If our solar system is a spiral within a spiral galaxy, wouldn't it make sense that what we call the universe would also be a spiral? And instead of an empty void, the space beyond our cluster of spinning galaxies is filled with billions of other "Universes" all spinning as well. Now lets take it one step further...All those spiral universes are all part of a larger spiral. And if the void of space is infinite, where would those spirals end? Would they end at all?
To assume our cluster of galaxies is all there is... and beyond it is an endless void, to me, seems rather egocentric...it's really no different than our scientist claiming that in a universe filled with hundreds of billions of stars, we're the only intelligent life out there.
On a final note...since the word universe means everything, we'd have to come up with a new term for a cluster of galaxies.
Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote

I repeat: It's not.

Why are you essentially re-issuing this statement, out-of-place in this Universe Today Website Feedback subforum? Wasn't the original in the Questions and Answers subforum enough?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I moved this from BAUT feedback to Q&A

Concerning the question itself, I think 01101001 handled it pretty well. The Solar System is not a spiral.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Talented_Amateur: your question seems to start out with a non-functioning hypothetical. I don't mean to halt all discussion of your entire family of questions, and we should continue, but I have trouble separating out the remaining parts.

Would your next question be something like: "Is space beyond our cluster of spinning galaxies filled with billions of other 'Universes' all spinning as well?"

If not, maybe you could ask your next question in your own words. Thanks.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

You may want to compare your terminology with common usage. Exactly what you're calling our cluster of galaxies needs definition. There are several clusters of galaxies within the observable universe, also superclusters which are clusters of clusters. My guess is that the mainstreamers are not offended by super-superclusters and so on indicating ever higher orders of organization. The universe (without modifiers) includes all the stuff we are unable to observe or detect; however, the more useful contemplations will be restricted to those parts which we can observe.

The absence of a claim of there being other intelligent life is not the same as claiming there is none. It is good for scienctists to remain constrained by evidence.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

The solar system is not a spiral, it's a series of ellipses.
Don't feel bad, a lot of people get solar systems and galaxies mixed up.

__________________
Kai's home computer is broken and her posting may be eratic for a while - ToSeek
"The only way to explore the universe is to go and look." - Brian Cox
Well, the best way to find out is to go there and, find out. - Raven's Cry
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

Our galaxy and some other galaxies are spirals. Our galaxy takes about 1/4 billion years, to make one turn. If the 20 or so galaxies in our local group are a spiral (probably not), one turn would take perhaps 10 billion years. A group of 100 galaxies would likely take much longer than the age of the Universe to complete even a small fraction of a turn. For the 200 billion galaxies we can see (if spiral) would turn almost none in 13.7 billion years = the age of the Universe. So spiral or not is pretty much irrellevent. We likely will never know about the portion of the Universe which is receeding faster than light speed, but there likely is a significant portion of the Universe that is receeding faster than light speed.
Going toward smaller, our solar system and the moons of the gas giant planets, do not appear to be spiral, molecules apparently are only occasionaly spiral. we don't think atoms are spiral, so we should not assume spirals are common except for some of the galaxies. There are a few experts who think the spiral structure of galaxies is an optical illusion. Neil

Recently suggested (including in the BA's Question and Answer videos) is that the Milky Way is a Barred Spiral.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

Personaly, I think that Lacuna Coil(Endless Spiral) is a cool metal band.

But getting on topic, the Universe has been mapped, and it resemples closer the weblike nurons and conecting nerves of a brain, then a Spiral.

Just think, our universe may be a set of Nuron's in some Meta-Verse creatures brain. With thinking like that though, I'd probably be a brain tumor

__________________
"There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives" - US Army Demolitions School

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

My mistake. I, foolishly, was under the assumption that no one actually knew the true nature of the universe. According to most of you however, who assume must have a degree in theoretical physics, the universe has been mapped out in it's entirety by a bunch of hairless apes who until recently thought the world was flat and the center of everything.
As for my choice of words, such as cluster, I must apologize to all of you. By cluster, I simply meant group...such as a group of stars rotating together and making up a galaxy.
The truth is we don't know anything. Stephen Hawking has suggested that instead of a "big bang," the universe may have bubbled out, producing a universe full of galaxies governed by their own laws of physics. If someone like Hawking isn't sure of the what's out there, then what makes someone like senior member 01101001 think he knows the truth? I might only be in first year and my passions tend to cause me to run at the mouth, but at least I think for myself instead of reciting other people's theories.

Admirable.
However, your passion is indeed causing you to run your mouth ( I also am afflicted with this).

These hairless apes don't know everything, but don't take it to the other extreme and say we must therefore know nothing.

We actually know quite a bit.

And, incidently, humanity (the upper class educated ) has been aware that the Earth was not flat for thousands of years. You make it sound like a recent discovery.

We may not know the true nature of the universe and all that lies within it. But that doesn't mean we know nothing about it. I would suggest you use that passion to learn what you do not yet know. Then use that foundation upon which to build theories.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

No one here claims to know how the universe started, and that is what Hawking was talking about. What we DO know is a fair amount of detail since then. Now, if you are trying to claim that the universe is unknowable, why are you proposing a way to describe it?

What 01101001 has said to you is carefully worded and basically a short form of the mainstream view of what is out there now... and it doesn't involve spirals on every scale of existence.

We often get new members who think they have a nice way to describe the universe by allegory, or extension. By saying you are wrong, I mean no slight against you. In fact some of our best and most thoughtful members showed up with very wrong ideas. Welcome to the BAUT forum. I think you'll fit in here quite well.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Where exactly did I state the universe is unknowable? To say humans haven't clue as to the nature of the universe is hardly the same as claiming the universe is unknowable.
Also, I'm well aware of what Hawking was talking about and the fact that none of you were claiming to know the beginning of the universe. I was pointing out that, for now, even the great minds of our time don't know the full truth...hence the title Theoretical Physicist.
As for the recent discovery comment. Yes, a few well educated individuals were aware of a spherical Earth, but they kept that knowledge to themselves for fear of being burned at the stake for going against the mainstream view of a flat Earth. Funny, not much has changed.
By the way Neverfly, thousands of years are really nothing considering exactly how many millions of years our species spent in the stone age. We really are only just beginning to figure things out, but as always our massive egos get in the way, causing us to puff up like angry gorillas.
Any way, I see no point in further discussions. I assumed this was an environment like my university...a place to toss around a few ideas without others feeling the need to prove their superiority (do I hear the sounds of fists beating down upon a mighty chest?) and telling someone they might fit in nicely in the BAUT forum. Yes great and wise moderator, you can rest easy in the knowledge that your condescension didn't go to waste...you really are the alpha male.
Good-bye and good luck and try to pull yourselves away from that computer once in a while...there's big world out there. Oh. and just so there's no doubt, I do know its round and floats around a big glowing ball.

You are all kinds of wrong at this point.

Speaking of pride and ego- Check yours.

Tossing ideas around is fine- and if you were looking for a place to do such- This is a great place to do it.

However, that does not mean throwing a fit everytime someone shows that you are wildly incorrect.

No one here has given you or shown you a superiority complex.

There is a difference between making knowledgable assumptions and educated guesses...
And spinning ideas out of the ether.
Antoniseb commented that you can fit right in here.
And you can.

But first you need to get your emotions and ego in check.

So far, myself and others have tried reaching out to you- and when you couldn't handle being told that you were simply wrong, you threw a temper tantrum.

Incidently, not a few. A great many cultures, civilizations and groups knew the Earth was round. It was actually more on the recent scale (within hundreds of years) that religious suppression ensured it was not common knowledge as they sought to emphasize the ignorant view.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

Thanks! Personally I don't see myself as alpha male, but I'll take it as an intended compliment. Aside from that, I do think you are misunderstanding people's intentions here. You had an idea and we knew reasons why it was wrong. That doesn't mean you can't have other ideas.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I don't mind being told I'm wrong...I do however, have a problem with being misquoted.

This kind of arrogance and contented ignorance is exactly why in other threads- Many of us have pointed out the downfall of paying too much attention to self esteem, coddling the kids as they grow up and what happens when you allow children to make the rules and be raised by the 'village.'


Talented_Amatuer, so far every post you made, including the one you deleted is filled with sarcasm and bad attitude.
You do not care about learning. You care only about your pride.

Well, someone needs to tell it to you like it is- and tell you off.

Some stranger on the net just did.

Now you have a choice---- You can learn something- address yourself and your faults- correct what you can and accept that you need correction...

or...

Stop talking or throw another temper tantrum.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

Specify when and where you were misquoted.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger