Centre of ?

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Get over it folks. The rest of the Universe does not care.

Bert

Hehehehe they are to far away and receding from us to quickly I guess.....

Thank you Carl and Bojan.....Its hard to visualise I guess at times when you are ingrained with 2d/3d models, not thinking outside the square......or whatever the shape (if you can call it that) of the universe. Sorry.... just realise the universe does not have shape hehhehehe

Cheers
Bartman

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Bartman, my pleasure and don't worry about adding to my confusion I seem to have a never ending capacity for it. Perhaps it is best to remember that with discussions such as this one it is always advisable to suspend some of your disbelief and rationality. The balloon example is for only one part of the picture (at least that is how I view it) and it is possible to push it too far.

Brian


Brian

It's not about a suspension of disbelief and rationality. On the contrary, it's an augmentation of both that is needed in order to actually understand what's being said. If you weren't rationally critical of what was being observed or theorised, you'd end up falling for any old idea that was being bandied about. You'd bamboozle yourself.

Your problem, and it's the same problem many people have, is you don't have the capacity to be able to handle the type of thought needed to comprehend the ideas that are being expressed in these situations. Much of the problem is a lack of the right education, but it's also the innate ability to be able to handle the ideas. It's just a case of one person being good at something and the others aren't....someone being good at art whilst the next person is flat out drawing stick figures, for example. You have problems with the science and find the explanations either confusing and/or go against what you believe things should be. Belief and reality are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they completely in accordance with one another for most of the time.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bartman

Hehehehe they are to far away and receding from us to quickly I guess.....

Thank you Carl and Bojan.....Its hard to visualise I guess at times when you are ingrained with 2d/3d models, not thinking outside the square......or whatever the shape (if you can call it that) of the universe. Sorry.... just realise the universe does not have shape hehhehehe

Cheers
Bartman

Actually it does have a shape, but not one you would be able to recognise in a 3D sense

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

I personally feel or believe that a Planetary Nebula is a more accurate way of describing the expansion of the universe. Even though the so-called Big Bang is realistically a fairly intense expansion it will still expands in a relatively two-dimensional bubble, as an explosion can usually leave a void at the beginning point.
I have been trying to locate details on the universe expansion rate but unable to find the exact information but I recently read that's the expansion has been detected travelling faster than the speed of light. This sort of suggests that some observations of a distance Galaxy has been located expanding in the opposite direction from a central point or thereabouts.

I would like to know this could be confirmed or whether it was just a typical over exaggerated remark from somebody.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

I personally feel or believe that a Planetary Nebula is a more accurate way of describing the expansion of the universe. Even though the so-called Big Bang is realistically a fairly intense expansion it will still expands in a relatively two-dimensional bubble, as an explosion can usually leave a void at the beginning point.
I have been trying to locate details on the universe expansion rate but unable to find the exact information but I recently read that's the expansion has been detected travelling faster than the speed of light. This sort of suggests that some observations of a distance Galaxy has been located expanding in the opposite direction from a central point or thereabouts.

I would like to know this could be confirmed or whether it was just a typical over exaggerated remark from somebody.

It's pure fantasy, Malcolm, nothing more or less. The expansion of the Universe has nothing to do with the morphology or origins of a planetary nebula. The universe is not expanding as a 2D bubble, it's far more complicated than that. The expansion of the universe beyond the Hubble Horizon for our corner of the universe is occurring at a velocity faster than light, but that is relative to our position within the local universe. The light from objects beyond that horizon hasn't yet reached us because there hasn't been enough time for it to do so and as measured from our location the recessional velocity of objects out at that distance has reached c or greater. Go out to where the horizon is for us and then look back towards where we are and you'll see the same thing, except in that case we would be beyond the horizon for that position out there and you couldn't see us. Not until the universe aged sufficiently enough for the light from here to reach you and providing the expansion of the universe didn't permanently keep us beyond your horizon.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hi Renormalised, there is some truth in what you state below. I used to be a pretty fair VFR pilot but I never could get my mind around IFR.

-Your problem, and it's the same problem many people have, is you don't have the capacity to be able to handle the type of thought needed to comprehend the ideas that are being expressed in these situations. Much of the problem is a lack of the right education, but it's also the innate ability to be able to handle the ideas. It's just a case of one person being good at something and the others aren't....someone being good at art whilst the next person is flat out drawing stick figures, for example. You have problems with the science and find the explanations either confusing and/or go against what you believe things should be. Belief and reality are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they completely in accordance with one another for most of the time.[/QUOTE]

However I will stand by my belief, however poorly stated, that the balloon is just a metaphor and that to push it too far is a mistake.

What this old country boy needs as does anyone who truly wants to understand this is a serious math education and as you point out the proper mind set.

Not to cast aspersions but I often wonder how many people really understand quantum physics, black holes, or the power in a quasar.

Math at that level, or perhaps I should say science at that level is like a great symphony, darn hard to compose and maybe even harder to truly understand and appreciate.

But be that as it may... I will keep listening and I will keep asking questions.

Brian