The deepest question

Steve Salter,Greenwood, SC — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 02:38:50 GMT

With mankinds limited perceptions leading him to live in a three dimensional universe he can only aspire to see a small fraction of what the true universe is really like. We, with our scietific prowesses will only skim the surfaces of true reality. In the meantime the deepest question is not how the universe works but why it exists at all. This question is what religions have tried to explain throughout the journey of mankind and will continue to haunt him until mankind no longer exists.

The deepest question

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:04:41 GMT

My feeling is that we are very close to a game-changing breakthrough in cosmology and I became energized to see all the ‘unhindered’ wonder and brainstorming that went on in the original “Deep Questions” thread! “Will the expansion of space reach a breaking point?” One person asked… and on and on it went!

With such a beckoning open forum to participate in, I began to wonder myself if all these extra dimensions we hear about might be at the subatomic level instead of way out at the far reaches of the cosmos. Could gravity be the “physical” affect of the first physical dimension? Could electricity, the strong and weak force, and magnetism simply be the “affect” of a fourth and fifth dimension? How can the information between tied electron travel instantaneously if it’s not traveling through a simpler fabric of space? If both photons and mater can act like waves, could there indeed be some “unified fabric of space” that even pervades a void?

This last idea reminded me of how my Native American and Buddhist teachers often talk about being able to feel and sense things that cannot currently be explained by science. We all hear about dogs barking before an earthquake and so on, right? Wouldn’t it be unscientific to ignore what so many martial artists, yogis, native peoples, and our spiritual elders tell us they can feel, I thought? After all, we are not just talking about one religious group and it would actually seem a unified fabric of space (stretched and made dynamic by all these other dimensions) could permit this. There does seem to be an interconnectedness between all living things, which even the newest “Stringnet-liquid theory” from MIT also suggests!

Ultimately, we might all just be extruded from a single, one-dimensional point. But, unlike the big bang, this point still exists and is the foundation of the fabric of space itself, which is inflated around it. If this were true, this might be the long-awaited bridge between science and religion as most religions also argue that there is “the heart of god” or a “Buddha seed” in everything!

Oh… and as for Dark Matter? How about giant iron worlds blasted from supernova that have the mass of a star but cannot induce fusion because of the inherent nature of iron?

Thanks for your time!

The deepest question

Des Emery,TheCarborundumChronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:13:55 GMT

Hi, Alan -- Lee Smolin's piece is indeed 'deep' and its conjectures may prove accurate within twenty years. Presuming that we are still here, that would open many doors.

But for my money I would like to find out "Who am I?"
The question has been asked much longer than "What is it?" about spacetime, and has never been answered, yet.

The deepest question

M. J. Berger — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:59:29 GMT

This is not in any way meant to besmirch the need for
scientific research into the nature of ultimate reality - to try to answer the age-old questions that mankind has posed about its origin(s) and its place in a universe that we cannot adequately grasp the nature of. I was trained as a medical scientist and
also follow developments in the physical sciences, and these questions are as much a part of me as the blood flowing through my veins...but, I also believe that, as much as we need to follow our native curiosity about who we are and how we got here, I also believe that the idea of "mystery" is as compelling. To know that it is a certainty that we can never know "everything" - and yet, to keep on asking these questions and searching for answers - is to me, such a beautiful concept that I can see and feel as much wonder and awe in what I don't know as in the discoveries that point to what I do. Mystery also adds to faith another charm - that the "grand discovery" is resting in the searcher's palm.

Obviously, I can't and don't subscribe to the concept of "decoherence", where the observer is taken out of the equation - relativity has proven, already, that
this is an impossibility. I have contemplated the old notion about that tree in the forest that falls and we don't see or hear it fall: is it there, if we are not? Yes, I think it is, but I KNOW that if I were not here, the very idea of conceiving this tree would be irrelevent. How beautiful that we can ask these questions, make great progress through scientific and spiritual undertakings, and, at the end of the day,
say..."Well, now we know this and that, and we still can't quite get our minds around the "other"!

This speaks more to what we are and what we are a part of than any final answer that disallows further questioning. I say, keep on searching, keep the hope alive to find, and welcome the unfilled gaps after our efforts...so that the wonder of what we are that is at the heart of this mystery will always be with us. Sorry, Professor Hawking, I respectfully disagree that in twenty years or so all the ultimate questions will be answered - that is like taking an eraser to that wondrous blank slate that still demands more chalk.

The deepest question

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:39:00 GMT

Take this kindly. Come up for air and court people inplace of ideas for awhile. You may find that what you write has not been answered, has been.

The deepest question

Doug Fingles — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:20:02 GMT

..."because the universe doesn't have a fixed initial state. Instead, the initial state is determined by the final state."

Isn't that a violation of causality? Or, in a philosophical version, the end does justify the means?

The deepest question

Pat Williamson — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:22:39 GMT

What's on the other side of a black hole. Where does all that matter go? Does it create a giant bubble or ball and then explodewhen it reaches a certain critical point creating another universe (big bang)?

The deepest question

Earl Goshorn, Snohomish, WA — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:40:04 GMT

I just don't understand. Granted, I am far from being able to answer the "deep questions" that Hawking and crew claim to be able to answer, but perhaps I have a bigger question... Why have we stopped at the piddly little Universe that we link to the Big Bang? Back in the day, our ancestors looked to the stars and decided that the Earth was the center of the Universe, with the sun and moon circling us. Granted, they were wrong, but the "deep thinkers" of the time were burned as Heretics if they thought any different.

I look to the stars and have "Heretic like" thoughts. How about my own Marble Theory? Two huge chunks of matter hurtling through space, ( space being infinite and all ) then happen to collide here to form our Universe in a supposed "Big Bang".

What makes us so shallow minded to assume that this Universe is it? What about the infinite edges of space? Is there an edge? Could there not be billions and billions of other Universes whose "Steelies" send out more "Marbles" to start even more Universe-creating Big Bangs? I have a hard enough time wrapping my brain around "infinite", let alone; what binds it all together, if there is a parallel Universe, String theory, or what magical episode initiated the Big Bang. A theory is just that, and any one of them could be correct.

Perhaps it all started and ended with Dr Seuss, and Horton.

The deepest question

Raymond P. Bilodeau, Worcester, MA — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:00:43 GMT

Apparently there are no limitations on energy or matter according to the multiverse theorists, even though our experience and theory up to now have held that there are transformations, but no new creation of matter/energy. Vibrations require energy, or are they miraculous?

Once cosmology leaves limits behind, we are in a world of magic, where everything and anything is possible, so science becomes meaningless.

I agree with Greene that we need to move towards understanding the "fabric" of the universe, especially since that may well bring understanding of gravity, which remains intractable. But if we just multiply mysterious entities to "explain" things, Occam's Razor has rusted away indeed!

The deepest question

JC Riverton, CT — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:15:27 GMT

The only thing one can be sure of is that our present conjectures about strings and loops look silly to what they already know in the future.

The deepest question

Jason — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:01:30 GMT

"Why are we here," is THE question. The rest is all gravy in my opinion.

The deepest question

Hunter, Jacksonville Fl — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:26:19 GMT

if we found out the answer to "why are we here" was the amusement of our creators and there was no eternal reward, how would you feel abou that. sometimes ignorance is truly bliss.

The deepest question

John Campbell, Victoria BC Canada — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:30:50 GMT

Understanding decoherence as the process separating classical reality from quantum reality may provide answers to our deepest cosmic puzzle. Arguably the most advanced work on decoherence has been done by Wojeich Zurek (Los Alamos National Laboratory) and his colleagues. The culmination of their research is the theory of Quantum Darwinism, that identifies a Darwinian process responsible for selecting classical reality from the quantum reality. It is of course remarkable that a Darwinian process is fundamental to physics, just as it is to biology, and if you give credence to memetics, also to culture.

The deepest question

Chris — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:25:54 GMT

In an article on MSNBC:

"Researchers directing a special type of light at metal poked with holes in irregular patterns recently discovered that all **the light behaved like a liquid** and fell across the metal to find its way through the escape holes."

Perhaps more proof of the stringnet-liquid theroy that there is an underlying (unseen) fabric of space!

The full article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17845627/

The deepest question

Jaycubed, Santa Rosa, CA — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:32:51 GMT

WHY ARE GRAVITY AND ACCELERATION INDISTINGUISHABLE?

Think back to Einstein's thought experiment concerning the windowless elevator. There is no way to tell if you are on an elevator accelerating at 32ft per sec. per sec. or sitting still on the surface of the Earth, without looking outside.

Why?

The effects of gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable in all ways, including relativistic time changes (ie. time slows down in a gravity well and in an accelerating body to an equal extent).

Gravity is theorized to be a gauge force with gravitons being the particle that exchanges the force of gravity.

Does acceleration generate gravitons? How?

It would appear that acceleration is transmitted within the accelerating object through the physical contact of the atoms making up that object/collection of objects. For example an object should feel no acceleration in the elevator until it contacted the floor (let's assume the elevator is evacuated).

This would appear be a property of the electron shells of the atoms/molecules that comprise the objects. In other words an electromagnetic effect caused by the electron shells pushing each other away as they attempt to compress from the (classical) force of acceleration applied from the trailing end of the accelerating body (from the floor up).

This hundred year old observation is still waiting for an explanation.

The deepest question

CE — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:16:56 GMT

The Z-machine (a high energy laser/fusion device at Sandia National Labs) discovered that iron gave off FAR more heat (temperatures of greater than 2 billion degrees Kelvin, hotter than the interior of the sun) than expected.

“The X-ray output was "as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input" meaning that some extra energy must have been pumped into the equation from somewhere.”

"high ion temperatures were sustained after the plasma had stagnated — that is, after its ions had presumably lost motion and therefore energy and therefore heat — as though yet again some unknown agent was providing an additional energy source to the ions".

"some unknown energy continued to push back against the magnetic field for around 10 nanoseconds.”

“Nuclei of iron have some of the highest binding energies per nucleon”

Could this flash of extra energy be what causes supernova and why most fusion in the stars stops at iron because it take so much energy to cause it to fuse? Could iron exist in some kind of harmonic with the underlying fabric of space?

The deepest question

CE — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:34:15 GMT

Could iron exist in some kind of harmonic with the underlying fabric of space? We can almost think of this question in reverse by inferring that those elements with the highest binding energy and stability must be the ones most efficiently tapping into (or aligned with) the true underlying fabric of space and its inherent properties. We may also want to consider magnetism as part of a possible harmonic. The most well known materials that exhibit easily detectable magnetic properties are nickel and iron. This may imply a harmonic because in the Stringnet-liquid theory, the strings in the underlying fabric of space vibrate in a wave very near to Maxwell’s equations, which are also the same equations (along with Biot-Savart law) used to describe the magnetic forces which iron is so conducive to. Iron and Nickel may be to the fabric of the universe what glass is to light, allowing extra energy to flow into the equation as fusion occures.

Jaycubed, Your question as to why acceleration is like gravity when it comes to time, is very interesting! I’ve been wondering how a unified fabric might play into this. From what I know, speed simulates mass and the closer you get to light the heavier you become so I can at least see a loose connection with the mass that causes gravity.

The deepest question

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:48:22 GMT

Dr. Greene, after the fabric of space, what is the deepest cosmic puzzle for you?

In your book, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", you say that, due to inflation theory, the far greater part of the universe lies beyond the "observable universe" (even that the universe, observable plus unobservable, may be infinite with our "observable universe" being finite). Without the knowledge (forbidden to us by inflation theory) of most of the universe, do we not need to limit "cosmos" to mean the "observable cosmos" until we can be certain of the assumption that the "currently unobservable universe" does not differ from the "observable universe" or inflation theory is discredited? Because space in some parts of an infinite (or sufficiently large) universe is expanding at speeds greater than the maximum speed of light, are not these regions forever unobservable to us? Are not regions where space expands at the maximum speed of light (let alone faster) unobservable for us (red shift frequency becomes zero, hence, energy of photon becomes zero)? Does not the potential, scientific futility inherent in an infinite universe give you some qualms about its reality or our need to be concerned with it when searching for an answer to cosmic (observable cosmic) puzzles?

The deepest question

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:07:02 GMT

Jason, your "Why are we here?" question can't be answered ultimately by anyone. Any answer can always be challenged with "Why that answer (rather than some other)?". For example, suppose somebody answers your quesion with "We are here because God (the FORCE, energy, etc.) requires it to be that way." Your active curiosity may then ask "Why does God (or whatever) want it that way?"; then "Why that?" ad infinitum (on to infinity). Dr. Greene has the same problem when and if the "building blocks" of the fabric of space and time are found. Our great joy, satisfaction, etc. comes in searching for answers to why questions and making great discoveries along the way, such as the wonders and glorious applications of Einstein's Relativity and Quantum Theory.

The deepest question

Chris E. — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:24:57 GMT

Carlton, you've reminded me of an old question I used to have too. If the light we see from the most distant galaxies is 13-15 billion years old, then haven't those galaxies kept moving themselves for the last 13 billion years? They'd now presumably be 26 billion light years away. Wouldn't that make the universe 26 billion years old, minimum?

Also, how is it even possible to assume we can detect the supposed background radiation? After all, as the universe expanded out, that energy and light would have long past us and be heading in the opposite direction – away from us, not back towards us. It almost sounds like a mind puzzle they have in reverse.

The deepest question

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:20:05 GMT

Chris, we have two universes that we talk about, (1) the observable universe and (2) the observable universe plus the unobservable universe. The combination is often called the Universe (the capital "U" being used when mean both, the whole shebang.
When the universe (observable universe, small "u") is about 26 billion years old we will see those galaxies still at the fringes of our universe and and what was going on in them when they were invisible at your 26 billion distance. If you have understood what I am saying, you can see that what you were and are saying is correct as long as you are talking about the Universe, not the universe.

You may have a misconception (or made a simple slip) when you say that the galaxies are moving themelves. The expansion of the universe (some would use Universe here; but, as you will see below, I'm not sure Universe as taken by some is scientific) is NOT due to galaxies rushing away from each other, like particles in an explosion, but due to the stretching (expansion) of space. Furthermore, this stretching of space can cause separations at speeds GREATER than the speed of light. Reading Dr. Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" will provide further details and clarity.

The problem I am presenting to Dr. Greene is "is the claim of some that there are galaxies well beyond the fringes of the observable universe scientific. If we can never see them (due to space expanding at more than the maximum speed of light at their distance), if they are never observable for us, can talk about them be considered scientific talk or a matter of faith or philosophy.

The cosmic microwave background has to be coming to us from a time (distance) beyond the most distant visible galaxy. It's this microwave background that is used to get our best estimates for the age of the universe; we can "see" nothing further away because nothing visible for us existed earlier according to to currently accepted gigantic inflation theory

(I don't like to use "Big Bang" because it conjures up an explosion with the incorrect idea of a big noise and worse yet the idea of particles rushing away from a central explosion point).

The deepest question

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:08 GMT

If it's not too late, I'd like to try another question for Dr. Brian Greene.

The irrational numbers "e" (the natural base for logarithms) and pi (ratio of circumference to diameter for circles in a plane) are tightly woven into current physics. We can get some satisfaction from knowing "e" and pi are the result of infinite series (e.g. "e" is the sum of the reciprocals of the factorials). Do you think your discovery of the fundamentals of space and time has any chance of uncovering why "c", the maximum speed of light, has the size it has? Einstein's Special Relativity shows us why "c" can not be infinite in our universe if we are to have many of the wonders we have, but all current physics theories are silent when it comes to giving "c's" finite size. Physics shows that making small changes in the size of some physical constants makes our being in our universe impossible and we may find physics ways that uncover their sizes, but it does seem "c" might come out of your fabric of the universe discoveries. Of course we can make a rough connection to "c" and the Hubble parameter, but it is rather circular. Obviously, the visible universe has the size (space) and age (time) it has due to the size of "c" and the definition of "visible universe"; so, we see connections but no explanation for the size of "c".

In case there is no way given to contact you, I do want to thank you very much, here, for answering whatever you do answer.

The deepest question

Karen Mayfield Mayflower Arkansas — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:53:55 GMT

In the past I really worried about how we all got here amd what we are supposed to do while we are here. Then one day it dawned on me. For every action is a reaction or a proaction. From the nothingness came everything, could it be as simple as positive energy moving into the path of negative energy which could easily be considered the Big Bang from there the mixing of the two energies began an evolutionary process from which all living creatues were created. Negativity consumes and positivity creates. As the human race evolves from being physical creatures into more spiritual beings we as a race will develope the technique of balancing the positive and negative aspects of life. Leaving us with Peace of Mind. When we discover what is behind what we cannot see is when we realize what is behind what we can. The holigram of sight hides behind a veiled awareness.

The deepest question

Chris E. — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:21:05 GMT

Thanks for the feed back Carlton! Did you get a chance to see MIT’s new stringent-liquid theory? They even discovered a new form of matter to help prove it. It was something Alan found at:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/
fundamentals/mg19325954.200
-the-universe-is-a-stringnet-liquid.html?DCMP=ILC
-Top5&nsref=mg19325954.200

The deepest question

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:54:19 GMT

Thank you Chris!

The deepest question

Margaret Shea, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:08:20 GMT

Question for Dr. Brian Greene: A meter stick, for example, moving so as to have a significant Lorentz contraction (say, shortened to 1/2 meter) is decelerated to rest so that it becomes a meter long again. Because Special Relativity shows speeds faster than the maximum speed of light are forbidden, does this mean that the size of the deceleration has to be limited (take long enough) so that the ends of the 1/2 meter stick do not need to move at speeds in excess of "c" while expanding from 1/2 to full meter?

The deepest question

Chris E. — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:21:03 GMT

From what I remember, dark matter was assumed after observations of stars orbiting a nearby galaxy that were traveling faster than expected (just as fast as inner stars) around the outer perimeter of the galaxy. I still find this hard to believe and I noted an obscure report recently that stated that what we thought were stars inside another galaxy recently, were in fact not part of it. Thus, I just have to keep wondering if the sampling of stars in the dark matter observations were indeed part of the galaxy they were believed to be. Perhaps they were disturbed by a close passage of another… I guess I’m just wondering is how often has this particular observation been verified and how recently? Did there seem to be a fluctuation in the speed of outer-perimeter stars of one galaxy compared to another similarly sized galaxy?

The deepest question

Chris E — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:50:18 GMT

“Did there seem to be a fluctuation in the speed of outer-perimeter stars of one galaxy compared to another similarly sized galaxy?”

After I thought about this, if the increased speed of these stars was really due to dark matter, then there really should be fluctuations in the speed given the same distance from the center and roughly the same observable mass of the galaxy. This would be because dark matter would presumably not be evenly distributed and in the same amounts in each galaxy. If there were no fluctuation, you might infer something else, perhaps something different about the nature of gravity on those scales.

The deepest question

Chris E. — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:25:08 GMT

How could excess (unseen) mass in the halo of a galaxy cause stars to travel around the 'center' faster? I mean wouldn't that distort the center of gravity and defuse any excess rotation? Before we start inventing mysterious new forces and masses, I think we beter RE-CONFIRM these original observations. Hopefully telescopes like the LBT will be able to find some "other" keys to why things are like they are.

The deepest question

Chris E — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:46:16 GMT

Has the observed rotation been simulated in a computer?

The deepest question

Chris E — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:05:19 GMT

You know... I must be brain dead. I read the Greene article but I guessed I just glossed over the very top of this article where it says "his candidate would be figuring out exactly what the underlying fabric of space and time is really made of." Is he suggesting what I think he is suggesting? I don't think of it as much as an underlying fabric of space but an underlying dimension that we can not "physically" detect.

One last thought on Dark Matter would be what about all the black holes. From my understanding black holes emerge from stars several times larger than our own and - to me - there should be literally billions of these things. Larger stars are more rare but they burn out far faster. Why aren't there more nearby? I did just see from Wiki that globular clusters don't show signs of dark matter which to me is a big hole in a relatively accepted theory. I did see some velocity curves that I'd really love to see modeled.

The deepest question

Chris E — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:40:58 GMT

Other than tied electrons, the other thing that might help show other dimensions on a smaller scale was one very brief instance of observed time travel in a particle accelerator. The photo showed some particle hitting the path of another but leaving out from that path a millimeter or two before it even got there. This would almost have to infer a simpler dimension where such transgressions where not impossible.

The deepest question

The Great Eldridgeski! — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 03:30:21 GMT

Ok... Check this out. I can see the simplistic explanation of gravity warping space like a bowling ball on a trampoline, but we have to remember that these galaxies are MOVING very fast themselves towards the great attractor and so on. How does this shifting of the center of gravity along the fabric of space affect outer perimeter stars that take so long to complete their orbit. Maybe they are trying to play a bit of catch-up? If I'm not mistaken, gravity travels at the speed of light so in the 30,000 years it takes for gravity to reach out to the edges of these spiral arms, the center has obviously had a lot of time to shift. It might explain why smaller globular clusters, which have a much shorter radi don't show this.

The deepest question

Chris E — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:18:35 GMT

The more and more I think about this “extra speed” of outer perimeter stars, the more it really bothers me. If these stars were moving that fast, how do you get spiral arms to form? I look back to the cosmos simulation where they had a computer show the interaction of galaxies and the rotation of a spiral galaxy and how arms are formed, and those stars aren’t moving any where near as fast as the central stars. Even the very line chart on Wiki that compares velocity to distance, HAS TO BE WRONG, because if you look at the very start of the chart, they are saying the extremely close stars are moving the slowest. That line should be coming down from the upper left, not up from the lower left. I’ve then started to think of galaxies like those puckers I used to speak of. It’s almost like matter “bubbles up” from a lower dimension and has a very fluid connection to it. I think this is true of individual sub atomic particles but I’m also now wondering if a large entity like a galaxy doesn’t from its own kind of super bubble where the very outer edges are the ones where the connectionion with the underlying fabric/dimension is essentially made – or recycled into. Perhaps the perimeters of these bubbles distorts the Doppler shift in light which I assume is how they measure the velocity of these stars.

The deepest question

Chris E — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:41:43 GMT

The “recycled into” concept of these bubbles is sort of like as the bubble travels along the fabric, its fluid connections lifts up the lead edge and lowers back down the trailing edge as it passes though a stationary fabric/lower dimension. This lifting and lowering may hint at extra speed that is just not there and proportional to radius which might be a testable hypothesis. Thinking of galaxies like a bubble remind me of what I think was the cover of a recent Scientific American cover that showed dark energy being responsible for the separation of galaxies. Perhaps these bubbles tend to even out in space in their own sort of ways. The major gaps that are now seen between major regions of galaxies could be necessary in that all these galaxies are bunching up the fabric of space to such a degree that it has to come from somewhere, these void regions may be like bunches in a fabric table cloth where things have just pulled and pulled from…

The deepest question

Chris — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:19:21 GMT

It these bubbles are tugging on the fabric of space enough to cause those gaps than this may be THE ULTIMATE CAUSE for the red shift in light, as light from distant regions passes though areas where the fabric is being stretched.

The deepest question

Chris — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:36:26 GMT

Sorry for the continuous deluge, but this last concept (the stretching of the fabric causing red shift) might be a testable hypothesis. If we knew the distance of some background galaxies, would the light from one passing by a very large galaxy be more red-shifted than the light from another passing through open space?

The deepest question

Chris — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:16:10 GMT

I wonder whether or not we can see the inner stars of our own galaxy moving past us? If they were, than the dark matter theory might not be so airtight.

The deepest question

Chris — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:40:32 GMT

After I thought about the edge of a galaxy producing a red shift as it uplifts the fabric of space, I thought this cann't account for the redshift we see as it - the red shift - gets progressively stronger the further away these galaxies are. As for those gaps between galaxies, isn't the position of the galaxies based on redshift and if all galaxies are moving how can we infer their precise position?

The deepest question

rich , salisbury ma — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:41:47 GMT

Wouldn't it be amazing if there was no infinite universe and we seem to think and our galaxy was just encompassed by a giant tiered reflectivce surface. So when we look at galaxies and other stars we're just looking at our galaxies and possibly our earth millions of years ago