The Universe and relativity

[mike]

As often happens, lines of discussion in a particular thread branch away from the original topic, rather than derail the moon thread anymore ive created this one to continue the discussions.

So...... what are the implications of the data suggesting Universe is at least 150 billion light-years in diameter. But, its age is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years.


As previously postulated perhaps the force of the big bang was so great matter was pushed out to that distance faster than the speed of light.

But it may also be that our view of the universe is flawed.

For example most people tend to think of the universe as a ball, with galaxys spread throughout its interior.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html


or

But to me this seems flawed.

If the universe was born of a massive explosion, then it seems logical to me that it would be more like an egg shell, or a balloon. That is a band of matter with nothing either side of it, expanding out like an inflating balloon. If so what we are seeing from earth is just a cookie cutout of the skin of the balloon nearest us.

the question and options are explained here

[h=1]What is the shape of the universe?[/h]I have read most of the popularizations of physics and astronomy Hawkings, Weinberg, ect. The big bang is often explained using the image of a two dimensional universe (surface of a balloon) expanding in three dimensions. I read once that our universe is a "three dimension surface of a four dimensional balloon" or maybe orange, I don't recall for sure. Is this correct? I realize that 4 and up dimensional spaces can be described mathematically although we can't really imagine them. To the extent possible, I would like to know the "shape" of the universe.
Most astronomers would like to know the shape of the universe too! There are three general possibilities. First, like your balloon, the universe might have what we call positive curvature, like a sphere. In this case, which we call a "closed" universe, the universe would be finite in size but without a boundary, just like the balloon. In a closed universe, you could, in principle, fly a spaceship far enough in one direction and get back to where you started from. Closed universes are also closed in time: they eventually stop expanding, then contract in a "Big Crunch." All the geometry that is true on a sphere is also true in a closed unvierse: parallel lines eventually converge (e.g. longitude lines are parallel at the equator, but converge at the poles), large triangles have more than 180 degrees, etc.
The second possibility is that the universe is flat. This kind of universe you can imagine by cutting out a piece of your baloon material and stretching it with your hands. The surface of the material is flat, not curved, but you can expand and contract it by tugging on either end. Flat universes are infinite in spatial extent, and have no boundaries. Parallel lines are always parallel and triangles always have 180 degrees. Flat universes expand forever, but the expansion rate approaches zero.
Finally, the universe might be "open," or have negative curvature. Such universes are sort of saddle-shaped. They are also infinite and unbounded. Parellel lines eventually diverge, and triangles have less than 180 degrees. Open universes expand forever, with the expansion rate never approaching zero.
What determines the shape of the universe is its density (and the Cosmological Constant, a sort of anti-gravity force allowed by General Relativity). It is difficult to figure out what the density of the universe actually is, but it seems that the universe is probably flat.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=62

So.... what shape do you think the universe is ?

 

[Randall]

I've mentioned that the computational model of the universe before and how it offers explanations for seemingly impossible or contradictory observations, usually at the quantum level, however it also offers an explanation for such things as how the so-called big bang could spontaneously arise out of nothing and how the numbers for universe could be larger for its size than its age. So again, it's something to consider in the context of the issues raised here.