new member
- Thread starter baryn
- Start date
new member
Factoid: As to the size of the unvierse...No one really knows. However, if you go with the Big Bang
Theory then the universe is 90,000 billion miles across. That is calculated using the Big Bang estimation of the age of the universe at 15 billion years old then multiplied times the speed of light. Or you could just say that the universe is 15 billion light years across.
Factoid: As to the size of the unvierse...No one really knows. However, if you go with the Big Bang
Theory then the universe is 90,000 billion miles across. That is calculated using the Big Bang estimation of the age of the universe at 15 billion years old then multiplied times the speed of light. Or you could just say that the universe is 15 billion light years across.
new member
Hi Baryn and All!
I'm one of those anonymous guests who browse the forum from time to time. This is a very interesting discussion you've started, so I decided to join the community and throw in a few comments from over here (Europe that is).
First, a scientific experiment has already managed to slow the speed of light to a mere trifle of 38 miles per hour. Being Danish myself, I'm proud to say that it was a Danish scientist who did the experiment. I managed to find this link in English for you, if you want to read more:
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000084.html
Don't think they observed any time travel in this connection, though, so I agree with Satan. The only consequence was that they were able to observe that the light was slow travelling through their devices.
Regarding the size of the universe, according to your reasoning, Satan, it should actually be 30 billion light years across. Light has travelled for approx. 15 billion years to reach us from THE CENTER of the universe, but this would only be its radius. The diameter of the universe should be twice as big.
However, I recently read that some scientists estimate it at no less than 156 billion light years across! The explanation for this was that the space through wich light travels also expands, after the light has passed. So the actual size at present day is much bigger than the distance light has travelled. If anyone is interested, here is a link to the article I read:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/myst...day_040524.html
Well, that's it for the moment. It's a very interesting forum, so I'll probably be back later if I have anything intelligent to say.
Cheers,
the Dane
Hi Baryn and All!
I'm one of those anonymous guests who browse the forum from time to time. This is a very interesting discussion you've started, so I decided to join the community and throw in a few comments from over here (Europe that is).
First, a scientific experiment has already managed to slow the speed of light to a mere trifle of 38 miles per hour. Being Danish myself, I'm proud to say that it was a Danish scientist who did the experiment. I managed to find this link in English for you, if you want to read more:
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000084.html
Don't think they observed any time travel in this connection, though, so I agree with Satan. The only consequence was that they were able to observe that the light was slow travelling through their devices.
Regarding the size of the universe, according to your reasoning, Satan, it should actually be 30 billion light years across. Light has travelled for approx. 15 billion years to reach us from THE CENTER of the universe, but this would only be its radius. The diameter of the universe should be twice as big.
However, I recently read that some scientists estimate it at no less than 156 billion light years across! The explanation for this was that the space through wich light travels also expands, after the light has passed. So the actual size at present day is much bigger than the distance light has travelled. If anyone is interested, here is a link to the article I read:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/myst...day_040524.html
Well, that's it for the moment. It's a very interesting forum, so I'll probably be back later if I have anything intelligent to say.
Cheers,
the Dane
new member
C is the rate of change of the universe. If light is travelling at c, and the universe is expanding at c, then one might expect light to travel forever, without reaching its target. Thus the belief in a static universe.
(Back to the beginning, sorry, skipped this while reading)I don't really think that you've SLOWED the speed of light, just that you've slowed the passage of it from point a to b with a high density. Anyway, I'll read it and edit what I have to say in.
--Read it. I guess I was right.--
Well if there is a center, then the universe is just pulling itself in, thus cancelling out the expansion rate(c, or the rate of change), because it is getting more massive, and thus it is non-constant.
C is the rate of change of the universe. If light is travelling at c, and the universe is expanding at c, then one might expect light to travel forever, without reaching its target. Thus the belief in a static universe.
(Back to the beginning, sorry, skipped this while reading)I don't really think that you've SLOWED the speed of light, just that you've slowed the passage of it from point a to b with a high density. Anyway, I'll read it and edit what I have to say in.
--Read it. I guess I was right.--
new member
But what was there to make it spin in the first place?
The universe can only be spinning if it is a seperate entity, with other 'universes' affecting it. If the universe is everything, rather than one of many, then firstly it would only be its contents, that we know of, spinning, and secondly there is nothing to make them spin.
Weight is just something we made up by related two things that already existed (mass and gravity) there is no such thing as the amount of 'weight' in the universe.
Everything in the universe (our galaxy, stars, planets) do so because of the gravitational affections of other entities. Things don't just start spinning by their lonesomes...
I liked your theory Baryn, but I have to say I am more a follower of the Grayson school of thought. The amount of mass in the universe is constant and finite, yet the idea of time travel suggest that it is in fact variable and infinite.
But what was there to make it spin in the first place?
The universe can only be spinning if it is a seperate entity, with other 'universes' affecting it. If the universe is everything, rather than one of many, then firstly it would only be its contents, that we know of, spinning, and secondly there is nothing to make them spin.
Weight is just something we made up by related two things that already existed (mass and gravity) there is no such thing as the amount of 'weight' in the universe.
Everything in the universe (our galaxy, stars, planets) do so because of the gravitational affections of other entities. Things don't just start spinning by their lonesomes...
I liked your theory Baryn, but I have to say I am more a follower of the Grayson school of thought. The amount of mass in the universe is constant and finite, yet the idea of time travel suggest that it is in fact variable and infinite.