I have never understood this. What is a universe with negative or positive curvature...shrug —— The thing that i have never understood is that, even though it would be strange if we were in the center of a spherical universe.... still, it sort of looks that way in the sense that the universe looks the same which ever direction we look.... the same as would be true if we were in the center of a spherical universe.
It's well into public domain Then again I would definitely not ignore the cease and desist order if you get one.
Yes, the Big Bang theory is just what it portends to be. But, explosions ( bangs) don’t increase exponentially , they decay over time. The newer conjecture that star stuff is accelerating and not decreasing in velocity is a newer subtext to the bing bang , and it’s still not fully accepted. The red shift itself, only indicates that the stars are moving away not that they are accelerating. Now , a change in the red shift which by definition of rate, would indicate a change in rate or that it was accelerating or decelerating. I don’t know that is occurring ,or maybe because our observation period is too short. As long as there is a red shift ( or blue) at all, we can’t be sure it’s a steady stare universe, regardless of conjecture in the change of rate. Besides, steady states of anything in a universe of constant motion is an exception to everything we can observe.
I'd also only use it for items of specific interest or relevance to events since most of them would fly over my head. OTOH, I think way more students and researchers would utilize access to all that contemporary scientific knowledge to good effect. Course scumbags with bad intent and limited knowledge might be able to weaponize some of that research, but I suppose if determined they'd get the info they needed some other way. I think (with no actual evidence) that the risk is outweighed by the potential benefits.
The big bang was an expansion of space itself, not an explosion. Astrophysicists are convinced that expansion is continuing, but not anywhere near that original rate. The discovery of the current increasing rate of expansion in 1998 convinced physicists to the extent that a Nobel prize was awarded.
It seems to me that we place parameters on "Time" in this situation that may be the deepest issue in our understanding. We look at the expansion as increasing vs, slowing based on human perception yet a Universe that exists for a Trillion years may very well have just begun and may do many things in the future. Perhaps when this Universe is 20 Billion yrs old the expansion will be slowing and in 50 it will be heading toward a Big Crunch....who knows and really who should even care at this point. Humans will not exists as we know them in a million years.
These journals do require income in order to get experts to do reviews and the costs of selecting and publishing content. And, the quality of that work is the whole reason we care about journals. If they can't charge for their product, some other financing would be required. I think charging authors for the full weight of journals reviewing their product would be like squeezing blood from a turnip - and it could affect what gets published.
Of course. But the name was given to it that way to demonstrate many of the similarities of the formation of the universe to an explosion. Perhaps, but there has and will continue to be opposing views. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ds-universe-is-expanding-faster-than-expected Here is a present view from NASA. Though the rate is faster by 5 to 9 percent, no where does it say it say the rate is increasing . Just because it’s faster now then previously thought, does not mean it could not still be slowing down nor does it mean it was the same or less then previously thought. So, other then me unfortunately calling the formation an explosion, I need to see more recent reference from NASA to show otherwise.
The one thing we do know is that there's a lot of stuff we don't know. I seen one program where an astronomer asks rhetorically, "What is space?" and in answering his own question says "We don't know." Big Bang, Steady State, flat earth, whatever. We are just ants trying to size up our limited view.
but it would equally distribute out creating a sphere of some sort. Whether the universe is a layer around an explosive core blowing the universe up like a balloon or the universe is the air that makes the balloon, IDK. Think it's the former perhaps.
Amen. Perhaps the coolest thing about science is that there are so many things humans don't have totally figured out.
The Earth is round, but we live on the surface. Perhaps our universe is round, and we live in the surface, and maybe hyper space is like having a tunnel through the universe, like building a tunnel from London to Australia.
Most of it stems around the past and the future. Somethings we are pretty sure of. Anywhere in the universe that we know, is all made from the same material and subject to the same laws...which we as yet, don’t know all of what they are.
Wait, does the universe have an horizon? Those stars, I can see from far far away. Maybe the universe is shaped like a lobster tank and we're in it.
No, the name was given by a physicist who believed the very idea was total BUNK. He meant the name to be insulting. Unfortunately, his name stuck. I'll bet that was embarrassing. Among physicists there isn't any acceptance of the big bang being an explosion. I greatly respect your insistence on confirmation. Your article does talk about a "boost in acceleration", but it's certainly somewhat hidden. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...rt-findings-on-accelerated-universe-expansion https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/hubble-nobel.html
Our observable universe is like a single grain of sand on the beach. If we could instantaneously transport to the farthest reaches, we'd have moved over to the next grain of sand.
The universe is the shape of an ever expanding hamster ball, and we're as big as a powerless microbe caught in air inside this ever expanding hamster ball shaped universe that we're in.
For starters, the universe is big. Is it so big that, if we could travel to another constellation with interstellar transportation, would we be able to see any new constellations other than our own? Can we look around corners of the universe like the tube in a tyre, or, can we see it all?
Yes, we can only see a fraction of our universe. There is plenty out there that we won't EVER be able to see, regardless of what we do (outside of wormholes?). The reason is that space is expanding. So, for each mile from earth, it's becoming just a little more than a mile. If you count all the miles from here to just beyond the farthest observable star, all those expansion increments add up to being faster than the speed of light. (Einstein's light speed limit doesn't apply in this case.) So, whatever is beyond that is gone forever, as it's light will never get here - as long as the universe doesn't start contracting. If things continue as today, more and more of our universe will become impossible for us to detect.
I'm thinking if it was a shape we could be inside of that expands endlessly, then the universe is flat. But if it was shaped like a layer.... Then we could traverse the universe like it was round, meaning the universe isn't flat and doesn't have an edge.
