Nephi wrote:Heh... really cool. It would be cool if that was redone with modern ideas, like the idea that you couldn't "zoom out" and see all the galaxies. As far as we know, there is no end.
Wow, looks like you need to look at Microwave Background Radiation and call me in the morning.
Hey Mercury:
If you or any other of the scientist types here can answer this for me, then I'll be forever grateful:
Observing doppler-shift spectrometry, is it possible to determine the rate of recession vs. distance from us of other galaxies in order to plot out the point at which the Big Bang took place? And, using this as the center-point, is it possible to calculate that point as the center of the universe (since an explosion sends all things outward), again observe doppler-shift vs. distance, and therefore determine the size of the universe?
If any of that is so, then would it be possible to calculate what % of the universe the visible universe (from us) comprises? And if so, what % is it?
Thanks to any and all in advance,
Shades
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Nephi wrote:Heh... really cool. It would be cool if that was redone with modern ideas, like the idea that you couldn't "zoom out" and see all the galaxies. As far as we know, there is no end.
Wow, looks like you need to look at Microwave Background Radiation and call me in the morning.
Hey Mercury:
If you or any other of the scientist types here can answer this for me, then I'll be forever grateful:
Observing doppler-shift spectrometry, is it possible to determine the rate of recession vs. distance from us of other galaxies in order to plot out the point at which the Big Bang took place? And, using this as the center-point, is it possible to calculate that point as the center of the universe (since an explosion sends all things outward), again observe doppler-shift vs. distance, and therefore determine the size of the universe?
If any of that is so, then would it be possible to calculate what % of the universe the visible universe (from us) comprises? And if so, what % is it?
Thanks to any and all in advance, Shades
Well, there is no center of the universe. I know that sounds counterintuitive but think about the distance between two sets of points x1, y1 and x2, y2. As the universe expands the distance between x1 and y1 is the same relative to points x2 and y2 given static settings floating in space independent of gravitational shifting.
Nephi wrote:Heh... really cool. It would be cool if that was redone with modern ideas, like the idea that you couldn't "zoom out" and see all the galaxies. As far as we know, there is no end.
Wow, looks like you need to look at Microwave Background Radiation and call me in the morning.
Nephi wrote:Heh... really cool. It would be cool if that was redone with modern ideas, like the idea that you couldn't "zoom out" and see all the galaxies. As far as we know, there is no end.
Wow, looks like you need to look at Microwave Background Radiation and call me in the morning.
Hey Mercury:
If you or any other of the scientist types here can answer this for me, then I'll be forever grateful:
Observing doppler-shift spectrometry, is it possible to determine the rate of recession vs. distance from us of other galaxies in order to plot out the point at which the Big Bang took place? And, using this as the center-point, is it possible to calculate that point as the center of the universe (since an explosion sends all things outward), again observe doppler-shift vs. distance, and therefore determine the size of the universe?
If any of that is so, then would it be possible to calculate what % of the universe the visible universe (from us) comprises? And if so, what % is it?
Thanks to any and all in advance, Shades
A good way to try to envision this is imagine if you will that I take a balloon and draw points on its surface. Notice that as I blow up the balloon all the dots move away from all the other dots. The further two dots are away from each other, the faster they move away from each other. This is the same thing that is happening to the universe, and there are three possible "shapes" to the universe. Its either flat, closed, or open. Imagine it (again, in this balloon analogy), that its either a flat surface, a sphere type surface, or a saddle type shape, and it all deals with omega... Long story, and we really don't have enough data to answer the question of the shape of the universe.
Mercury wrote:Well, there is no center of the universe. I know that sounds counterintuitive but think about the distance between two sets of points x1, y1 and x2, y2. As the universe expands the distance between x1 and y1 is the same relative to points x2 and y2 given static settings floating in space independent of gravitational shifting.
Poor choice of words on my part.
I get that there is no center of the universe, but how about this: Considering what I wrote above, can we determine the point at which the Big Bang took place?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Mercury wrote:Well, there is no center of the universe. I know that sounds counterintuitive but think about the distance between two sets of points x1, y1 and x2, y2. As the universe expands the distance between x1 and y1 is the same relative to points x2 and y2 given static settings floating in space independent of gravitational shifting.
Poor choice of words on my part.
I get that there is no center of the universe, but how about this: Considering what I wrote above, can we determine the point at which the Big Bang took place?
I used to have this view, and its wrong. The universe isn't expanding into an empty space, whereby you run it backwards and you'll find a "point" where it started. The space w/in it is getting "larger", but if you want to know where it started, the point was the whole universe. Imagine the balloon analogy there. If you were on the surface, where does the surface start expanding from? Answer: the entire surface area.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Nephi wrote:Heh... really cool. It would be cool if that was redone with modern ideas, like the idea that you couldn't "zoom out" and see all the galaxies. As far as we know, there is no end.
Wow, looks like you need to look at Microwave Background Radiation and call me in the morning.
What are you implying by this?
I am implying that hanging out in the physics common area does not "osmotically" bestow upon you an understanding of cosmology. Get some core concepts down and then maybe I can take your analysis of science seriously.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Nephi wrote:Heh... really cool. It would be cool if that was redone with modern ideas, like the idea that you couldn't "zoom out" and see all the galaxies. As far as we know, there is no end.
[SNIP!]
. . . I am implying that hanging out in the physics common area does not "osmotically" bestow upon you an understanding of cosmology. Get some core concepts down and then maybe I can take your analysis of science seriously.
Okay, Mercury, if you're contradicting Nephi's "there is no end" assertion, then it appears that you believe there is an end. Which makes sense, since if it's expanding, then it had to have been smaller before, and therefore not be entirely infinite even now.
So, will you please explain, for my benefit at least, the reason you dispute Nephi's "there is no end" assertion?
(I'm not challenging you here. I really, truly don't know.)
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Dr. Shades wrote: Okay, Mercury, if you're contradicting Nephi's "there is no end" assertion, then it appears that you believe there is an end. Which makes sense, since if it's expanding, then it had to have been smaller before, and therefore not be entirely infinite even now.
So, will you please explain, for my benefit at least, the reason you dispute Nephi's "there is no end" assertion?
(I'm not challenging you here. I really, truly don't know.)
I really want to know too! This is something that has always interested me.