The Universe

Originally posted by josephw
What I read about the near infrared imaging gave me the impression that the entire universe was essentially flat, 15 billion light years thick and 200 across.

We are all curious as to where you read that. I have been interested in astronomy for a long time an have never come across any source that suggests the universe is flat and or of those dimensions. The atlas I used as a child had a map of the local universe going out further than 200 light years in every direction.

But I'm getting conflicting information it seems, and no concrete evidence as to the actual shape. At best I'm hearing the assumed shape is spherical.
The is zero evidence as to the actual shape and size other than it is probably larger than the visible universe (which is spherical merely due to the fact that light travels as a constant speed). There is no reason to assume the whole universe is spherical, so that is not 'best'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We are all curious as to where you read that. I have been interested in astronomy for a long time an have never come across any source that suggests the universe is flat and or of those dimensions. The atlas I used as a child had a map of the local universe going out further than 200 light years in every direction.

[b]But I'm getting conflicting inform ...[text shortened]... ant speed). There is no reason to assume the whole universe is spherical, so that is not 'best'.

November 24, 2010

Earth is Not Flat, But the Universe Probably Is

Researchers have developed a simple technique that adds evidence to the theory that the Universe is flat.

Moreover, the method - developed by revisiting a 30-year-old idea - confirms that "dark energy" makes up nearly three-quarters of the Universe.

The research, published in Nature, uses existing data and relies on fewer assumptions than current approaches.

Author Christian Marinoni says the idea turns estimating the Universe's shape into "primary school" geometry.

While the idea of the Earth being flat preoccupied explorers centuries ago, the question of whether the Universe itself is flat remains a debatable topic.

http://www.realclearscience.com/2010/11/24/earth_is_not_flat_but_the_universe_probably_is_238574.html

Universe Measured With Near-Perfect Accuracy: Scientists Say It's Probably Infinite, Flat, And Eternal

By Ben Wolford on January 9, 2014 3:29 PM EST


Scientists announced Thursday that they've pretty much figured out the universe, unlocking potential clues to mysterious "dark energy;" bolstering theories that the universe is flat, eternal, and infinite; and mapping 1.3 million galaxies down to about 1 percent accuracy. All of this from an experiment that isn't even done collecting data yet. It's supposed to keep going until June.

"We've done the analysis now because we have 90 percent of [the experiment's] final data, and we're tremendously excited by the results," says Martin White, chair of the survey team and physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. They announced the findings Thursday and have submitted their paper for publication with the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The team has good reason to be excited: no one has ever mapped the universe so accurately. As team leader David Schlegel put it, "I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house."

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6651/20140109/universe-measured-perfect-accuracy-infinite-flat-eternal.htm

But let us not ASSUME so not to make an ASS out of U and ME.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But let us not ASSUME so not to make an ASS out of U and ME.

I fairly sure no one could make any more of an ass out of you than you do yourself, although I shall have to assume you are going to decline the opportunity to declare your chess honesty. If it was me and I was innocent, I would take the thread as a gifted opportunity to lay it on the line before God and all witnesses that I was so. It is interesting that you won't.

Originally posted by divegeester
I fairly sure no one could make any more of an ass out of you than you do yourself, although I shall have to assume you are going to decline the opportunity to declare your chess honesty. If it was me and I was innocent, I would take the thread as a gifted opportunity to lay it on the line before God and all witnesses that I was so. It is interesting that you won't.

"If it was me and I was innocent, I would take the thread as a gifted opportunity to lay it on the line before God and all witnesses that I was so."

If you were innocent.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"If it was me and I was innocent, I would take the thread as a gifted opportunity to lay it on the line before God and all witnesses that I was so."

If you were innocent.[/b]

I seem to have gotten under your skin joesephw; what is it you think I'm guilty of? Do you have the courage to express it, or are you going to flim-flam again?

Originally posted by twhitehead
We are all curious as to where you read that. I have been interested in astronomy for a long time an have never come across any source that suggests the universe is flat and or of those dimensions. The atlas I used as a child had a map of the local universe going out further than 200 light years in every direction.

[b]But I'm getting conflicting inform ...[text shortened]... ant speed). There is no reason to assume the whole universe is spherical, so that is not 'best'.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

"Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

Originally posted by divegeester
I seem to have gotten under your skin joesephw; what is it you think I'm guilty of? Do you have the courage to express it, or are you going to flim-flam again?

You're guilty of bashing Christians.

I already told you that, so you can quit with the obfuscating.

Originally posted by josephw
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

"Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has co ...[text shortened]... can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

As already pointed out:
1. The 'flatness' they are referring too is not one of the 3 spacial dimensions.
2. The figures you quoted are not in that article.
3. The article says the Universe may be infinite (ie has no shape).

So can you give us any source that gives the figures you keep mentioning, or did you make them up?

Originally posted by RJHinds
But let us not ASSUME so not to make an ASS out of U and ME.[/b]

Assuming that you are capable of understanding science, or the subject of this thread, does make an ass out of you. But your assumptions don't rub off on me.
As already pointed out multiple times, the flatness in those articles do not refer to one of the 3 spacial dimensions.

Originally posted by josephw
You're guilty of bashing Christians.

I already told you that, so you can quit with the obfuscating.

You are confusing challenging with bashing.

This is a debate forum where people debate one another; challenging opinions and firmly held beliefs. I choose to confront you for your lack of courage to admit to the forum that you adhere to the horrendous medieval beliefs you hold about God. That you don't like me doing this is neither here nor there to me as I feel compelled to call out you fundies who propagate these horrible beliefs which bring disrepute to the gospel.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As already pointed out:
1. The 'flatness' they are referring too is not one of the 3 spacial dimensions.
2. The figures you quoted are not in that article.
3. The article says the Universe may be infinite (ie has no shape).

So can you give us any source that gives the figures you keep mentioning, or did you make them up?

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question35.html

The current theoretical belief (because it is predicted by the theory of cosmic inflation) is that the universe is flat, with exactly the amount of mass required to stop the expansion (the corresponding average critical density that would just stop the is called the closure density). Recent observations (such as the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA cosmic microwave background radiation results, and various supernova observations) imply that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If so, this strongly suggests that the universe is geometrically "flat".

Originally posted by twhitehead
As already pointed out:
1. The 'flatness' they are referring too is not one of the 3 spacial dimensions.
2. The figures you quoted are not in that article.
3. The article says the Universe may be infinite (ie has no shape).

So can you give us any source that gives the figures you keep mentioning, or did you make them up?

They say the observable universe is 46 million light years in diameter. I'm trying to find we're I read about the dimensions of a flat universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As already pointed out:
1. The 'flatness' they are referring too is not one of the 3 spacial dimensions.
2. The figures you quoted are not in that article.
3. The article says the Universe may be infinite (ie has no shape).

So can you give us any source that gives the figures you keep mentioning, or did you make them up?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

"Although the shape of the universe is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, based on the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error", according to NASA scientists."

Originally posted by josephw
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

"Although the shape of the universe is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, based on the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error", according to NASA scientists."

Yes but the article also ways "When physicists describe the universe as being flat or nearly flat, they're talking geometry: how space and time are warped according to general relativity."

This is not the everyday usage of "shape".

Originally posted by josephw
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

"Although the shape of the universe is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, based on the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error", according to NASA scientists."

Basically 'flat' in this context means that mater/energy is [roughly speaking] evenly spread out over the
entire universe.

When looked at on the largest scales.

As space is distorted by fluctuations in the mass/energy density the fact that [on large scales] there
is little variation in mass density means that space is largely flat.

The traditional visualisation is to drop one spacial dimension and imagine space as a two dimensional
[rubber] sheet. Masses placed on this sheet produce depressions where the sheet deforms downwards.
Objects on the sheet tend to want to roll down into the depressions and this distortion of the sheet
simulates gravity.

If the masses placed on the sheet are spread over it's surface fairly evenly then on a large scale the sheet
will be pretty flat.

However if masses are highly concentrated in some regions and very sparse in others then the depressions in
the regions with lots of masses will join together to produce a giant depression effecting that entire region
making that entire region 'lower' than the regions with few masses. And on large scales space would not be
flat.

As we observe the universe on the scale of galaxy clusters, we can to a fairly good approximation see that
matter is spread out pretty evenly with little variation in density. Which corresponds with what we see in the
temperature fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation [CMB] where there is very little variation
due to the early universe being at a uniform temperature/density to a high degree of accuracy/uniformity.

The 'shape' of the visible universe is a sphere... centred on the observer.

Watch the new series of Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson... You might learn something.


Apologies if anyone else has said this [several times] before.