Unnamed 10th Planet Discovered

what do you think that if we become star trekkers then we will bump into the end wall of the universe!!!

 

dlogic ... refer to the treatise above ...

for 2D dwellers a sphere (or for that matter any 3D object will seem to go on and on ...)

 

i was sarcastic.........(think ...now you even need to specify being sarcastic)

 

gr8 debate guys!i feel the going further with universe is beyond our imagination!may be we may have to await some new advanced technology to widen our outlook!

 

ok...according to newtons theory of gravity stars should attract eachother so it seemed they cant remain essenetially motionless, this thay should fall togethor at some point. newton argued taht this would indeed happen if there were only a finite number of stars distributed over a finite region of space, but on the other hand if there were an infinite number of stars distributed more or less uniformly over infinite space this wont happen as there wont be a central point for them to fall into.
BUT!!! the biggest contradiction to this talk about infinity is , in an infinite universe every point becomes the centre, as every point has infinite numebr of stars on each side. thus the correct approach is to take take the universe as a finite situation in which all stars fall into each other and then to ask how things change as u add more, roughly uniformly distributed outside this region. Again , according to newotns law , the extra stars wudmake no difference at all to the original ones on average so the sats wud fall in just as fast. add as many as u like but they will always fallinto ech other. thus an infinite model is impossible in which gravity is always attractive( which it is)
One more contraiction to the infinite universe is, every line of sight woud end on the surface of a star, thus u wud expect the whole sky to be as bright as the sun even at night, even if u considerd that light from distabt stars wud be dimmed by absorption by intervening matter, but id taht happend the obstucting maater wud eventually heat yp until it glowed as brightly as the stars. the only way way of avoiding this is thesolution of a finite universe.

 

Dr Saurabh ...
whatever u just said makes me sad ...
coz it says that u are not able to think beyond normal 3 orthogonal spatial dimensions ...

this thread is turning semi-SPAM ... machines beware !

 

actually its a very futile debate.........coz for each of the notions u can find contradictions.......
for universe to be infinte u will have to consider space to be "curved"
assuming u consider one of the tree models of friedman.....u wud still end up with a less than satisfactory answer....again universe has to be "going around in circles" or has to be contiuously expanding at a rate which woud proportionately rewuire more energy to expand than the system itself.....or will come to a point where every zillion ziillion zillion years the galaxies wud whizz past each other.....
it becomes a pointless debate....*sigh*

PS the reason i chose not to delve into the fouth dimension is coz then theory of relativity woud come into picture and considering the big bang is the most accepted theories the big bang stil represents a singularity at which the theory of relativiy fails......

 

Hey thinking of the universe make me choke dude .... What the hell ..... I agree Newton and Enstien were some major stuffs .... But need not mean they r the greatest STUDS ...

Do u know that newtons M1 * M2 / R2 ... Needs correction ......
So does E=MC2 ...

So even they can b wrong ... Maybe in their approach ... If they knew everything ..!!! No idea what stuffs wud b like 2 day ...

 

:..serious matters...physics...!!..I am weak in it...SO i'll walk out...:dance: