RE: I'm too dumb to be an atheist
March 8, 2014 at 12:42 pm
(This post was last modified: March 8, 2014 at 1:41 pm by Alex K.)
(March 8, 2014 at 11:10 am)Bittersmart Wrote: Since I'm terrible at explaining things, I found a good resource.
Quote:The fate of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter of which we know, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density", which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever. If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch". However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
Quote: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.
I was always under the impression that the universe was infinite and constantly expanding, as well. From the books I've read, anyway.
Omg that nasa page is wrong! Flat geometry does not imply noncompact topology(ie infinite spatial extent)! I'll write them, maybe they'll answer then I post it
(March 8, 2014 at 11:18 am)pocaracas Wrote:It does, look up tests of GR and the HT Pulsar(March 7, 2014 at 6:21 pm)rsb Wrote: I am not sure gravitational lensing is exactly the same as a gravity wave, if it was then observations in the early part of the last century would have resolved it.I never said it was...
Gravitational lensing is a piece of evidence for general relativity.
Nothing in general relativity states that there is such a thing as a gravitational wave, as far as I'm aware...