The graphic I created, found below, is a hypothetical universe, not meant to reflect the truth of the matter, but rather to propose an alternate possibility, to the one most currently believed. The object of the graphic is to show how our current, 'limited visual perspective,' that exists within a possible, much larger, actual truth, gives way to that current accepted belief. Feel free to, in your mind, move the yellow sphere that represents our current visual 'known' universe around so as to see how a varying position, yields a completely different picture as to whether the universe is in fact expanding, contracting or is static. Or quickly you can note 'planet X's perspective, as to positions impact on perspective.tillingborn wrote:tillingborn wrote:It's true that we can only see so much, but nearly everything we can see looks like it is moving away; suggesting that the visible universe is expanding.The trouble is, we cannot see the whole universe, but (nearly) everything that we can see is red shifted, strongly suggesting it is moving away. Who knows what goes on beyond what we can see? There is no harm speculating, but if ideas cannot be shown to make any phenomenal difference, what difference does it make if you believe that just beyond the horizon is a much larger multiverse that in fact is collapsing, or that the visible universe is really this kid Jake's bubblegum and matter is his smelly breath?SpheresOfBalance wrote:But I understand consequence that would make it seem so, due to the limitations of our visual frame of reference, but not actually be so, which only seeing the entire universe would illuminate.
THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU THINK ABOUT THE GRAPHIC:
1) That light from stars, if they in fact be seen as Doppler shifted towards the red, must be opening our relative position, and that conversely, stars that are closing our relative position are blue Doppler shifted.
2) That as to stars opening and closing, the relative positions of stars amongst spinning galaxies, ours, (the milky way), and the other galaxy in question, that exhibit either red or blue shifted colors could be attributed to the relative spin between the two galaxies.
3) That if a big bang happened, the rate of speed of all matter, from it's origin, would on average be constant, from that central point, depending of course, upon density, of said matter/particles, and it's position within such a singularity at the moment of the explosion, such that largely the speeds of all galaxies, of a given bang, would see little variance between themselves, along a specific trajectory, of a given radius of an omnidirectional expansion, and that, Doppler shift may in fact be largely born of the variance of the rays ever widening, of stars on differing trajectories, of an omnidirectional blast.
4) That the light from the majority of the stars that we can currently see started traveling from their point of origin long before mankind ever existed, meaning that you could be seeing so called red shift of a star that existed thousands to millions of years ago, such that one is not seeing what is currently happening, but rather what has happened in the distant past, as that star that is red shifted could today not even exist.
5) That stars go supernova, exploding omnidirectionally (<- apparently, I made up this form of the word), which would increase the observed speed of emitted particles along it's trajectory on one side of the explosion, whilst it would seemingly slow particles in the opposite direction, relative to the bang, and create trajectories perpendicular to the original bang trajectories, and every vector in between, such that with each supernova, or maybe 'superduper nova' (the point being that we do not necessarily know of the full extent capable of nova, especially further back in time, when the universe was smaller, more dense), and while one could say that the speeds achieved via nova could never counteract that of the bang, it surely clouds the perception as to expansion or contraction of the universe, as to what, so called, red/blue shift indicates.
6) That stars have varying colors, some are reddwarfs, yellowdwarfs, blue hypergiants, redsupergiants, redhypergiants. Can one distinguish between blue and red stars natural colors, and that of shifted red and blue? There are even stars beyond red.
7) I also see that as to size, distance and variable luminance, one is required to calculate the other, with multiple unknowns, how can one be certain of any measurement.
I at least can see that there are far too many possible unknown variables, for anyone on earth to say with certainty, what the entirety of the universe/multiverse, that we are currently incapable of seeing, in it's entirety, is currently doing, and that any assertion as to the truth of the matter, is simply conjecture. That any unknown that is presumed to be known, when it's not, yields further misconception.
Place the yellow sphere, on top of the green bang origin to see everything shifted red.
I'm also not convinced that, so called, absorption/emission lines are indicative of that which is proclaimed, and not a results of something else. It could be an aberration found in the optics, some funky dark matter.
I just find that the extreme distances of time, actual expanse of the universe, and geometrical relative movements, as opposed to the unknown relative size of our limited visual perspective, precludes clarity of knowledge as to the current state of the universe, in it's entirety, and that we merely speculate within the confines of our current limited visual horizon.
P.S. I forgot to add arrows on the perimeter of the rectangle, pointing in and out so as to indicate either an expansion or contraction of the universe, as it's pictured now, without arrows, is that of a static uni/multiverse, so that one could see even more clearly how the relative position of our current visual horizon, precludes the possible understanding of the truth of the uni/multiverse's current status.
