The Shape of the Universe.

If, as I suspect, you are saying that the universe is composed of moving parts and so has no set shape then I agree that this is very likely mathematically speaking. It is still not a testable hypothesis. An untestable hypothesis is a poor hypothesis.

I have come as close to agreeing with you as I am able under my current epistemology. I too feel that it is logical that the universe is dynamic and moving but likely or not we do not know and it is intellectually honest to admit that this is just a hypothesis and even if it is coincidentally the case that the universe in its overall shape is dynamic it is still an untestable and therefore poor hypothesis. 

Good. To be clear, the "moving" { motion } of our finite, occupied space Universe, is only relative to itself. not another or other.

The theory of relativity  relates to only two or more parts of our finite, occupied space Universe.

You agree my assessment is logical, not that it is  rational, common sense deduction based on our observations of all other finite phenomena, that have a geometry pattern/shape.

Yes, honestly speaking it is a good ---not "poor"-- guess on my part, that is based on all other observations regarding what is known about Universe from my perspective and others.

What is possible to know in the future, I, nor others do not know.  Humans have discovered --ergo we do know---  mathematically absolute truths and relative truths.

Convergent Gravity  (  ) and divergent Dark Energy  )( are known a opposites and my assessment is that this is also truth as geometrically diametric opposites both locally in how they operate at all scales of their existence is a guess. A guess that is based on my explorations with prime numbers and aspects of a torus.

At ultra-micro scales the problem Ive always run into is what exactly/specifically is moving?  The torus, as a circular based vector, ---two kiinds of circle at 90 degrees to each other--- brings me closer to establishing the systemic and structural integrity of space (  )(  ) and time /\/\/\/ as a wholistic { holograhic } phenomena.

I say this because ever since I read Jacob Bekenstiens blac hole mathematics based assement that ...'we appear to be 2D creatures having and illusion of 3D'.... Ive struggled to how to integrate that with a sphere.  For years the only tool I had was the Archimedes discovery that the area of the four circular planes of a  cubo-octahedron were equal to the 2D convex ---or concave---  surface area  of the  spherical cubo-octahedron.

With a torus as vector we have two introduced 3D into how the holograhic 2D scenario. I say this because the now the surface of a black hole is no longer a simple spheriical with four planes it is a complex spherical with four 3D tori that have compplex set of interference inside the the complex spherical set.

Unfortunately,  dont have the mathematical or graphics ability to better study this specific geometry/pattern interference.

 

 

You agree my assessment is logical, not that it is  rational, common sense deduction based on our observations of all other finite phenomena, that have a geometry pattern/shape.

You have this backwards. I agree that it is a rational, common sense deduction based on our observations. My issue is that logical assessments can yield incorrect conclusions in the absence of sufficient information. My entire argument begins and ends with we have no such sufficiency of information. 

Go back and read your own comments, ---#36---  that, only stated "logical" not rational or common sense. Now here above ---#38-- you appear to be getting a little more on board the trajectory I'm on.

Or as Lee Smolins ---Three Roads to Quantum Gravity--- processing motto goes,  ...'we will know more in the future'.... and it would be hard to disagree with that assessment, except in cases were humanity dies off and is not able pass on the knowledged they have aquired.

On the other hand, we do have sufficient information now, to state that we only observe a finite, occupied space Universe, whose diameter has consistently been a finite value, ergo we have no rational, logical common sense reason to believe our Universe does not have a;

1} dynamic shape/geoemetry/pattern,

2} finite set of diametric values, relative to lumpy shape, ----interfering tori--,

3}  nearly spherical shape ergo only one diametric value,

5} other.....???

Yes based on the information we have it would seem logical but logic is only efficacious with sufficient information which in this case we do not possess. That your conclusion is perfectly logical does not mean that it is accurate.

I've come as close to agreeing as I can under my current epistemology. Your conclusion was logical given our observations and that does not mean you are correct.

Ok well have a nice day then. I'm not really sure what you want from me but I have reached my epistemological limits.

This is beyond our epistemology and so is not a question for science. 

don't get your point if you are trying to make one. 

Nothing new there, as you rarely get anything I say because like most, you have no sincerity of heart to understand anything I state.

Like most others, all you want to do is repeated and only focus on some symbols { texticonic characters :--) } that Ive repeatedly explained in detail many times over, too deaf ears @(* i *)@

You, like most, have an ego based mental blockage to anything I have to say. Easier for you to repeatedly offer the same ole, non-valid complaints about symbol this or symbol that. 

You want to play mind games with me and not have any serious disscussion with me.  I'm not sure why, on occasion, that you respond to anything I state. I guess you get bored. I dunno. 

I just don't understand your symbols. I've told you that before. Don't you think that it's frustrating for me too? Is there NO OTHER WAY you can communicate your ideas? If you care about me understanding please try to think of a way. Plain English in the 26 letters of the alphabet plus accepted punctuation would be best.

More mind games from you. You need to go back and read my words and symbols ---that Ive explained to you in past in other threads---  and place your ego to the side.

Ive  stated the above many times.  It does matter what I say, or how many times and ways I explain to you, i95% goes in on ear and out the other, or just falls on deaf ears because you mental base ego blockage. 

All of the above way old news for me and you. Go play your mind games with some else and dont come back until you have sincerity-of-heart and willing to place your ego elsewhere.  Its not happen in the past and not going to happen in the future.

Ego is the hardest metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept to crack.

I don’t know. You hear people talk about the known universe (which is a sphere),

but not much about the unknown universe.

Talking about how the universe is expanding faster than light,

I wonder if dark energy is actually just a reference point.

E.g. If you could create hand shadows from Earth onto the Moon it would be speeding across the surface faster than light.

Or if you created a guillotine the size of the Solar System, the vertex (the point in which the curved blade meets the bottom) would travel faster than light. Assuming there were rockets strapped to it or something to apply pressure. 

So could dark energy be some sort of an “optical illusion”? I have no idea. Can someone tell me I’m wrong?