On Jan 29, 11:18 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:39:30 +0200, "Ioannis"
wrote:

To me, it looks as though "the edge" of the universe around any individual
observer is simply a theoretical sphere of radius c*t where t is the age of
the observer and c is the speed of light.

You need to distinguish between the edge of the Universe, and the edge
of the observable Universe. They aren't the same thing. You are
describing the latter.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Easy knowing that none of you are astronomers.

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/607/PIA00232_md.jpg

With incredible images of the Earth from space you would think that
people would appreciate the planet more.The angle which your location
entered and exited the orbital shadow would be different from a month
ago because the orbital path of the Earth changes the orientation of
the orbital shadow/solar radiation boundary against fixed axial
orientation.

The same people who talk of the celestial sphere/balloon universe
still attribute a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt to explain why
a location experiences variation in daylight/darkness when it is
easier and more enjoyable to appreciate how the orbital path of the
Earth changes the angle by which a location enters and exits the
orbital shadow.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...easonearth.png


Amateur astronomers would love to work on how to mesh the astronomical
motions of the Earth with climatological studies and this is the
direction most of humanity has headed in.You could not get people to
consider a ridiculous 'expanding balloon' universe if you paid them
insofar as they already know it is rubbish and have heard it too many
times.

I use actual images whenever possible and this is the job of a real
astronomer whereas ,the ridiculous 'expanding balloon ' universes
which nobody cares for now only highlights the excesses of
meaningless non geometric equations and the people who promote them.