-->
@Paul
A flat universe with dimension is a contradiction in terms.
True flatness is an impossibility.
There is either nothing or something.
And closed and saddle are suggestive of external influence or pressure or even boundary.
The Shape of the Universe.
Posts
Total:
195
-->
@Paul
You want to argue against established cosmology?
1} yes if it is incorrect,
2} the incorrectness has been identified over the years and all adjust accordingly, tho some stay stuck in error ---ego---,
3} state your specific cosmological position and I will address it. Ive never been shy to explain what I believe and how I came to believe it.
4} bring it on Paul...By the way, I love that Sci-Fi movie about you. Seth Rogan is good.
-->
@zedvictor4
A flat universe with dimension is a contradiction in terms.
Not when "flat" is meant as 2D aka a 2D area. I.e a cross-section of spherical or polyhedron.
True flatness is an impossibility.
Jaboc Bekenstien, --father of black hole mathematics and holographic Universe--- stated many years ago, that, ..." we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D"....
There is either nothing or something.
Jacobs findings were that whatever exists inside a black hole exists on its outer surface.
As espoused for many years, the total area of the four circular hexagonal planes of spherical cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron are equal to the outer surface area of the same spherical. This was first discovered by Archimedes
And closed and saddle are suggestive of external influence or pressure or even boundary.
Closed and saddle{ negative shaped geodesic } are also suggestive or a torus, that also has positive shaped geodesic and two cases of flat.
What others have yet to grasp is that the postive and negative surface aspects of my numerical torus invert to create our Observed Time Sine-wave Reality. Old news for me, since I personally made this discovery
-->
@ebuc
Ok. So "flat" is very non specific.
But 2D is Very specific.
And from a layman's perspective, rather than that of a theoretical physicist, 2D is the point at which nothing exists.
And I think that it is fair to say that Jacob Bekenstein, though undoubtedly clever has not actually found anything. But only made highly imaginative assumptions.
And layperson's will tell you what they imagine or assume to be real. And the weight of opinion is currently on the side of the laypeople.
Four circular hexagonal planes of spherical cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron
This is one of your typical statements, that to the layman appears to be so contradictory as to not even be ambiguous. So can you give me a more coherent explanation?
And similarly how are closed and saddle suggestive of a torus?
And I freely admit that your final statement in it's current format is well and truly beyond my grasp. Ergo no ego.
-->
@ebuc
1} It’s not incorrect.
2} You’re a nut.
-->
@zedvictor4
Flat is the universe that most cosmologists think is the right one and itcan be lumpy even if it’s flat.
-->
@Paul
So give me a reasonable explanation of flat and a reasonable explanation of flat and lumpy, in the context of a universe.
-->
@Paul
2} You’re a nut.
PLease share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that adds to or invalidates my comments as stated.
You do not because you have not any validity in regards to Ebuc, rather only ego based mental blockages to rational, logical common sense based on observational facts, truths and rational, logical common sense conclusions thereof or with etc.
-->
@Paul
Yep. Had a look and not convinced.
A great deal of current, assumption based hypothesis.
And if an assumption requires credibility, then create a programme that provides credibility.
If the assumption is incorrect though, everything that follows is likely to be incorrect also.
-->
@Paul
@zedvictor4
That link and those three types nothing to do with shape of Universe. Your clueless in these regards.
Here is quote from article that proves and clarifies my point and shatters yours.
..."Unfortunately, the biggest thing is what it doesn't tell us. We still don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. If we could measure its curvature, we could know that we're in a finite universe, and get a sense of what its actual true size is, out beyond the observable universe we can measure."...
A finite Universe, must have a finite shape -- polyhedra ergo spherically concave, convex or complex--- irrespective of its being dynamic, whereas an infinite Universe cannot have a shape. All else is irrational, illogical lack of common sense.
-->
@ebuc
They have to do with the topology of the universe and the topology has something to do with the shape.
-->
@zedvictor4
What I’d doing is providing information so you can come up with ananswer. You can choose to use it, ignore it or make up your own.
-->
@Paul
They have to do with the topology of the universe and the topology has something to do with the shape.
Ok then, what shape do they relate too?
Open = what shape? ...cannot have a shape as I previously stated and your ego ignores...
Flat = what shape? ..not related to a 3D volume ergo 2D{ flat } topology 2D topology only has to do with a grade aka incline i.e. more or less vertical
Closed = what shape? ...like I said and your ignore because of you ego, polyhedral spherical, concave convex or complex----
Our finite ---ergo closed--- is a dynamically lumpy shape because its composed of ultra-high value set of overlapping --ergo interfering--- dynamic tori associated with specific polyhedral patterns and the best graphic ive found to infer this is as follows LINK
My assessment is based on rational, logical, common sense discoveries Ive made and referenced to observations that have been observed.
All you have to offer in my regards is "you're a nut".
-->
@ebuc
Expansion or extent and therefore shape is relative to either infinite or finite potential.
Infinite or finite is also obviously relative to infinite or finite potential.
Common sense would suggest that potential is finite.
Ergo no ego.
I would also suggest that it is unlikely that humanity will be around to witness the extent of universal potential.
Also, finite universal potential is not necessarily suggestive of closed. As the limits of possibility may well exceed the limits of universal potential.
In fact the limits of possibility may well be infinite, ergo unlimited.
-->
@zedvictor4
Huh? Z4 I really have no idea what it is you think your trying to convey here below, nor do I think you have any idea what it is you think your trying convey. Please share when actually want to address what Ive stated by adding to or invalidating with rational, logical common sense. Thx.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.."Z4..."Expansion or extent and therefore shape is relative to either infinite or finite potential.
Infinite or finite is also obviously relative to infinite or finite potential.
Common sense would suggest that potential is finite.
Ergo no ego.
I would also suggest that it is unlikely that humanity will be around to witness the extent of universal potential.
Also, finite universal potential is not necessarily suggestive of closed. As the limits of possibility may well exceed the limits of universal potential.
In fact the limits of possibility may well be infinite, ergo unlimited."....
-->
@ebuc
It's a very simple appreciation of universal possibilities.
Taking into account the potential of the universe as we view it.
Universe being occupied space not necessarily limited by space, ergo not closed.
Ergo finite potential, infinite space.
Ergo universe is shaped only by it's potential.
No boundaries.
-->
@zedvictor4
Please share when you have any shred of rational, logical common sense that adds to or invalidates my comments as presented.
Ive laid out very clearly a Cosmicall Comprehensive and wholistic, hiearchial set for defining Universe in many threads here at DArt and a DDO.
You have offered none. Only meangingless looping of words hoping they will actually mean something to others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
z4......".It's a very simple appreciation of universal possibilities.
Taking into account the potential of the universe as we view it.
Universe being occupied space not necessarily limited by space, ergo not closed.
Ergo finite potential, infinite space.
Ergo universe is shaped only by it's potential.
No boundaries."...
-->
@ebuc
So your answer is a finite lumpy closed universe with holes? That sounds reasonable to me.
-->
@zedvictor4
It could also be finite now but expand infinitely.
-->
@Paul
So your answer is a finite lumpy closed universe with holes? That sounds reasonable to me.
This "with holes' query to myself, occurred many years ago, long before I came to my overlapping ergo interfering tori scenario.
I.e. can we have a true non-occupied space ---even within gravity or dark energy space--- within a finite, occupied space Universe?
My overlapping ergo interfering tori scenario, actually helped me arrive at the conclusion no, specifcally because in my scenaro there is overlapping interference within all occupied space, ie. the holes of any tori are filled by other tori occupying that space.
And that conclusion may diverge from some stuff I heard recently by one of two videos I watched.
1} regarding the fundamental building blocks of Universe, and the other,
2} loop quantum gravity via some one who was not directly involved with the development of LQG. He mentions at the end that Lee Smolin has changed his position regarding time 180 degrees to now say time is real, and that is what Ive been proposing for some 12 or more years now.
It could also be finite now but expand infinitely.
I dont believe that is possible, as it would require micro-infinite subdivision of our finite occupied space.
Bucky Fuller actually considers that option with our finite occupied space Universe in explaining why;
1} we see expansion of Universe, ---I can find his paragraph on that for those interested--- and related to his multiplication-by-division motto,
2} how can an occupied space thing exist as a space unless that micro-infinite space is filled ergo filled by infinite subdivision.
He does not use the words occupied space, ---that is my more definitive usage-- that is inferred and presumed by his and others comments when they something not nothing exists here there or wherever.
-->
@Paul
Could do.
But depends on universal potential.
And one could also suggest the possibility of an external influence.
Though I still like the idea of an oscillating sequence.
Whereby limited potential negates infinity
-->
@ebuc
Only meaningless looping of words hoping they will actually mean something to others.
Perhaps we share the same aspirations.
-->
@zedvictor4
The facts and truth tell another story.Perhaps we share the same aspirations.
Like Trump and republicans, your not interested in facts nor truth. Sad :--(
-->
@ebuc
Aspirations is aspirations.
And relevant facts and truth are currently unattainable.
-->
@zedvictor4
And relevant facts and truth are currently unattainable.
true for those who are out to lunch. You've have been out to lunch ---for most part--- since first day your replied to one of my posts. No offense intended, Just as you appear to me Z4.
.................................................Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space.....................................
-->@zedvictor4
...Just as you appear to me Z4.
Say thank you Z. You've been complimented. Where are your manners?
-->
@ebuc
The first day that I questioned a seemingly meaningless loop of words.
No offence but that's just how it is Buc.
Regards as ever.
Z.
-->
@zedvictor4
The first day that I questioned a seemingly meaningless loop of words.
The only looping of words in meaningless jumble, that Ive seen, is yours in this thread. IVe made that clear quoted them exactly.
You have offered no clarification and if you did, it was most likely more looping words nonsense. Ex infinite potential and finite potential.
I think you middle name, if you have one, is "potential'. I suppose we could say, that, you have the potential to make some sense in this thread and specifically to the shape of Universe. I just dont recall seeing any.
-->
@ebuc
The words infinite, finite and potential are pretty self explanatory.
if you are unable to understand how such uncomplex words might represent universal development.
Then is it any wonder that your own word loops, often struggle to make coherent sense.