2007-02-01 08:03:20 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
No.
The universe is expanding everywhere equally.
2007-02-01 08:07:14 · answer #1 · answered by Jerry P 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes, it is possible.
No, it is not at likely. Astronomers can see (with radio telescopes), a big fraction of the universe. On the scale of many millions of light-years, It all looks about the same. In order for this to be true, the rest of it -- the part they can't see -- must also be the same.
That is, the equations they have, explain what they see very well. When they extrapolate these equations to the part they can't see, the equations work out to say that the universe is the same in those parts also.
Nobody has been able to come up with equations that explain the universe that they can see, and at the same time predict that the rest of the universe is different. (At least, not more that 0.01% different.)
2007-02-01 08:36:23 · answer #2 · answered by morningfoxnorth 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Very possible.This is due to the large curvature of the Universe which in perspective would appear as a radial straight line.
And the doppler effect may be another effect called wave dispersion.(See Ray Redbourne theory of wave dispersion)
There is a whole science on perspective which indicate how apparent time changes with distance.
And our position in the Universe is really a position in a spiral Galaxy called Milky Way.
Radio astronomy has done wonders in determining position of celestial bodies of the Universe.
To establish realtive motion of the earth and relative motion of Galaxies and Universe is very difficult without violating the Principle of relativity.
2007-02-01 08:20:03 · answer #3 · answered by goring 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that's style of morbid to think of roughly that's no longer it? The effect of a terrorist attack is poor, for the victims. that's an atrocity, a criminal offense against humanity. As for the economic gadget, there are various components to evaluate. between the main substantial issues that failed with George W. Bush grew to become into that he tried to stick to an previous formula, and did no longer have success, because of the fact the international replaced. What formula: conflict is a physically powerful deal, conflict is stable for the economic gadget. His father, till now going to Gulf and placing Kuwait loose from Saddam, already had contracts signed with companies that could earnings from the aftermath of the conflict. George Bush tried to do the comparable, on Iraq. yet terrorism, on the instant, replaced the way wars are fougth and won. If he had succeeded, he could nonetheless be regularly occurring, on the instant. yet, besides, conflict can nonetheless be a "stable" investment, issues can replace lower back. So, in end, in line with threat right here punitive conflict, after a terrorist attack, could advance the economic gadget up. it quite is obtainable, in a tragic, poor way, yet obtainable.
2016-11-23 21:01:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and here is why.
The universe is expanding, and some past are receding from us at a speed closer to that of light the further they are. However, relativity tells us that the flow of time for an outside observer is a function of the perceived velocity of the that object; therefore the fast receding part of the universe appear to be very young, just a few years after the big bang. Likewise, for whoever who would be on one of those distant galaxies looking back at us, they see our galaxy as it was billion of years ago, and they way they see it, our clocks are not really moving and we appear frozen in time.
The final issue to be addressed that stems from relativity is that no position in the universe is privileged in the global scale, that is, the universe should appear the same no matter where you are.
It is hard to grasp just like that, the people who are trying to figure it out are the luminaries of out time, Nobel prizes winners and PhD's, and for them, this is a full time job. Do not expect to jump in a be able to follow them at their pace while keeping a daytime job.
As for "bigjim6201" above, who hints that scientits are forgetting something as basic as this, how arrogant is he? What credentials does he have that compares against the likes of Hawking, Penrose, Penzias, and all the others?
2007-02-01 08:21:24 · answer #5 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
People, especially scientists, seem to forget this fact. How can they be so pigheaded as to think from this single small point in a HUGE universe that we could even think of explaining it all.
It's like a flea trying to explain what is going on in the 3 acre dog park.
Of course your right, and there are many other things that could affect our perceptions but the biggest one is the EGO!
2007-02-01 08:12:29 · answer #6 · answered by bigjim6201 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No- Our particular position does not limit us from collecting data (position, velocity) about objects in other positions. Every object we observe is found to be moving away from other objects. Furthermore, the relative motion between two objects is proportional to the distance between the objects, which means that the objects started out in the same location.
2007-02-01 08:29:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with what Jerry P said. The universe is expanding all at once everywhere; our "position" is not relevant.
2007-02-01 08:18:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. There isn't any preferential location in the universe.
2007-02-01 08:17:33 · answer #9 · answered by Gene 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So?
2007-02-01 08:08:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋