If the universe is shaped like a cone why does the sky look round?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Lisa Horton, Apr 19, 2004.

  1. Lisa Horton

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Lisa Horton, Apr 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lisa Horton wrote:
    >
    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879


    From inside this model of the universe, you supposedly cannot see (or
    go) outside. Light approaching the boundary connects back inside
    somewhere else and so do all paths of moving objects. Besides,
    whether or not you can observe to any of the boundaries depends on
    where you are, inside the universe, and how far out from that point
    you can observe. So, to an observer inside such a universe, there are
    only very subtle clues that this is the form. The elliptical
    appearance of the blobs of microwave energy coming toward us from all
    directions would be one of those clues (so they say).

    --
    John Popelish
    John Popelish, Apr 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lisa Horton

    Fred Bloggs Guest

    (Lisa Horton) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?


    No. All the stars you can see (with the naked eye anyway) are in our
    own galaxy, which is just one of the gazillions of galaxies out there.
    Fred Bloggs, Apr 19, 2004
    #3
  4. Lisa Horton

    Ed Keane III Guest

    "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879


    The cone shape in the article represents something that
    looks round when seen from within. The narrow part of
    the cone is what you see at great distance in any direction.
    It is interesting that it suggests that objects in the universe
    seen at such great distances and age would not look round.
    Round objects from this time would appear elliptical when
    viewed now.

    As for the stars being concentrated in certain areas of the
    sky all of the individual stars that we can see, with the
    exception of super novas, are part of our galaxy, The Milky
    Way, and do appear to be more or less concentrated
    depending on whether you are looking towards or away
    from the center of The Milky Way.
    Ed Keane III, Apr 19, 2004
    #4
  5. Lisa Horton

    Painius Guest

    "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message... news:...
    >
    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879


    Stars... no, Lisa, the stars are too close together and clustered in large
    massive "galaxies." And galaxies also cluster together on a larger and
    larger scale. Where significant concentrations of galaxy clusters in
    certain areas of the sky are concerned, scientists think that we are too
    far away to be able to observe these areas.

    Also, where your cited article refers to this cone form as a "Picard
    topology," and then makes the cute allusion to it being named for a
    Star Trek character, i believe the following is about the person for
    whom this topology is *really* named...

    http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Picard_Emile.html

    happy days and...
    starry starry nights!

    --
    I'm a fool upon a hill,
    See my planet spinning still?
    Sun goes down and stars arise
    Warm and pleasing to mine eyes.

    See my little telescope?
    People say I'm such a dope;
    I don't mind because I nurse
    Secrets of the Universe!

    Paine Ellsworth
    Painius, Apr 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Lisa Horton

    Jaxtraw Guest

    "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879


    It seems strange to me that everybody presumes that the universe is some
    kind of regular, easily described shape; surely there is no reason to
    presume this. Is there not as much chance that it's a complex, lumpy shape,
    like the distribution of matter within it/ that defines it?

    Ian
    Jaxtraw, Apr 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Lisa Horton

    Hadji Guest

    "Jaxtraw" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    > >
    > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

    >
    > It seems strange to me that everybody presumes that the universe is some
    > kind of regular, easily described shape; surely there is no reason to
    > presume this. Is there not as much chance that it's a complex, lumpy

    shape,
    > like the distribution of matter within it/ that defines it?


    Plus, everyone's assuming just because matter ends the universe then has to
    end.

    Hadji
    Hadji, Apr 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Lisa Horton

    Wayne Shanks Guest

    Lisa Horton wrote:

    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

    The cone of the model is a 4D cone. The cone depicted in the atricle is
    that of a 2D universe.

    The interesting point is that at the narrow end of the cone, one of our
    spatial dimention is curled up just like the extra dimentions in sting
    theory..

    Does the mean that space in that region is 2D not 3D?

    The question them becomes... is there a point in the universe where one
    or more of the curled up higher dimention of string theory "unwind".

    Perhaps the ovservable univers is just a small rejion on a 11+1 D Picard
    topology, where all spatial dimentions but 3 are coiled up.

    physics at lower and higher dimention might be very interesting.

    Wayne Shanks
    Wayne Shanks, Apr 21, 2004
    #8
  9. Lisa Horton

    crynwulf Guest

    Jaxtraw wrote:

    > "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >>
    >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

    >
    > It seems strange to me that everybody presumes that the universe is some
    > kind of regular, easily described shape; surely there is no reason to
    > presume this. Is there not as much chance that it's a complex, lumpy
    > shape, like the distribution of matter within it/ that defines it?
    >
    > Ian

    How can the Universe have a shape if it is everything. Wouldn't it have to
    be in something to have a shape?
    --
    Russ Lyttle
    Not Powered by ActiveX
    http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec/philosophy/logos.html
    crynwulf, Apr 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Lisa Horton

    Wayne Shanks Guest

    Wayne Shanks wrote:

    > Lisa Horton wrote:
    >
    >> Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >>
    >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

    >
    > The cone of the model is a 4D cone. The cone depicted in the atricle is
    > that of a 2D universe.
    >
    > The interesting point is that at the narrow end of the cone, one of our
    > spatial dimention is curled up just like the extra dimentions in sting
    > theory..
    >
    > Does the mean that space in that region is 2D not 3D?
    >
    > The question them becomes... is there a point in the universe where one
    > or more of the curled up higher dimention of string theory "unwind".
    >
    > Perhaps the ovservable univers is just a small rejion on a 11+1 D Picard
    > topology, where all spatial dimentions but 3 are coiled up.
    >
    > physics at lower and higher dimention might be very interesting.
    >
    > Wayne Shanks



    HMMMM this is interesting..

    Consider an electron fired down the narrow end of such a Picard topology.

    At some point he diameter of the universe in the curled up dimension
    will be of the same order as the electron wave packet. As the geometry
    shrinks further you should get stationary states of the electron in the
    curled up dimension. Electrons fired down the Picard topology neck with
    different amounts of momentum in the curled up dimension will look like
    different particles. (well different excited states at least).

    I pretend to know little to nothing about sting (M) theory, but I would
    love to hear a "brane-y" guy comment on string modes being higher
    dimensional momentum confined to coiled up dimensions.

    Wayne Shanks (Pitiful Experimentalist… slightly lower than Pitiful Human)
    Wayne Shanks, Apr 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Lisa Horton

    Wayne Shanks Guest

    Wayne Shanks wrote:

    > Wayne Shanks wrote:
    >
    >> Lisa Horton wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

    >>
    >>
    >> The cone of the model is a 4D cone. The cone depicted in the atricle
    >> is that of a 2D universe.
    >>
    >> The interesting point is that at the narrow end of the cone, one of
    >> our spatial dimention is curled up just like the extra dimentions in
    >> sting theory..
    >>
    >> Does the mean that space in that region is 2D not 3D?
    >>
    >> The question them becomes... is there a point in the universe where
    >> one or more of the curled up higher dimention of string theory "unwind".
    >>
    >> Perhaps the ovservable univers is just a small rejion on a 11+1 D
    >> Picard topology, where all spatial dimentions but 3 are coiled up.
    >>
    >> physics at lower and higher dimention might be very interesting.
    >>
    >> Wayne Shanks

    >
    >
    >
    > HMMMM this is interesting..
    >
    > Consider an electron fired down the narrow end of such a Picard topology.
    >
    > At some point he diameter of the universe in the curled up dimension
    > will be of the same order as the electron wave packet. As the geometry
    > shrinks further you should get stationary states of the electron in the
    > curled up dimension. Electrons fired down the Picard topology neck with
    > different amounts of momentum in the curled up dimension will look like
    > different particles. (well different excited states at least).
    >
    > I pretend to know little to nothing about sting (M) theory, but I would
    > love to hear a "brane-y" guy comment on string modes being higher
    > dimensional momentum confined to coiled up dimensions.
    >
    > Wayne Shanks (Pitiful Experimentalist… slightly lower than Pitiful Human)
    Wayne Shanks, Apr 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Lisa Horton

    Wayne Shanks Guest

    Wayne Shanks wrote:

    > Wayne Shanks wrote:
    >
    >> Lisa Horton wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

    >>
    >>
    >> The cone of the model is a 4D cone. The cone depicted in the atricle
    >> is that of a 2D universe.
    >>
    >> The interesting point is that at the narrow end of the cone, one of
    >> our spatial dimention is curled up just like the extra dimentions in
    >> sting theory..
    >>
    >> Does the mean that space in that region is 2D not 3D?
    >>
    >> The question them becomes... is there a point in the universe where
    >> one or more of the curled up higher dimention of string theory "unwind".
    >>
    >> Perhaps the ovservable univers is just a small rejion on a 11+1 D
    >> Picard topology, where all spatial dimentions but 3 are coiled up.
    >>
    >> physics at lower and higher dimention might be very interesting.
    >>
    >> Wayne Shanks

    >
    >
    >
    > HMMMM this is interesting..
    >
    > Consider an electron fired down the narrow end of such a Picard topology.
    >
    > At some point he diameter of the universe in the curled up dimension
    > will be of the same order as the electron wave packet. As the geometry
    > shrinks further you should get stationary states of the electron in the
    > curled up dimension. Electrons fired down the Picard topology neck with
    > different amounts of momentum in the curled up dimension will look like
    > different particles. (well different excited states at least).
    >
    > I pretend to know little to nothing about sting (M) theory, but I would
    > love to hear a "brane-y" guy comment on string modes being higher
    > dimensional momentum confined to coiled up dimensions.
    >
    > Wayne Shanks (Pitiful Experimentalist… slightly lower than Pitiful Human)


    I reme amber some time ago within a thread about absolute rest frames, I
    posed the question “in the rest frame of the electron, if the Universe
    is Finite, then the wave packet can potentially expand to fill the
    entire universe (be coherent over that distance) and interfere with
    itself. Is there then a ground state to a free electron in a finite
    universe, and since electrons are fermions, is there only (potentially)
    1 ground state electron per rest frame?”

    I never got a comment.


    this questions become more interesting when the size of the universe
    becomes small.

    Think about the situation where one dimension is curled up to plank
    scales. The only particle that could possibly have a wave function that
    would fit within such a dimension would have a Huge momentum component
    in the curled up direction, thus a VERY large mass. The sequence of
    curled up dimension stationary states would have distinct and increasing
    masses ( like different particles)

    Question: You shoot an electron down the neck of a Picard topology with
    some momentum component in the curled up dimension, At some point The
    particle wave function can no longer propagate because the curled up
    dimension is exactly one wavelength in circumference. Does the particle
    stop (where does the non-curled dimension momentum go?) or does the
    particle continue by shedding the energy in the curled up dimension by
    emitting a photon ( or the equivalent in one less dimension)... how can
    shedding energy help fit within the curled up dimension?

    going back to my first question above....

    is there a minimum momentum in the curled up dimension, where if the
    momentum drops or the curled up dimension get smaller then the wave
    packet interferes with itself to violate the wave function PDF (i.e.
    this can't happen, so there is a ground state energy for a particular
    curled up dimension size)?





    Enough ranting for tonight

    Wayne Shanks
    Wayne Shanks, Apr 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Re: If the universe is shaped like a cone, where's the ice cream?

    ....ibid....

    LT
    Linda Terrell, Apr 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Lisa Horton

    F. Kuik Guest

    "Lisa Horton" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879


    There is nothing new about the universe being a cone. It's the universe
    being a "horn" (a curved cone) what's a bit new, but nothing revolutionairy
    in my opinion.

    Explain why you would think stars would be concentrated more in certain
    directions.

    Floris
    F. Kuik, Apr 21, 2004
    #14
  15. Lisa Horton

    George Kerby Guest

    Re: If the universe is shaped like a cone why does the sky lookround?

    On 4/21/04 5:12 PM, in article c66s01$4sb$, "F. Kuik"
    <> wrote:

    >
    > "Lisa Horton" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:...
    >> Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >>
    >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

    >
    > There is nothing new about the universe being a cone. It's the universe
    > being a "horn" (a curved cone) what's a bit new, but nothing revolutionairy
    > in my opinion.
    >
    > Explain why you would think stars would be concentrated more in certain
    > directions.
    >
    > Floris
    >
    >

    So the Universe is just a big tuba or a 'horn of plenty' cornucopia?!?
    "Veeeeerrrrrryy Interesting!"


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Apr 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Lisa Horton

    Guest

    (Lisa Horton) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879


    What you see as the sky is well explained by Ned Wright below.

    Please take a look figures from Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial:

    http://wwww.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm

    and following important text parts in it:

    A.
    "This space-time diagram shows the inflationary epoch tinted green,
    and the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    future lightcones of two events in red. The early event has a future
    lightcone
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    that covers a huge area, that can easily encompass all of our horizon.
    Thus we
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    can explain why the temperature of the microwave background is so
    uniform across the sky. "

    B.
    "The space-time diagram on the left above shows the future lightcones
    of
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    quantum fluctuation events. The top of this diagram is really a volume
    which
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    intersects our past lightcone making the sky. The future lightcones of
    events
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    become circles on the sky.
    --------------------------
    Events early in the inflationary epoch make large circles on the sky,
    as shown in the bottom map on the right. Later events make smaller
    circles as shown in the middle map, but there are more of them so the
    sky coverage is the same as before. Even later events make many small
    circles which again give the same sky coverage as seen on the top map.
    "

    Best Regards,

    Hannu Poropudas

    ---COPY--OF--THE--TEXT-----BELOW-----SORRY ABOUT---MISSING
    FIGURES---------

    Inflation
    The "inflationary scenario", developed by Starobinsky and by Guth,
    offers a solution to the flatness-oldness problem and the horizon
    problem. The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density. We
    normally think of the vacuum as empty and massless, and we can
    determine that the density of the vacuum is less than 1E-30 gm/cc now.
    But in quantum field theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather
    filled with virtual particles:




    The space-time diagram above shows virtual particle-antiparticle pairs
    forming out of nothing and then annihilating back into nothing. For
    particles of mass m, one expects about one virtual particle in each
    cubical volume with sides given by the Compton wavelength of the
    particle, h/mc, where h is Planck's constant. Thus the expected
    density of the vacuum is rho = m4*c3/h3 which is rather large. For the
    largest elementary particle mass usually considered, the Planck mass M
    defined by 2*pi*G*M2 = h*c, this density is 2*1091 gm/cc. That's a 2
    followed by 91 zeroes! Thus the vacuum energy density is at least 121
    orders of magnitude smaller than the naive quantum estimate, so there
    must be a very effective suppression mechanism at work. If a small
    residual vacuum energy density exists now, it leads to a "cosmological
    constant" which is one proposed mechanism to relieve the tight squeeze
    between the Omegao=1 model age of the Universe, to = (2/3)/Ho = 9 Gyr,
    and the apparent age of the oldest globular clusters, 12-14 Gyr. The
    vacuum energy density can do this because it produces a "repulsive
    gravity" that causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate
    instead of decelerate, and this increases to for a given Ho.

    The inflationary scenario proposes that the vacuum energy was very
    large during a brief period early in the history of the Universe. When
    the Universe is dominated by a vacuum energy density the scale factor
    grows exponentially, a(t) = exp(H(t-to)). The Hubble constant really
    is constant during this epoch so it doesn't need the "naught". If the
    inflationary epoch lasts long enough the exponential function gets
    very large. This makes a(t) very large, and thus makes the radius of
    curvature of the Universe very large. The diagram below shows our
    horizon superimposed on a very large radius sphere on top, or a
    smaller sphere on the bottom. Since we can only see as far as our
    horizon, for the inflationary case on top the large radius sphere
    looks almost flat to us.




    This solves the flatness-oldness problem as long as the exponential
    growth during the inflationary epoch continues for at least 100
    doublings. Inflation also solves the horizon problem, because the
    future lightcone of an event that happens before inflation is expanded
    to a huge region by the growth during inflation.



    This space-time diagram shows the inflationary epoch tinted green, and
    the future lightcones of two events in red. The early event has a
    future lightcone that covers a huge area, that can easily encompass
    all of our horizon. Thus we can explain why the temperature of the
    microwave background is so uniform across the sky.

    Details: Large-Scale Structure and Anisotropy
    Of course the Universe is not really homogeneous, since it contains
    dense regions like galaxies and people. These dense regions should
    affect the temperature of the microwave background. Sachs and Wolfe
    (1967, ApJ, 147, 73) derived the effect of the gravitational potential
    perturbations on the CMB. The gravitational potential, phi = -GM/r,
    will be negative in dense lumps, and positive in less dense regions.
    Photons lose energy when they climb out of the gravitational potential
    wells of the lumps:




    This conformal space-time diagram above shows lumps as gray vertical
    bars, the epoch before recombination as the hatched region, and the
    gravitational potential as the color-coded curve phi(x). Where our
    past lightcone intersects the surface of recombination, we see a
    temperature perturbed by dT/T = phi/(3*c2). Sachs and Wolfe predicted
    temperature fluctuations dT/T as large as 1 percent, but we know now
    that the Universe is far more homogeneous than Sachs and Wolfe
    thought. So observers worked for years to get enough sensitivity to
    see the temperature differences around the sky. The first anisotropy
    to be detected was the dipole anisotropy by Conklin in 1969:



    The map above is from COBE and is much better than Conklin's 2
    standard deviation detection. The red part of the sky is hotter by
    (v/c)*To, while the blue part of the sky is colder by (v/c)*To, where
    the inferred velocity is v = 368 km/sec. This is how we measure the
    velocity of the Solar System relative to the observable Universe. It
    was another 23 years before the anisotropy predicted by Sachs and
    Wolfe was detected by Smoot et al. (1992, ApJL, 396, 1). The amplitude
    was 1 part in 100,000 instead of 1 part in 100, but was perfectly
    consistent with Lambda-CDM [Wright et al. 1992, ApJL, 396, 13].



    The map above shows cosmic anisotropy (and detector noise) after the
    dipole pattern and the radiation from the Milky Way have been
    subtracted out. The anisotropy in this map has an RMS value of 30
    microK, and if it is converted into a gravitational potential using
    Sachs and Wolfe's result and that potential is then expressed as a
    height assuming a constant acceleration of gravity equal to the
    gravity on the Earth, we get a height of twice the distance from the
    Earth to the Sun. The "mountains and valleys" of the Universe are
    really quite large.

    Inflation predicts a certain statistical pattern in the anisotropy.
    The quantum fluctuations normally affect very small regions of space,
    but the huge exponential expansion during the inflationary epoch makes
    these tiny regions observable.




    The space-time diagram on the left above shows the future lightcones
    of quantum fluctuation events. The top of this diagram is really a
    volume which intersects our past lightcone making the sky. The future
    lightcones of events become circles on the sky. Events early in the
    inflationary epoch make large circles on the sky, as shown in the
    bottom map on the right. Later events make smaller circles as shown in
    the middle map, but there are more of them so the sky coverage is the
    same as before. Even later events make many small circles which again
    give the same sky coverage as seen on the top map.

    An animated GIF file showing the spatial part of the above space-time
    diagram as a function of time is available here [1.2 MB].




    The pattern formed by adding all of the effects from events of all
    ages is known as "equal power on all scales", and it agrees with the
    COBE data.

    Having found that the observed pattern of anisotropy is consistent
    with inflation, we can also ask whether the amplitude implies
    gravitational forces large enough to produce the observed clustering
    of galaxies.




    The conformal space-time diagram above shows the phi(x) at
    recombination determined by COBE's dT data, and the worldlines of
    galaxies which are perturbed by the gravitational forces produced by
    the gradient of the potential. Matter flows "downhill" away from peaks
    of the potential (red spots on the COBE map), producing voids in the
    current distribution of galaxies, while valleys in the potential (blue
    spots) are where the clusters of galaxies form.

    COBE was not able to see spots as small as clusters or even
    superclusters of galaxies, but if we use "equal power on all scales"
    to extrapolate the COBE data to smaller scales, we find that the
    gravitational forces are large enough to produce the observed
    clustering, but only if these forces are not opposed by other forces.
    If the all the matter in the Universe is made out of the ordinary
    chemical elements, then there was a very effective opposing force
    before recombination, because the free electrons which are now bound
    into atoms were very effective at scattering the photons of the cosmic
    background. We can therefore conclude that most of the matter in the
    Universe is "dark matter" that does not emit, absorb or scatter light.
    Furthermore, observations of distant supernovae have shown that most
    of the energy density of the Universe is a vacuum energy density (a
    "dark energy") like Einstein's cosmological constant that causes an
    accelerating expansion of the Universe. These strange conclusions have
    been greatly strengthened by temperature anisotropy data at smaller
    angular scales which was be provided by the Wilkinson Microwave
    Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) in 2003.


    Ned Wright's home page

    FAQ | Tutorial : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Age | Distances |
    Bibliography | Relativity

    © 1996-2003 Edward L. Wright. Last modified 30 Dec 2003
    , Apr 29, 2004
    #16
  17. (Lisa Horton) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879


    Most of the theories of modern physics from SR to GR to QED to QFT to
    String theory to M-THEORY and to their absudities of Dark Matter, Dark
    Energy, Virtual Photons, Virtual Electrons, strange coloured and
    ridiculously charmed Quarks are mere mathematical fantasies of an
    increasingly corrupt elite which have built their welfare on. If you
    are currently enrolled in an educational institution, I urge you to
    change your course and major as soon as possible.
    John Schoenfeld, Apr 29, 2004
    #17
  18. Lisa Horton

    Guest

    () wrote in message news:<>...
    > (Lisa Horton) wrote in message news:<>...
    > > Wouldn't the stars be concentrated more in certain areas of the sky?
    > >
    > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

    >
    > What you see as the sky is well explained by Ned Wright below.
    >
    > Please take a look figures from Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial:
    >
    > http://wwww.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm
    >


    Sorry that above internet address seems to have some problems.

    Try to get correct page in guestion from the following address,
    which seems to work:

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

    > and following important text parts in it:
    >
    > A.
    > "This space-time diagram shows the inflationary epoch tinted green,
    > and the
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > future lightcones of two events in red. The early event has a future
    > lightcone
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > that covers a huge area, that can easily encompass all of our horizon.
    > Thus we
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > can explain why the temperature of the microwave background is so
    > uniform across the sky. "
    >
    > B.
    > "The space-time diagram on the left above shows the future lightcones
    > of
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > quantum fluctuation events. The top of this diagram is really a volume
    > which
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > intersects our past lightcone making the sky. The future lightcones of
    > events
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > become circles on the sky.
    > --------------------------
    > Events early in the inflationary epoch make large circles on the sky,
    > as shown in the bottom map on the right. Later events make smaller
    > circles as shown in the middle map, but there are more of them so the
    > sky coverage is the same as before. Even later events make many small
    > circles which again give the same sky coverage as seen on the top map.
    > "
    >
    > Best Regards,
    >
    > Hannu Poropudas
    >
    > ---COPY--OF--THE--TEXT-----BELOW-----SORRY ABOUT---MISSING
    > FIGURES---------
    >
    , Apr 30, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan

    Computer Goes Round and Round Checking

    Alan, Oct 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    922
    Monroe Dowling
    Oct 8, 2004
  2. tontoko

    Stereoscopic Cone Nebula

    tontoko, Jan 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    294
    tontoko
    Jan 30, 2007
  3. outofdate

    why does lcd tv look like crap?

    outofdate, Jan 3, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    84
    Views:
    2,243
    Andrew Dixon
    Jan 24, 2006
  4. John

    Small cone speaker for PC

    John, May 4, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    535
    Frank Williams
    May 5, 2010
  5. DaGenester
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,145
    Ed Rusi
    May 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page