far i go
>> things dont end, correct? Pretend you could travel faster than light with
>> no side effects, you could just cover distance as quickly as you wanted.
>> No matter how far you go, its just more of the same right? And you just
>> keep
>> proceeding further and further from your starting point, space doesnt
>> wrap.
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 12:26:53
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
Eric wrote:
> Hypothetically of course:
> If i pick a point in the sky and move towards it, no matter how far i go
> things dont end, correct? Pretend you could travel faster than light with
> no side effects, you could just cover distance as quickly as you wanted.
> No matter how far you go, its just more of the same right? And you just keep
> proceeding further and further from your starting point, space doesnt wrap.
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
o As one peers out, one looks back in time.
o However, as one ventures forth, the universe evolves, continuing to
expand... and at a rate faster that than any traveler can achieve.
o Space is warped by gravitation and velocity, as is time.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 15:09:13
From: Steve Sherman
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eric wrote:
>
>> Hypothetically of course:
>> If i pick a point in the sky and move towards it, no matter how far
>> i go
>> things dont end, correct? Pretend you could travel faster than light with
>> no side effects, you could just cover distance as quickly as you wanted.
>> No matter how far you go, its just more of the same right? And you
>> just keep
>> proceeding further and further from your starting point, space doesnt
>> wrap.
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>
>
> o As one peers out, one looks back in time.
> o However, as one ventures forth, the universe evolves, continuing to
> expand... and at a rate faster that than any traveler can achieve.
> o Space is warped by gravitation and velocity, as is time.
>
>
> No Center
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
>
> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
>
> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>
> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
It seems that the best description comes from the
movie "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou". Where Everett, tries to
buy a product in a small town. Everett is told by the owner that he is out
and can get it in 2 weeks. Everett then asks for another product and receives
the same answer, we can get it in 2 weeks. Everett then says, this place
seems to be 2 weeks from everything.
Steve
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 03:42:05
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:47:11 -0800, Eric <NoOne@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >Hypothetically of course:
> > If i pick a point in the sky and move towards it, no matter how far i go
> >things dont end, correct? Pretend you could travel faster than light with
> >no side effects, you could just cover distance as quickly as you wanted.
> >No matter how far you go, its just more of the same right? And you just keep
> >proceeding further and further from your starting point, space doesnt wrap.
> >Thanks,
> >Eric
>
> No, if you keep going in the same direction, you return to your starting
> point. That's what it means to live in a three dimensional space
> embedded in a four dimensional universe. It is analogous to living on
> the surface of a sphere (a two dimensional space embedded in a three
> dimensional universe). A sphere is unbounded in two dimensions; it has
> no edge, but if you travel in a straight line you return to your start.
> Our three dimensional space is similarly unbounded and without edges,
> and presumably not of infinite extent.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Funny ,funny,funny !!!!.
Unless the original poster has a severe reading disability,he can
easily check where this extremely hilarious notion comes from.Although
celestial sphere geometry is at the core of the whole thing and that is
a Newtonian conceptual monster ,the idea of 'warped space' is based on
the lament that light leaving stars would go to waste hence Albert's
reason for curving the universe (whatever that is supposed to mean -
"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite
island in the infinite ocean of space.
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished. "
http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html
That hilarious pasage above was written in 1920 or a few years before
the great stellar islands we call galaxies were discovered.Looking at
Albert reject the idea of galaxies is too good to pass up on and
especially when Newton's view on the rest of the universe was fairly
normal for a 17th century person -
"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."
NEWTON
Again,you really need to have a severe reading disability not to enjoy
the really funny early 20th century conceptions of the universe whereas
the 17th century Newtonian conceptions are more cunning and difficult
to spot and untangle from astronomical methods and insights.
The idea of travelling out in any direction and returning to the same
point is fine if you live on a celestial sphere bubble but let me show
you exactly how you are getting that incredibly funny notion -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
80 years us long enough to see the great cycle of the solar system
around the galactic axis unused and ignored for early 20th century
nonse that knew nothing of the great stellar islands and our motion
around a very distant galactic axis.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 06:37:35
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:47:11 -0800, Eric <NoOne@invalid.com > wrote:
>Hypothetically of course:
> If i pick a point in the sky and move towards it, no matter how far i go
>things dont end, correct? Pretend you could travel faster than light with
>no side effects, you could just cover distance as quickly as you wanted.
>No matter how far you go, its just more of the same right? And you just keep
>proceeding further and further from your starting point, space doesnt wrap.
>Thanks,
>Eric
No, if you keep going in the same direction, you return to your starting
point. That's what it means to live in a three dimensional space
embedded in a four dimensional universe. It is analogous to living on
the surface of a sphere (a two dimensional space embedded in a three
dimensional universe). A sphere is unbounded in two dimensions; it has
no edge, but if you travel in a straight line you return to your start.
Our three dimensional space is similarly unbounded and without edges,
and presumably not of infinite extent.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 00:17:16
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> No, if you keep going in the same direction, you return to your starting
> point. That's what it means to live in a three dimensional space
> embedded in a four dimensional universe.
I'm sure this is a technicality that's not clearly of interest to the
original poster, but strictly speaking, I think that's only necessarily
the case if the universe is compact. If it's not, it might be possible
to have open geodesics. However, you're right that most simple models
do have closed geodesics, and the easiest one to imagine for most folks
is the three-sphere (which doesn't have to be embedded in four-space, of
course).
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 14:52:15
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:17:16 -0800 (PST), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
wrote:
>I'm sure this is a technicality that's not clearly of interest to the
>original poster, but strictly speaking, I think that's only necessarily
>the case if the universe is compact. If it's not, it might be possible
>to have open geodesics. However, you're right that most simple models
>do have closed geodesics, and the easiest one to imagine for most folks
>is the three-sphere (which doesn't have to be embedded in four-space, of
>course).
I considered that, but figured it added a lot of complexity to the
answer (and of course, this is all somewhat speculative, anyway). Even
in the case of open geodesics, the situation is closer to the
three-sphere than to the case of an infinite flat universe. For
instance, even if you don't come back to where you start, your path may
cross points it has previously touched.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 03:31:58
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:17:16 -0800 (PST), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure this is a technicality that's not clearly of interest to the
> >original poster, but strictly speaking, I think that's only necessarily
> >the case if the universe is compact. If it's not, it might be possible
> >to have open geodesics. However, you're right that most simple models
> >do have closed geodesics, and the easiest one to imagine for most folks
> >is the three-sphere (which doesn't have to be embedded in four-space, of
> >course).
>
> I considered that, but figured it added a lot of complexity to the
> answer (and of course, this is all somewhat speculative, anyway). Even
> in the case of open geodesics, the situation is closer to the
> three-sphere than to the case of an infinite flat universe. For
> instance, even if you don't come back to where you start, your path may
> cross points it has previously touched.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Incredibly funny !.
You have guys looking out convinced they can see back to the infant
universe,you have other guys looking out believing that you can see the
back of your head no matter which direction you look on.
I see the great cyclical motions of the planets around our central star
and can dwell on the great motion of the solar system in unison with
the other stars around the galactic axis and can make use of that
information.
You see a 'warped universe' made from local celestial sphere geometry
and tell people how it is difficult to imagine and I assure you that
they believe you.After 100 years of that cartoon nonsense whether they
want to believe you is another matter.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 07:38:13
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: question on universe
|
Thankyou Mr Oriel for the clarification. You have such an eloquent way with
words. Please keep your posts coming because they are very informative and
we enjoy them. I would like for you to get into an ongoing dialog with Mr
Danny Boy Min.
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1164022318.768162.168730@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:17:16 -0800 (PST), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sure this is a technicality that's not clearly of interest to the
>> >original poster, but strictly speaking, I think that's only necessarily
>> >the case if the universe is compact. If it's not, it might be possible
>> >to have open geodesics. However, you're right that most simple models
>> >do have closed geodesics, and the easiest one to imagine for most folks
>> >is the three-sphere (which doesn't have to be embedded in four-space, of
>> >course).
>>
>> I considered that, but figured it added a lot of complexity to the
>> answer (and of course, this is all somewhat speculative, anyway). Even
>> in the case of open geodesics, the situation is closer to the
>> three-sphere than to the case of an infinite flat universe. For
>> instance, even if you don't come back to where you start, your path may
>> cross points it has previously touched.
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> Chris L Peterson
>> Cloudbait Observatory
>> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> Incredibly funny !.
>
> You have guys looking out convinced they can see back to the infant
> universe,you have other guys looking out believing that you can see the
> back of your head no matter which direction you look on.
>
> I see the great cyclical motions of the planets around our central star
> and can dwell on the great motion of the solar system in unison with
> the other stars around the galactic axis and can make use of that
> information.
>
> You see a 'warped universe' made from local celestial sphere geometry
> and tell people how it is difficult to imagine and I assure you that
> they believe you.After 100 years of that cartoon nonsense whether they
> want to believe you is another matter.
>
|
|
